User talk:Kt66

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello!

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kt66! I'm Celestianpower. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Hello. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started:

There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or add {{helpme}} to your userpage - someone will come very, very quickly to your aid. Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck! --Celestianpower hab 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

David N Kay and OBC[edit]

I see in the NKT discussion you refer to David N Kay's book a lot. I know that he looked at the OBC as well as the NKT. I am about to visit an OBC monastery so I wondered if you could tell me what Kay had to say in general terms about the OBC. Positive or negative or somewhere in between? Thanks. Magic Pickle 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Magic Pickle 13:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

REDIRECT Dorje Shugdan Controversy to Dorje Shugdan[edit]

Hi Kt66, I've seen, that someone redirected the article Dorje Shugden Controversy to Dorje Shugden. If this is ok, it makes sence to check out, if the content of D.S.Controversy should be integrated into the D.S. article and to copy the discussion on D.S.Controversy to D.S. also, in order to keep views in public. If it's not correct it makes sence to revert the D.S.C. kindly --12 Tenma 16:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there..[edit]

Thanks for your message - however, I am unsure about the import. You see, I feel that there is a substantial, factual basis for assuming that the NKT is not Buddhist; - this largely depends upon the identification of GKG as a Buddha. I am aware that some Tibetans who make similar assertions about their Gurus, but there are some substantial differences with the NKT - the students are encouraged to believe that GKG is omniscient and unmistaken; and his students are actively discouraged to use their critical faculties regarding these qualities.

I am also concerned about the claim made by KP that GKG is a Gelukpa, and is unable to substantiate his claim. There are also doubts (if you read the letter, and other materials) regarding whether or not GKG is even a Geshe. What I do know for a fact, is that if he is claiming that he never took part in an initation given by His Holiness, then he is lying, as I have personal contacts with reliable witnesses on that issue: it is as good as if I had seen it myself.

The reason why this stuff bothers me, if you like, is that wikipedia is one of the top twenty websites on the internet. It must be made clear to the casually interested just what the NKT and (G)KG is. I am looking for a balanced article, but it must reflect the facts, rather than the brand and marketing.

I hope that KP will respond to my queries in a meaningful and reasonable manner. (20040302 22:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC))


Dear Kt66. It's been nice to meet you on these pages. I'm sorry that you didn't find what you needed in NKT and I hope that you will find what you need in the tradition that you are now in. I think your view of NKT and mine are quite different, as are the NKTs we have both experienced, but the world would be a boring place if we all thought the same (laughs). I wish you every happiness, now and always. With much love, --Kelsangpagpa 09:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

ordination etc[edit]

Hi - I understand. I am attempting to get some sort of collaborative environment, otherwise we will have a big edit war. I know that this is a tall order, as everyone has very distinct views about this subject. But I am hoping that by giving some compromise, we may find compromise in return... Thanks for your support and help with these thorny issues (20040302 07:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

Pratimoksha[edit]

Hi Kt, just wanted to say nice work on the Pratimoksha page, its looking really good. (Robertect 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)).

Short Answers..[edit]

1) The difficulty I have is not with your point of view, or your position, or your explanation of your experiences - The difficulty is that I believe that current members of NKT are less likely to feel fairly represented by a disillusioned ex-member of NKT. I have faith in your account - however, your experiences cannot fairly represent the entire organisation, just a snapshot of it. This is why textual and photographic evidence is so important. However, if you were able and willing to create an independant website that described your experiences and learning, then wikipedia can use that as reference material, but it is a lot of work for just a few articles!

2) My concerns about the NKT article is that the NKT members themselves are so busy sticking stuff under the carpet that no-one other than the most naive readers will trust it as being objective or realistic. This is what I have been trying to say to them, but they appear to be so narrow-minded as to see whatever I write to be anti-NKT propoganda. If the article was left to be written by NKT members, it would be similar to the same sort of marketing stuff that can be found on the NKT websites - half-truths, and a lot of glossing over history. I find that disappointing, and it lends itself to my concern that the NKT is indeed a cult.

3) I welcome and appreciate your contributions on the NKT articles - I believe you have a lot to say on the subject. I recommend you look at other articles to write about and contribute to - because the NKT corner is a tedious and weary battle. I feel that a lot of attitudes need to be adjusted concerning the NKT - and that the sect will suffer deeply when KG dies. I see a lot of similarities between NKT and ISKCON - both based around a central personality, with a lot more wealth than is healthy for a religious organisation. I guess my sole criticism towards you is one that you are very aware of - which is the need for you to improve your written english; but this only comes from practice.

All the best to you (20040302 19:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC))

RE NKT Discussion[edit]

Hi Kt,

I don't know how these discussion pages work, whether I should write here or respond in my page you can tell me!. I would be very happy to discuss these things with you and find it especially interesting that these Lama's are your teachers. Many thanks - Robert(Robertect 09:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)).

Hi Kt,

Thanks for your very nice comment on my discussion page. I really appreciate your input because I can see it comes from a good intention. I can relax any concerns you have about my emotional state however. I feel content and happy, and my experience is sufficiently well founded and deeply felt that I continue to feel happy and comfortable relying on Geshe Kelsang. FYI - I think the most stimulating point you made (for me personally) was regarding the interdependence of things, whether Gurus, students books etc, I am really enjoying thinking that through.

I have not replied further to your points only because I feel I have nothing else to contribute specifically to the Wikipedia and feel happy that people can read your views/experiences and my views/experiences and reach their own conclusions. I would however encourage you to write fully about your experiences good and bad -with a good intention- because I believe that Geshe-la and the NKT have a responsibilty to prevent these things that cause suffering, and not talking about them doesn't mean they go away. Therefore the first step is to make me/we/the NKT aware of the emotional impact of certain actions, however un-intentionally and then consider how to do things differently in the future. Futher I believe that the NKT has an enormous contribution to make to this world through the books, study programs and so forth, as you yourself experienced, the teachings and practices are very powerful; but these good qualities are easily destroyed in people's minds, and the Dharma cannot remain for a very long time, if they/we/I continue to upset and isolate others.

Lastly another reason I have made no further comments is beacause I feel that many subjects are beyond my capacity or knowledge to make any meaningful responses, such as texts by Je Phabongkha regarding Dorje Shugden or NKT policy regarding books they sell etc. So I leave that to the responsible lineage Gurus and of course regarding NKT matters to Geshe Kelsang(Robertect 10:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)).


