User talk:Blnguyen/Archive33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bodhidharma

A few editors, with Han Chinese nationalists amongst them, tried to write in the second para itself that Bodhidharma did not exist. I merely put the theories in another para and placed them with additional sources in a later section. You protected the article in a form which has the second para stating that the man this bio is about is fictional, when such theories belong in a later section. Kindly see that appropriate justice is done and the superiority in numbers does not mean that a group gets to push their POV on Wikipedia. Thank You. Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies instigated an edit war on Bodhidharma with User:MichaelMaggs and User:Nat Krause. Take a look at them and their records. You're already familiar with Freedom skies and his not-so-little cabal so I leave it up to your judgment as to who the "nationalist" group using numbers to "push their POV on Wikipedia" is. Thank you.
JFD 05:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodhidharma

I have had interactions with JFD and his little cabal as well.

The thing though is, my interactions with JFD involved me alone against members of his cabal, some of whom designated to just engage in rabid edit wars (see JFD dictating his fellow cabal member here) .

The members of this group also exchanged barnstars with each other in order to fake credibility while advancing Han Chinese nationalist ideology (Kenny advances a barnstar to JFD for his nationalism on 30 August 2006 and JFD returns the favour and grants his fellow member a barnstar on 1 September 2006 ) .

Judge for yourself if you advocate the placing of conflicting conspiracy theories in the second para of a biographical article itself. Historical revisionism has been recored in cases of the Bible and the Koran as well, [1][2][3] but never in the opening paragraphs. I placed the conflicting revisionist versions in a later section. If these people had any problems, they were free (and numerically far superior) to edit like everyone else.

Extending Best Regards. Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 10:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'll note, I wasn't even involved in the most recent edit war.[4]

And if Kennethtennyson and I are members of a cabal, why would he and I have engaged in an edit skirmish (edit war is too strong in this case) over the issue of how to address Bodhidharma's historicity?[5][6][7][8][9][10]

In fact, I've even had run-ins with MichaelMaggs[11] and 202.20.5.206,[12][13][14][15][16][17] two of the editors with whom Freedom skies was edit warring.

That's not much of a cabal, if you ask me.

What we all agree on is that, for the sake of accuracy and neutrality on Wikipedia, ethnocentrists like Freedom skies cannot be allowed to get away with blatant POV-pushing, especially when it's accompanied by his characteristic incivility.
JFD 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If I were a Han Chinese nationalist, why would I have made these edits to Taijutsu?[18][19]

P.S. As for dictating to fellow cabal members, take a look at this exchange between Shiva's Trident and Freedom skies.[20][21]

And this exchange where Freedom skies thanks Nidhishsingal for his efforts on Indian nationalism[22] and Nidhishsingal replies that he was "just doing his duty".[23]

Or Hkelkar asking Freedom skies to rebut criticism of VS Naipaul.[24]
Why Hkelkar can't do it his own self I don't know.

Based on my interactions with Freedom skies, the baseless accusations he makes against others are an excellent guide to exactly the things he himself is guilty of.

I mentioned that I was very familiar with William Dalrymple's works, so he asked me for a criticism on lines he knows I'm all too familiar with. I read his works in real life. I have been critical of William Dalrymple's attempts of rewriting history on Wikipedia before. I can provide a citation for this from my contributions.

It is a cabal. A red Han Chinese cabal. The objectives of the Cabal are 1)To prove that the Chinese martial arts are independent of any foreign influence whatsoever 2)Stop any Indian martial arts from being dated before Shuai Jiao, the oldest Chinese martial arts and 3)Discredit Bodhidharma, a man who personifies the Indian influence, to the maximum extent using the means of Wikipedia.

As for civility and affiliations. Let people judge me from their interactions. Not by what some Red Han Chinese nationalist has to say.

Thank you.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus In a very surprising attempted turn of events JFD thinks of " Please lend a hand if you can spare the time. Thanks."[25] and this as dictating to fellow cabal members. For the life of me I can't find any dictating being done here, unlike JFD who instructed Kenny to run the content through him.

