User talk:Nightngle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First controversy

On the Thich Nhat Hanh page, there is a tug of war going on with the phrase "people of color". There have been a couple of retreats by the OI for "people of color", and I added that fact to the TNH page, as one of several focused retreats given. The phrase was deleted, considering it controversial. I've recommended taking the discussion to the Colored article, since that article addresses the negative connotation of the phrase as well. Here's what I've written on the Talk:Colored page:

Connotation of the phrase "people of color"
The article states that the phrase "people of color" is offensive because it makes a distinction that implies being white is the benchmark. While I do understand this is true, on the other hand, when you do a Google search on that phrase, over 8 million results are found. On the first couple of pages, those results seem to indicate to me that ethnic and racial minorities use that phrase extensively to create activist organizations to support one another. Wouldn't it be a more neutral point of view to say that the phrase "people of color" is used in the positive ways of banding people together for social change and support, as well as being of a negative connotation to others?
Strikes me as challenging to both address issues for a minority group yet still remain respectful and neutral in judgements. Kind of like the hypothetical situation of a group of women of similar age, weight, height, hair color, same dress color, etc. across the room - one of them black - yet, feeling uncomfortable saying "Mary is the black woman". Is it just as dis-respectful to an aspect about Mary that is an important part of her identity to omit that obvious distinction?
I appreciate any input to help me understand this important issue.

I certainly want to be sensitive and not use the wrong terms. However, I wonder how one could conduct and promote a retreat that was especially aimed to support, well, people of color if one can't use that phrase. If you use too generic a term, like "people who feel alienated in society" or "a retreat to discuss the issues of race, racial identity, and the stuggles of being in the minority" would people come who then would feel like fish out of water in that group as well, or would you loose the intention of wanting to reach out to people who wouldn't realize you were talking to them? Seems equally wrong to say "this is a retreat for everyone but whites". Does it sound like I'm foundering here?? Someone toss me a life preserver and help me understand. :) Nightngle 15:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference to An Argument Against People of Color

Cheryl, thanks for the work done here. Here's something I've written regarding the issue of whether to use the phrase "people of color."

http://www.woodmoorvillage.org/2006/07/featured_post_b.html

Thanks,

--Ncordova 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Nacho! Thanks for the thanks, and thanks for the link to your blog. You make some very interesting points about "people of color", I hope you take the discussion to the OI as well. My feeling is that the bottom line becomes context for this phrase, like so many others.
On the OI site "wiki", I have to admit that I can't quite figure out how to use the "php wiki". To illustrate what OI wiki pages might be like, I've been working here at the world wild site. If you go to the bottom of Thay's page and click on Category:Order of Interbeing you'll see the pages related to the OI - some of which I've worked on or created. These pages are more of an encyclopedia flavor, and I would guess that similar OI pages would have a more "friends of Thay" feel to them. It would be interesting to see the difference between sites. This site has an important mantra of "neutral point of view", which in a lot of way would be a good thing to promote on our pages as well. I know it's made me think harder about what I write, since I know that folks who don't look at Thay or the order the way I do will scrutinize the work. No throw away assumptions or flowery language welcome. ;-)
I did go ahead and write up a page for Sister Chan Khong here, even though Mitchell asked me to take down her bio page on the OI site. The more I learn about her, the more I believe that history should record her hard work during the Vietnam war and that the OI should recognize her efforts to create and maintain our order. Whether she "rubs some people the wrong way" or not, what she's done is nothing short of awe inspiring.
At any rate, hopefully, we can download this software onto the OI site soon and get the fun started with OI members creating and editing articles! Nightngle 01:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

infobox for hindu religious figures?

Would you be interested in make a Hindu version of your Buddhist infobox?--D-Boy 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For the categories, I guess a good example would be on Adi Shankara and Ramanuja. The color we use for Hindu articles is orange or a saffron color. You can see it on most Hinduism articles.--D-Boy 20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The infobox would probably be the same except for Practice School:, Lineage: Order:.--D-Boy 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a first draft of the Template:Infobox Hindu teacher/leader
We could use the box in Adi Shankara for the religious leaders. I had also thought of it. --Babub→Talk 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

A message to Nurse Wikipedians

Buddhism Portal

Hi Cheryl!

I've just joined Wikipedia and added my name to the list at the Buddhism Portal. I've also tried to contact the other people there, and not got any replies yet.

In particular, the portal manager, deeptrivia seems to be away/missing. Is this normal? I'd have thought there'd be a more active Buddhist community! Rentwa 08:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nursing Portal & wikiproject

Hi, You may or may not be aware that User:THB has crated a Nursing Portal and Nursing Wikiproject aiming to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nursing. It would be great if all Wikipedian nurses got involved. — Rod talk 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

TSC Lowe

I wanted to thank you for the words of encouragement on my Thaddeus S. C. Lowe bio. All of a sudden it is being read and with favorable comment. Thanx--Magi Media 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the article for FA nomination after having made some suggested adjustments. Then I received a Barnstar during Peer Review. Would you be so kind as to support the nomination? --Magi Media 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessments...