Hi Kt, I wondered if you ever read the autobiography of Malcolm X? You might well enjoy it. I think he was a bodhisattva appearing in a wrathful form. Anyway, I thought of it because he was always prepared and courageous enough to follow what he understood to be the truth, and if later he found that he made a mistake, no matter how difficult, he would admit it and change. Particularly, like you, he faced a moment where it became clear to him that his spiritual father, Elijah Mohammed had distorted the Muslim faith and Malcolm X (a very public figure by then), had to renounce almost everything he had previously stood for and begin absolutely again. Additionally he knew this decision endagered his life, and indeed he was killed. As I mentioned before I am very happy with the Dharma I recieve but I can see that you at one point saw things very differently and I admire your courage and sincerity in persuing the path of truth, the path of Dharma. (Robertect 15:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

reply see user_talk of Robertect Kt66 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kt66,

Thanks for your note about using your name on the discussion page, I have corrected it! I wil only use your username in future.

I hope you are well!

With love, --Kelsangpagpa 22:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany is being replaced by a category[edit]

Hello! You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr (tɔk) 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Berlin wiki meeting[edit]

Hello, I have been mulling over this for some time (actually at least a year), and would like to propose a meeting of the Berlin-residing Users of the english wiki. Wolud you be interested at all, or do you think this a bad idea ? Thoughts are welcome. Cheers. Lectonar 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

After having collected some users willing to come, I created this subpage. Would you be so kind and add your ideas? As for the purpose of the meeting: I would say plain old fun should be enough..and who knows, perhaps something of a project could be born of this. Lectonar 12:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


New user[edit]

Hello KT66! I have been following the discussions between yourself and a few other people around Dorje Shugden, NKT and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. I have found the comments very interesting. As an NKTer of 2 1/2 years I don't agree with all the points raised, but thanks for your work. I am sorry to hear about the problems you had when you were with the NKT, and am very happy that you have found another tradition and are still pracitising. It seems like there is another edit war starting with these entries in Wikipedia - oh dear! I personally don't think anything can be achieved. I think everyone who goes on the discussion page has their own views and will probably not change them. As the first line of the Dorje Shugden entry says "Dorje Shugden is an Incarnate entity whose precise nature--angelic or demonic--is disputed...." - I don't think in a way there is much more to say! We will not be able to prove it one way or another. Anyway, I would be happy to discuss my point of view about the NKT and DS which you have raised, especially around emptiness. I am not going to go on the discusion pages though, as I think these issues should have a degree of privacy around them, and it is easy for me to generate the wrong motivation. I can feel a lot of pride and desire to prove people wrong and to get my own way arising when thinking about editing these entries, which are not beneficial minds to have! If you want to write, my address is p_m_kenny@hotmail.com. All the best. Patrick Kenny --Patrick K 14:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject[edit]

Greetings! If interested, please join WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism. I hope that it will assist us in ensuring articles are of high quality. Sylvain1972 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Berlin[edit]

Hi Kt66 , would be great to see you voting here Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week and promoting it to friendly users . thanks a lot Sashandre all the best for you

Hey[edit]

Sorry, I got confused what you were asking - I'm willing to help, but which particular conversation do you feel needs analysis? Take care! (20040302 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

New Kadampa Tradition:Take Over Transcription[edit]

Hello - I have posted a response on Talk:New Kadampa Tradition:Take Over Transcription to your questions regarding verifiability. Please let me know if I can be of any further help --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NKT[edit]

Robert wishes to change two sections of the NKT article Hi there KT.. Which specific sections? I'm getting confused by the considerable traffic on Talk.. :) (20040302 09:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Avanze[edit]

Thanks for your advice Kt66, I am quite a new user of Wikipedia. I used to be a 'New Kadampa' myself, around 1996 before I left the tradition over a year later. So naturally I have a little experience with the Shugden issue. I have since been fortunate enough to found a new lama; H.H Sakya Trizin no less. Anyway, you mentioned you were shocked by the behaviour of Geshe Kelsang in Berlin 2000, what actually happened here? Avanze 11:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt66, Yes, I would like to know the details of Berlin Festival in 2000. Here is my e-mail for privacy; (sunrise.redeemer@yahoo.co.uk). Regards Avanze 14:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt66, About the current Pabongkhapa Tulku the Administrator of E-Sangha called Namdrol told me he did not practice. As for Zong and Tenzin Osel, from who would they have received the lineage teachings and empowerments? Tenzin Osel might be quite obvious since he is under the care of Lama Zopa. Please feel free to revert or change the details as necessary. Kind regards, Avanze 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kt66, I have clipped the end from the paragraph for now. Do you think is it worth adding to the article at a later date if accurate sources can be found? Avanze 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kt66, I am very interested in which Theravada monastery will you be staying at, it sounds quite wonderful. Ever since I left NKT, I would like to visit more centres and monasteries of all different traditions. There are a couple of monasteries in Scotland, I believe. A telephone call is fine just let me know when the time is right for you and a safe journey. Luckily there is nice weather in England at the moment.

WP:LIVING[edit]

WP:LIVING is a non-negotiable policy. It requires a certain reputableness and reliableness for all sources used. Removal of negative information improperly cited is immune from the three revert rule. I did discuss on talk page, you simply do not understand the seriousness and non-negotiability of WP:LIVING. Ekajati 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Copyright is automatic and does not require notice. Every website is protected by copyright, whether it has a notice or not. Please desist or I will report you on the admin noticeboard. Ekajati 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please go to the admin, it is good to have some assistence. I am doubting if this is the case that the copyrights are violated... Thank you for your effort--Kt66 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. See also 10 Big Myths about copyright explained, points 1 & 3. Thanks. Ekajati 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-) --Kt66 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on copyrights[edit]

Wikipedia has a stringent policy concerning copyright violations. Please take time to review it. See the right-hand side menu for the full series related to copyrights. If you are the author and have released the information, for example GFDL, then you may post. If you are not the author and the informatin has a GFDL release, or is in the public domain, you are free to post it. Otherwise, as you have previously been informed by User:Ekajati, you may not post the copyrighted information in articles or on their talk pages. If you continue to do this, you will be subject to being blocked from editing. — ERcheck (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]

I've mention this rule to you before, but please be aware that you have violated the three revert rule which may subject you to being blocked from editing. Ekajati 21:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Michael Roach. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.. Please adhere to WP:BLP and discuss controversial changes on the article talk page to reach consensus. A content dispute does not excuse one from the 3RR rule. — ERcheck (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Violations of Wikipedia rules may be brought to the attention of administrators through various means — Administrators' noticeboard/incidents for one. If you find an editor violating rules and you have attempted to discuss these with the editor, you are welcome to report problems. Often violation of rules are due to an editor's unfamiliarity with the rules — which can often be remedied quickly by pointing out appropriate policies and guidelines. (Stepping away during periods of WikiStress is often a good idea — it keeps things from escalating.) — ERcheck (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources for information on what is required as a reliable source. It is policy on Wikipedia that verification is required. — ERcheck (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary block (8 hours)[edit]

Modern clock chris kemps 01.png

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for violating WP:3RR. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I took a temporary rest. --Kt66 11:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Roach article[edit]

Thank you for putting your proposed updates on the article's Talk:Michael Roach page. Considering the edit issues with this article, please reach consensus on the talk page before putting the proposed update into the main article. I have removed your addition to the main article and will be posting a comment on the talk page to explain.

