User talk:Kitaro

Well, If Mr. Zuk had wrote about Kinetic Architecture since 1970, It does not mean he was wide known world wide and the fact I keep acknowledging that I did created the design concept is because it happened in 1989 not in english language but in Spanish " Arquitectura Kinetica". I understand sometimes history claims who was the creator first but the fact here is that globalized information or research before the internet, made many to create things that might had been created before, and never with a bad intention. In my case I highly say that I created the design concept of Kinetic Architecture under the geographical circumstances and cultural aspects that can not be forgotten as true facts on my research and creation of the design concept "Kinetic Architecture" or " Arquitectura Kinetica" 1989. Even if you google Kinetic Architecture, you will never find Mr. Zuk as writer on kinetic Architecture, just you are the only person who found him on rare books. I am not saying that Mr. Zuk is not important as I just found he taught at Virginia University and died in 1995. If he were alive, I am sure he would bring a great taught on this issue. He used the title Kinetic Architecture but was he really the first one to use the title? Would you criticize him of Mr.Clark for the title on the book?

I will keep defending my creation all over the world and I am sure my definition still a true one. Remember that you have been criticized way back by others when you tried to wrote the definition in wikipedia.

My definition is clear for everyone and I have research on that highly. I am on an experimental project that will revolutionize the concept because of its complex systems and can not be claimed by anyone. A friend in Switzerland, he does NASA research and he said: " it sounds very interesting, having a interior that can change from day to day is definitely adding another dimension to architecture. Goodluck with your project." Jerome N.

Now, You said that moving structures have been around for centuries, YES it is, but the issue here is that Kinetic Architecture or Arquitectura Kinetica were titles unkwon in those centuries, those were called inventions, machinery that moves,etc. So, you can not say that the title was known for centuries because is not supported by any doc you ready have.

Instead of trying to DELETE the concept, try to be more supported on what is current on that definition. Again, "Arquitectura Kinetica" was created in Spanish language since 1989 when I did it. If you find someone who might claim same in Spanish, then bring it here. (talk)

Kinetic architecture again

I added the {incoherent} tag because you keep adding garbled and ungrammatical sentences to the entry, but yet persistently revert any corrections I make. It's also preposterous to have claimed to "invented" or "baptised" kinetic architecture in the 80s when it dates back more than a century. William Zuk wrote a book with this exact title in 1970. Sheesh. Hairhorn (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Your attempt to censor the Governing Body article was quite pathetic and completely counter to Wikipedia's aim to provide encyclopedic information to broaden understanding. Franz is widely cited by academics and therefore easily meets the criteria as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. As a former high-ranking member of the religion he was very well placed to offer his perspectives on the internal operation of what is plainly a secretive body. None of the claims in his two books have been challenged. Your edit, which is a brazen form of vandalism, has been reverted. BlackCab (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC) MR. Blackcab, You not even cited other members of the current Governing Body to verify the wrong statements Mr. Franz did against the organization, which means, that Mr. Franz is not a reliable source, just a gossiper. If he was right on his statements then the organization had to declared any wrong actions they did but the truth is that Mr. Franz stated terribly against the organization because he was disfellowshipped and not before that time. Mr. Franz defended the organization many years and now You try to say that Mr. Franz has a true opinion on deteriorating the image of the organization just because he said so? Have you tried to talk with any active member of the organization in order to promote Mr. Franz gossipper? talk[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

I am impressed by your attitude on keeping the wrong statement of Mr. Raymond Franz as he started a battle and retaliation against The Watch Tower just because he was disfellowshipped in 1980 and not years before that. Supporting Gossiping represents a violation of any true Encyclopedia in the world. I am asking for a mediation from the right staff members to review the content of this subject as soon as possible

Please use the {{Help me}} template appropriately.
The {{Help me}} template is for help using Wikipedia. If you would like to ask a question about using Wikipedia, please replace the code {{Help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{Help me}}. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

(talk)

