User talk:Klimov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reality in Buddhism

The original research I was referring to is: "If we could summarize Buddhism in a simple phrase, it might be 'to see the world as it really is'. And yet, the nature of reality continues to be a difficult thing to define and explain." This passage appears to have been written by User:Nightngle, rather by the Buddha or Dudjom Rinpoche, so I suppose it is Nightngale's original research. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your move request

FYI, I'm removing the {{move}} tag from Talk:Buddhist philosophy since there is no entry listed at WP:RM. If you want to proceed with the move, please follow the steps for requesting a page move. Let me know if you have questions. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cynthia Sue Larson

Hi. You recently removed the notability tag from this page, saying the subject was "notable enough" for you. Can you please give me some insight into how you reached that conclusion? The article simply states that she is a researcher and author, followed by a list of her books. I don't see how the article, at this time, makes it clear how the subject meets WP:BIO. Am I missing something? Thanks. janejellyroll 20:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hinayana

  • Hallo dear Klimov. I was very interested to read your ideas on "Hinayana" - especially as they compare well with views expressed by Thrangu Rinpoche (i.e. that Hinayana need not be used as a disparaging term) in the following article:

http://www.simhas.org./teaching15.html It was good to read your reminder that not everyone uses "Hinayana" in a dismissive and hostile manner. Thanks for all your fine work, Klimov. Best wishes to you. From Tony. 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Images

Those images you were talking about have been deleted. -FlubecaTalk 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just that someone put non-existent images on it. -FlubecaTalk 21:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not recall ever editing the page, ill check the history and the page see if I can fix it. -FlubecaTalk 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I found the problem, the images have been deleted :

Both have been deleted per CSD I4, Hope that helps... -FlubecaTalk 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tibetan Buddhism

Oh I'm absolutely obsessed with Tibet and Bhutan and Tibetan buddhism. More recently I have begun articles on Tibetan Buddhist art which I hope to increasingly work on. Ha see my new articles Nomadic tents and Yak racing!! I stubbed the Battle of the Five Lamas of 1634 in Bhutan earlier ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 13:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of Tārā

Hi Klimov,

Tārā is a Sanskrit name and definitely spelt with too long ā's - despite what your Tibetan dictionary says. It may well be a misprint. Suggest you check a Sanskrit dictionary, or any source on Buddhism that bothers to use diacritics to confirm that Tārā is the correct spelling.

Regards mahaabaala 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re the spelling of Tārā Please see:

  • Stephen Beyer. Magic and Ritual in Tibetan the cult of Tārā
  • Martin Wilson. In praise of Tārā

These two are the best known texts on Tārā. Also according to Daivd Snellgrove Indo-Tibetan Buddhism it is spelt Tārā. Also Tārā according to Glen Mullins' translation of Meditations on the Lower Tantras. Both authoritative sources. Also the Flammarion Guide to Buddhist Iconography (for what that is worth) has Tārā. Also Tārā in the Rider Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy.

I looked at Wildmind (run by my good friend Bodhipaksa) and it has no diacritics for Tārā's name, but Tāre in the mantra which is correct - Sanskrit being an inflected language the ending changes when the name is used in the vocative form - so Tāre = Oh Tārā! cf my analysis on http://www.visiblemantra.org/green-tara.html.

QED?

[edit] Re: Kudos

Tanks! I try. :-) GlassFET 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, have you seen the news about Reincarnation Application? I no sooner heard of it than discovered that someone had written a WP article about it while I was reading about it in the news. GlassFET 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tibetan Scouting

Can you help render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Tibetan script? Thanks! Chris 07:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That's wonderful! Chris 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism page

