User talk:Itistoday

Feel free to message me here.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Gandavyuha Sutra Bhikkhu Principle of distributivity Anekantavada Gotama Lindenbaum–Tarski algebra Avidya Impermanence Nagasena Qubyte Quantum neural network Dignāga Maharshi Jaimini Kanada Pratyekabuddha Quantum network Huangbo Xiyun East Asian Buddhism Logic File System

Cleanup Hidden variable theory Fred Alan Wolf Measurement in quantum mechanics Merge Wire obstacle Vyasa Yad Vashem Add Sources Wigner's friend Dualism Free Boolean algebra Wikify Existential dread Alasdair MacIntyre Constructivist epistemology Expand Upadana Logic in China Logic board

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth

I deleted the section about Spirited Away that you added to the Pan's Labyrinth article, since it appeared to be original research - Wikipedia policy does not allow original research. If the material you provided has been published in a reliable source, please add it back and cite the source. Thanks! Cogswobble 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you might consider that to be original research, but I don't know exactly what I should do about a source. I readded the section with a link to the script, please modify the citation itself and not the entire section if you feel that there's a problem with it. -- itistoday (Talk) 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I changed the link to the script to two online references. -- itistoday (Talk) 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! I edited the section to include only information that was discussed in your sources. If you can find more reviews that compare the two movies, you could add more information - but I don't really think there needs to be a detailed discussion in the article - I think just noting that Pan's Labyrinth has been compared to Spirited Away is enough information. Cogswobble 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added more info with crazy citation, hope it's alright. -- itistoday (Talk) 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you've put a lot of effort into this - and I am not at all disagreeing with your conclusions. However, if you compare two sets of circumstances, and then draw a connection between them, that is original research. When I said you needed to cite sources, what I meant is that you need to cite a source that compares the two, not simply cite a source for each set of circumstances. The two reviews you added initially were good, because the reviewer in each case compared Pan's Labyrinth to Spirited Away. The other sources were simply references for what happened in each movie seperately.Cogswobble 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:PopeofPeru

Regarding this edit, c'mon. What are your goals vis a vis Wikipedia? Please have some consideration for the folks working on it with you, and refrain from this type of attack. We're all in this together, and comments like that do nothing to further the goals of the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I realized it needed a bit of qualification and so I added a thing to it to further explain my rational... And while you are right, that comments like that do nothing to further wikipedia, neither does deleting user's user pages without asking them or offering to bring it back if they didn't want it to be deleted. Like I said in my additions to that comment, plenty of wikipedia admins have barnstars on their pages, to me at least, this is just like that, and does not qualify to be called "myspace material". -- itistoday (Talk) 16:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to User:PopeofPeru

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- itistoday (Talk) 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't see anything ironic about your message to this user? You were just defending PopeofPeru's right to blank pages two days ago. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said he was right to blank the Reality page, instead I was trying to show that his action required special treatment from admins and that this was not to be treated like a case of ordinary vandalism, which BTW was exactly the case with that anon who blanked his page. -- itistoday (Talk) 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Punna

Hi Itistoday - To the Punna article that you started, I've added material from SN 35.88. However, I'm concerned that there might be multiple Punnas in the Buddhist canon and thus I might be referencing one other than the one you had in mind. (For instance, while the Punna in SN 35.88 achieves Nibbana, the sutta solely identifies him as a "clansman," not as a mahasavaka [great disciple].) Are you able to verify this? If it turns out that we are talking about two different Punnas, is there a way to recognize both in this article? Thanks for your consideration. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Sacca mentioned that there's an on-line Buddhist Dictionary of Pali Proper Names which includes the article "Punna" which indicates that we are talking about the same person. One less worry? Sorry for my confusion. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons to Oldboy

The comparison is legitimate, and I have cleared editing conflicts with other editors. Please read the following citation, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18207904/site/newsweek/?from=rss

Thanks. Malamockq 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've thought it over and I think it's alright, but just barely hanging on by a thin thread of relevance. As it is phrased in the wikipedia article all it says is that the photos look similar, and seeing as it is in the "Contents" section I suppose this is fine. I just hope that it stays a simple, "Oh look, the pictures look similar" and doesn't turn into a Columbine-style, "The rock music made them kill people" kind of deal. -- itistoday (Talk) 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My intention is not to cause people to blame movies or any other entertainment media for the violence, but simply to show that there is indeed a curious similarity between the two photos. It's simply interesting, and might offer some insight into his psyche. Malamockq 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Two truths doctrine

Isn't this a type of dualism? I thought that Buddhist philosophy in general argues against dualistic points of view... Itistoday 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Two Truths Doctrine in Buddhism differentiates between two levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a "relative", or commonsense truth, and an "ultimate" or absolute spiritual truth. Stated differently, the two truths doctrine holds that truth exists in conventional and ultimate forms, and that both forms are co-existent. Other schools, such as Dzogchen, hold that the Two Truths Doctrine are ultimately resolved into nonduality as a lived experience and are non-different. The doctrine is an especially important element of Buddhism and was first expressed in complete modern form by Nagarjuna, who based it on the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta?.