As for thanking Nidhish, he protected a citation from Stephen Cohen. Who along with Stanley Wolpert I am known to admire. (again citation will be provided on request or provocation) The protection was done against a user who gave a 24 hour deadline during which I was not present. If Thank yous are not in order here then where else ?? ??

This washing of dirty linen on a talk page is in response to the red Han Chinese attempts though. Don't blame me all that much.

Extending Best Regards and requesting unprotect of Bodhidharma as Always.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 05:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"just doing my duty"?[26]

Whatever.

As for civility and affiliations. Let people judge me from their interactions.

Those Wikipedians who have had to deal with Freedom skies probably already have.

It is a cabal. A red Han Chinese cabal.

That's right.
A cabal whose two most "rabid" members completely sat out the recent Freedom skies-instigated edit war[27] at the article on Bodhidharma, whom it is one of our two objectives to discredit.

Blnguyen, take a look at the edit histories of MichaelMaggs and Nat Krause and you tell me if we're all part of a "red Han Chinese cabal".

And while you're at it, you may as well take a look at the edit histories of Freedom skies, Shiva's Trident, Hkelkar, Nidhishsingal....
JFD 15:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For once I agree. Those who have dealt with me already have made up their minds.

The cabal members was pointed to you and Kenny JFD, the couple who exchanged barnstars in order to fake credibility. Attempting to divert attention ???

The rest is just an empty attempt I'll have to live with while dealing with this cabal, of whose members are begining to actively participate in similar edits now, as has been their established pattern if you take a look into JFD and Kennthtennyson's records.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The cabal members was pointed to you and Kenny JFD

Who haven't touched the Bodhidharma page during the recent edit war.

this cabal, of whose members are begining to actively participate in similar edits now, as has been their established pattern if you take a look into JFD and Kennthtennyson's records.

For once I agree. Take a look into our records.[28][29][30][31][32][33]
JFD 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You actually have very early on, for your very POV contribs the scroll will have to be a long one though. One which I will provide on either request or provocation, whichever extended first.

I'll provide a bit of assistence for the cabal's M.O. though. [34][35][36][37][38] You'll know what I meant by a cabal and being unassisted in this on principle.

And yes, this is outside of JFD removing Batuo from the Shaolin history altogather, another attempt to erase Indian influence from China ?? and him trying to push a fake nametag for a webpage, all of which i face alone even though assistence is just a few messages away. Again, on principle and faith that wikipedia will not allow violent agendas to endure leave alone prevail.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 02:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting unprotect

The Bodhidharma article in it's present form has conflicting revisionist versions in the second para of the article itself. One of these versions states that Bodhidharma's life is largely legendary while the other one conflicts with the first version stating that the man named Bodhidharma did not exist at all.

Kindly unprotect the article, which in it's present form has removed the citations from very credible sources which I presented in this version . I also mentioned all the conflicting negationist claims about Bodhidharma, some of them obviously false as they conflict with each other here .

The Han Chinese have an intrest in proving that Bodhidharma is legendary. Kindly unprotect the article so that conspiracy theories, conflicting in nature and hence inherently false, do not find their way into this article. Thank You.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 09:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrators are under no obligation to protect the article at a "correct" version. Kimchi.sg 09:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Page protection is not an endorsement" is more than an explaination for that but the article is protected at a very bad stage. I am merely appealing to take notice of the very evident and obvious flaws and allow editors to edit for an appropriate version. Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 09:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Pelliot is a noteworthy scholar of Asia and Heinrich Dumoulin a noteworthy scholar of religion.[39].

The works of either meet Wikipedia's third-party academic standard for reliable sources.

The only "academic" who refers to Pelliot or Dumoulin as negationist is Freedom skies, and the only place he is called an "academic" is his own user page.

Thank you.
JFD 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The noteworthy scholars have presented theories which have conflicted with each other.

This essentially means that at least one out of the two theories is wrong and the very learned authors are on guesswork. This conflicting guesswork is manipulated by the Han Chinese nationalists and those they exchange barnstars with.

