Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 28 May 2014

Heicth, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hello again Heitch,

I have responded to your latest post on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_Proposal

All the best, Jangdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjangdom (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Heicth,

I have responded to your post about banning me (kjangdom) from Misplaced Pages.

All the best, Jangdom

Hi Heicth! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

the "ban" problem

Thank you for your note on Shugden controversy with respect to the term "ban". I changed parts of the article, adding Thurman, the Dalai Lama and CTA. For the abuse of the term ban see here: http://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2014/03/07/the-western-shugden-groups-campaign-against-the-dalai-lamas-ban-of-shugden-worship/ Kt66 (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DL article section

ok, thank you, I added my opinion. I am strict for WP:RS and the other WP rules. You can contact me also in the future in similar cases though I am rather absent than present in WP, I am willing to minor contributions. Kt66 (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your message

You asked "Is it proper for Truthsayer62 to insert a large amount of Shugden websites at Dorje Shugden Controversy?" Please see what I write in the talk page of the article. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

3 May 2014

On 2 May 2014 You wrote: WP:UGC: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs', and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."'

Of course such sources are acceptable - but still not nearly as good as when the same person publishes a properly referenced article in a peer reviewed journal or book. The key is the "peer review" which means other experts have checked it too. Chris Fynn (talk)

Hi Heicth, I tried to balance and added some templates to Western Shugden Society. This article is an utter mess. Please keep an eye on it that the campaigners don’t remove the templates and some of the corrections I added. I lack time to engage. Kt66 (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: 14th Dali Lama

Please see my recent reply to your comment on the talk page of that article. You also may be interested in this. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dorje Shugden controversy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• p. 20, in Introduction to Contemporary Academic Buddhist Theology; Its emergence and rationale)</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Shugden sect

Hi, maybe interesting for you especially what Dr. Hill adds at the end:

The final point he makes is that the Dalai Lama is often accused by the pro-Shugden side as suppressing freedom of religion. “This accusation makes no sense,” states Dr Hill. “The Dalai Lama is not head of any state; he has no military or police at his command; he has no political jurisdiction over which he can exercise suppression.” “Some members of the Gelug sect left the authority of the Dalai Lama in order to follow what they see as a purer form of religion. These people may not be very popular in other parts of the Gelug sect, but their human rights have not been violated nor their freedoms suppressed; even if some people did want to suppress or silence the pro-Shugen side, they simply have no means of doing so,” Dr Hill concludes.

http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/distance-from-dalai-lama-protests-among-differing-opinions/

Also this statement might be useful: http://buddhistische-ordensgemeinschaft.de/dbo_statement-shugden-protests-Dalai-Lama.htm I lack time to edit the related articles Western Shugden Society and Dorje Shugden Controversy –Kt66 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Kelsang minor monk

Hi there. Did I claim this, that he would be aminor monk. This is not my terminology. Kelsang Gyatso insinuates that he would be somewhat the inheritor of Trijang Rinpoche and most Western followers of him believe that they were very close. I question this closeness. As an ordinary monk (not a tulku or Rinpoche), Kelsang could meet and see Trijang Rinpoche as any other ordinary monk or scholar. Contrary to this the real close students were HH the Dalai Lama, Dagyab Rinpoche and other high lamas who received exclusively highest teachings privately and in very very small groups (2 persons etc). I challenged this image of Kelsang as an inheritor and extremely close student to Trijang Rinpoche based on my understanding and knowledge of Tibetan society, monastic life and what was told to me by a tulku who really was very close to Trijang Rinpoche … (I hope this helps. This opinion of course cannot be included in Misplaced Pages!)

As a new development, you might be interested in this interview and you might make use of it for the related articles: http://info-buddhism.com/Dorje_Shugden_Conflict_Dalai_Lama_protests_Thierry_Dodin.html Thank you for the recent Clean Up! Kt66 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert of edit

Hello Heicth,

This article on Dorje Shugden Controversy appears to me to be quite one-sided, based on what I've read, heard and know about the subject. My edit was an effort to balance it by at presenting both sides. I don't believe your revert was necessary, as there are many citations from Kay elsewhere in the article supporting his overall conclusion on the controversy. So for now, I am going to revert my edit, but I am happy to search out another reference other than Kay and replace it if you are still uncomfortable with that particular reference.

Thanks, Jsdoijem

Western Shugden Society

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)