User talk:Tdudkowski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Tdudkowski! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --Dave1185 (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

--Dave1185 (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for you to add some such qualification. Vajrayana is not the correct name, because it also can include Shingon. Peter jackson 11:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxes

Dear Tadeusz please tell me how you put those boxes at the bottom right of your user page telling people what your interests are? I would like to place some of those on my own page if I can but I do not know how to do that. many thanks Peter morrell 11:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The most useful links to info about wiki formatting are on my site here. Second, and many times more better source of information is code preview after clicking "Edit this page", sure dont really edit this, but all the tricks are visible at once. Use preview option before applying copypasted code, even if you know what that code does surprises are possible. These boxes are called userboxes and as you can see they are separate from main content by using div (here is more about using CSS. All about userboxes you can find here: Wikipedia:Userboxes. I hope it's helpfull, gretz. Tadeusz Dudkowski 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tadeusz, many thanks for that info, I will give it a try very soon, best wishes Peter morrell 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Vesak

[edit] Thanks for reverting endnote quote in Paramita article

Hi Tadeusz - I just wanted to sincerely thank you for effectively reverting the recent changes to the Paramita article's end note's quote. Of course, I don't assume it will last given the persistence of some editors with differing views, but I'm glad that you and I seem to at least agree about the basic rules for the editing of published quotes. I truly wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Era-style of "Greco-Buddhism"

Regarding your reversion of this article's era-style, both BC/AD and BCE/CE era-styles are acceptable on Wikipedia. I surmise from your edit-summary, "in wikipedia BCE/CE are correct", that you reverted in the mistaken belief that BCE/CE style is mandatory in Wikipedia, and BC/AD is not allowed. That is not the case; as said, they are equally acceptable. See WP:MOSNUM. That being so, please self-revert your edit if you made it on that mistaken basis.

I suppose that your edit-summary might instead indicate that you thought that I changed the article back to BC/AD because I thought that BCE/CE is not allowed on Wikipedia. That would not have been a valid reason for my edit, given that BCE/CE is allowed, but it was not my reason for that edit. (This interpretation of your edit-summary, though conceivable, does not make much sense in the context of my preceding edit-summaries. Such misunderstandings are commonplace, though, so I am covering the possibility). If you have thus misapprehended the reason for my edit and reverted it on that mistaken basis, then, again, please self-revert your reversion.

(The actual reason that I changed the article back to BC/AD style is that it was begun with a substantial contribution using BC/AD, and further grown, in that style, by several editors, before being converted to BCE/CE style.)
-- Lonewolf BC 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please answer here, rather than on my talkpage, for sake of continuity. I have this page on "watch", for the time being. -- Lonewolf BC 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe both styles are correct, but... 1) original style of article has no special meaning, because we can change ewerything (except WP) if change is better - and change is better in this case for two reasons: 2) BCE/CE style is more neutral and 3) commonly used in scientific publications.

Actually, the original style does matter: The principle is that articles should stay in the style they were in originally (or at least the predominant one of the first substantial contribution, but in this case they are the same thing). There is a good reason for that principle: Although you plainly think that BCE/CE style is "more neutral", there is no consensus that such is the case. If there were, it would be the sole allowable era-style on WP. Some folk, such as yourself, think that BCE/CE style is better, for that reason, or other reasons, or both. Other folk think that BC/AD is better. The principle I just mentioned is meant to prevent edit-warring over the point: Disagreement over which style is "better" is irresolvable, but there can be little or no disagreement -- none, in this case -- over what style an article started out with. On your third point, for the difference it makes, both styles are in use academically.
Given that you've responded only by arguing in favour of the use of BCE/CE, it now seems -- and please correct me if I have you wrong -- that you reverted not out of a mistaken belief that only BCE/CE is allowed on Wikipedia, not even out of a mistaken belief that my edit was made for the converse reason, but out of no more than a personal preference for BCE/CE. That's exactly the wrong reason for making such an edit. Please consider that, and my last post, and if you made your edit for any of those three reasons I have guessed, please self-revert it. Otherwise, please explain why you made the edit, because I don't see what other thinking could lie behind it. -- Lonewolf BC 01:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For me its a "flat earth discussion", what are you thinking: because of people believing eath is flat "disagreement over which theory is "better" is irresolvable"? In fact BC means "before Christ" and AD "anno domini", both have religious roots, and are religious terms. This is neutrality? As you can see one fanatic of BC/AD style (he does almost nothing more on wiki) done this revert. Now I dont know what to do with this looks-like-religion zealotism of BC/AD style. (Tadeusz Dudkowski 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

