User talk:Nat Krause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Problematic Tibetan Buddhism article (Phende)

Hi. I noticed you had commented on this article a few months ago. I spent some time on it, but it is still a wretched piece of unencyclopedic writing. If you get the chance, can you look at it? I've left some comments on the talk page.
Thanks,
--A. B. 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I just noticed another article, Ngor, linked to the Phende article that seems to share the same style and the same problems.--A. B. 18:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That was fast! PROD looks like a good call, however I was reluctant to do it given my ignorance of the topic. Thanks!--A. B. 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering if you could help

Hi Nat. I'm not sure I know how to talk with others yet, as I'm unsure if my edit of your message to me is the way to answer people. I have a question about how you changed the title from Zen master Dae Gak to Dae Gak, as I wanted to do that myself afterwards but didn't know how. Right now I have a title with incorrect spelling, ie. Shohaku Okumara instead of the correct spelling, Shohaku Okumura. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. (Mind meal 17:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Nres

We wasted our time discussing things with him—he's a sockpuppet of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Edipedia for more information. —Khoikhoi 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalai Lama

There seems to be some text in the article that gives a guide on how certain words should be pronounced. These pronunication guides should be put into the the International Phonetic Alphabet so that everyone knows how to say them. Does that help? --Vince 04:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I got confused. The text I referred to is in Wylie (a transliteration of the Tibetan script). However, I may not be the only one so can I suggest that the parts in Wylie are marked as such. I have removed the template. --Vince 09:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uposatha article's one-time (???) copyright infringement

Hi Nat!

I see in the history of the "Uposatha" article that you removed a copyright statement ("Printed with permission from: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ - See copyright information: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/faq.html#myweb") from the article after the article was whittled down a good deal. (Perhaps this has to do with the distinction between "printing" and "copying"?) The article still appears to me to be taken verbatim from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/uposatha.html. Is this o.kay? Should we flag the article for a major re-write?

For what it's worth, I was thinking of tinkering with the article some but didn't want to do so if there are copyright problems.

Thanks for your expert help!
LarryR 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response.
I was wondering, as an alternative to tagging the article for deletion, if I could simply place the existing three-paragraph article on the Talk page, mention that the existing text violates the WP copyright rules and then totally re-write the article based on muliple sources (plus end notes!). Would this be acceptable? (I could probably tackle this over the next two days or so.)
If, on the other hand, given the violation, it needs to be deleted ASAP, I totally understand. (And if you need to delete the article before responding to this, I totally understand as well :-) )
Thanks again,
LarryR(Talk) 22:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Nat -- I just realized that, as usual, I was way over-ambitious in thinking that I could tackle re-writing the Uposatha article in the next few days. So, in short, if you need to delete, of course, don't let my intentions get in the way. Either way, if no one else has done so, I hope to at least replace the article (deleted or not) in the next few weeks. I hope you're doing great. Best wishes, LarryR 04:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nat -- FWIW, www.accesstoinsight.org seems to allow such word-for-word copying. In the Uposatha article itself and the article's talk page, I cite the www.accesstoinsight.org stated policy. Regardless, even if technically legal, I can understand the current article being deleted because such obvious copying violates WP and its readers' expectations, intentions, etc. Whatever you choose to do, I'm fine with, of course. Best, LarryR 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nat, FWIW, I think I've cobbled together a pretty good replacement for the copyvio Uposatha article. In accord with the copyvio notice, the replacement article is now at Talk:Uposatha/Temp. Just FYI. - LarryR(Talk) 02:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


P.S. Do you know if there's a Mahayana or Vajrayana "sabbath"?

[edit] Capitalisation of "nirvana" and "buddha"

Hello, Nat.

I hope I am doing the right thing, sending you a message by editing your talk page. This is the first time I have sent anyone a message through Wikipedia. If I am not going about it the right way, please let me know.

Thank you for your message about capitalisation.

Regarding the capitalisation of "nirvana", I came to the conclusion that it would be better written in lower case for the reasons stated hereinafter.

1. My understanding is that a noun in English should be capitalised only if there is a specific reason to do so. Suitable reasons include: the noun is a proper noun; the noun occurs at the beginning of a sentence. Neither of these seem to apply in the case of "nirvana".

2. I have garnered the impression that Wikipedia articles on Eastern religions are often created or edited by persons for whom English is not a native language. Many languages have more extensive capitalisation than is common in English, and I believe that some people may be incorrectly carrying over the capitalisation rules of their native languages to English.