...of Robert Hager and Steve Kroft! Gzkn 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikiproject Buddhism! Just dig right in.

On a side note, I noticed a discussion above about "people of color" as I was getting ready to edit your page. As a "person of color", I rather enjoy the phrase, and have never seen it percieved as anything other than an activist (or friendly and inclusive) term. Other people might have a different philosophy, but I have yet in my 39 years to experience it. I didn't read the full discussion - hope this helps, and again, Welcome!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

The scope of the project is rather hard to be specific with, particularly with recent vandalism to the project page. Basically, it is the intention of the project to, in no particular order,

  • (1) function as a back-up in the event that any existing project in the field collapses, which to me personally seems likely given their number and the rather limited scope of some of them, so that those articles can remain under some sort of management,
  • (2) deal with the larger subjects of religion, such as the pages on Religion, God, and so on, which would include material which falls outside of the scope of any of the existing projects, and
  • (3) to provide a place where the religions which do not fall under the scope of any of the other existing projects, such as Baha'i Faith, Iglesia ni Cristo, Ayyavazhi, Falun Gong, Unification Church, and so on, can receive some concerted attention. If this is of any appeal to you, you would be more than welcome to join, as would anyone else interested in these subjects. It is also my hope that, if there should ever prove to be sufficient interest in any denomination/sect/faith/word of your choice, to help in the creation of either a seperate project dealing with that group or a dedicated group within the Religion project to focus on them. Thank you again for your curiosity, and I wish you the best of luck editing and in dealing with some of the other editors that you are almost certain to face at some point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badbilltucker (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Quorn

While I may have been a bit fanciful in my reason for the edit on the Quorn page, I think that the revision I made not only was relevant, but didn't violate NPOV in any way. Could you please explain to me why you feel that the information I added violated NPOV? I ask especially because this is the first time (except for some revert wars I got into the middle of regarding Kashmir) I have ever been accused of being in violation. Considering that I cited the information I included, and it is most relevant to the controversy, I would appreciate an explanation, or else I can only assume that you have made a bad-faith edit on the Quorn entry. 02:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Colorful anecdotes are not needed in this article, especially the one you added. It was clearly added to be gratuitous, not to add to the allergy issue of the product which is covered well already. Why haven't you gone to the article about Peanut or any other food that people can be allergic to and added specific, graphic descriptions of those reactions? Why not one of the other examples instead of the one you choose? Obviously, the quote (including a double !!) is inflamatory and meant to discredit the product, or just to gross people out. I absolutely stand behind my edit - the specifics of someone's diarrhea is not needed in this article. Nightngle 15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason the "double !!" was included was because that is how the complaint listed on the cited website displayed the quote. The reason I edited Quorn and not Peanut is because I had already been exposed to the CSPI website with the alarming quote I used. While you personally may consider the quote to be "inflammatory and meant to discredit the product, or just to gross people out", the quote I put in adds to the nature of the controversy, and therefore I am putting the information back into the article. Thanks for the discussion, and I really wanted to give you a good chance to explain your side, but I don't think you have made your case. Jfiling 10:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that you're edits in the past show the kind of editor that you are. I will be deleting that post - it is not a NPOV. It is you who need to make your case - you added a specific quote from an individual with no explanation for why it is germaine to an encyclodia article. No other food that people have allergies have quotes from individuals with their specific, graphic experiences listed. You need to support the inclusion. Nightngle 21:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your personal attack on me means, but I am filing a Request for Comment on this matter, after reverting your edits. I will again state that the only reason I added that quote was to show the depths that the CSPI has sunk to in trying to discredit Quorn, which is germane to the "Controversy" section to which I added it. I'm not going to get into a revert war, because of the Request for Comment, so if you choose to once again revert it we can simply wait Jfiling 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why you would consider my revert a personal attack. It is not - I have clearly stated my opinion on this matter and stand by it. Just because I don't back down from my position doesn't mean I'm attacking you personally. If the site accepts personal quotations on this page, it opens a door that I don't think should be opened. If the negative quote is allowed, why would it not be fair to add positive quotes or testimonials to balance that? Each article would become a free-for-all with personal opinions quoted to create and support a point of view. Nightngle 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism Article list