Verifiability remains an issue: Though you reference a 2003 posting to Michael Roach's internet site, it is not verifiable. In review of archived versions of his website in 2003, I have yet to be able to find such information. The 2003 pages indicate that his three year retreat would end in 2003. (It should not be up to the reader to have to do an extensive search to try to verify information. The "burden of proof" is on the editor who is adding the information.)

ERcheck (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Archived webpages: One source for archived webpages is www.archive.org. It does take some time to navigate. For Michael Roach's website, here is one of the search result pages [1]. — ERcheck (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Newest edits / editor for Michael Roach article[edit]

Kt66, Are you User: Zvu Ben-Dor? This new editor has just inserted the "open letter" information to the Michael Roach article. If you have established a new account to edit this article, please be aware that this is called sockpuppetry and is specifically not allowed. — ERcheck (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear ERcheck, thank you it's not me, please check the IP's than you can see it.--Kt66 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The {{controversial}} template is a good idea. In order to avoid edit warring, it is appropriate that consensus be reached before edits are made to the main article. — ERcheck (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply Geshe Michael Roach & Ekajati[edit]

No problem. Glad to know it was just a misunderstanding. :-) Ekajati 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems now that there was never a "misunderstanding" in a way. It seems to me my feelings towards your actions were more reliable than my common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekajati Ekajati worked hard to ban every critic at Michael Roach page as well as user:Hanuman Das and user:A Ramachandran at the end all of them were the same person and banned from Wikipedia in January 2007 because of Sockpuppetry. Nevertheless all the best and thank you very much. Regards --Kt66 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well[edit]

Sorry, I can't help with Kelsang Gyatso article right now. I'm going to into WikiSeclusion for a while and won't be editing.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden[edit]

Looked over the Kelsang Gyatso and NKT section and it looks pretty balanced. The only issues I have are not so much content related:

  1. That first sentence is way too long and run on. I don't really see how to reword it right now, maybe you have an idea? It would be clearer if it were two or maybe even three sentences.
  2. There is a bare quote which is cited but not introduced. From Tricycle I think. It would be best if it had a lead in about so-and-so said in Tricycle magazine...

I'll look at the NKT next. —Hanuman Das 03:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much.
  1. "That first sentence is way too long and run on." The first sentence of what article do you mean, GKG/NKT/Shugden article? I think Shugden article, isn't it? We had first a short introduction "Dorje Shugden is a deity of Tibetan Buddhism whose precise nature — angelic or demonic — is disputed among adherents of Tibetan Buddhism, especially its Gelugpa sect." but User:Ekajati prefered to use the buddhist-dharma-names and I think it is to much special now for non-Buddhists. I prefer the sentence mentioned here. we can reinclude it if you feel better with this. What do you think?
  2. the tricyle reference I will check and improve.
again thank you, --Kt66 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

New Kadampa Tradition[edit]

The changes you have made seem to be improvments. I do have a concern about a couple of sentences:

Are there reports about what each of the Buddhist teachers listed said about Shugden? For example, what about Namkhai Norbu, what did he say about Shugden? I think a reference will be needed for each Lama's statement and where it can be found. Or alternatively the list can be shortened to include only those whose statement can be pointed to. —Hanuman Das 03:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

except Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche all Lamas are mentioned at [2] and they have their own reference for it. I do not know more about it. Maybe we have to balance: According to....? As with Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche there is an article on Shugden by one of his disciples, Raimondo Bultrini, citing Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche about his insisting on warning "on the importance of failing to appreciate the danger inherent in such cults" regarding Dorje Shugden. This was published in Januray 2006: "A Spirit of the XVII Secolo", Raimondo Bultrini, Dzogchen Community published in Mirror, January 2006. I have a copy of that article and can give more details if needed. I put the reference in the article and balance it. Please have a look afterwards and be so kind to look on the balance and if the NPOV template is reasonable or not (see NKT:talk page). Thanks a lot, --Kt66 14:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my talk page. I think your suggestion to include more references is fine. I am at something of a loss in capability to understand this article or the controversy surrounding it, as I myself am something of an agnostic with an adversion to organized religion and am inclined to believe most forms of it are crooked to begin with. So, while I am inclinded to sympathize with your position on NKT I am unable to easily see how most forms of organized religion are not corrupt, however I can see that focusing mainly on the corrupt aspects of NKT may seem to some people like undue weight. I will wait for Excellentone's consent before circulating my response to his AMA request. However, how do you feel about pursuing this issue through formal or informal mediation? I think that would be the best option towards resolving this if such a thing is possible. Best,--Amerique 00:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I am putting this case on hold until Excelentone or anyone interested in participating in informal mediation with you gets in touch with me. Best,--Amerique dialectics 05:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. Don't let this hold up real progress on the article. I guess if/when they want to continue they will let you or me know.--Amerique dialectics 07:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kt66,

Excellentone has requested me to nominate the article for deletion. Personally, I think the outcome would be "keep and thorough rewrite," but I am obliged to help make his case in the forum he wants to take it to. I told him I would do this Monday.--Amerique dialectics 19:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Page on Michael Roach[edit]

Dear Kt, sorry to reply so late, but did not notice your message before... Anyway, as you said, there is an editing war surrounding Michael Roach, so whatever one adds will probably be erased by uncritical believers. I feel very hurt by what happened to him, being such a promising teacher, and now seemingly simply off-track... Anyway, by it's nature, Wikipedia is a great medium, but I think not for these kind of controversial subjects (just like the NKT...) rudy 21:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello to all, there is a new website dedicated to show the truth about the NKT www.newkadampa.com[edit]

Hello to all, there is a new website dedicated to show the truth about the NKT www.newkadampa.com We need more articles in as many languages as possible, or translations... please come and help

Mahakala

What is "the truth"?[edit]