The content which is conflicting in nature does not belong in the second para of a biographical article itself.

The mentions of Pelliot and Dumoulin's attempts at negationism belong later in a seperate column as their conflicting versions are essentially based on speculation. Otherwise they would not have conflicted so radically with each other with one independent version attributing an old Chinese text to "an ignorant Village master."

Yes their conflicting works meet the standards of wikipedia, that's why I devoted a whole column to them. Their work in their field of expertise has earned them enough credibility for us to overlook their errors and speculations in other fields in which they may not nessesarily specialize, like this one. If Issac Newton was to speculate about conditioning in mixed martial arts or practical street self defence techniques, his work too would have been very quotable on Wikipedia irrespective of his field of expertise.

Also, scholars such as Ryuchi are known to have caused some sensation as well. JFD and his red Han Chinese cabal removed those citations altogather though.

Extending Best Regards and requesting unprotect of Bodhidharma as Always.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 04:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise they would not have conflicted so radically with each other with one independent version attributing an old Chinese text to "an ignorant Village master."

Actually, the "ignorant village master" quote comes not from Pelliot or Dumoulin, but from Ling Tingkan.
Which Freedom skies would know if he had any idea what he was talking about.

scholars such as Ryuchi are known to have caused some sensation as well. JFD and his red Han Chinese cabal removed those citations altogather though.

Ryuchi?
As in Matsuda Ryuchi?
The same Matsuda Ryuchi whom I added as a source to the Bodhidharma article[40] and which Freedom skies removed?[41]
That Matsuda Ryuchi?
JFD 14:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated subject, Freedom skies should really call Matsuda Ryuchi "Matsuda" if referring to him using only one of his names.
"Ryuchi" is his given name.
Which Freedom skies would know if he had any idea what he was talking about.
JFD 14:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The noteworthy scholars have presented theories which have conflicted with each other.

Because noteworthy scholars must always agree?

Their work in their field of expertise has earned them enough credibility for us to overlook their errors and speculations in other fields in which they may not nessesarily specialize, like this one. If Issac Newton was to speculate about conditioning in mixed martial arts or practical street self defence techniques, his work too would have been very quotable on Wikipedia irrespective of his field of expertise.

You're absolutely right, Freedom skies.
Paul Pelliot is a Sinologist and Heinrich Dumoulin is a scholar of religion.
Their fields of expertise are utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Unlike, say, the computer scientist Subhash Kak's speculations about ancient history.
JFD 14:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "ignorant village master" quote comes not from Pelliot or Dumoulin, but from Ling Tingkan. Which Freedom skies would know if he had any idea what he was talking about.

I actually did go out of my way and mentioned with one independent version attributing an old Chinese text to "an ignorant Village master." In case you still don't get it independent version , meaning independent of either Pelliot or Dumoulin. I see that you'll have to try living with it.

Yes I meant Ryuchi. The same one whose citations were removed by the reverts which led to the current version. That's how I not only knew what I was talking about but mentioned the conflicts in their statements as well.

Because noteworthy scholars must always agree?

They actually do that on the gravitational theory and the mass of a hydrogen atom though. You should read about it sometime.

They do speculate on aspects of Ta Mo's life and works about him, often in violent conflict. This will lead to a seperate column far away from the opening paragraphs which tend to confuse a user right away, especially when one of then states that he did not exist at all, in which case the biographical article is due for a speedy delete. Conflicting conspiracy theories will find mentions in a later paragraph dealing extensively with revisionist history and the conflicts within the various versions.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 01:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I meant Ryuchi. The same one whose citations were removed by the reverts which led to the current version.

Are you referring to those citations which I added[42] and you removed?[43]

Because noteworthy scholars must always agree?

They actually do that on the gravitational theory and the mass of a hydrogen atom though. You should read about it sometime.

