User talk:Rudyh01

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rudyh01, Welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.
Additional tips:
Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
  • Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
  • You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
  • If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
  • Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.
Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rudy: I'm so sorry, in my haste to 'welcome' you I added the note to your _user_ page and not your talk page -- I've blanked my error. Apologies! Zero sharp 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hi Rudy, I'm really glad to see that you're a wikipedia contributor. I've used your sites as resources in the creation of the Kalachakra page, and also with Kings of Shambhala. Thank you very much for providing those wonderful assets to the dharma community. On the latter page, we could use your help with a chronology questions being discussed on talk [1], if you have a minute. Sylvain1972 13:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Taranatha[edit]

After I write my replacement version of the Taranatha article, perhaps you could take a look at it. I don't plan to write more than about two paragraphs, maybe three tops, so it will be in need of expansion. I'll get around to it in about the next week or so. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC) - PS: Or you can write it yourself if you prefer.[reply]

Tara[edit]

Hi Rudy,

Please don't make changes such as you made to the Tara (Buddhist) article minor. Minor changes are spelling, grammar and punctuation changes. Marking changes such as you made minor makes it appear that you are trying to avoid review by other editors. -Ekajati 23:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there[edit]

Welcome to WP, Rudy.. You know me from elsewhere (I am anonymous here), but it's good to see you! A friend of mine saw you at Amaravati this year - did you have a good time? (20040302)

Hi[edit]

Sorry for my belated response to your comments a couple weeks ago. You say, "I'm not very skilled with the Wikipedia, just trying to edit some stuff I see which is incorrect", but, of course, editing stuff that is incorrect is exactly what Wikipedia is here for, so have at it. The Taranatha article is off to a sketchy start thanks to some additional volunteers; way better than it was a couple weeks ago at least. I'm genuinely sorry that the Geir Smith situation was allowed to simmer for so long before being dealt with. Eventually, it will all get sorted out but it's really a shame that his material on articles like Taranatha was allowed to stand for so long. I suspect other editors ran across those pages and, not knowing much of anythign about Tibetan Buddhism, decided not to get involved but to go put out other fires elsewhere. That, plus we try to go a long way towards assuming that new editors are well-intentioned and can eventually become productive colleagues. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shugden[edit]

Hi Rudhy. Could you please be so kind to take time to check a short discussion and give your opinion there. In the Shugden article I put a paragraph on NKT/GKG's view to make it more understandable. Robertect removed it and I can not really agree on that removal (see: [2]) We came to no conclusion and are seraching for a neutral editor to mediate the discussion or listen to his view. See "removal of first paragraph" at the Shugden Talk Page. Thank you very much, --Kt66 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Rudhy i am jousting with a gang of NKTers on the Shugden cotroversy page after a number of people have complained-cant we just get rid of this article? It demeans wikipedia when it is used as a propagand atool-u can ans on the DSC discussion page94.192.139.167 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geshe Michael Roach[edit]

Dear Rudhy, after observing for a long time the efforts at the site of Geshe Michael Roach either to repress critic or to have biased critics (I am not free of such faults too), I felt the urge to use selfsources of Geshe Michael so that the critics can be put in the article without endless discussions. It would be nice if you can have a look and improve or comment it. (It maybe possible my last edit is reverted once more, so please look in the history too. I wish to avoid provoking an edit war but see also not much hope to avoid it.) Please look also to the link of the controversies if it is against WP rules, Thanks a lot, --Kt66 19:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind reply. --Kt66 21:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roach[edit]

