Do want to join these Wikiprojects? Thanks Gizza ^{Chat ©} 13:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Sure thing. - 999 ( Talk) 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there HD!

I've just started patroling Buddhism pages.

I noticed you reverted edits on page 'Buddhism' eightfold path also known as middle way - I noticed these too. The editor who made them has also edited page 'Middle Way' which contained similar material, which I've removed (although they seemed to predate his current edits). They were also backed up with a Pali quote I'm not familiar with, but even if genuine, I feel that such teaching is far too advanced for the article.

The eightfold path also has a prominent assertion at its start that it's the same as the middle way - I think we're dealing with either a very thorough vandal or someone with a dogmatic axe to grind!

I've put a warning on his talk page, what do you think? Rentwa 14:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

PS I stared a zen collaboration (link on my user page) - if you'd like to vote/contribute, I'd be very grateful :) Rentwa 14:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll look into it. The western use is pretty much limited to the last five tattvas... - 999 ( Talk) 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The deleted sections were used with the permission of the author of the sited ebook, Swami Nirmalananda. In my opinion, they should not be deleted, as they are important information regarding a very important and neglected subject in Wikipedia. As you know from the citations which you deleted, this is not a novel, created method, but is one one of long standing. Hence, it is not promotional of any specific organization. Further, the information is practical, that is, useable, rather than simply theoretical academic knowledge.

I further think that the article should stand as it is as a separate article, rather than being merged into the larger article regarding Om. Firstly, the article is primarily about a specific type of meditation, rather than primarily about Om. Secondly, if merged into a larger article it would of necessity need to be trimmed, i.e., diluted, and made insipid, impractical, and useless. If articles on meditation methods of less importance historically are permitted to stand separately, then this surely qualifies to remain as one.

Please consider these compelling arguements. Please forgive any neglect of other conventions due to ignorance. I will gladly conform to necessary standards. You could help by helping me find how to acknowledge permission granted for extended quotations such as is mentioned above. – Tarakananda 17:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your patient reply.

I ask for some patience (and perhaps some advice) regarding the Om Yoga meditation article. I still think that it can be salvaged as an independent article with some modifications as per your comments. I know from observation that some of the articles are closely guarded, and additions and modifications would probably be butchered. The meditation page discussion shows that additions to this would be difficult - even though merging some of the content this article are sorely needed to fill in a real void.

Perhaps by renaming the article "Om Meditation" -- descriptive rather than Om Yoga Meditation, which might seem proprietary -- would remove that roadblock.

As to copyright violation, this can be overcome by modifying the wording to preserve the meaning, though the author has no problem in doing whatever necessary to allow this aspect of the writing to become public domain -- in fact, he would prefer that it become so.

As to the instructions, this seems to be where I'll have to reluctantly acquiesce.

As I wrote earlier, the information seems to me to be too important to be lost in a shotgun blast of other information on Om or Meditation. From your background I'm sure you can see the historical importance (and the present day need) for this information. Please consider working with me to find a way to preserve the article in some form, or, baring that,add it to the Om and Meditation articles in a complete and meaningful way. I look forward to hearing from you.

Your as a newbie article poster, – Tarakananda 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your co-operation and help on this! This weekend when I have more time I will polish the article, and perhaps expand it with acceptable material.

I hope you will let me keep in touch as I learn the ropes, and endeavor to provide relevant and helpful information to articles. – Tarakananda 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hanuman Dasji,

I have thouroughly gone through the article on Pranava meditation, and have attempted to apply your suggestions. I have:

• supplied copious footnotes and references, attempting to be as accurate as possible
• reworked the section on Aum, renaming it "Rationale – mantra and Aum", rewording it and supplying additional info so as to avoid any copyright controversy (though, as I said, the author was not concerned)
• trimmed the section on the Upanishads
• changed the formatting to make it more readable
• added some external links

I hope that this satisfies any requirements, so that the notice regarding citations at the top may be removed.

Thank you for your co-operation in writing this article. – Tarakananda 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Hanuman Das,

I appreciate your attempts to bring articles into proper compliance with WP:LIVING, but some of them go too far. You removed some good links with V RS material [1] and added some superfluous fact-tags [2] to Andrew_Cohen#Criticism. Contrary to your edit summary, WP:LIVING doesn't take precedence over WP:NPOV. The policies are co-equal and we have to figure out how to harmonize them.