Just wanted to make sure I clarified why I restored the category you reasonably deleted from the list. Believe me, I agree that the current categorization schema is in serious need of work. Both the Dharmic and Levantine (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) groups have articles which are currently categorized in such a way as is basically inappropriate and occasionally almost laughable. I have every intention of trying to fix all the existing errors once the lists are made, so that we have a better idea which specific faulty categorizations exist and which other categorization options already exist. Right now, however, I am still in the early stages of collecting the data, and as a result don't have a full grasp yet of the existing categorization scheme, particularly as I'm going article by article and category by category to ensure that they're all gotten. If, however, you ever see a categorization which you believe completely inappropriate, by all means remove or change the category on the article page itself. I can understand that some of them might be particularly offensive or ludicrous, and have myself already seen some of the latter. Thanks for your understanding. Badbilltucker 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, Bill (may I call you Bill? :) - I just thought I'd help out. I've been meaning to go through some of those root articles for awhile. I like that you're working on these category schemes, it's very helpful! I was just doing a bit of housekeeping. Lots of over-views of Buddhism tend to be taken from older sources where Western writers (starting with Schopenour, and the Theosophists) tended to translate Buddhist texts from their own world view and paradigms, so we find some problematic terminology - Acsetism being a good example. Keep up the good work - you're doing the heavy lifting, I'm just following behind and working on the details. It's all good. Nightngle 18:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

History

Dear Cheryl,

It seems that you or someone has erased the reference to Thay as a Zen Master. I have re-inserted it.

At the time that I did all the research for this article last spring I was in contact with Sister Annabel, Brother Phap Nguyen, Brother Phap Bi, and, through them, with Sister Chan Khong. At the time it seemed quite clear as to what the question was, and it seemed quite clear as to what Sister Chan Khong's answer was.

In any case the direct authority is Thay himself, who signs our ordination papers as "Dhyana Master ... of the Lam Te Dhyana School". If this is not so, then why doesn't Thay sign the certificates as "Dharmacharya ... of the Lam Te Dhyana School"?

Several comments about the discussion in the archives:

1. The paper by Nguyen and Barber, in the book edited by Prebish: I have this book in front of me, as I also had it last spring when I was doing this research. Nguyen and Barber interviewed two Vietnamese clerics, from which they derived the statement, "In contrast, Thich Nhat Hanh, though he was never known as a Ch'an master in Vietnam, has become known as a famous master in the West." From this some people have gotten the meaning that Thay was never received Dharma transmission. Since Thay received Dharma Transmission on May 1, 1966, just 10 days before he left Vietnam both sides of this issue can be literally correct. Thay was not widely known as a Ch'an master in Vietnam because he wasn't named as one until just before he left Vietnam. Nguyen and Barber's statement is literally true though it has been widely misinterpreted to mean much more than it says.

2. The archives contain a statement that the Plum Village web site contains no reference to Thay as a Zen Master. This is simply not true. Let me say that again, simply not true. Look for example at http://www.plumvillage.org/howToHelp.htm in the second paragraph. More to the point is the wonderful paper by Thay Phap Dung, "A Letter to Friends About Our lineage", which refers to Thay as a Zen Master and gives our lineage back for 8 generations of Zen Masters.

This is the first time I have looked at the Wikipedia since our discussion last summer. It made me literally sick to my stomach that people could be so destructive, seemingly just on a whim, such as the fellow who seemed to vow to erase all copies in the world of the phrase "Zen Master", or even worse, the many parties who act out of jealousy or political anger against Thay.

Bert Mayo, Chân Tuê. An, Order of Interbeing

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pema Chodron.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pema Chodron.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hi. Thanks for your nice comments on Template talk:ModernDharmicWriters. Unfortunately, the template is up for deletion. Maybe you want to comment on this? Regards, --Bondego 09:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about the template. I think the high number of authors that could qualify for the template could indeed be a problem in the long term. But at the moment, these articles are still very incomplete and underdeveloped. In the short term, the template may also help a bit to bring some focus to these articles, which currently have often NPOV and serious WP:BLP problems. In the long term, when we have more of these articles which are also well developed, the "category only" solution would be better IMO. This is the kind of template that will maybe become obsolete sometime in the future. Regards, --Bondego 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Buddha (film)

I've made a suggestion for the rename/move of the page on the article's talk page. Any suggestions, comments (please leave on article talk page). SkierRMH 06:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.