Rudy, please check the talk page, as this has already been discussed there. I am not opposed to critical links that meet WP:EL and WP:LIVING. But I am opposed to links to anonymous critical websites where the creators of the websites do not identify themselves. That violates the requirements for reliable sources (WP:RS) and such dubious sources simply cannot be used for living persons. (P.S. saw your note on Hanuman Das's talk page. Replying b/c I believe I was the first one to remove that link and that H.D. is simply supporting my removal of it based on WP:LIVING. His arguments are under "Diamond Cutter Website" in the talk page. I was offline during that discussion and didn't participate, but originally removed the link for the reasons H.D. spells out quite well...) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, well, if you want to reject every anonymous editor on Wikipedia who cites proper sources, I'm nut sure how much we would have left here... rudy 11:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. The site being linked to is created by a group of anonymous people. I fully support Ekajati in that I do not believe anonymous critical sites are permitted by the pertinant WP policies. If the site being linked clearly identified the names of its editors, there would be no problem. It doesn't, so precisely whose opinion is being cited? —Hanuman Das 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but they do cite their sources! What I mean is that "Hanuman Das", "Ekajati" or "rudy" is just as anonymus as their website. I thought the main issue is to have tracable sources, so when I as virtually anonymous "rudy" make a statement, it's source should be mentioned, and that is what they do as far as I can see it? rudy 21:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Please do not add the categories Category:Buddhist teachers and Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers to artcles in Category:Lamas. These are nested categories and an article should be only in the most specific one and not in the supercategories of that category. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is organized pretty well. There is no problem putting people in multiple categories at the same level, such as both Category:Lama and Category:Tulku and/or Category:Terton. Not all Lamas are Tulkus and vice versa. The only restriction is that once the correct categories are chosen, the article does not also get put in supercategories of those categories. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I'm looking for a Tibetan teacher, I would not intuitively be looking in Lamas, Tulkus or Tertons... Furthermore, the use of the term Lama has become a habit for westerners in some of the Tibetan traditions as well - typicaly when people have done the 3-year retreat within the Kagyu. In short, I don't really see the sense of separating lamas, tulkus and tertons, but perhaps it's only me... rudy 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are different categories. Not all lamas are tulkus, not all tulkus are lamas. Only Nyimgma are likely to be tertons, and they are quite rare... Those categories already existed, and were brought together under Tibetan Buddhist teachers to make them easier to find. No all teachers are lamas. Some are Geshes, some are monks & nuns, but not Lamas. A Lama is a very specific thing. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're quick! Sorry, but then you don't know the meaning of the word Lama: it is the same as Guru; spiritual teacher. A lama is merely defined by 'having pupils'; so virtually all teachers are lamas, and nearly all Geshes? Being ordained has nothing to do with the title of lama. A lama is certainly not a very specific thing!rudy 22:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. I've had discussions about this with others on WP. For example, I misidentified a particular Geshe as a Lama, and was told that the was not. Apparently there are various requirements for the title: one must either be a tulku, or a holder of a (i think it was) heart lineage. Lamas have to have completed a three-year retreat, and there are probably other requirements. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that several traditions define this differently! So in practice, it can even a be confusing term among Tibetans I suppose. I know for a fact from the Gelugpas that 'having students' is the definition. I also know that in (some) of the Kagyu traditions, someone is automatically given the title lama, when one has done the 3-year retreat. That is why several (sane) westerners call themselves lama. rudy 22:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I'll try to double-check this with the Geshe here at the center. rudy 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a preliminary summary as I understood it from the Geshe here: Lama is used as translation from the Sanskrit Guru. However, it is a bit ambiguous -even within the Gelug tradition- when someone would be called a lama. Usually reserved for Rinpoches, but as this is a somewhat ambiguous term as well, this may not help too much. In the Kargyu tradition, everyone who completes a 3-year retreat is also called a lama, but it obviously says little about the teaching capability of a person. So, how would you want to define lama? Gets pretty confusing... Another thing with the current categories is where to put eg. Geshes (who are seen as qualified teachers in the Gelug) in the categories? Merely a handful of western Buddhist teachers can be considered to have a similar level of Buddhist education, but others are also listed under Buddhist teachers? Perhaps we should categorise them according the tradition they are in, but that is a bit weird too... I don't pretend to have an easy answer to this :-( rudy 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to add a category for Geshes... I will do so and moving one Geshe into the category. Feel free to move more into it... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geshe Sopa[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Geshe Sopa, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.fpmt.org/teachers/sopa.asp. As a copyright violation, Geshe Sopa appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Geshe Sopa has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Geshe Sopa. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Geshe Sopa, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. —Keakealani 18:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break, I'm working on this, and in the middle of editing the information...rudy 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keakealani is right, you can't start by cutting and pasting a copyrighted text. That makes the whole article invalid and requires deletion. You have to start with your own words... There can't be a copyvio version anywhere in the history... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give me half an hour; is this a terrorist action or what? I accidentally hit the button save page while I was working on it. rudy 19:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that big a deal. Work on your version offline while waiting for the copyvio to be deleted, then start the article again with your non-copyvio version... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, you can set up a personal sandbox such as User:Rudyh01/sandbox and work on your article there. Just be careful, though, because it's true that you can't have a copyvio ever, so make sure you only cite but don't copy-paste. Let me know if you need help. —Keakealani 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