3. Over the years, I have noticed a tendency for people to capitalise words which refer to concepts to do with their own religions. This seems to be because these concepts are of particular emotional importance to them personally. I believe this practice to be inappropriate in an encyclopedia.

4. I happened to be browsing the Dalai Lama's website and saw that it was in lower case there. :-)

Regarding the capitalisation of "buddha", I think that it should be capitalised when it refers to a specific buddha, such as Gautama Buddha, but not when it does not refer to a particular personage as in the sentence "Everyone will become a buddha". Some of the reasons I have mentioned for "nirvana" not to be capitalised also apply, I think.

I will be interested to hear your further thoughts on the matter.

Cheers,

Andrew Scott (Kipholbeck) 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, Nat.

Capitalisation on the basis of the perceived importance of a particular word’s referent - which seems to be the tacit justification for universal capitalisation of such a word as 'buddha' – is arguably not the best course.

Arguments against:

  • lack of universal agreement that the referent is important enough to make the word a special case with regard to capitalisation (Would a Muslim, a Christian, or an atheist agree?)
  • it would justify the capitalisation of a great many other words (e.g., saint, angel, messiah, prophet, seer), none of which are normally capitalised in English except under the rules already mentioned.

I have read the archived discussion on capitalisation you directed me to. I find it interesting that the quote from the OED uses ‘Buddhas’ and ‘infallible religious teachers’, apparently as synonyms, yet capitalises only the former. I can’t think of a good reason why this is so.

Further along in the discussion, one of the participants states: ‘[…] Buddha always carries enough of a charge (laudative, sacred, etc.) that it makes sense to me to always capitalize it […]’. I question whether every reader would consider that ‘buddha’ carries such a charge.

One of the things I love most about a good encyclopedia is its impartiality, so I think it is worthwhile adhering to clearly stated rules to preserve that impartiality.

Cheers,

Andrew

[edit] Zen article and removal of Wei Wu Wei's work in links

Hi Nat. You'd removed the link I put in the "Bibliography" to Wei Wu Wei's somewhat classic 1960 work on Zen, etc., "Why Lazarus Laughed: The Essential Doctrine Zen-Advaita-Tantra" from the Zen article. I think it is important enough to have there and I will try to work it into the article if necessary. But there were already many links, still there, in the "Bibliography" which were not referenced in the textual material. Thoughts ? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Hi Nat. Got your reply. "Wei Wu Wei" (a pseudonym for Terence Gray) wrote many books synthesising Eastern and Western philosophy and religions similar to Alan Watts --- he pre-sages Watts, et al. in many ways. See this link for information on Wei, Wei Wu, and this for some of this particular work, "Why Lazarus Laughed". Also see this link Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Nat, Wei Wu Wei was a pseudonym for the Irish aristocrat, Terence Gray. "Wei Wu Wei" would appear to have been meant as a Taoist term which translates as "action that is non-action". Cf. Wikipedia article Wu wei. Wikiquote has quotes by him [2]. See also this especially:

Between the years 1958 and 1974 a series of eight books appeared attributed to the mysterious 'Wei Wu Wei'. In addition to these texts there were pieces contributed to various periodicals during the 1960's, including 'The Mountain Path', a periodical dedicated to the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, 'The Middle Way', the U.K. Buddhist Society's journal, and 'Etre Libre', a French-language periodical published in Brussels. These works draw on a variety of sources, including Taoism, specifically the texts attributed to Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, Buddhism, especially The Heart, Diamond and Lankavatara Sutras, and Chan Buddhism as taught by Hui Neng, Huang Po, Hui Hai, etc., as well as the teachings of Padma Sambhava and Sri Ramana Maharshi, among others.

The identity of 'Wei Wu Wei' was not revealed at the time of publication for reasons outlined in the Preface to the first book 'Fingers Pointing Towards the Moon' (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958). This well-considered anonymity will be respected here, though a few background details may help to put the writings into context. 'Wei Wu Wei' was born in 1895 into a well-established Irish family, was raised on an estate outside Cambridge, England, and received a thorough education, including studies at Oxford University. Early in life he pursued an interest in Egyptology which culminated in the publication of two books on ancient Egyptian history and culture in 1923. This was followed by a period of involvement in the arts in Britain in the 20's and 30's as a theorist, theatrical producer, creator of radical 'dance-dramas', publisher of several related magazines and author of two related books. He was a major influence on many noted dramatists, poets and dancers of the day, including his cousin Ninette de Valois, founder of the Royal Ballet (which in fact had its origin's in his own dance troupe at the Cambridge Festival Theatre which he leased from 1926-33).