Hi, I've seen it. To be frank: I have to say too that the website is heavily one-sided although the articles presented there are published indeed as published in the newspapers and the like. However maybe you can take up the challange to balance it or ask the NKT for a statement to balance it or give also NKT members the opportunity to express their view there. Now it looks quite "Anti". I think the website on the Geshe Michael Roach controversy has improved that matter and can serve as a model how to deal with such tasks. Of course I understand where there is strong "Pro" based on blurring the facts this provokes a strong feeling of "Anti", however, balancing is maybe the better way. This is what I decided to follow - present I am just in a period of training that. Another thing is: the "truth" is relative. What one sees as the "truth" is dependend on the own understanding, knowledge, inner dispositions, social and cultural background and from which angle one is looking on a subject. Remember the buddhist story of the elephant discribed by blind people: One touched the leg and described the elephant as "like a tree" another blind touched the tails and described the elephant "like a rope".... All what they described are relative truths and true. The perspective of a person who is not blind can see the whole elephant and can even understands the blind and what is going on. However this holistic view on the elephant is also not the "truth" it is relative as well. If you look from the perpective of a tiny insect inside the body of the elephant there is just a huge amount of flesh...if you look from the perspective of a hungry mosquito there are tons of delicious blut the mosquito could enjoy. If you look from the perspective of a human which is faced with a rage elephant trying to kill him he will fear him and run away, whilst the mosquito is riding on the elephant, getting a kick and enjoying the blut. There is no "truth". There is no "truth" is also not the truth. What is the truth? Warm Regards, --Kt66 09:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

NKT[edit]

Well, I've started making some edits to the NKT page. Unfortunately, I don't know a lot about this matter and so I have only a limited ability to resolve conflicts. By the way, I thought you might be able to help me with something. How good is your Tibetan? Perhaps you could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan) and give your opinion.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks anyway. If you happen to be talking to someone who knows something about Tibetan and might be amenable to Wikipedia, please steer 'em our way.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Letter letter number number[edit]

Lieber Kt66, hier spricht der "NKT representative in Hamburg" :-). Wie ich höre und lese schreibst du auf der NKT Diskussionsseite über mich. Wie du weißt, habe ich mich schon vor Monaten aus der deutschen WP zurückgezogen. Ich habe gerade mal auf meine Benutzerseite geschaut und finde dort keinen Hinweis von dir. Vielleicht schaust du selbst: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gen_Kelsang_Yarpel. Vielleicht hast du dich vertan? Vielleicht meinst du mich auch gar nicht? Du erinnerst dich vielleicht, dass wir uns immer gegenseitig respektiert haben, auch wenn wir nicht einer Meinung sind. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du die Bemerkung über mich von der Diskussionseite löscht, da sie nicht ganz korrekt ist. Ich glaube, ich habe dich tatsächlich mal mit deinem Namen angeredet, aber ich habe nicht gewußt, dass das auf WP eine Unsitte ist. War für mich ganz natürlich, da ich mich selbst ja auch mit meinem eigenen Namen angemeldet habe, obwohl ich manchmal wünschte, ich hätte das nicht getan. Ist doch auch persönlicher, gerade wo man sich doch von früher kennt :-). Noch eine Anmerkung: solange du die Identität der Diskussionsteilnehmer nicht kennst, weißt du nicht, ob es wirklich NKT Anhänger sind. Sie könnten auch von anderen Gruppen sein, vielleicht von Lama Dechen. Bei Excellentone scheinst du dich auch vertan zu haben, wenn ich ihn richtig verstehe. Vielleicht möchtest du noch etwas mehr von dem Beitrag löschen, als nur den Kommentar über mich? Vielen Dank und alles Gute. KY37 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieber GKY, danke für Deine Korrektur! Der Kontakt war nett mir Dir, keine Frage. Du hast mich fast nur mit Taschi angesprochen. Ich habe gesehen, dass ich Dich nicht auf Deiner Nutzerseite darauf hinwies das zu unterlassen, wie von mir falscher Weise behauptet, auch auf den Dikussionsseiten fand ich beim schnellen Durchsehen keine solche Zurückweisung des Gebrauchs meines persönlichen Namens. Von daher ist der Punkt von mir falsch und ich werde ihn entfernen. Bitte entschudige und vielen Dank für Deine Mühe und den Hinweis! Wenn noch etwas falsch ist oder Du etwas ungerecht/nicht richtig von mir angesprochen fühlst, sage es mir bitte, bin Dir sehr dankbar dafür. Ich nehme es auch gerne ganz raus! Meine private Email ist: 100.277607(at)germanynet.de Alles Liebe und Gute. --Kt66 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

short reply to Dwain Kitchel on Kelsang Gyatso article[edit]

Thank you for your great exposition of my POV edit to the main article. I call myself a "poor student" at the end of signing my name because Geshele would not approve of me being involved with defending his name.

How you can be poor if you have Buddha nature? Why do you have no self-esteem?

It is wasting time i should be studying the dharma, in his correct view.

Correct view is also gained by discussing and debate. Tsongkhapa himself established this to help the practitioners overcoming wrong views and of course you can debate and discuss with everyone who is following the rules of a debate/discussion and wishes to debate/discuss. By the way how do you can be sure that GKG has "correct views"? Did you proof it critically by different means or do you follow NKT advertisment and your feelings? Maybe you have at that time less ability to be sure that GKG has correct views and you should be careful whom you folow and to whom you put your faith in, especially if you feel yourself as a "poor student", because this is indicating that you maybe have less discriminating intelligence and less self-esteem to separate right from wrong. The latter is a good basis of being misused by charismatic leaders...

The main article as it stands is highly corrupted, because nowhere in it is the substantiation of the ban on Shugden Worship.

What is the substantiation of the Shugden worship? The controversy on Shugden is in the Shugden article, did you read it yet?

You claim to be unbiased?

No I do not claim of being unbiased. Who is unbiased? I am open to learn and correct my views if they are not correct. Maybe being unbiased is mere an approach until you attain real equanimity. Also being unbiased doesn’t mean one can not have a correct discrimination and opinion.

Clearly there is a great history to this subject which can stand as proof. The actions of the 5th and 13th Dalai Lama's are verifiable history and furthermore there is greater substantuation of Shugden Worship in these histories. To remain unbiased this article must explain this conflict, because to leave it out, removes the basis for all the actions taken by those that assert GKG is mistaken in all these actions, when they are based exactly on this conflict.

For the Shugden topic just see the Shugden article and check if it is unbiased. I think it is. GKG and his deeds are of course in connection with Shugden but also with his personal dispositions and personal views. The Shugden article has a passage about this. In this article it is not needed stressing this topic to much.

Clearly one who believes in the diety of Shugden, as his root teacher taught him, who is then faced with a ban from HH(which ever generation this HH has emanated in), must in fact, as you have so elouquently stated in your rebuke of my edit, discount this 'guides' mistake.