In the following sentence (from the Kalki page), you recently changed the word “Maitreya” into “Manjushri”: “The 25th Kalki as an emanation of Manjushri who brings about world-wide spiritual change.” Does the book that you cite actually mention Manjushri? Because I have always heard this as being the Maitreya Buddha. It would be weird for Manjushri to bring about world-wide enlightenment when Maitreya is the “next batter up” in terms of Buddhist prophecy. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, these are two entirely separate predictions. The Kalachakra Tantra very much is a system within itself, with a prediction of a spiritual kind of war a few centuries from now. As far as I know, such a prediction is nowhere else to be found in Buddhism. On the other hand (accepted by just about all Buddhist traditions), the historical Buddha predicted that Maitreya Buddha will come to bring Buddhism back to earth when it is completely forgotten. This last prediction is probably to be seen in millions of years from now. (For example, it is said that this will happen after the human lifespan has gone to something like 80,000 years and then is reduced to 10 years.) That is also why I took out the phrase about worldwide enlightenment and turned it into spiritual change; this is mentioned in the Kalachkara tantra. The 'book I cite' is the Kalachakra tantra. rudy 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I read on one page sometime after posting this question that Maitreya was not associated with the Kalachakra. I've written articles on the Kalki Purana; Kali (Demon), who is the nemesis of Kalki; and Koka and Vikoka, the generals of Kali. I love learning of new things. (Ghostexorcist 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Recent Maitreya Edit[edit]

Your edit was not wrong, but neither was the material deleted. From your user page, it looks like you know a great deal about Buddhism. I have read some very Hindu-influenced Buddhism material that describes all of the heavens within the Vedic universe and it mentions the Tushita paradise as being one of the lowest heavens in the "Realm of Desire". I will look it up and expand the deleted sections so others will be able to understand it better. I will also cite my sources for others to check for accuracy. But I won’t do this until I have time later.(Ghostexorcist 19:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No sweat! But it is really important to refer to genuine Buddhist materials when wrting stuff on Buddhism, there are loads of intentional and unintentional misinterpretations around, and please don't cite unreliable websites... rudy 22:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. It's genuine stuff though. The Hindu paradise of the 33 gods is in the lower heavens, where as the Buddhist paradises are in the higher realms of formlessness (I can't remember the actual wording right now). All of these heavens span from the mid point of Mt. Meru/Sumeru to it's summit and well beyond.(Ghostexorcist 13:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I looked some things up and these realms are known as the "Threefold realms". They consist of the Realm of Desire (of which Mara's paradise is the 6th and highest), the Realm of Form and the Realm of formlessness.[3][4][5](Ghostexorcist 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Eh, yes, so what's new? And what is the relevance here?rudy 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amithaba article[edit]

Hi Nat, could you please be so kind to check the mentioned article from the point of view of Tibetan Buddhism, especially the Tibetan name in the head. And also the articles Five Dhyani Buddhas - especially the table there on the different aspects and Amitayus. Thanks a lot. --Kt66 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vajrayana and intoxicant use[edit]

You might want to be aware that that material was merged from an article which has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism. I agree with you that it should not be included in Vajrayana, as it appears to be original research. A Ramachandran 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan naming conventions[edit]

By the way,

How's your Tibetan? Perhaps you would be interested to comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan). We're working toward developing a set of guidelines for use on Wikipedia.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nat, my Tibetan barely goes beyond tashi deleg, and I wouldn't know how to write it :-( All I know that Wylie is the only widely accepted translitteration if you mean that. rudy 21:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thonmi Sambhota[edit]

I just read your question about the origin of the alphabet. Thonmi's name first appears in historical documents in around the 12th century if memory serves. Writing was probably introduced in 650 and the script probably wasnt invented but simply borrrowed. Some sanskrit alphabets looked much more like the Tibetan alphabet than Devanagri does now. In fact the Devanagari we all know and love is largely a product of printing in 19th century British India. If you are interested in the myth of Thonmi try Roy Andrew Miller's 'Prolegomenon to the first two tibetan grammatical treatises' published in the 90s by Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhismuskunde or something like that. Tibetologist 10:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!rudy 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Songtsän Gampo[edit]

The information I removed was false. The source cited was Dujom Rinpoche's Nyingma School translated by Kapstein. It is a chos 'byung not a work of modern historiography. All of the falsehoods I removed I have discussed in detail on the history of Tibet talk page or the Songtsän Gampo talk page before. I do not have the time to repeat myself. The only contemporary documents are the Tang Annals, and the Old Tibetan Annals, they make no mention of a nepalese wife etc. An enormous cycle of popular legends has grown up around this figure, but they do not deserve to be treated as biographical fact, e.g. that he died by merging into a statute. All such stories are from hundreds of years after his death. Actually, Kapstein has been one of the foremost researchers of this material, and if you read his research in addition to his translations I think you will find he also thinks there was no Nepalese wife and he didnt die by merging with a statue. Tibetologist 09:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed info, I still believed in the 'commonly believed fairy-tale' then :-) rudy 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunyata[edit]