After he had apparently exhausted his interest in this field to a large extent, his thoughts turned towards philosophy and metaphysics. This led to a period of travel throughout Asia, including time spent at Sri Ramana Maharshi's ashram in Tiruvannamalai, India. In 1958, at the age of 63, he saw the first of the 'Wei Wu Wei' titles published. The next 16 years saw the appearance of seven subsequent books, including his final work under the further pseudonym 'O.O.O.' in 1974. During most of this later period he maintained a residence with his wife in Monaco. He is believed to have known, among others, Lama Anagarika Govinda, Dr. Hubert Benoit, John Blofeld, Douglas Harding, Robert Linssen, Arthur Osborne, Robert Powell and Dr. D. T. Suzuki. He died in 1986 at the age of 90.

'Wei Wu Wei's influence, while never widespread, has been profound upon many of those who knew him personally, upon those with whom he corresponded, among them British mathematician and author G. Spencer-Brown and Galen Sharp (see 'Links'), as well as upon many who have read his works, including Ramesh Balsekar, whose account of this influence may be read here.

It is apparent from his writings that 'Wei Wu Wei' had studied in some depth both Eastern and Western philosophy and metaphysics, as well as the more esoteric teachings of all the great religions. It can also be understood from the writings that he regarded himself as merely one of many seeking so-called 'liberation', the works themselves being seen in part as a record of this quest. The attitude adopted towards the writings is perhaps best indicated by the following quote from an introductory note to 'Open Secret' (Hong Kong University Press, 1965).

'The writer of these lines has nothing whatsoever to teach anyone; his words are just his contribution to our common discussion of what must inevitably be for us the most important subject which could be discussed by sentient beings.'

[edit] Thank you

I have been trying to restore NPOV in the article but have met vandal resistence from an unsigned IP. Thank you for trying and restoring NPOV. Take a look into the article and let me know if you agree with the current version.Freedom skies 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Sir, Is that the Potala palace in the background ?? If it is then I'm deeply jealeous. I've been to Dharmshala , India, the home to the government of Tibet in exile, but this beats everything.

Sir, this is a request for a review. Please take a look into the Buddhism and Hinduism article and let me know I there is anything to change. The article has been subjected to recent vandalism by User:216.254.121.169 and User:Green23, both having a prior history of vandalism. Your input on how to improve the article will be much appreciated. Best Regards. Freedom skies 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] if you have some time...

Hi Nat, if you have some time maybe you can check, correct and improve the NKT article. I asked also user:Billion for this. Almost all of the suggestion at the talk page I have put into practice. It seems nobody really contributes now anymore, maybe all feel a little bit tired with it. If you have some time and see it as worthwhile maybe you can go through the text and make it more NPOV where needed, remove what you feel inappropriate and also remove grammar, language and spelling errors. Thank you very much, --Kt66 11:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Ethnic Cleansing

Hi Nat, I'm just letting you know that you are in danger of violating the WP:3RR policy on Ethnic Cleansing, if you revert again you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you should be aware that it is customary to send a polite warning message.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CakeProphet

Eep! Oh noes! You broke my redirect!

Hmmm... I hope I didn't miss some super import No redirects to User pages!!! policy. I reverted it back so that my signature works again (I'm too lazy to fix the actual signature. Go figure), but if it's terribly offensive then I could probably remove it. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesser truth

Hi. Can you provide any evidence, etc., for your article lesser truth?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was a stub split out from Pascal's Wager; the original text was added by 131.91.176.226 (talk • contribs) on June 12th, 2006. It would appear to be a framing of part of the two truths doctrine, although the title may be less than ideal (I wasn't quite as adroit as making stubs back in June). It could probably be redirected or deleted with little harm at this point. -- nae'blis 18:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tǔfān to Tǔbō

hello, Sir.... see, the two words "吐" and "蕃" do pronounce as "tǔ" and "fān". But if you put them together as "吐蕃"------the term used to call the old kingdom on tibet, then they will be pronounce as tǔbō. The reason people pronounce it in this way because it's such a ancient term for Tibet in chinese language and people stop using this term since couple hundreds years ago and eventrully people just forget the original way to say it.