Your recent editing history at Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The IP seems pretty obviously you. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, in this edit you both removed properly referenced content without consensus, and inserted editorial comments which do not belong in the article text. Do not repeat such edits. DES ^(talk) 15:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right. Such edits can get an editor blocked. Kitaro, you need to discuss this on the talk page. 3RR is not an entitlement, you can't wait 24 hours and repeat your deletions. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you object to including statements based on the writings of Raymond Franz. I don't know how accurate or inaccurate he may have been. But it appears that his work has been accpted and cited by mainstream academics. If so, he would normally be considered a reliable source and his views -- clearly identified as his views -- should receive an appropriate level of coverage in the article. Please discuss this on Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (the article's talk page). If there is debate on whether these writings constitute a reliable source, that can be taken to the Reliable sources noticeboard. DES ^(talk) 17:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that, with this edit you are continuing to insert comments on the vlaue of this source into the article. Please do not do this. It is severely disruptive editing, and may well result in a block should you continue. Please disccus the matter on the article talk page if you feel the article needs improvement. DES ^(talk) 17:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will result in a block because I will have to block you. Personal comments like this in articles are simply not allowed. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The helpme template

Please don't use the {{helpme}} template to resolve disputes for you. Use dispute resolution instead. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 16:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic architecture

Hello there Kitaro, thanks for the message on my talk. I'd be happy to copy edit your addition concerning Jose Leonidas Mejia and his valuable contribution to the field of kinetic architecture. However, even though the current article is about 99% my own work (I re-wrote it some years back in a desperate attempt to save the article from deletion) I don't have the power to approve an addition.

I see your addition has already been removed, and I cant reverse this as Wikipedia policy supports the removal. You could re-add the claims yourself, but there would be a high risk of it just being removed again.

If you want Kinetic architecture to mention Leonidas Mejia's contribution, you would need a stronger source than their blog. Personally I believe that Jose Leonidas Mejia did indeed advance the concept back in the 1980s. But if wikipedia policy allowed a blog to be used for that sort of statement, any random dude could casually make a blog making wild claims, and use it to get themselves mentioned in articles.

The sort of sources you would need would have to be recognized as independent and reliable, such a book published by a reputable university press, or an article in an architecture magazine or journal. If the source directly says that Leonidas Mejia played a major role in kenetic architecture, then you have a strong case for repeating this information in our article.

Im sorry if such a source may not be easy to find. Its the way of the world that not everyone receives the recognition they deserve. But at least God always knows the value of a man's work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic architecture

Please stop adding yourself to this entry until you can come up with reliable sources to back up your claims. Your own blog (with a single entry!) won't cut it. 67.230.140.124 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Primimodernismo, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so I have moved it to Draft:Primimodernismo so that you can continue working on it. If you have any questions, please leave a note on this page. Please consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. - Mr X 13:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of EL PRIMIMODERNISMO

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on EL PRIMIMODERNISMO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GPL93 (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi thing. I will bribg this issue to the highest level in wikipedia. The fact is writen in spanish does not give you the judgement to critize wjat you not even understand. The Primimodernismo has reliable sources in a lot of press here in usa. Lear and study arts before you denigrade of a senior citizen wel redpected in the international community like The United Nations who held an exhibit of the artist many years ago. This could considered a harradsment.

Be careful how you address your unknown messages. Kitaro (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to report me to ANI if you would like, but it is official policy that articles in the English Wikipedia must be in English, which is why this provision for speedy deletion exists. The same provision exists in Spanish Wikipedia for non-Spanish articles and a similar policy exists on almost every other language of Wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, your current message differs of the one you sent yesterday. Yes, I will report this issue and will add the article at Spanish language or, even better, I will translate it to English as well. Kitaro (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that is a templated speedy deletion notice sent automatically when nominated. I would recommend submitting a draft via articles for creation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Kitaro. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Kinetic architecture, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GPL93 (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic architecture

Hola señor . It's possible this message was send to the wrong person. I've no problem with Kinetic architecture mentioning Jose Mejia's contribution. I can't add it back in myself as I've not been able to find it covered in the right sort of WP:RS. But I'd not reverse such a change if someone else made it. It's been a good few years since we talked, I hope things are going well for you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely because it's quite clear you aren't here to improve the project, you're only here to promote yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kitaro,

You are free to file an unblock request (following the instructions in the blocking notice) but you won't be unblocked if your only interest is promoting yourself, your blog and career. This is a conflict-of-interest and editors are not supposed to be writing about themselves. If you want to use your knowledge and experience to improve articles that have nothing to do with you, please state this in your unblock request. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have moved the content on your User page to your Sandbox. User pages are supposed to be used to share content about you and your editing activities on Wikipedia and this looked like a draft article so I moved it to a suitable new location where draft articles are generally created and improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]