Saying that something doesn't exist absolutely is the same as saying it has no essence. Maybe the section can be reworked, I just objected to removing it wholesale. I'll work on it later. Arrow740 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read a great number of texts about it yet, but I think the Rangtongpas have it right. Arrow740 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well things are really not that simple; I'm sure a Shentongpa master would take less then five minutes to destroy your view :-) Perhaps there is not even a 'wrong' or 'right' here, just a matter of viewpoint. I like the Jain example of a group of blind men who investigate an elephant by touching it, and they come up with very different descriptions, depending on whether they touch a leg, the tail or the trunk. I truly believe all the different philosophical schools are not there in the first place to tell us which is right, but to make us think and churn about how it could be :-) rudy 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My view is just that one should not attach to any speculative views. Arrow740 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition of Nichiren to Template:Buddhism[edit]

Hi Rudy - I was wondering if you might have a viewpoint on the recent inclusion of Nichiren on Template:Buddhism (being discussed under Template_talk:Buddhism#needs_more_Japan). I'm soliciting feedback from regular, on-going WP contributors such as yourself, Nat_Krause and Sacca. Am I overreacting to this recent addition? Do you have a take on this? Thanks for any guidance or insight. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rudy! I appreciate your weighing in and hope you are doing well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Types of Buddha[edit]

Hi Rudy - just wanted to thank you for your recent note on Talk:Buddhism#Three Types of Buddha. I know it's not WP's reason for being, but I'm always delighted when you and others stretch my knowledge and appreciation. Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Vesak[edit]

File:SiddhartaBirth.JPG
A Happy Vesak (according to the Vietnamese calendar) to you Rudy and thankyou for your many contributions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhicitta[edit]

Hi Rhudy, I corrected some points in that article, please have a look on it. Regrads, --Kt66 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phurba & Singing bowl: Vajra & Ghanta[edit]

Thank you very much for your query on my talk page. I recommend you peruse the Internet Archive, with a little grace you may come upon a suite of recordings of direct, immediate translations/renderings in English of Tibetan texts sung and entoned by a chantmaster. I first came upon this cache after I performed a search with Rongzompa's full name in Wylie and alighted upon a veritable (and venerable) Naga's cache of cintamani. Mantrayana is the way of "secret mantra" and includes entwined lineagues of what are often in the English scholarly tradition (of group constructions) discussed separately, that is: the Ancient School, Bonpo, certain Ngagpa lineages and individuals and consists of specific Mahasiddha, etc. There are no true synonyms, this is true in English as in every other language. Though in general tantric buddhist discourse Vajrayana and Mantrayana may be employed synonymously to no ill effect, they most definetly are not congruent. I am not THAT privy to the deep traditions of the New Translation Schools, apart from Sakyapa. If you read Ashtamangala and look at the Precious Umbrella section that makes reference to the origin of that symbol/tool being the sacred mushroom, if you wish to deepen your understanding of ethnopharmacology and psychoactive Traditional Tibetan medicine, read the text cited. Moreover, regarding the substitutive polyvalent equivalences read Twilight Language and Lama Anagarika Govinda.
Blessings in blood: Raktarasa
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting at Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote[edit]

Hi Rudy - just a belated thank you for your much-valued vote at Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote. I hope you are doing well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rudy! I just wanted to check in with you about the lastest development regarding the newly renamed article Buddha (general). It turns out that a few people have voiced their concern at Talk:Buddha_(general)#Late_remark that the suffix "(general)" has a militaristic sense to it and while, of course, in our minds this is not true at all, I can now appreciate how this might be true for the uninformed WP reader. So, I'm inclined to go with a possible new push for a re-vote on the naming of the Buddha (general) article. Would you oppose such a re-vote? If you have thoughts about this, I'd value hearing them (perhaps at Talk:Buddha_(general)#Late_remark ??). Whether or not you have the time or interest to respond to this, I hope you are happy and healthy and thank you once again for all of your terrific work! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Larry, well, some people want to see ghosts (or generals) everywhere I suppose, isn't this simply the 'general' use of the word in Wikipedia? :-) rudy (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rudy - thanks for the reply. (Sorry I didn't see your response earlier -- I'll watch your page for the near future.) You raise a point that definitely interests me. Would you know, perhaps, if there are other "_(general)" pages on WP? (If so, sorry for my obvious ignorance and I'd sincerely appreciate any pointers.) Or perhaps you're more simply stating that the most common use of the word "general" is in the sense of "generic"? Either way, as always, thanks so much for any additional information! With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rudy! Thanks for the follow-up. I hope you are doing great! Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry and I gathered many more facts on talk:Buddha (general), and we feel it is time to vote again. Please take a look at the page and let us know what you think. — Sebastian 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama[edit]