Wasn't it Albert Einstein who expressed his incredulity of quantum theory by saying "God does not play dice with the universe"?
You should read about it sometime.
JFD 02:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Selective diffs provided as usual. I took the content and shifted it into another completely new column. See for yourself the citations.

Wasn't it Albert Einstein who expressed his incredulity of quantum theory by saying "God does not play dice with the universe"? You should read about it sometime.

Please. Gravitational theory and quantum theory are differnt things. You should read about it sometime. In fact, go read about both of them before you compare theories and even go far to quote Einstein on this.

[edit] bodhidharma lock

please do not unblock the bodhidharma page until all of us have a discussion with freedom skies. He unfortunately seems to be pushing a personal view of history, not believeing in history as supported by historians whereas at the same time, pushing a view of history that is only supported by websites and random people. Bodhidharma is believed by everyone out there who is credible - either chinese, japanese, or western to be associated with legend. To try and state that the stories revolving around him are not legend is basically lying to the reader. Kennethtennyson 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Enter the second cabal member. He tends to follow JFD very closely if you match the records. Kindly also refer to the removal of my section which highlighted the conflicting theories, complete with very good references. Also note that none of my cabal members have been notified by me for assistence, an act which will cost me much taxation in the near future.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask Dangerous Boy for help like you did before.[44]
JFD 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding one non cabal member of the martial arts project whom I approached.

Still does little of finding me approach my not-so-little cabal. You even seemed to know the names of prominent cabal members, those did not include him during you first recall. Maybe is he just an unrelated guy working on a martial arts project who seemed knowledgeable enough to approach without much interaction or aquaintence?? a non cabal member perhaps ??

Your cabal approached several people though. Kenny approached someone who gave you a barnstar to come and intervene. Partisan choices ?? ?? Citations, as usual, will be provided on either request or provocation, whichever extended first.

Freedom skies 11:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming good faith

Freedom skies has sunk to a new low by kneejerk rv'ing my edits without even checking what I'm changing, in violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith.[45]

In the edit he is reverting with the above diff, I'm actually adding a source in support of the claim that Indian wrestling dates back to the 5th century BCE (as opposed to the 11th century CE).

Freedom skies is no longer examining the edits he reverts and he is no longer assuming good faith.
JFD 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Given JFD's history of attempting a removal of the Indian Batuo from the very history of the Shaolin, a temple which was found for his preaching my supposed assuptions of either good or bad faith can be explained. Kindly do take a look for yourself . His actions have caused a 3RR warning issued to me in addition to him. Assumption of good faith regarding the cabal now is purely up to their future actions.

This is in addition to him trying to fake a name for a webpage here .

Go Ahead, blame me all you want. As long as you keep an eye on the cabal's actions (and mine) I'm sure things will sort themselves out.

Extending regards as always.

Freedom skies 17:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Kindly keep a watch over the actions of JFD, Kenny and myself . If you watch closely enough, everyone's agenda will soon become very clear.

Freedom skies 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Buddhism and wikipedia

Could you please look into thematter of certain users repeatedly being disruptive on wikipedia with regards to articles on Buddhism, Indian Buddhist Movement and Hinduism?

Ambedkaritebuddhist:

  1. Summary [46].
  2. [47]
  3. Massive disruption : [48] (he's done this once before)
  4. [49]
  5. [50]
  6. [51]
  7. [52]
  8. Vandalism:[53][54]
  1. Racist PA from Ambedkaritebuddhist [55]
All of this stuff is old. I've already given him a reminder I think. Besides, this seems almost polite for this sphere of editing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Srilankanbuddhist:

  1. Using wikipedia for extremist Sinhala propaganda [56]
  2. Bogus claims of vandalism [57]
  3. Repeated misrepresentations and other forms of vandalism [58]
  4. see this comment made by another user about Srilankanbuddhist's misrepresentations of the figures, which he persistently adds:[59]
Seems like par for the course. Hardly seems like extremist Sinhalese propaganda(#1) - can you explain? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend:

