Om, I get it! /Ninly (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ushiku Daibutsu 2006.jpg |
You radiate ahiṃsā |
File:Ushiku Daibutsu 2006.jpg | |
Not by harming life |
Na tena ariyo hoti, |
||
You exemplify kindness and generosity and helpfulness.1 And I appreciate |
Hi, I'm just starting another attempt to stop the NKT people from 'taking over' the Wikipedia with their continuous edit-war to promote the Shugden practice. If you agree, please leave a note at Administrators noticeboard. rudy (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Andi Please see New Kadampa Tradition talk page Ta!!!Yonteng (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Just placed more stuff on NKT talk YontenYonteng (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Andi Thanks for all your help-I think I am going a bit mental on this they keep just reverting any critical banners Please, dont you know any committed admins who will take this on???Yonteng (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC) THANK YOU for your valuable neutral contributions to the NKT pageYonteng (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote in the NKT article, that Dorje Shugden is one of the two "essential practices" of the NKT (the other being Je Tsongkhapa Guru Yoga according to "The Essential Practices of Kadampa Buddhism"). Can you give me your view/NKT view on why this is so? There are many more Dharma protectors, right? Why this focus on him alone?
Also: has this practice been that prominent with earlier teachers like Trijang Rinpoche e.g. or is this emphasis on the practice an "invention" of Geshe Kelsang?
Also, do you know if he has been practicing (and recommending) it so intensively all along or only after the seperation from the FPMT and subsequent founding of the NKT?
I am asking this to get some hints (and maybe you could provide me with your view on that as well) as to how "sectarian" the NKT really is. Tsongkhapa as main practice already looks like theres a strong emphasis on Gelug views. Doubling that with Dorje Shugden as the other main practice could be interpreted in the direction of quite a strong sectarian attitide, at least the Dalai Lama would say, i guess... What's your view and/or NKT view on that? Why this emphasis on JTK and DS?
Also: NKT people always cite "political reasons" for the Dalai Lama's ban. What are those reasons in your opinion? Is it all about sectarianism/upholding the purity of the techings vs. Rime or is there something else behind it? Would be very happy if u had some answers for me but would of course also understand if u had better things to do :)
[Dharma] protectors, some of whom are quite ancient, are native Tibetan deities (not from India) and have traditionally enjoyed great devotion as ancestral guardians of a clan, a mountain range, or a region. Shugden, a kind of clan deity for the Geluk sect and for a region of Eastern Tibet, having been carried into exile, thus must himself be declared obsolete and be exiled by the Dalai Lama so that Tibetans in exile may develop a national, rather than clan, identity. This national identity is required only now, after they have fled the land that they regard as the site of the nation of Tibet. Tibetan culture becomes the same culture for all Tibetans only in retrospect.
Hi Andi. I just want to apologise to you for what might have looked like my deliberately messing around with your own alterations to the 'emptiness' part of the 'Buddhism' article. Our edits rather 'crossed' and clashed, I am afraid. Anyway, I did not intend to be 'contrary' or 'difficult' (unlike one certain infamous editor of Buddhist articles on Wikipedia - whom you surely know well!). I just wanted to clarify a couple of points on the tathagatagarbha teaching (e.g. that TG actually means 'Buddha matrix' or 'Buddha embryo', and that these teachings are given by the Buddha himself in the relevant TG sutras). Hope you are well. Thanks for your contributions. Suddha (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Andi, for your help with my Talk Page: I've been wondering why people's postings on my page never showed up! That problem is now solved - thanks to your good self. Am grateful to you. Oh, no need to answer this message. Just wanted to express my appreciation. Warmly, Suddha (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andi,
Disagreed with your reversal of my link to Modern Buddhism as well as you suggestion that the stub be considered for deletion. Modern Buddhism encompasses beliefs not found in the original "mainstream" forms of Buddhism. Buddhism has become for many a laundry list of nice to adopt precepts while deliberately ignoring more unpalatable edicts. An example, being a vegetarian is not necessarily being a Buddhist although there exists a tangible association. Finally secterianism has also found its way into Buddhism and the reader should be informed that all labelled Buddhism is not necessarily what was originally intended...