So in other words, you acted out of personal preference for BCE/CE. That's exactly the wrong reason to make such an edit.

As it turns out, I should have left it alone, also -- not for any of the reasons that have been given for reverting me, but simply because the era-style had been stable for a long time. This was my mistake, and I apologise for it: The MOS has changed since I'd last read it, adding a sentence making that criterion explicit, although in hindsight the same thing might have occurred to me anyway.

For your consideration, by my reckoning, BCE/CE is a ridiculous attempt to paper over the fact that our dating system has a Christian root: ridiculous in that swapping abbreviations does not change the underlying reason that the year-numbering system is as it is; ridiculous in that it would have made no less sense to simply declare that the older abbreviations stood for something else ("Before Convention" and "After Datum", say), and then at least we'd keep familiarity, and consistency between texts, and not be writing a third letter sometimes; ridiculous in that most people treated the abbreviations as mere conventional symbols, the educated knowing their origin and mostly not caring, the uneducated unclear on their origin and disinclined to care about such things at all; ridiculous in that, in a turnabout of what might have been done with the old abbreviations, BCE and CE can just as well stand for "Before Christian Era" and "Christian Era", which I gather is what some religous types (no less dopey than the promulgators of the "new order"), have decided they shall do. It weren't broke, didn't need fixin', 'n ain't been fixed ner made no better. If people had just let well enough alone, we would not even have this issue on WP. Though it is not good that our dating system is base on (a mis-reckoning of) when the founder of a particular religion was born, it is not bad either. It just is -- and it is regardless of anyone's changing abbreviations and what words they supposedly stand for.
-- Lonewolf BC 06:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Johann Swammerdam (photographer)

A tag has been placed on Johann Swammerdam (photographer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Acroterion _(talk) 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert or not?

Hi! I want to hear your judgment to select whose revision of Religion in China; Angelo or Saimdusan:

[1]

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop reverting the tibet intro change

For the last time, either EXPLAIN your edit war or just stop it. I'm getting sick and tired of it. I've already explained why it's important to include the ALL the factors that led up to the riot, whether or not they are general or the direct spark. It is just misleading for those who skip out on reading the background section. There is NO reason to remove that part or none that you quoted. If you would like, I could just change it to "the riots erupted out of ethnic hatred; however, the violence was further fuelled by the rumours...etc". That would make the tibet side seem even WORSE and I know that's not what you want to do since you have pro-tibet signs all over you. Leaving it as it is now provides a more neutral view and the ALL the facts. I don't see why you have to change it when it has been like this for weeks.207.188.87.114 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained it in comments - you mixed in one two kind of reasons: communist occupation and marginalizing Tibetans in their homeland AND rumors about killings. Now I made synchro with referenced article. BTW if "ethnic hatred" is a reason, at first we should explain that decades of communist occupation and failure of promised economical benefits is a reason of this "ethnic hatred". This is more neutral view and ALL the facts.--Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first, your comment says that we shouldn't mix general reasons with the direct spark itself but you do no explain why. I did not mix in communist occupation/marginalizing Tibetans in their homeland, I explained what interviewers said were there complaints (that implying led up to the riots). I did NOT put in that ethnic hatred was the reason in the intro because that would be misleading since other factors led to this ethnic hatred in the first place which was what the intro was explaining but you decided to edit it to mislead. The article says nothing of Tibetans complaining about "promised" economical benefits or marginalization. It only talks about how they complain of socioeconomic inequality, which is not the same thing. You can't just make up your own facts when the article didn't even say that! I don't even see how you can say you "synchroed" with the article when the article said nothing like that! Not to mention that the background section goes into more detail about the socioeconomic inequality and inflation. If you want to argue, put it in the talk page under the intro topic or else I'm going to assume you're just spreading biased "facts". 207.188.87.114 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear 207.188.87.114, I just simply put quotation from referenced article usatoday.com: 10 dead in violent protests in Tibet capital (bolded for your convenience): "The unrest came as Tibet, long China's poorest province, has wracked up stunning growth, in part fueled by hefty investment and subsidies from Beijing meant to alleviate resentment among Tibetans. Still, Tibetans have complained that the economic benefits have mainly enriched Chinese, many of them newcomers, leaving Tibetans feeling more marginalized."--Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: It's my mistake. I quoted other article, from previous reference. But now this mistake is repaired, correct quotation is The Economist: Fire on the roof of the world: "The violence was fuelled by rumours of killings, beatings and detention of Buddhist monks by security forces in Lhasa this week".