Blót: blessings in blood

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

why the revert

May 1 I edited the first two paragraphs of double bind and see that you reverted it within the hour and left no explanation. I delayed contacting you while familiarizing myself with Wikipedia policies. I understand that explaining reverts is a basic policy.

While the article as it stands is a good beginning, there is much room for improvement. Among other things I want to challenge the statement "The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple Catch-22 situation,..." ````

Hey, it's a tilde (~) not ` btw (for signing comments). I did leave an explanation (although I admit it was brief), check the history for that page. You had added a bunch of "bad" wikilinks to pages that did not exist, and you made the claim that the Double Bind is "essentially the same as a Catch-22 situation" with little explanation and no sources (when the article took the contrary position, explaining why they were not the same), and I also felt that there was little reason to give that brief summary about the novel "Catch-22". -- itistoday (Talk) 13:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse-moi, que-ce que c'est une bad wikilink? Pardon my french, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not intentionally set up any bad wikilinks, and if it happened inadvertently, please explain how. Wikilinks has 5 pages on wikilinks and I now have 21 pages of rules printed out on how to contribute to Wikipedia. This is my first contribution and it will take time to find my way around. My expertise is on resolving double binds, not on computer use.

The article on double bind says "The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple Catch-22 situation..." On what is that statement based? Did G. Bateson ever comment publically on Catch-22? If not, his daughter Mary Catherine Bateson could be consulted.

I saw the rule of No Original Research. It comes below the rule, Ignore All Rules...if it hinders improving Wikipedia. I realize that avoiding the frequent addition of poorly thought out personal opinions is necessary. However it shouldn't include elemental logic that anyone could see.

The crucial difference between Catch-22 and Double Bind is that one is fictional and a satire of the absurd, the other a scientific analysis.

Bateson states that injunctions don't have to be stated verbally. Consider the situation of the military: It is an ongoing relationship with a strict hierarchy that lacks a proper system of feedback from subordinates to resolve conflicts; it has a tertiary injunction that one cannot leave, and one cannot disobey an order without the threat of being disciplined for insubordination. Therefore the military organization is open to frequent double binds. Heller didn't have to explain this. I asked two older ex-military if they had read Catch-22; both had, and commented that the book was rather accurate in describing some of the craziness. Both Heller and Bateson use a similar format of circular and repetitive reasoning to illustrate what the mind does when found in a seemingly impossible situation--an indication of a similarity. Also see Wikipedia's entry for Catch-22 "...a double bind..."

This could be a much longer analysis, but let me keep it short before hearing from you. Wikipedia should not put itself in the situation of double-binding its contributors into not correcting errors just because no expert has done so already in writing. (P.S. the computer lab was closing when I sent you that first message. In haste I forgot to capitalize 205.167.120.201 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fermi paradox. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the Twitterverse!

Oink oink! It is I, Ellie, your Twitter friend. I am a piggy here.

 :@)

--FeralOink (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

9/11

Please do not remove material referenced to mainstream sources in order to favor a fringe POV. AE911 is a fringe organization rejected or ignored by professional organizations, and has been consistently rejected as a source on Wikipedia for anything but their own conspiracy theories. No mainstream source, academic institution or publication gives credence to these theories. In any case, such a bold edit requires talkpage participation first. I advise you to read the archives, though. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and there are more than a million architects and engineers in the United States. 2300 is insignificant. In any case, you are edit-warring over a fringe POV. Please stop. Some guidance on this follow. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been warned for edit-warring before, so you know what you're doing. Your edit summaries make it clear that you're trying to advance a fringe POV by removing well-sourced mainstream material that contradicts it. I strongly advise you to self-revert. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history at September 11 attacks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please undo your last revert or you will be blocked for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR Violation

You appear to have broken WP:3RR.[1][2][3][4] For your own sake, please stop edit-warring or risk getting blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You are now at WP:5RR

You are now at WP:5RR[5][6][7][8][9] Can someone please request that this editor be blocked or topic-banned at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or WP:AE? You can use the diffs in this post as evidence. I'm going to sleep now so someone else will have to file the report. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to join me in the Talk page, and please stop spreading propaganda, this is Wikipedia, not some talk show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks#Wikipedia_being_used_to_spread_false_statements_and_propaganda -- itistoday (Talk) 02:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at September 11 attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Per my warning above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If you do this [10] again I will request an indefinite topic ban. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Same edit as before without gaining consensus. Repeat the same behavior after this block expires and the next one will be indefinite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Acroterion's talk page

He may remove messages as he sees fit. What you're doing now constitutes harassment and will get you blocked if you persist. Favonian (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on September 11 attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kleuske (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Acroterion (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Sandstein 21:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Unblock this account

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Itistoday (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, per the suggestion above I'm making my unblock request. The reason to unblock me is because unlike the person who blocked me, I was improving the quality and accuracy of content on Wikipedia. Instead, please block the mod who is posting harmful and debunked lies in support of Al Qaeda. -- itistoday (Talk) 21:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Adding conspiracy theories is not considered an improvement here. Also, if you attack another editor once again you will lose the ability to edit this page. Max Semenik (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.