User talk:Tdudkowski

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

Boxes

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

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

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

Happy Vesak

File:SiddhartaBirth.JPG

A Happy Vesak (according to the Vietnamese calendar) to you Tadeusz. Thanks for helping to maintain the Buddhism articles on Wikipedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting endnote quote in Paramita article

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

Era-style of "Greco-Buddhism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion of Johann Swammerdam (photographer)

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

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

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

Revert or not?

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

[1]

Thank you so much!

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

Stop reverting the tibet intro change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Uncommented deletion"

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