Dear Viktor, it would be very helpful if we could all discuss why you keep reverting the Buddhism article back to the old copy. I personally prefer it too but maybe we all need to discuss it if you feel there is a problem. many thanks & kind regards Peter morrell 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply, Victor, how do you think we should proceed with this matter? Primarily I feel that we need to create a consensus of views. Such is not produced by forging ahead with massive unconsulted changes to the article, or of nit-picking over minutiae, or by trying to be too pedantic and academic, or by taking an 'ownership' role over the whole article, or by endless talk that gets nowhere. I think you know what I am talking about? So maybe we first need to involve others in this discussion to engage their views? thanks and friendly greetings Peter morrell 16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Victor. OK, please leave this matter with me and I will ask some other folks and get back to you sometime soon. you can email me if you wish via this site, kind regards Peter morrell 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reflected on this matter, Victor, and I feel that you really need to have the courage to explain openly on the Buddhism talk page why you revert the article, and what concerns you have. I am sure this will lead to a good discussion of how consensus might be achieved and future conflicts avoided. Please think this idea over. kind regards Peter morrell 10:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hallo dear Victor. I have followed the recent discussion about reverting or not reverting the Buddhism article. I have quite a bit of sympathy with your feelings. I have proposed a vote on whether to revert to your preferred version of the Buddhism article - or keep Peter Jackson's version. I myself think both versions have merit, but at the end of the day - if I were forced to vote - I think I would vote for the earlier version (which you prefer). It has faults and errors (correctible), but I think it is a much more interesting and informative read. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, dear Victor, for your nice message. As I said, if it comes to a vote, I will certainly vote for a retention of the "old" version of the article (which I think is much more informative and fascinating, although less concise and neat than the new version). I do agree with you that it is a pleasure to meet friendly people on Wiki (when one does!) - it is so important, isn't it? Especially if one is writing about Buddhism! Warm wishes to you. From Tony. 11:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMPNS (talk • contribs)

Hi Victor, you have reverted the article 3 times and now today so has Peter Jackson. Further reverts are disallowed. I would encourage you to vote about which version you prefer and maybe also explain why. many thanks kind regards Peter morrell 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Victor, I will check if we can revert 3 times in total or per day. I will let you know. Meantime you can vote and explain yourself if you wish, kind regards Peter morrell 12:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right it says so here: [3] I think we have to start a dialogue with PJ. thanks Peter morrell 12:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hallo dear Victor. I am wondering if you would like to vote for a revert to your preferred version of the "Buddhism" article? Please let us know if you would support voting that way, or would rather vote to keep Peter J's version - or do not wish to vote at all ! Thanks, Victor. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 12:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well done, Victor! It is good that you have put the "nominated for non-neutrality" tag on "your" Buddhism article. Peter J. should be able to accept that article now as a basis for further work. I am the same as you: I prefer "your" version of the Buddhism article. It is much more interesting! Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dzogchen

Please stop reverting my changes. I am only taking out excessive linking (some terms are linked multiple times from the same paragraph), inexplicable see also entries with little direct relationship to the subject. I am integrating some see also links into the text and thus removing the need for them to be listed in see also. And I am removing one dubious uncited paragraph. You are blind reverting without looking at my changes one-by-one and without discussion on the talk page. Do it again and I'll post a 3RR warning. GlassFET 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re your comment: if you can say that after my explanation, then I don't believe you have bothered to look at the diffs. GlassFET 15:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate to advertise the fact that you are a Dzogchen practitioner.

This is not something you should ever make known publicly. I would respectfully recommend removing that user template box. 90.205.92.112 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

and I would respectfully request that you mind your own business.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.26.76 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanskrit manner of articulation

Retroflex is a manner of articulation. All I removed was "apical palatal" and "apical dental." I looked at the source cited and couldn't even find those phrases. The source also doesn't seem to be reputable enough to justify the breaking of the norm of retroflexes being subapical palatal or postalveolar. Now if that's the wording Panini used, we should mention it and cite Panini. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The palatal and postalveolar regions of the mouth are very close together so it's not surprising that the description sounds like apical palatal when it is really (sub)apical postalveolar. It does seem like (sub)apical dental (or alveolar) is what the source is describing for the lateral but as I said before this isn't a good enough source. You ask if I think it's wrong. I don't know enough about Sanskrit to say either way but dental or even alveolar contact does seem a bit weird for a retroflex consonant. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know enough about Sanskrit to be more specific than "retroflex." If you look at other articles on languages that have retroflex consonants, you'll see that they rarely get more detailed than just "retroflex" see retroflex consonant for more information. It's possible that User:Kwamikagami might have more information on this than I do. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me. Check out WP:V and WP:AGF. Edits you disagree with are not vandalism. It's best not to throw that word around lightly as editors can find it insulting.
I've explained my reasoning (the source doesn't seem reliable, the description is too vague and possibly discordant with sub-apical consonant). That "retroflex" is good enough is peripheral and I only pointed it out in response to your impression that somehow information is missing if the article isn't more precise. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)