The original word should be from Turkic word "Töbäd" and "tǔbō" is the closest pronunciation. The thing is this is a term that only appeared in the ancient document, and none of them ever mentioned how to actually pronounce it. Look back the histroy at the time, the word "蕃" has 5 different ways of pronunciations: bō, bó, fān, fán, pí. So even in the offical TV shows or documentary, I'v heard varies versions of pronunciations for "吐蕃". Personally i prefer the "tǔbō", but i can't find any offical pronunciations. This is a tricke little word that cause some confusion in China.

Hi,

I'm writing to you because I noticed that you contributed to the article and talk section of "Indian Buddhist Movement". I saw the article on the RFC page, then read the article and the talk page. I posted a lengthy analysis of the article on it's talk page and have watched it since.

I would like to invite you to read my analysis and post your opinion. This is a noteworthy topic, but it's currently incomplete and needs reorganization. The effort to improve this article has boiled down to two editors, dhammafriend and hkelkar, who are both engaging in edit wars and attacks on one another. There has been no substantial progress on this article since I first came upon it, so I'm hoping that you and other folks can come back an engage in a refocusing.

I greatly appreciate in advance anything you have to offer.

Sincerely, NinzEliza 03:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I argree with your concerns about the phrase "Indian Buddhist Movement", but I'm at a loss as to what to do about it.

[edit] Kisa Gotami copyvio?

Hey Nat - Isn't the second half of the Kisa Gotami article just a word-for-word copy from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.003.than.html ? Copyvio time? (Does this formally make me a snitch? I know there's that precept about false speech -- anything about snitching?) Please tell me there's something I've missed. Thanks for your guidance. Feeling kinda dirty, LarryR 02:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (And I'm not re-writing this article!)

P.S. Of course, could one just delete the offending text and stick the aforementioned link in the Kisa Gotami "External links" section? (I was initially inclined to do this but then didn't know how many toes I'd be stepping on, and then I thought I'd try to discuss this on the article's discussion page, but I didn't know if that would be perceived as trying to circumvent the copyvio rules ... so I ultimately thought it best to flag it to you, our Higher Power. Thanks again.)

Hey Nat - thanks for the clarification and guidance. In response, in the Kisa Gotami article, I drastically truncated the ATI text to less than a paragraph, preceded with some contextual words, cited the residual ATI text with an end note and put the ATI reference in the Bibliography. I then plopped a comment on the talk page. Thanks, as always, for your wise help, LarryR 13:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narada

Thanks for the correction in the Narada article. I was basing my changes on the previous edit of another user and hadn't realised (or checked) it was incorrect. Ys, GourangaUK 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kondanna

Thanks for the squigglies (~~) ;-) LarryR 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir

Kindly explain as to why would you advocate the mention of conflicting conspiracy theories in the opening paragraph of Bodhidharma?

Historical revisionism has been done in case of all religious figures but to go on and mention conflicting theories in the very introduction of the article is something I fail understand. Please explain the very removal of Ryuchi etc. citations from the page itself as well.

This is especially baffling when it's done by someone who contributes to Buddhism related articles extensively and is neither a common vandal nor a newbie.

Extending Very Best Regards.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 10:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism of Indian Buddhist revival

There are some users who are doing vandalism and not contributing in a positive manner. How to block such users. HKelkar Vandalism Link 001. They even remove edits refercening www.buddhistchannel.tv Shrilankabuddhist 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My Tibetan

Dear Nat, thank you for your help. My Tibetan language ability is zero...so I can not provide help regarding this. Many Regards, --Kt66 12:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom skies

We don't block people to punish them, we block people for 3RR to stop edit wars. Since the page was already protected, there was no point in blocking him. However, if he breaks 3RR again (and the page ins't protected), feel free to report it either to me or the 3RR reports page. Cheers, Khoikhoi 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think it should be unprotected, list it at WP:RPP. Khoikhoi 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion. Khoikhoi 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. I know where you've been, actually. Check out Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman if you ever have the time. Like I said, if he breaks 3RR again, just leave a note on my talk page. Peace, Khoikhoi 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Skies

You still have not replied to my questions. Why would you expose the reader to conflicting theories/assumptions (I'll refrain from calling them conspiracy theories) on the second paragraph of a biographical article itself ? why not deal with it extensively in a later sections after he has been made more familiar with the actual biography of the man in question ? why the hesitation to mention additional conflicting theories by scholars as noteworthy ?