There is no ban, just study the facts. If you follow Shugden and believe whatever your root Guru said even when contradicting logic, even when contradicting the facts and even when contradicting Buddha’s teachings or even when it is wrong or you follow what your root teachers says even when it is not in accordance with the Dharma, I think this will be a problem for you, of course, because such behaviour is not according to reality and is not wise. Every teacher can make faults and although a desciple should not dwell on his faults he should also not follow them, following the faults of one's Guru leads to corruption of the doctrine. Your claim and approach is not common in Buddhism and there is no source of Buddha or Tsongkhapa for this approach, however Shugden followers, mainly GKG's followers, believe in that way as you have told. Instead of your/GKG's approach there are quotes of Buddha and Tsongkhapa to do the opposite of what you have claimed here. There is no advice of following one sided with blind faith as I said above yet. Just ask youself why Tsongkhapa had to revise the teachings even of his Gurus! Geshe Kelsang nowadays goes so far to claim his personal opinions that Shugden is Tsongkhapa (and vis-a-vis), and that Trijang Rinpoche and Pabongkha Rinpoche are Tsongkhapa’s manifestation as facts. By claiming further that Tsongkhapa appears also nowadays "in the aspect of a Spiritual Teacher who teaches the instructions of the Ganden Oral Lineage" he is implying skilfully and indirectly that he is Tsongkhapa as well, because he is in the line of that teachers, feels and believes that he holds the 'pure' "Ganden doctrine" and of course a “pure Kadmapa Buddhist” will see Geshe Kelsang himself as Tsongkhapa's emanation otherwise he fear to have an impure view and fears of not getting blessings and attainments. – for GKG's claims see GKG's teaching at Who is Dorje Shugdän) ---> all these claims of GKG are mere his personal assertions and these are the unsourced, unverified and uncommon claims of a “root Guru”. No genuine Buddhist teacher in the Gelug school of Je Tsongkhapa will see it in that oversimplified and surfaced way as he does.

The 13th Dalai Lama rebuked his own mistaken ban of Shugden, when at the end of his life this emanation of the Dalai Lama rebukes his own mistake where will your logic stand?

Sorry maybe you swallowed to much propaganda. Please study also other sources than NKT’s as well. Who claimed this what you claim here? The 13th DL rebuked Pabongkha Rinpoche for Shugden practice. Please read Dreyfus’ research or Kay’s research on this field. They are both unbiased.

You propose to give naive young Buddhist seekers the truth, so that they may not indescriminately take a wrong step. And yet through this main article you in fact muddy the water by withholding these "facts" on the Shugden matter?

The "truth" has different aspects and perspectives... What do you wish to add? What should be made clear? What is wrong or biased?

When the article clearly states the full history of this conflict(both sides)including the possibility that the current HH is mistaken in his ban(as it has so amply convicted GKG-of what?), can this article be said to be an unbiased account of this situation and a valid springboard of true knowledge for aspiring young students.

This is done in the shugden article yet.

Please read your own admonitions to me for the basis of this response. And until such time as these conditions are met(conditions that you yourself demand) remove this abomination of half truth from the eyes of young impressionable readers.

Where there is the "abomination of half truth"? What has to been improved?

Have you no shame?

What do you feel I should have shame for?

Have you no mirror that you might see your half truth self expressed in? You demand critical thinking and yet allow this to stand as is?

Please be clear and express where there is a wrong fact or something distorted. Please instead of using nice packed and spiritual sounding but bluring words just be concrete. So far for today. Take care. --Kt66 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The article makes every effort to "paint" Geshele as someone who represents great negatives: he was thrown out by his abbots, he runs a cult, he has insulted the Dalai Lama, his followers are sheep, NKT teachers are fly paper waiting to trap unwary migrators. Where in the article is the balance to this? Oh some people allow his books to be used? Nothing is mentioned about all of these conflicts being related to the same thing, a refusal to break his vows to his root guru. It is one thing to state his sins and little else, it is quite another to present a balanced article that deals with these issues from both sides. The article allows mention of his expulsion, without ever covering why, how is this correct? How is his expulsion a valid fact? How do you kick out someone gone 20 years ago? He is excommunicated by the abbots? He was a valid community member for 20 years and then suddenly he is not? An article that has claim to be unbiased would question that don't you think? Would it also hold the statement that some sections were being written by an ex NKTer with a terrible bias?? Both of us may tell the same "facts" but by the slant of our telling we may tell two distinct versions of the same story. The representation that he runs a cult, is like me asking you if you are still beating your wife every night? No matter what is answered the insinuation remains, that you beat your wife. You can no more prove that NKT is a cult, than i can prove that you have finnaly stopped beating your wife. I have been a member of this "cult" for nearly 20 years, i come and go as i please, they may remove me from their rolls if i am gone too long, they never have done this, they are always happy to see me back. They send no drones after me to insure that i do not leave the fold, they do not send me death threats if i speak out about my experiences. What sort of cult is that...where is that fact in this article??? They remain completely open to these spurious attacks, in it anyone who acts as if they wish to promote him are only allowed facts. And yet though there is no proof Geshele has ever said "i am the THIRD BUDDHA", but that unfactual claim is implied by the statement that some of his followers may have said this. It is not a fact, it should be stricken from this article. Have you ever heard Geshele say this? No you have not, because i know you haven't, because he would never say such a stupid thing. He has stated clearly that he never did anything inappropriate about the Dorge Shugden affair in his open letter, that is a fact. Yet no where do i see this posted. You may think he lied, but you have no proof, why is this fact not listed? I may list as a fact about your personal life, that some pyschologist listed you as a potential homophobe only i leave the truth about this spurious accusation on some page 10 link jumps away, where a homosexual friend of yours says that he has been your friend for years and knows that you are not a homophobe. I can call you a jack booted rascist because i once saw you cut in line in front of Jewish person, and you are German so the idiocy of that lie may stick. The idiocy of the lie that Geshele is a cult leader is difficult to disprove, especially so when the accused has no desire or intrest to defend himself because his beliefs tell him it is a pointless struggle. Still as someone who knows this is not a cult it offends me to no end, it is as offensive as me calling you a rascist. There is no proof, nothing in an encyclopedia that is not fact or statement from the person the article is written about should be included. Remove all mention of him leading a cult and being the third buddha, included both points of view at every mention of an action involved with the Dorje Shugden controversy, if he is to be listed as controversial then so should the Dalai Lama, in the same sentance or remove it.