Look forward to you comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemesouviens32 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have persistently vandalised the Modern Buddhism article, I urge you to stop or will report you for vandalism.Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already reported you, no worries...i guess now we will both be banned for 24 hours. I really don't understand the purpose of your actions. What's the purpose of having two articles on the same subject? Andi 3ö (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, in order to prevent further edit-warring at Modern Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andi 3ö (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I contest this block as a matter of principle. I have not violated the 3RR, and i will not. (as opposed to the other user involved in the edit war - resulting in the page now being to his liking) I have used every measure beforehand to reach a consensus, there have been extensive discussions on the subject. I have not made the slightest ad hominem, and will not. (again as opposed to the other user) Also sea report on WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Thanx
Decline reason:
You're not blocked for 3RR or for personal attacks; you're blocked for edit warring. The history of the article makes it obvious. --jpgordon::==(o) 15:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{Unblock on hold|CIreland|(last appeal) hmm... I find it a bit strange that after discussing the subject at length i can be banned for trying to make the changes all but one editor agree on. Anyway, it is absolutely not necessary to block me. To quote WP:BP:"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". As you can see from the edit history of Modern Buddhism I clearly warned the other editor that i would report him after breaching 3RR and planned on sticking to it myself from the beginning. I have never and do not plan on breaking any rules. I honestly thought what i was doing was the right thing to do, which obviously was a mistake. It is absolutely not necessary to block me. I had not planned on and will not touch the Modern Buddhism page. Instead i'd like to participate in the discussion as the page i wanted to redirect has now been put up for deletion by User:Kotiwalo - which imho is a more radical approach, that i wanted to avoid in the first place by discussing it all here. Anyway...Thanx for your time! (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring for more context) Also: it would be very nice if u could relay the following message to User:Kotiwalo: he got it wrong in the request for deletion. I was not redirecting to Buddhism but to Buddhist modernism, that's a very important difference he should fix imho. It is worth discussing the other option as well, but that is definitely not what i was suggesting. Andi 3ö (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)|rspεεr (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)}}
[reply]
You seem to be handling this situation reasonably well, and I agree that Modern Buddhism doesn't look like that bad of an edit war. I'm going to ask CIreland if it's okay to unblock. rspεεr (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Once your block expires, I would like you to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Buddhism. I started the afd because that is the best way to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted/redirected. All constructive arguments are welcome. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"to ensure the decision is made based on consensus and arguments instead of edit warring" that's what you wrote on the deletion page. It's exactly what i was trying to do on talk:Buddhism#deleted_reference_in_intro_to_stub_"Modern Buddhism" All but User:Jemesouviens32 agreed with my reasoning. So what was i supposed to do in that case? Andi 3ö (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andi. Just wanted to say that, in my opinion, you're doing everything just fine! Don't let administrative procedure (getting blocked, etc.) discourage you. Keep up the good work! /ninly (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's as you suspect. Peter jackson (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Modern Buddhism. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. User:Jemesouviens32 (User talk:Jemesouviens32) 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andi,
Thank you for commenting on the Admin board. I also want to thank you for considering me at least somewhat "reasonable."
However, I did want to point out one important impression I got from your comment, which I don't think you really intended. You said, "If it was left to them, the NKT-article would consist of merely an exact copy of the NKT's own publicity material. This behaviour at least does come across as a bit cult-like from time to time..." Do you think this therefore justifies Yonteng's inclusion of the word cult in the intro? Obviously, we would need 3RS's to make such a claim, not base it solely on the behaviour of Wikipedia editors who contribute to the page.
That is to say, I wish that you had commented the (de-)merits of Yonteng's actual edit, not just the editors involved. Granted, both the edit being made and the editors themselves are what contribute to the edit warring, but that's precisely why I think we should discuss both aspects.
Thank you for your time and patience. Emptymountains (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have no problem with the additions you made nor with your comments. After all, Wikipedia works best when editors are willing to compromise. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you restored this to the lead section of Buddhism, please be so kind as to provide the entire paragraph from the source in context for me, per WP:V. Additionally, please explain to me how this meets WP:LEAD and where it is covered in the article. You are implying that there is a significant schism or disagreement, that Buddhist schools must agree on importance and canonicity, that there exists an exact nature of the path and that some teachings and scriptures are more important than others, and that this disagreement is covered in the body in a significant way to merit adding to the lead section. As you must be aware, none of these things are true. You are welcome to participate on the talk page, where discussion is ongoing. If you can't do these things, I will remove it again. Thanks for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your recollection of events is vaguely compatible with my vague ones. I'd add, since Viriditas asked about the source, that it's a false citation. There are a number of these in the article, & no doubt large numbers of them across Wikipedia. This isn't usually deliberate. What happens is:
Now that you've invited me here, I may as well comment on some other things said above.
Carl D. Olson, The Different Paths of Buddhism, Rutgers University Press, 2005, would presumably disagree with the wording discussed above: "vary on the exact nature of the path" (I've already mentioned this twice in Talk:Buddhism#Path of salvation).
"... in the centuries after Buddhism's arrival in Japan ... the so-called "schools" of Chinese Buddhism ... became institutionally distinct, and at odds with one another; in fact, in time they literally were at war with one another." (Lewis & Lewis, Sacred Schisms, Cambridge University Press, 2009, pages 79f)
"Dōgen ... claimed that ... he, Dōgen, had brought the only true Buddhism to Japan.[2]
Tathagatagarbha is important for many Nyingma & Kagyu teachers.
Let's keep the common core discussion in 1 place. Peter jackson (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dorje108's edits were reverted per Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Moreover other editors including myself have edited the article. Reinserting Dorje108's edits is not following Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOVS is not a policy guideline. Its an essay.VictoriaGraysonTalk 08:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andi, just to say that I am preparing a notice for the DRN on Joshua's edits. It is just a notice asking for help and advice, to see if anyone has any idea of a possible way forward.
I've named you as one of those involved in the dispute, along with Dorje, myself, Joshua, Victoria and Jim Renge, because of your help on the Karma in Buddhism article when you tried to reinsert some of the deleted material for discussion. Is that okay? I think all the other named editors are already aware that I'm doing this, but you might not be so thought I'd post to your talk page about it.
See User_talk:Dorje108#Attempt_at_filling_out_the_content_dispute_notice.
Also of course welcome any thoughts you have on all this. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this discussion is going on.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker
If it goes ahead I won't be able to submit the DRN Notice. Joshua Jonathan has posted notices about it to all his friends talk pages and to many article talk pages, so don't see why I shouldn't post a few notices about it also.
What do you think. Should I be restricted to 1500 words a day and 3 edits a day on any given talk page, and also same restriction for drafts of my posts in my user space? Please vote, either way. Robert Walker (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]