Thank You

I appreciate the suggestion regarding the biography project and will look into it. Thanks, Killerbeez 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would you please suggest some places to look to learn proper forms of footnoting and format for biographies? I am a little overwhelmed with all the information at the Biography Project. Thanks Killerbeez 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chankhong.jpg

What made you kick out my picture from the article? Eager to learn. Metta and happiness for you. --Gakuro 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

At the time (about 2 months ago), the image had no copyright information on it. This has been corrected, so it's not an issue now. Thanks for asking. Nightngle 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Plum Village Meditations.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Plum Village Meditations.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nursing WikiProject

Hey! I'm on a mission to get the Nursing WikiProject active again. If you're still actively editing nursing articles, or are still interested in this project, please let me know on my talk page. Josh 14:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mindfulness and nursing

Hi. I just wondered if you might be interested in dialectical behavioral therapy, which heavily incorporates the concept of mindfulness into the treatment of people with borderline personality disorder. There are many nurses involved in delivering this therapy. I am interested in the crossover of spirituality and nursing, particularly in mental health nursing and I wondered if you would like to contribute a bit about this to the nursing pages. --Vince 10:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News
  • The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
  • A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pema Chodron.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pema Chodron.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thich Nhat Hanh

I have requested mediation. I actually contacted the photographer at Flickr to have that photograph released specifically for use on Wikipedia. Your assumption was incorrect and rather brazen. We will see how this goes. (Mind meal (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

I've opened a discussion at images for deletion.--Addhoc (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I see absolutely no difference between someone calling their picture CC but with no derivitive works, non-comercial use, and must be attributed to them and what the picture in question requests - the very same thing, but they don't use the term "CC". It's "brazen" to expect everyone in the world to know and use your own terms. Personally, I don't give people who only flit from article to article, making templates, mining flickr for photos, but never doing any of the heavy lifting of actually working on an article. Nightngle (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As you don't understand the license, which allows for commercial and derivative works—and just as you did not understand how I worked for that photo—you do not understand the work I have done on articles here. Look at most any Zen-related biography on Wikipedia and you'll find my footprint. Again, the current license (please read it) allows for commercial and derivative works; if it did not, it would not be at Wiki Commons. Also, look at Seung Sahn and Taizan Maezumi. Don't tell me I don't do any "heavy lifting." Its been charming. (Mind meal (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
We all know there is work on Wikicommons and Wikipedia that doesn't belong there - lots of people all it "wacky pedia" for a reason! Not to mention that you loaded the picture onto wiki commons, making your argument rather circular. I've seen that photo on flickr too, all anyone has to do is put in the search term - not very hard work. Charming, indeed, when someone makes an important edit without adding their rationale to the discussion page - why the need for these strong arm tactics? These pages are supposed to be collaborative. Nightngle (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
To be straightforward? Because you are dead wrong on this issue. I can't understand why you are so attached to that press photo, when it no longer is needed here since we have a FREE image. I loaded the picture to Wiki Commons because that is where people upload pictures for use here on Wikipedia! I took the time out of my day to contact the photographer, correspond back and forth with them, and get it relicensed. I then took the time to upload it to Wiki Commons and Wikipedia. That is called "pulling one's weight." I requested mediation because we would have continuously reverted edits until one of us just blew a fuse. This way we can have unbiased, third party review help us in this. Flickr is a great place! I love corresponding with photographers, telling them I would like to see their photograph(s) appear on Wikipedia—and what license would allow for that to happen. Ninety-nine percent of them are willing, and flattered at that. Adding a quality, freely licensed photograph to an article is far from "fruitless." (Mind meal (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
I have worked hard on this article, and you've been just rude in this. Everything I've read on wikipedia encourages a discussion when making a major edit, giving the people who have done the lion's share of the work a chance to think the proposal over and weigh the options. I have no idea why you felt this article didn't deserve that respect. I'll have to live with the decision made, but this is the kind of interaction that is disappointing and discouraging. Nightngle (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am grateful for you contributions, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong on this issue. We had discussions that were going absolutely nowhere. You wanted the press photo in, I wanted the free licenses photo in. Back and forth this went, until I finally said it is time to get a second opinion. Until now, the use of that press photo was perfectly legitimate. But now, since there is a free alternative, it is not. We no longer need to use it, as a free alternative has been located. Aside from attribution, this new photograph basically has no restrictions. What was i to do? Continue our edit war? It was pointless and going nowhere. I never asked that the photo be deleted, mind you. I only asked for mediation. (Mind meal (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
It still would have been nice to put your intentions on the article's discussion page so it could have been discussed first, instead of a discussion through edit summary text and now the need for mediation. Then making condescending comments about "if you'll just listen" or acting like I haven't researched the use of images. What I've done on your photo on the Pema Chodron article is to comment in the discussion areas, not just delete. I don't think that the photo you've uploaded is actually of Pema Chodron. Now, you may have confirmed that it is from the photographer, but rather than delete it, I've added text to the discussion areas. This gives you a chance to respond and clarify - my understanding is that this is how collaboration works. But if this is the way you do things, so be it - I just think it's caused problems that might not have occurred in the first place. It's a shame, that's all. Nightngle (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Time Out

I'm putting myself on a self-imposed time-out, and since I'm going on vacation the first week of Feb, I won't be back until 2/11/08 at the earliest. Nightngle (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chan Khong book cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chan Khong book cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightngle/Archive_1&oldid=1035423674"