Clearly you have no wish to answer me, you hope that i will tire of this and go away, i am not going away. I will join wiki, make contributions to the funds, become a respected editor of subjects deverse and wide and we will enter a revert war. I will add to the dalai lamas page that he is a controversial leader because of the shugden ban, it will be reverted. Personally i wish i would go away, drop this, but i can't because i know the man you are smearing. Because i know that he is a valid teacher that is helping poor mother migrators to find enlightenment, to seek the end of their delusions. I have not added or removed anything, i have not reverted, i am waiting for you to answer my points. I am doing my best to state my case clearly and with reason and examples. But if your action is to ignore me, you force me to continue my action, you wish to debate points, i have made my points. You refuse to answer. How is that a debate? I am open to reasoning with you. The fact that some magazine stated he is a cult leader, or cult like, does not make it a fact. An unproven statement made many times by many people is still an unproven statement. If you want me to go away, cogently discuss this matter with me, hear my reasoning and balance the article. As it stands it violates fair light and libel, perhaps not enough to win a law case, but i bet it will not stand when taken to the highest wiki court. If you force me i will do it. I got nothin but time my friend and i promise you i will not let this axe job stand as it is. It will be balanced if i have to outlive you to do it. Perhaps NKT will strike me from their rolls, it will not change my belief in this teacher, nor the belief that this is the propper path he is teaching. Clearly i am over the line with attachment to this issue, clearly you are too. I will match you step for step until the article is balanced, until it is not smearing him. If at some far flung point in the future, it is proven that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso runs a cult, by a court of law, where he has oppertunity to defend his name and is judged by a jury of his peers, i must rationaly relent that point. Until then i will fight this smear. I will also fight the smear that he is controversial unless full disclosure of the controversy is added, both sides, if you call him controversial then you must out of journalistic fairness also admit the Dalai Lama is controversial in his ban. And you are free to quibble all you want that it isn't a ban, the Dalai Lama can backtrack all he wants, when you force someone to forego their vows(not teachings), vows to their guru, to remain a mainstream Buddhist, it is a ban. I am not threatening you, i am not being irrational, i am promising you that i will not go away on this until it is resolved. If you ignore me for months i will just seek the actions i have stated above, i will not get myself banned i will become a active member of wiki, work my way up the ranks, gain the respect needed to have enough sway and force this article to become balanced. If controversy must remain as a yoke around Geshele's neck then it shall go as well to the Dalai Lama. Is this silly, yes it is, is it stupid, yes it is. Just as silly and stupid as the article is, as it stands. I promise this to you, my friend, and we will become friends because we are going to be talking to each other alot, alot more than i am sure you want, but i have the time, the ability and the inclination to not let this smear stand. Save us both alot of time and attachment my friend, or watch me go to work :) Namaste dwain kitchel68.164.2.147 06:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi I have not that much time. Let's see what am I able to and have some patience with me. Also you are responsible yourself to understand both sides. It is not my job to make this for you. I have studied and know both sides quite well. I have teachers of both parties. Please do not accuse me of heavy bias without lacking non-pasian attitude and knowldege of the topics yourself. As long as you didn't have proper information and you seem to possess only one-sided information you'll never be able to go through a good discussion of the articles and I will not take you serious. Look at Robertects openess and attitude - although we disagreed we had a kind of reasonable discussion. Regards, --Kt66 14:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that u have little time for this endevor, and i will try to exercise patience in this "talking". I will also endevor to be balanced in my responses and "promises" as i am quite sure you are of the mind that i am unbalanced by some of my statements/promises. But i am not, and it is my wish to clear Geshe Kelsang's name here. Not to protect NKT but to allow others to come to know this good man as i have, without bias. One thing that has been strongly on my mind is your indication that there is no mention in Buddha's teachings about forsaking your teachers teachings. I think this is false, clearly the Buddha did say to use all discrimination before following his path. This differs strongly from what one must do after haveing made the choice to follow his path though. Once one takes vows to be a Buddhist i think the Buddha was very clear about this. Perhaps this is like Supan's snake, we both see the multi colored cord and have differing perceptions arise about what we see? I have tried to find direct indication in the sutras about this:

>Good man, if one wishes to accomplish the wisdom of all wisdom, then one must decisively seek a true good knowing [spiritual] advisor. Good man, in seeking for a good knowing advisor, do not become weary or lax. And upon seeing a good knowing advisor, do not become satiated. As to a good knowing advisor and all his teachings, you must follow and accord. As to expedient devices employed by a good knowing advisor, do not find faults.>

I have lots of others, where i think the Buddha stated exactly my claim but for brevity's sake will forego filling up your page with them. I now have a page and would invite you to continue this disscussion there. Where we might room to talk at length.Dwaink 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

see my answer at your page kt66

Reply re Geshe Roach[edit]

I got your note on my talk page, but I don't really have much knowledge about the policies in this area. I do know that she is correct that the copyright on letters is held by the author of those letters, so the republication of Geshe Roach's letters on that site may indeed violate copyright if they don't have his permission. This would apply even to "open" letters unless they specificly say somelike like "please republish this letter widely" or some other langauge like that. However, unless the author explicitly put the letter into the public domain, he could probably still take legal action agaist republication if such republication was intended to harm his reputation. That does appears to be the case here.

I see in the policy linked from the infobox at the top of the talk page,Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, doesn't really discuss linking, though it does say the a source like a blog that is not acceptible as a source may be linked to if if belongs to the subject. That wouldn't apply in this case. Looking at the external linking policy though, I see it says this:

if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Based on this, I myself would not link to this site. As to the other issue about anonymity of source, I see there is a noticeboard where these issues can be discussed, presumably with experts. If I were you, I'd remove the link and post a query on that noticeboard, clearly presenting user Ekajati's arguments (probably better if you quote her) to get an opinion on whether she is right or not. Personally, I think the creation of such a site is in very bad form, karmically questionable, and a distraction from right practice for those involved. But I don't intend to get involved with editing that article myself...

A Ramachandran 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As we can see now in the Sockpuppetry Case you run an agenda against critical links on controversial Gurus. However the case is solved now and the critical link is included. Regards, --Kt66 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I just ask why you're writing with such a negative mind? So you've had a bad experience. Thousands have had positive experiences. I know you're on a mission to get your views across, but you're upsetting a great many people by your actions.