As a man who has travelled to Lhasa and contributes extensively to articles relating to Buddhism, I respect you. Kindly answer these questions as soon as you comfortably find it possible to.

Extending very best regards.

Freedom skies 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Sir, from your message:

the word "negationism" means "denial of historic crimes"

Not quite. Your recall is in reference to a very famous case of Holocaust Denial though. Negationism is the kind of historical revisionism which points out that Ta Mo did not exist at all.

I reverted a few of your edits to Bodhidharma simply because they were made illicitly (more than 3 reverts per day)

Could I not say the same of the editors in opposition ? Especially when the theories conflict and are so many that they have to have an entire column devoted to them.

so I don't know all the details in question.

I have provided them for you to see above.

The bottom line is that we begin the Bodhidharma article by saying, "Bodhidharma was the Buddhist monk ... traditionally credited as the founder of Chan/Zen Buddhism in 6th century China"

Unfortunately sir, Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with you.

Indian monk who is credited with the establishment of the Ch'an (Japanese: Zen) sect of Buddhism.

This means that we have a responsibility to clarify the fact that he may or may not actually have lived. Otherwise, we are failing in our responsibilty as encyclopedia editors to correctly inform our readers.

A responsibility I intend to see gets implemented in an entire column. Not mere lines.

By the way, I've noticed that there have been several occasions recently when you have reverted other editors edits with messages describing those edits as "vandalism".

Yes there have been. Those editors were blocked apparently due the abuse they caused to articles.

It is very uncivil for you to accuse other editors of deliberately defacing articles.

Uncivil or not sir, if it helps in getting violent vandals banned (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green23) then it works.

Very best regards.

Freedom skies 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] short request

Hi Nat, I'd like to hear your opinion about the benefit/use of the Bluck quote at the end of the NKT article. I found it very useful because, from my POV, it balances the article, stating and suggestioning different views on how NKT can be looked at and these views are present and even fight each other when it comes to picture the NKT. From my POV it helps the article and reader to understand that there exist different angles on NKT and how NKT is described depends upon the angle one chooses. By this I found it strongly beneficial as a mean to balance and light the complete article. I could not really follow why u:excellentone regulary deleted it and I did not understand her reasoning why she did it. (she talked about the differences of quotes and citations), see the last entries on the NPOV discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#NPOV Also I ask myself if the quotefarm-template is right there anymore, it was put there by an anonyomous editor. What do you think? Thanks a lot. Here the Bluck citation for the case it is deleted once more:

[edit] Different views on NKT

Bluck offered different angles on how NKT can be viewed at. He suggested:

  • The NKT could be viewed from outside as a movement aiming at what Titmus (1999: 91) called ‘conversion and empire-building’, with a dogmatic and superior viewpoint, ‘narrow-minded claims to historical significance’, intolerance of other traditions and ‘strong identification with the leader or a book’.
  • A more scholarly external view might emphasize instead the enthusiasm, firm beliefs, urgent message and ‘charismatic leadership’ which Barker (1999: 20) saw as characteristic of many NRMs.
  • An alternative picture from inside the movement would include a wish to bring inner peace to more people, based on a pure lineage of teaching and practice, with faith and confidence in an authentic spiritual guide.

About the possibly ways how to picture the NKT he said: "Our choice of interpretation may depend on how we engage with the other viewpoint, as well as the evidence itself, and until recently the NKT’s supporters and critics have largely ignored each other.”[1]

Thank you, --Kt66 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of 無間道

Please see my reply in the article's discussion page.—Gniw (Wing) 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Reply

The reason that we must introduce the reader to conflicting theories about Bodhidharma before describing his "actual" biography is that he doesn't have an actual biography. He is the subject of numerous stories. To state things about his biography without clarifying that they are not historically documented would be misleading. I have no hesitation about mentioning other theories by scholars.

He actually does, sir. The article in it's present state has descriptions of Biography, Spiritual approach, Portrayals of Bodhidharma etc.

The numerous conflicting theories will be placed after the reader is through reading those lines. He will then realize that the attempts to revise history have not been coherent and they very, often violently, with one another.

"Negationism" is not a word that appears in either Merriam-Webster or Wiktionary. However, Wikipedia states that "Negationism is the denial of historic crimes. The word is derived from the French term Le négationnisme, which refers to Holocaust denial. It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism." Clearly, this is not relevant to Bodhidharma.

You describe it yourself, sir. How can conflicting historical revisionism not be associated with Negationism ?