It's not against the rules to paraphrase what is said in an article is it? If you choose to use only direction quotaitons, why not include the part about teh riots primarily due to ethnic hatred?216.252.70.18 (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, depending on the article you will look at, the socioeconomic equality reason will vary.

"The violence was undoubtedly racial. Its prime targets were the Chinese merchants who have flocked to Tibet by road and on a prestigious new train across the roof of the world.

The mobs were the losers of Lhasa – the poor who seethe with resentment, outwitted commercially by Chinese traders, out-gunned by the Chinese army and, many fear, ultimately to be outnumbered by Chinese migrants."

Now this is straight from the horse's mouth. The actual Western journalist who was there wrote this- not some MSM that decided to twist the source's words. I thought it was the most NPOV and fair way to just say- they were angry about socioeconomic inequality, inflation, and fear of becoming a minority in their own city. Why is that wrong? It's the most concise, fair and NPOV way to state what they were angry about which caused the rioting.

Funny paraphrases of your great quotation is here Hateful, vengeful Tibetan losers upset order in Chinese province. It's incredible, after few decades of communist rules are there any poor people? Maybe CIA dropped some of them near Lhasa? And I suppose, it's unbelievable that "peaceful liberation" (some say "occupation" but of course saying so about chinese tanks is biased) is not welcomed by any nation living where Party delivered it. You're right. Maybe it's a good recipe: "invade them and marginalize in their own homeland" and in case of unrest say it simply "ethnic hatred". Of course they have good reasons for it: Chinese army, Chinese migrants and Chinese occupation. If it can't change now, for not so many years Tibetans will be pariases in China's poorest province. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask for your opinion. That is just the journalist's professional opinion. The article was not written by Chinese state media, and it is NPOV. You can take it how you like, but keep it to yourself or your blog. Also, "seemed (to)" and "appeared to" are synonymous. However, the way that it was written in the article did not seem entirely gramatically correct. You can change it to "seemed to be", but "seemed primarily" does not sound gramatically correct to me. I think it sounds better this way, but you can change it to "seemed to be" if you feel strongly about it. Also, Chinese immigrants is strange wording. They hate the Muslim Hui and Han Chinese. Not necessarily immigrants because foreigners saw even a little boy was stoned. He could've been born there. Also, they themselves are of the Chinese nationality- of one ethnic group in China just like the Han and the Hui. It does not make sense to put it that way.216.252.70.18 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask for your opinion. That is just the journalist's professional opinion. The article was written by professional, and should be referenced precisely, I'm sure you can write, and if you can read, please read this "The rioting seemed primarily an eruption of ethnic hatred". Read it "seemed". And show me something in this article about non-Chinese attacked by Tibetans --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So...? What is your point? I just added "seemed to be" to make it more gramatically correct lol. He says: "The violence was undoubtedly racial." in another article. I would've put that in, but it would piss off pro-tibet people like yourself too much. Hui Muslims were attacked as well. Quite simply, in all other parts of the article, it is referenced as Tibetans and non-Tibetans. Tibetans are also of the CHinese nationality, as are Hui and Han. However, they are all their own ethnic groups. It makes no sense to the reader to just say "Chinese immigrants" or even "Chinese" since that's implying Tibet is it's own country, when it's not. Others have argued about this too in the past, and it was decided to use Tibetan and non-Tibetan because that is the most NPOV way. 216.252.71.154 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My point? I'm sure that in every invaded non "it's own country" (like oe Tibet) Chinese liberators will find racist mob and ethnic hatred. But they are themselves reason of this. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, the ethnic hatred was largely due to the Han Chinese or even minority Hui Muslims being more successful than Tibetans are. That's what they complained about. They did not complain about how some country invaded them almost years ago. That's why it was the poorest of the Tibetans rioting, not the middle class. The two Western reporters who interviewed residents both came to that conclusion. Maybe you should do more research on the topic before speaking? I know you're pro-tibet and probably Buddhist, you're really giving Pro-Tibet people a bad name with this biased garbage. 216.252.71.154 (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Firstly, Chinese tanks was more successful then weak Tibetan army. Secondly, Chinese imigrants (Han & Hui) supported by administration was more successful economicaly. This is story about great success of invasion and occupation. Everybody not so successfull are losers and racists. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you are absolutely brainwashed. I think I'm done here. 216.252.70.18 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm brainwashed, and Tibetan mob of losers should be punished. This is a message from So Great China to all the world just before Olympic Games: "Our tanks and our merchants are successful, all losers will be punished". And, yes, you already done here. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it seems like you're the one was trying to say that the riots were out of politics, rather than racial tension even when evidence that said otherwise was shoved right in your face. The "Chinese" merchants are more successful, even though Tibetans are not taxed and they get huge education subsidies. What they choose to do with their advantages is up to them. No one said the "losers" are punished. They are given ADVANTAGES. IF you violently riot, you WILL be punished no matter who you are.129.97.193.108 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm deeply impressed, Chinese not only give Tibetans Chinese army, Chinese governor, Chinese police, and (how successive) Chinese merchants - they also give them Chinese money. Wow! And if all nation revolts, all nation will be punished. This is a message from prc regime? --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You better be impressed. Less than 0.5% of the population turns out for a riot despite reports that flew around that the police did nothing to stop them for the first few days because of the olympics. So much support for the Dalai Lama and independence eh? I'm surprised. You edit the article so much, yet you apparently don't even read it. The journalists said the riots were from the poor who were bitter. The middle class Tibetans (who make up 90% of Lhasa) didn't join in because they enjoy their lives. I can't believe you can so biased to keep reverting my intro edit without cause or even discussing it in the talk page. Why? Because you know you are wrong. I already broke down your previous arguments so now you just say that line is repetitive. What a joke. You have disgraced buddhists and pro-tibet supporters everywhere with your lack of integrity. 216.252.70.18 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Uncommented deletion"

It was commented, someone reverted anyway on the spurious grounds that freereublic.com is a "valuable source" (wrong: see WP:RS). It's going on the blacklist, and if it's not removed the article will be uneditable. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Dalai Lama article

Hi Tdudkowski, I made a radical change in Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, in the section: Religious Controversy and gave reasons for it at the talk page and Edit summaries. Your comment is appreciated. Thanks, --Kt66 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Terrawatt has listed the article on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Help_requested_on_Tenzin_Gyatso.2C_14th_Dalai_Lama after failing to get his way. John Nevard (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tibetan Buddhism: References & footnotes

Thanks, Tadeusz for checking my problem at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonsell>. I am familiar with how to make a footnote. The problem is with the "Reference" list which appears near the end of the Tibetan Buddhism article. I need to be able to alter that list before I can add footnotes, because the footnotes will refer to that list.

I would welcome any more thoughts.