  1. Tendentious edits: [60]
  2. Invicil edit summaries [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]
  5. meatpuppetry [64]
This is old and I have already told him off about this. As for the incivility, it is almost polite for this course. 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend:

  1. Summary:[65]
  2. [66]
  3. [67]
  4. [68]
  5. [69]
  6. [70]
  7. [71]

Yeditor:

  1. [72]
  2. [73]
  3. [74]
As above, and content disputes.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Holybrahmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been putting Casteist Brahmin-supremacist nonsense on Talk:Indian Buddhist revival (exclusively so per his contribs). Hkelkar 18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Srilankanbuddhist keeps persistently adding bogus edits to the Indian Buddhist article and making highly incivil comments [75]

in his talk page. This goes above and beyond the normal background noise of incivility and is outright rubbish (in this edit, he refers to "nomadic tribes in Mumbai", a nonsense statement he keeps entering everyday, you know of any "nomadic tribes in Mumbai?". First he says millions of people converted to Buddhism, not in citation given, now he bumps it down to thousands, using an extremist Sinhala propaganda source. If he uses that then I will use tamilnation.org in the article as well). He clearly has no concept of wikipedia policy and perhaps you should drop a word on his talk pae about civility.In fact, these Neo-Buddhist editors seem to be shuttling back and forth. First Dhammafriend, then he disappears and Ambedkaritebuddhist, now he's gone and Srilankanbuddhist appears. Some kind of sock/meatpuppetry is definitely afoot.Hkelkar 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a chat to him about some of his edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know, he's done it again despite your word to him [76].Hkelkar 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Noted.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physicists are fast learners

Hi Blnguyen. How long did it take for you to learn renormalization group theory? Is it easier or harder than learning how to track an ip address? see this and this.Hkelkar 05:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't gotten too indepth with it yet. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
But you know how to calculate self-energy terms etc right? You know how to do it in momentum space right? How long did it take you? A week, maybe?That is a whole lot harder than learning to trace an ip address, right?Hkelkar 18:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps two, but yeah perhaps one when I panic close to exams....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Welcome to my world. Now could you point this out in the ArbComm page where BhaiSaab suggests that my technical abilities "prove" that I am a sockpuppet?Hkelkar 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You weren't only talking about finding IP addresses - you were talking about much more advanced material. I've never used this on the arbitration. Aksi great has, and I completely agree with him considering all of the other evidence. BhaiSaab talk 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing so terribly advanced that one can't learn quickly.Again, circumstantial.Hkelkar 14:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
And what's wrong with circumstantial evidence? I believe I caught CltFn with evidence that all seemed to be circumstantial. BhaiSaab talk 15:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll talk. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Buddhist Revival and Information

1. To know about "nomadic tribes" and "criminal castes" you can find information on official web site of Maharashtrastate and Mumbai is capital city of that state. Maharashtra - SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT. 2. In 2006 Buddhist Conversion ceremony Nomadic Tribe leader from Maharashtra Laxman Mane converted to Buddhism. Laxman Mane 3. About Sinhala contribution; Anagarik Dhammapala is the founder of Mahabodhi Society. Our Buddhist Monks are there in India and all over the world. If you need more information plese let me know. 4. There are many users who are vandalising Buddhist Articles. I will give you details of those people. Shrilankabuddhist 13:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent references (Blnguyen read it carefully).Hkelkar 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

From TFA:

“ Towards social welfare, the Government have undertaken to remove the stigma of untouchability in respect of scheduled castes and to assimilate the scheduled tribes in the general population without destroy­ing their hereditary traits. The rehabilitation of ex-criminal, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes in gainful and stable avocations has also been undertaken. ”

Notice "ex-criminal" and no mention of Mumbai at all.Hkelkar 14:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've noted this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srilankanbuddhist again

Are these kinds of edits [77] acceptable?Hkelkar 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No they aren't. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The cabal

JFD repeatedly wiped out Indian Batuo from the very history of the Shaolin here . This is in addition to pushing POV sentences in Zen and Chan and removing sources from batuo. Freedom skies 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)