"Could I not say the same of the editors in opposition ?" No. None of the other editors reverted the same page more than 3 times in one day.

I know all too well that the other editors are privy to the 3RR, sir. But incessent editing was done inspite of sourced text stating otherwise.

Brittannica is hardly the only source we have at our disposal. We are trying to make the best possible encyclopaedia, which may involve making one better than Brittannica.

It is essentially the best and most formidable source at our disposal. Until Wikipedia is made better than Brittannica, I guess we'll have to live with Brittannica itself.

I have seen you use the term "vandal" or "vandalism" in reference to edits which are obviously not vandalism. This is incivility, and you can be blocked for it.

The term is used more than appropriately almost every time. If I have used it assuming that editors who have a prior history of say, faking names for webpages or desecrating the history of the Shaolin then I merely am guilty of observing a pattern, most of the actions in the said pattern amounting to vandalism.

Sir, I might have been the reason why the Ta Mo article is blocked but that was not my intention. I was genuinely outraged to see conflicting theories being placed on the very opening paras themselves, since they have been mentioned selectively and with an agenda. Kindly understand my convictions. My actions are directed towards finding a place for those theories in a seperate column, using the Brittannica citation and nothing else.

Extending genuine regards, Freedom skies 07:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bodhidharma currently has a biography section, but it does not describe any "actual biography". Instead, it consists of passages from various works mentioning a monk named Bodhidharma. They sometimes conflict with each other; for example, one states that he is Persian, but another states that he is South Indian.

Sir, the accounts as given are mentioned are are taken out of context. A Persian Central Asian is just an ignorant remark by people who deliberately want it that way. Kindly see Indo-Iranian peoples, you'll see that they form an ethnic group within India that forms a substantial part of the countries populace. Yet no mention of this is given. That is a story for another time but clearly the article has a biographical layout. In addition to which the mention of a well laid out section dealing extensively with conflicting attempts of revisionism will surely help.

In any event, "negationism" is a totally inappropriate word to use in a Wikipedia article on this subject. It's meaning is clearly derogatory, and it's not at all clear to me why you think this is political revisionism.

The actions of the revisionist authors themselves have called for the qualification of such a term. I am not averse to negatiations on mere words though, sir.

You say, "I know all too well that the other editors are privy to the 3RR, sir.", but why the heck don't you actually follow the rules then?

Other editors are,sir. Unfortunately I was not and paid for it dearly. I'm 23 and I box. Being smart and stealthy is not my speciality.

You are blatantly misusing the term "vandalism", and you must stop doing it.

JFD tried to fake a name for a webpage sir. He then tried to go out of his way describing the former name and walking around his standard pattern in order to lay extra emphasis on an idea of his. JFD tried to remove Batuo from the Shaolin, a temple found for his preaching. This is an act that I will not allow him. As for Kenny, I will refrain on his extensive and established pattern of utter, mindless reverts and rabid misuse of his authorities as an editor. Youll find an idea here .

Sir, my request is kindly judge me on my intentions and not on my interactions with other editors who have been known to resort to bizzare acts of exchanging barnstars {[3][4] (barnstars exchanged within a difference of a day's period)} in order to fake credibility and accepting being dictated by others.

Extending genuine regards as always,

Freedom skies 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Nat

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your RFC response. I should have, because frankly I was being cowardly and hoped other people would comment first. I really didn't want my good faith comments to be treated as harshly as they were before. I posted a lengthy rundown of my observations in regards to this article in Hkelkar's arbitration. I hope some good can come of it for you.

I'm leaving Wikipedia. I got mixed up in this mess and was ill-prepared for it. I wasn't here very long anyway, so no big deal (truly).

In preparation to do battle and actually improve this article, I found several books that you may find useful [[5]]. I also found out that there's a new book coming out in Feb. of 2007 that specifically deals with this movement/revival/whatever. I had the ISBN number, but I lost it - anyway, I'll shoot it to you after I go to the bookstore again.

I understand that you're taking a Wikibreak of sorts - good for you! Please find it in your heart to do what you can to protect the editing process of this article - even if that means approaching another neutral person to watch over it while you're away (or forever if you don't want to be bothered with the drama anymore). Whether it's a genuine religious movement or a socio-political protest using the name of Buddhism is immaterial. It's valuable and definitely encyclopedic.