Moonsell (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to change list placed at {{reflist}} tag before changing references because this list is generated automatically from tags <ref> in the text. The only way to change this list is changing references. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category talk:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan‎

Perhaps you may be interested in this discussion with a user who has single handedly Obliterated content from over 200 articles relating to Buddhism and Hinduism in Afghanistan and Pakistan related categories . Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Intothefire (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of 3RR violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

There was no edit war, only removing unreliable material, and if you have a time to look at the talk page - there was no NPOV dicsussion, only inserting not-RS text. Look at the edition history: Special:Contributions/69.137.88.55 and Special:Contributions/Guox0032 are propably the same guy: 3 editions per account, no discussion, non-RS material. I reverted it as vandalism. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Then let me ask you this question, has the NPOV discussion been concluded in the talkpage? I checked it and I believe it hasn't been concluded thus far, so what is the point of removing the NPOV tag? Are you trying to push your view? OR are you trying to be a judgmentally superior being in claiming those edits of adding RS as vandalism but yet not being able to muster enough of any moral courage to report that user to the admin? Which is which? Please, respect the rule of wikipedia by NOT removing the relevant tags when there is an ongoing discussion; or unless you chose to ignore other wikipedians and continue to do so, then in which case I think it is only prudent to treat you as a pariah, thus making yourself an outcast should you willingly and willfully conduct such obstructive behaviour without the common consensus. It's your call now. --Dave1185 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy, not so emotionally. As I wrote there wasn't any discussion, I know this material, and know how unreliable (or unrelated) it is. I removed POV tags by mistake in automatic revert, my fault. I'm not going to remove any tags now. It wasn't pushing "my view" rather restoring common view (check reliability Talk:History_of_Tibet#Parenti), just cleaning. This guy inserted it five times without any discussion. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• That is not a plausible excuse. If you can spot vandalism or a mistake, why can't you spot that tag? You want to be respected? Then be thorough in your checks, double checks, triple checks and in-depth investigations or research, lest you want to be labeled as another careless unreliable editor. I'm sure you don't want that kind of reputation, right? --Dave1185 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you know any human being unable to make errors please report this miracle to your government, they have a job for him (or maybe her). Sorry, my mistake, sometimes it happens. IMO putting POV tag to defend not-RS material is not ok, but maybe this is only my humble idea and I gonna take a break. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I accept your apology and I also acknowledged that human beings do make mistakes sometimes but the fact remain is, this is not a plausible excuse when you are the actual party having your emotions running high and you clouding your own judgment by first not checking the so-called non-RS material in detail before you conducted that revert. This happened not once, not twice but three times in a row. If you made a mistake once, I guess it's okay. Twice? I say it is a coincidence, but THREE TIMES? Each time you revert, you just assume things. The NPOV tag was put up on 1 May 2008 and had been removed several times by a few POV crusaders, who come into this page and making a mockery out of it right after someone reverted back the tag. Tell me now, how can you still defend the indefensible fact of that? Now, I shall assume good faith by not pursuing this matter any further but please pay attention to details and minor edits in future because you cannot assume too much things without first ascertaining and establishing the factual truth. Similarly, words spoken cannot be retracted once the damage has been done. Having said that, do you understand why wikipedia has a firm stand on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view(NPOV)? IF NOT, please read the welcome page I have pasted at the top of this page or you can refer to the Polish language version here[2].--Dave1185 (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article sometimes becomes a minefield, POV tag is added and removed, I don't touch this. Today I removed it once, by mistake, once, not three times. I'm not sure what are you writing about, what clouding emotions? The only thing I have done in this article today was removing three times not-RS material and once by mistake POV tag (BTW added together with this unreliable material). I don't defend any facts, but only write about facts. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fine then, stay out of the minefield. This page is now protected until you guys can work things out. Nuff' said already! --Dave1185 (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RS

If you don't agree with the source doesn't mean it is unreliable, you are judging my sources based on your personal belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guox0032 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nhat Hanh:Thanks

Thanks for adding those references that I found to Nhat Hanh. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)