I've protected the article, but just putting tags will not protect the articles from vandalism - only adminstrators can protect articles. (the previous protection was expired on October 21, 2007). If you want an article to be protected please file a request at Wikipedia:Request for page protection and if it has enough vandalism activity it will be protected by an administrator. The protection was mainly for the October 30 vandalism that was heavy, so it was a border-line case, but it is semi-protected for two weeks. Thanks.--JForget 01:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know this!rudy 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article[edit]

Dear editor I like to draw your attention to that specific article, Dorje Shugden, which was substantially changed by a group of three new editors, without any discussion on the talk page. Rather one of the new editor revealed: "Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors." which must have happened outside of WP, because there is no discussion on the talk page or their WP-accounts. One of the new editors claimed: "You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits." If I check I see the article omitted different POV's, deleted verified passages, included passages from anonymous websites and turned the article to a more bias Pro-Shugden POV. I'd like to ask you to check that and to give your opinion or to collaborate if there is a need for improving the article, so that we can have an unbiased, neutral, well-informed article which fairly presents all POV's. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tibetan Culture under Chinese Rule. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Channel ®   23:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed propaganda-junk that should not be in an encyclopedia in the first place.rudy (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Tibetan Culture under Chinese Rule. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.  Channel ®   23:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original content was unsourced and not NPOV, so should not have been there in the first place. You Chjinese puppets are trying to re-write history. Please get lost. And I did mention it on the discussion page, you didn't!rudy (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got nothing to do with China (or Tibet), get real. If you can reliably source your info, fine. If you got concensus on the Talkpage, fine. But you haven't, so I reverted your edits. Simple as that. "Mentioning it" is not the same as reaching concensus with the other editors of the article. And check WP:CIVIL, please.  Channel ®   00:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The material is completely misleading, perhaps you should get real. When were you last in Tibet?rudy (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Tibetan Culture under Chinese Rule, you will be blocked from editing.  Channel ®   00:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why should you not be blocked for 'protecting' unsourced and misleading material?rudy (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC) When were you last in Tibet?rudy (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And after WP:CIVIL, check out WP:ATTACK.  Channel ®   00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that all you can say to defend material that is not NPOV and unsourced? Just for your information, these actions merely enable the Chinese to rewrite history. By the way, you are the one threatening with blockage, so who is aggressive here? I am just trying to remove misleading materials. rudy (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Nominated for deletion[edit]

AfD nomination of Dorje Shugden[edit]

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]

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?

Links[edit]

The links you have been adding, to your personal website, run afoul of a few of the things that according to WP:EL, you should not link. Mitsube (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have not now added these links, just changed them from buddhism.kalachakranet.org to viewonbuddhism.org as I want to change the URL of the website. As also including links to redirects is bad practice, so I wanted to avoid this. rudy (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trijang Rinpoche[edit]

Hi Rudy. I noticed this quotation on your personal website (that you mention on your user page):

"In general the teaching of the Buddha is very vast and profound, it is not so simple as to grasp it in one time. If we had to summarise the complete teaching of Buddha we would see that all is included in two main points, that is: cause no harm to any sentient beings, always try to benefit all sentient beings; or, if we are not able to benefit others we should at least avoid all harmful thoughts and actions. Buddha Himself summarised in a few lines the essence of His teachings: abandon all harming actions and all negative actions, practice all positive actions completely and control your own mind. This is the teaching of Buddha." His Holiness Trijang Dorje Chang

Would you be kind enough to let me know where you found this? Thanks. (Truthbody (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Truthbody[edit]

Hello, I see you have noticed the edit warring by Truthbody also. Now he just committed a violation of the 3 revert rule on the Vajrayana article. How to report that? 23:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The never-ending story about Shugden[edit]

Hi Rudy, you wrote:

"Hi, 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) 13:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Good luck with this Rudy, but please don't wear yourself out. The NKT has innumerable devoted members with nothing better to do than promote the views of their infallible Geshe and their enlightened protector ~ and to "correct" anything which might cast the merest shadow of a doubt on either. Unfortunately the more you argue with these people the more attention they get and they (and their damsi spirit) seem to feed off this. You also give these guys an opportunity to very publicly demonstrate to their fellow cult members just how devoted (or possessed?) they are. I really wonder if it is worth the effort. Take care. With all good wishes Chris Fynn (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Rudy, I am somewhat inactive. When I just looked on the article, I feel, it's just aweful. Again the NKT editors removed 3rd party WP:RS, e.g. Prof. Mills, and quote now a Swiss "Weltwoche" with a very onesided and less differentiated article (you can read it youself its in German...) or they include Xinhua News Agency in the intro-section of the article with a quote the Dalai Lama may have never ever said... there is no trial for working out a proper article at all. Personally I have the feeling to give up. I invested too much time into this and at the end the NKT truth team/s and NKT devotees spin it again as they wish. They are numberless people and I expereinced them to be quite fundamentalistic, I think there is no commmon ground to be found. One could enforce a mediated article and then block it, for that enterprise I would give my time.

So, only solution I see would be:

  • Arbitration - To impose a solution upon the editors of the article. This can determine what kind of content or sources are acceptable.

For this it would be fine to win Chris Fynn and / or User:Nat Krause and / or User:20040302 otherwise it is senseless to debate with 5-6 NKT editors, because they just block...

Personally I am thinking to retire from WP again. It is so much wasted work, I think User:CFynn is right in what he says. However, for a Arbitration and then a block of the article when there are at least some common sense people for the imposing of the solution, I would invest some work again...

best wishes, and thank you at least for having an eye on this, at least the article/s should be marked as non-neutral if they are biased or use strange sources. --Kt66 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I decided to retire, its a fruitless case. see Wikipedia: Dorje Shugden’s Enlightened Lineage or How to Make ‘History' --Kt66 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to have a look at Religious persecution. Peter jackson (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this going? Can I be of any help? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
me too, would help. Andi 3ö (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy, please see NKT talk page-help!Yonteng (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JUST placed something on NKT talk re the DS articleYonteng (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV Template on DS article[edit]

Just to let you know I've placed a POV template on the Dorje Shugden article as it lacks prevalence of a perspective in found in high-quality reliable sources. Full explination on the talk page of the article. The template may not remain long as Truthsayer62 already removed it once today. (BTW might Truthsayer62 be a sock puppet of TruthBody?)

I have not actually tried to fix the article itself since I'm quite sure any edits made to bring the article in line with the perspective in found in high-quality reliable sources would undoubtadly be reverted or changed by Shugden devotees who consider nearly all such academic sources as biased just because they don't agree with the NKT perspective.

Chris Fynn (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vesak[edit]

Vesak at YM's temple.

A meaningful Vesak to you my friend. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://kalachakranet.org/kirti_tsenshab_rinpoche.html. As a copyright violation, Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am the webmaster and writer of 90% of the text f www.kalachakranet.org, including this text...

Vajrayana[edit]

Please provide citations when you make such an addition to an article. I've tagged it for now, but will remove it if it remains uncited. Yworo (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC) --- Ehh, yes, so only quotations are true? This is merely common knowledge to practitioners of Buddhist tantra. rudy (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not common knowledge for the general reader, which is who an encyclopedia is written for. See our verifiability policy. Yworo (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, and ironically, that is exactly what I am trying to refer to; tantric practice is not intended for the general public or mere scholars. I will try to look for references rudy (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yworo: is a logical conclusion an opinion?rudy (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called original research. A Wikipedia editor cannot draw a logical conclusion. He must cite a source which draws the conclusion. Yworo (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, so I cannot say that 1 plus 1 is 2 in Wikipedia unless I quote myself saying that? Perhaps you are trying to be a bit over/zealous here? Of course that is just an opinion, no insult intended, just surprise. rudy (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shugden sect[edit]

Hi Rudhy, in case you work on the Western Shugden Society and Dorje Shugden Controversy articles the following might be interesting for you:

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/

There is also a statement by the German Buddhist Monastic Association: http://buddhistische-ordensgemeinschaft.de/dbo_statement-shugden-protests-Dalai-Lama.htm –Kt66 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright problem: Alexander Berzin (scholar)[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Alexander Berzin (scholar), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20060328032232/http://www.berzinarchives.com/author/short_biography_alex_berzin.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rudyh01&oldid=1087839725"