I feel not having a negative mind but maybe you know more about me than I ;-) --Kt66 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You![edit]

Hi Kt66, This is the first time I've written on Wikipedia and I just wanted to thank you for all your efforts, and especially for getting the critical link included on the GMR page. I think it is very positive that balanced perspectives are being presented, and I am sure that many people will benefit. Best wishes. Johnfos 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan transliteration[edit]

Thanks for your attention to the subject. There hasn't been very much sustained attention to it from very many parties over the last year or so, so not much progress has been made. Also, our friend Babelfish has had limited access to Wikipedia and I didn't want to proceed with anything without him being able to give input. Currently, I'm a bit busy due to some changes in my professional life, so I don't have a lot of time to devote to the subject. Basically, I think the naming conventions should acknowledge that we should always be using the commonly accepted conventional spelling for a given Tibetan name; thus, Kagyu must always be written Kagyu, Shigatse must be written Shigatse, and Karmapa must be written Karmapa. Actually, no naming convention on Wikipedia should ever be at variance from this rule (with the partial exception of the rule on names of Western and Middle Eastern royalty and religious hierarchs). The only thing we need a naming convention for is to tell us how to spell things in case a conventional name cannot be determined, or if we are transcribing ordinary Tibetan words. I have some ideas on how to do that, but I don't know how much support my suggestions would receive. I might type something up about it later. Cheers, Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pursuant to this, check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan)/proposal 2 when you get a chance.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

The Dorje Shugden controversy is clearly a very difficult topic, both complex and controversial. While the article is not perfect, I think you did a very useful job there, Therefore I award you this.

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
To Kt66 for his remarkable contributions to the Dorje Shugden article. Stammer 10:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

...And thank you for inadvertently reminding me that Dorje Shugden still needs a lot more cleaning up. I'll get back to it shortly. Actually I think the article is way too long and detailed, but I am not about to upset folk by cutting it down. Maybe the "controversy" needs to be in a separate article now. Also it could really use a photo if you know of anything suitable.--Shantavira|feed me 07:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

FWBO[edit]

I've rewritten the article and 80.2.20.68 says he feels it is neutral. What do you think? Can we remove the cleanup banner as well? Rupa zero 08:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Vesak & Bodhicitta[edit]

Thank you KT for the Vesak present - sorry, I've been extremely busy lately and had very litle time for Wiki. The change in he Bodhicitta article makes good sense to me, thank you once more! :-)rudy 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Flag of Germany.svg

Hello, Kt66! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Dorje Shugden[edit]

Hi Thanks for giving me the heads-up. I definitely think this should be posted to WP:AN/I - these editors are deleting sourced content and ruining the article. I can't speak for the intricacies of this topic, so I honestly have no idea who's right and who's wrong, but deleting sourced, relevant information from a reliable third party is completely unacceptable. Since these all appear to be new accounts, you may want to request a check user if this continues. If you post on AN/I, let me know; I'll vouch for how terribly this article has been mutilated. -Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AN post I made a post on the main page of AN/I (rather than its talk page) to get more visibility. By the way, posting the same message on multiple users' talk pages is not inappropriate; it is a common way to get the attention of potentially interested editors. I don't recommend using it much (although, it was completely legitimate this time), and I would recommend that you only contact users you have some reason to think will be responsive. I don't know why you contacted me, but I was happy to help. -Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kt66,

I'm afraid I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to act in this case. Not that this has ever stopped me before, but I don't have time now. I would follow through with whatever the AN/I post leads to. Ameriquedialectics 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page spam[edit]

Hi.

Please refrain from leaving the same message on several user-talk pages at the same time. This is spam and is considered inappropriate. Furthermore, please refrain from leaving completely irrelevant messages on talk pages of people who are not at all involved with any of what you're talking about. Thanks! — Timwi (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that this is inappropriate, you were an editor and the new editors claimed, I am the only one who agrees with the old version. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Kt66 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hubris[edit]

Thank you very much for your polite and inclusive invitation to review the recent edits on the Dorje Shugden article. This controversy is one of political association, not one of spiritual inclusion. There is no evil other than separation and segregation given 'form' (Sanskrit: rupa) as thoughtform. Evil, as deity, is the external manifestation or projection of the internal: this is the poison, the obscuration of the continuum of the Five Pure Lights. Demonization, the personification of The Other, as illustrated in the application of the work of Said and the development of the Shadow in Psychology informs a psycho-sociological understanding of the Dorje Shugden phenomenon. In the nondual substrate of the mindstream there is no inner, no outer. I am ill-informed to edit the Dorje Shugden page due to the sapient scholarly convention of citation as a safeguard for probity ~ a time-honoured, laudable requirement for reputable article and knowledge iteration and development. That said, I will edit the article as per your request, repairing what I intuit is inappropriate in tone and implication. Please apprize me of future developments and if you would like to collaborate, solicit my attention. Fighting the hubris of elitism and the canker of spiritual pride starts with slaying the inappropriately prideful self, which is releasing the need for others to embrace the constructions of a mind in separation. That is the slaying of self, the self-sacrifice inherent in the teaching of Anatman. Concern yourself not with the distraction of political intrigue and with the prideful need to be right.
Blessings in the mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 11:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Sure You pointed out the exact resources I would have used on that talk page. Minority views are to be presented, but it is false balance to give them equal weight. Whatever the majority opinion is will be given due weight and controversies and alternative points of view given weight to the extent that they deserve (e.g. how many believe in this theory? Do believers in this perspective have credentials or experimental results to back up their claims? Does it have any impact on public legislation or health? Does it have a long or extensive history?, etc.) Again, I can't speak to the particulars of this case, as I am too ignorant, but if you two users cannot find a version of the article that works for both of you, you can do a few things:

  • Request for comment - In the past, I have found this to be lacking, especially in cases where expert knowledge is required.
  • Mediation - To sort out your differences without imposing a solution.
  • Arbitration - To impose a solution upon the editors of the article. This can determine what kind of content or sources are acceptable.

Also, if you feel that this user is another sock puppet of Wisdombudha/Wikilama, you can request a check user. I do not actually have the expertise or rights to help with these avenues, but I will be happy to assist you if you have more questions. As for whether or not the POV template is appropriate, it is in this case because there is a POV dispute and there is a post on the talk page about how the page is POV. -Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Retirement[edit]

So sorry It's sad to see you go; if you return and you want any assistance, please let me know. Have a pleasant real life. -Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dorje Shugden[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

AfD nomination of New Kadampa Tradition[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, New Kadampa Tradition, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

It counts...[edit]

Thank you so much for your kind words. I remember you with respect. And good luck and happiness in any future escapades! I completely understand the reasons for your retirement, and support your decision. (20040302 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

Outing?[edit]

