User talk:Vibhajjavada

Speedy deletion of "Dhammananda Bhikkhuni"

A page you created, Dhammananda Bhikkhuni, has been tagged for deletion in accordance with our deletion policy. In particular, it meets one or more criteria for speedy deletion; the relevant criterion is:

No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

If you have any questions, please contact an administrator for assistance. Thank you Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 15:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Tukov and all of the other users who edited and improved that page. An administrator approved and mentioned that the article is important and it is staying. She is very famous. Thanks to all for making the article better. Vibhajjavada (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Dhammananda2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dhammananda2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fixed, thanks. Vibhajjavada (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Promotion

Instead of discussing our differences of opinion on the D-chess talk page, let's move this to user_talk space because not everything in your points related really to the D-chess article. I'll monitor your talk page so you can reply here. So my issue is that you appear to have a history of adding links here to web sites that you own or are are registered in your name. I think that's spamming, do you really disagree with that assessment? This is not only under your account name Vibhajjavada but also under your account name Theravada1 (talk · contribs) where you added links to the following articles and pointed to sites that are registered to you. Look at these diffs:

Vibhajjavada
Theravada
Dhyana
Four Noble Truths
Brahmavihara
plus the numerous links you've added to vipassanafoundation.org, also d-chess.com, and your yahoo group about d-chess

So it seems you feel it's ok to promote your own web sites or the web sites of your foundations and interests by adding links to the wikipedia. What part of Wikipedia:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest are you not clear about? I am upset with your behavior as selfish and self-promoting, but it's just this behavior that has my hackles up. I would much rather see you contribute here but without any self promotion, we could use more people such as yourself who know about Buddhism for example, but can you keep the self promotion out of it? It really gets some of us worked up when that occurs. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion in your opinion, which you have a right to have your opinion. But those sites contain information which I felt was useful. You have a right to disagree about their usefulness, but there was never any intent to sell or profit because there is none of that at those sites. The non-profit by-laws of that organization state no income or sales to publisher or author. In the course of the evolution of those sites, quite a bit of new information was added, take a look at theravadabuddhism.org for example. There is lots of encyclopedic information at those sites, but if you disagree, no need to have a cow. It is not worth such a big fight over a simple link to more information or for a chess variant.Vibhajjavada (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right I was getting worked up about it, in part because i find self promotion in external links and article creation an onerous problem here generally. so you're receiving some of my ire for that general problem. but looking at http://www.theravadabuddhism.org/ i still have a hard time getting past the initial paragraph, where you write: "The following contains excerpts from the bestselling book The Complete Book of Buddha's Lists -- Explained by David N. Snyder, Ph.D. with a Foreword by the Venerable Madewela Punnaji. Go to this link for more information and to order:" It colors the link as an attempt to sell your book. Without that it would be much less problematic, though it's more a potential citation source than an external link given the EL guidelines. I appreciate the writing especially your discussion of sexism and your views on sexism in the canon, from reading that excerpt. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, glad you liked the website and the info on the women's Order! Yes, I can see how it could look self-promoting with that first paragraph, as you say. I'm just trying to get the word out about things like that. Many in Buddhism do not know about the bhikkhuni / bhikkshuni issues and I have not seen many websites and articles that discuss the causes at length the way I tried to do in that site. I'm also glad to see we have much more in common than we do in conflict. I have done some other contributions (not related to me), it may not be showing under this user account because I lost the password once and had to create another one. I have since learned how to get a new password.Vibhajjavada (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do like it. Looking forward to collaborating on future projects with you. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]