I wish you all the best on Wikipedia and in life, NinaEliza 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Nat. I'll check it out... I appreciate you pointing out the problem with the link - I've fixed it. Well actually, I posted the entire list on the talk page of Indian Buddhist Revival. Now, hopefully, the truth will be out there for all to make use of - then you (plural, of course) can get on with the business of making a great encyclopedic article :).

It's a pleasure to know that a person like you exists here. I take it as no small comfort.

NinaEliza 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism in modern India

In case you are bothered, India Buddhist revival/Dalit Buddhist Movement/Buddhist Revival in India has been moved to Buddhism in modern India. utcursch | talk 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As you might be aware that Pkulkarni (talk • contribs) and his/her socks have been blocked (see Talk:Dalit Buddhist movement). User:Pkulkarni (with his sock accounts) was the only person opposed to an article with the title Dalit Buddhist movement or Ambedkarite Buddhism. Other involved parties such as User:Hkelkar, User:AMbroodEY, Nat Krause[6], and NinaEliza[7] support for separate article about Dalit Buddhist movement. So, I've moved the article to Dalit Buddhist movement. The content about non-Ambedkarite Buddhism has been removed and addded to Buddhism in India[8]. Sorry for all the confusion. I hope I'm finally fixing this. Thanks. utcursch | talk 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ambedkar is not only a Hindu Scheduled Caste icon. Also see [ShivDharma]. These people from Maratha Caste aslo follower of Ambedkar. Dalit is unofficial way to address all oppressed people from Muslim, Christen, Hindus etc. The name for Indian Buddhists is Dalits is absolute wrong. Indianbuddhist 12:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Migjid Janraisig

I gather you redirected (and thus eliminated) the Mongolian Migjid Janrisig article. I'm just letting you know that I'm putting it back in for its purely Mongolian (travel) context. Perhaps I shall make the link to avalokitesvara more prominent.Nhrenton 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lerab Ling et al

Well, I did a cursory search on the beginning of The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying when I first came across the articles and discovered that the first line is lifted directly from the publisher's review, but the texts diverge after that. I didn't notice that they do converge again later in the sentence, and parts of the rest of the article could have been cannibalized from this review. The Courtney Love quote is lifted from here. So, okay, the whole thing is a cut-and-paste job, and has been from the very beginning. I marked it with {{db-copyvio}}. Sogyal Rinpoche was not entirely a copyvio; the first few sentences don't seem to be lifted from any particular source. I've excised the part taken from his Rigpa bio, which was the better part of the article. The first two paragraphs of Lerab Ling are from the Lerab Ling website, shockingly enough, and the rest is also from the Lerab Ling website. {{db-copyvio}} again. So, that takes care of most of the problem, right? On a hunch, I went to check Rigpa and discovered that the information about Sogyal Rinpoche's organization is straight from Rigpa's website. I wonder how much further this goes. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalai Lama

Yes I have now removed direct copywright and kept it factual. Has been rewritten although some sentecnes similar because this is factual infomration. I will source it on the page to acknoweldge the reference. The image is fair use as it is 600 odd years old. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK with the Migjid Janraisig redirect to Avaloskitevara

I've been advised that the redirect is appropriate. It was suggested that I add any specifically Mongolian information to the Avaloskitevara article. I'll open that topic on the the avaloskitevara discussion page; I'm wondering now whether I should change all of the Migjid Janraisig references in articles about Mongolia to the name Avalokitesvara--or do something like: Migjid Janraisig (i.e., Avaloskitevara.) with avaloskitevara linkedNhrenton 13:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noahide Laws

Are you able to translate? I am looking for a stub to be created of the above article. It has allot of traffic from google. Please let me know. Cheers. FrummerThanThou 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

from Enlish to Chinese, it would be a fully sized article in the Chinese wikipedia someday but for now a stub will do. Its seems you only speak chinese, and jbo, wtvr is, i tried reading up more on it, interesting. Would you be able to start the stub? ;) FrummerThanThou 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Buddhism in India

I mostly took from other articles and placed the text in here, with original references in some sections (and the main decline article. I placed them here first but could not find enough room). I'll add more sections and more references in a while. Kindly also tell me if you have anything specific in mind, sir. Given your extensive contributions to Buddhism related articles, suggestions or contributions by you will be appreciated by this editor.

I added a lot to the decline portion though, with more sourced material.

Freedom skies 09:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I made the AfD.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Zen. Later, — coelacan talk — 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/User_talk%7ENat_Krause_014d.html"