I kindly request that you remove from the admin board the allegation that I outted you here. The person who used your name was editing from an IP address (which is not mine). My post under that only commented on the fact that the reference you posted was not in English. Emptymountains (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

you're right. It is my fault, I just checked. However the notice is already in the archive. I will look that I correct on the talkpages were people can still read it. thanks for your insistence and correction. --Kt66 (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do enjoy sparring with you! I hope you do too. (P.S. Did you get my email?) Emptymountains (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did't receive any email from 'Emptymountains'. Only from a person named 'Michael' referring to a Shugden blog, which is rather dangerous to visit because the owner may abuse it to check my IP. I do not enjoy to be frank because it makes so much work and so many arguments have to be said again and again, and its rather tiring to repeatedly remind the WP rules. However, I've noticed that you follow WP rules and are using 3rd party sources. After user:Robertect - a present NKT member who runs also the unofficial NKT Yahoo Group - you are the only one from NKT at Wikipedia with whom I think a fair discussion and work is possible. I lack words to express my appreciation for this. Thanks, and please feel free to correct or challange me where ever you can. --Kt66 (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll email the content of it to you in an email, and you can take it from there. In general, I try to be original and not to "repeat" the same things over and over, so hopefully you'll see something "new" in what I wrote worthy of your response. Equananimously yours, Emptymountains (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
See? I didn't cry "foul" when you posted my name above, as my userpage links to a private website that reveals my full legal name. You didn't out me; I had done it to myself! Emptymountains (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you think really this statement constitutes WP:outing? I think you mix different topics here. Another difference is that I never listed a first and a second name, only the full name makes someone recognizable and is what should be protected from happening. Moreover I only said what email I received (without quoting the full name) and it is up to you to reject or answer, all this also happened at my talk page because it was you who asked me. The situation and place is far different from what happened at the article talk pages. Although I like to put things into perspective whitewashing events is not my case. --Kt66 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do admit that my example wasn't exactly "foolproof," but all the recenting outings I remember only used your first name too, right? Emptymountains (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That's correct. Do you wish that I add the IP-WP:outing mistake by me to the archived Admins page? It's ok to do it, but usually nothing should be added to archives. --Kt66 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

copyvio in the article Dorje Shugden controversy[edit]

Dear Kt66, I'd be happy to have your view concerning the issue of copyvio in the article Dorje Shugden controversy (you can see here Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Copyvio some discussion about it). My proposal is to cut all the citations in this article in order to stop the easy and long copy-and-paste way used to write this article. I have tried several times to add encyclopedic data concerning the killing of Lobsang Gyatso, but in a systematic way, it was suppressed by some user. I beleive they are not resepcting wikipedia methods, and I notice this aspect of copyvio problem. This is why I am trying to get this article evoluate thanks to this. I believe this will help in the long run neutralise the article, and add encyclopedique aspect. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

both aims have my full support: to cut down the citations and to include the killing. The article is so heavily biased that it may better to delete it. The article follows not only heavily one pov it also has no priorities with respect to history. The present public protests by the WSS are rather unimportant but very present in the article and placed in the beginning of the article. This shows that them main editors lack a broader cross cultural and historical perspective and take minor events, they are probably involved in, as far too important. see also WP:COI. For me the article is just awful and not to advise to anybody, fortunately it is tagged with some templates. --Kt66 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Kt66, why don't you and I get a hold/protection or whatever put on the DS controversy article and work on it ourselves? Based on how well we've worked together in the past, I'm sure that between the two of us, we can come up with something "both sides" can agree on. We can take it one paragraph at a time (as I suggested to the editors several months ago), although in the end I'd like to see the total length of the article cut in half (or more!). Let me know what you think, whether such a collaboration is possible and would even be allowed by WP. Maybe we can first ask if the other editors would entrust this job to us, and then work on a sandbox version until it's ready to go live. Emptymountains (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
it would be good to have three or four editors who know or are willing to work through the sources and are rather neutral. Although we both may not fulfil the "neutral" or WP:COI criteria, at least there seem to be consent about the WP guidelines, access to 3rd party sources and the absence of 'awkward' manners or reasoning, which allow to improve the articles. However at this time I am still in a process to look what is going on here. The admins and capable non-WP:COIs seem to have given up and to stopped all their involvement or offering to take time for advice and opinion. So I have no personal opinion on this at this time. --17:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the poor level of the article. I believe the process of deleting the terrible news about the killing of Lobsang Gyatso, and the rewritting of the story and so forth suggest some terrible confusion in some editor minds. This is quite a concern for them. Wikipedia should offer them a way to get out of this by looking with neutrality into the sources. It is important to consider a coin has 2 sides. Giving each side an equal and neutral expression is the way to balance the mind. If they don't understand this, the sectarian aspect can bring these people mind down. I am happy some could get out of this. Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I took the initiative to do a makeover of the DS controversy article. Have look! Emptymountains (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Prehistory of the New Kadampa Tradition[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Prehistory of the New Kadampa Tradition, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Emptymountains (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Admire your Autonomy of Tibet banner[edit]

I admire your 'autonomy of Tibet' banner and have copied it to my user page. If you think it needs attribution or do not wish me to copy it, let me know or edit/remove it directly. Ste3ve H (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The never-ending story about Shugden[edit]

Hi, your favorite subject: 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) 13:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Vesak[edit]

Vesak at YM's temple.

A meaningful Vesak to you my friend. Please don't leave over fringe pov pushing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

DS and Truthsayer62 again[edit]

Our good freind Truthsayer62 has been repeatedly removing a POV template from the DS article again without discussion. Reasons for adding the template were clearly stated on the Discussion page of the article. Thought you might like to know since you told Truthsayer62 he would be reported if he removed a well reasoned template again. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Shugden input needed[edit]

Please see here. .TiredofShugden (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

here.Heicth (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dorje Shugden controversy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to CTA
Western Shugden Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to CTA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

see Talk:14th_Dalai_Lama[edit]

see Talk:14th_Dalai_Lama.Heicth (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see Dorje Shugden Controversy page[edit]

Please see Dorje Shugden Controversy page. Heicth (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard Incidents[edit]

Truthsayer62 created a discussion on the Adminitstrators Noticeboard Incidents page here. Heicth (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy Page[edit]

Please see. Heicth (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Kelsang Gyatso being a minor monk[edit]

Please provide references about Kelsang Gyatso being a minor monk and not a student of Trijang Rinpoche.Heicth (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for input regarding Western Shugden Society[edit]

Hi. You seem to have been one of the few editors who has been recently involved in the above named article. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI#Shugden SPA replacing academic material with self-published Shugden blogs and websites related to that topic. You are yourself not so far as I can tell named a party whose actions are in any way questioned, at least that I know of anyway, but I thought you might be able to provide some input and useful remarks regarding your knowledge of the article and topic and the recent history of both. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see this RFC[edit]

Please see hereHeicth (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia[edit]

Regarding your comments of reporting Prasangika37 to the Admins, Prasangika37 is already reported here. Maybe you want to weigh in.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VictoriaGrayson/sandbox/Dorje_Shugden_controversyVictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Dorje Shugden controversy[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Dorje Shugden Controversy. Thank you. Prasangika37 (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b A Brief History Of Opposition To Shugden by The Dolgyal Research Committee, TGIE, [3]