To the extent that you may desire to err on the side of avoiding criticism of gurus, remember the quote about Shri Hanumanji, who loved to "spot a tyrant and pull his beard".  :-)

peace, Jim Butler^{( talk)} 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hanuman Das,

I must agree with Jim Butler's comments. We are not talking about mere celebrities here, or private citizens whose accomplishments have put them in the public domain. Applying your standards, a hypothetical wikipedia article on Jim Jones written in 1978 would have excluded critical information and have been totally imbalanced with potentially more disasterous consequences. It is not like these gurus do not have the resources to defend themselves and generate all sorts of source material rather, it is the critics who are at a disadvantage. The treatment of highly controversial gurus insulated from public scrutiny by authoritarian organizations and well funded advocacy organizations like Andrew Cohen and Adi Da Samraj, without lineage and whose claims of unique enlightenment were rejected by their own living teachers, must put a greater weight on NPOV than you desire. By virtue of what they claim, modern gurus heading authoritarian organizations claiming ego-less enlightenment must be held to a much higher standard that typical public figures. Ramana Maharshi, Nisagadatta, Anandamayi Ma and similiar figures lived openly and simply, did not care about unfounded criticism knowing it would fall of its own weight, and so one does not find these problems. You would be well advised to consider the advice of Vivekananda, who foresaw the dangers even in his own time when the West was just becoming open to Eastern spirituality. He wisely said that:

"There are still greater dangers in regard to the transmitter, the guru. There are many who though immersed in ignorance, yet, in the pride of their hearts, fancy they know everything, and not only do they stop there, but offer to take others on their shoulders; and thus the blind leading the blind both fall in the ditch.

Quote:

"Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge, go round and round staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind" (Katha Up. I ii 5)

"The World is full of these. Everyone wants to be a teacher, every beggar wants to make a gift of a million dollars! Just as these beggars are ridiculous, so are these teachers."

Dseer 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Dseer reply

Dear Hanuman,

I'm not sure what the proper method of dealing with this is, but as far as I can tell there has never been anyone named Ann Hill booked as a speaker or performer (unless she was part of a group) at either the Starwood Festival or the WinterStar Symposium. Nothing on either of the Wiki pages "Ann Hill" or "Anne Hill" seems factual, cited, or referenced. As far as I can tell, everything in the listing is a garbled-grammar version of phrases from the interview in the book Modern Pagans, which is the only reference listed. The one citation leads right back to the Ann Hill page itself. Now, there is material on pages connected to Starhawk and Witchvox from which a real listing could be made, including info on books she's contributed to and a CD she has released, but the present page reads like a parody. I will delete the mention of Starwood and WinterStar, but I don't know who can or should go any further. Rosencomet 19:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I've run into you on several articles we both edit and you seem to be fair and understand WP policy. I've been trying to remove poorly sourced negative info from three article in the Tibetan Buddhist area, but Kt66 has violated 3RR to put the negative info back. He seems to be a failed student of one of these teachers... Anyway, I had to report him after his 4th revert. I know WP:LIVING reverts are exempt, but I'd rather not chance it, I've seen other people get blocked for it. Could you take a look at (and maybe put on your watch list): Dorje Shugden, Kelsang Gyatso, Michael Roach? I'd appreciate it... Ekajati 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Hanuman Das, Ekajati is right, user kt66 is a "failed student" of Kelsang Gyatso and in some ways also of Michael Roach. His name is Tenzin Peljor and he is a German buddhist monk who got ordained by the Dalai Lama earlier this year. Previously he was known as "Kelsang Tashi" and "Lobsang Tashi". He is quite open about his negative attitude towards his former teachers. Although he is trying hard to abide by the NPOV rules I think he is far too biased to be able to do so. He's also been involved in edit wars, most recently about the German WP article on the New Kadampa Tradition. I think he shouldn't be allowed to edit any articles on Kelsang Gyatso, Michael Roach, Dorje Shugden or the New Kadampa Tradition. I'm glad you have an eye on him and I'm very happy to supply you with more information about this user if need be. These kind of users will damage or even destroy the whole idea of WP. Best wishes. Marpa 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello there. I don't believe we've every chatted so this request may seem unusual.

I notice that you are active in maintaining articles about hinduism.

There's currently a discussion going on the SY discussion page in which a fairly new editor is unhappy with my edits and my activity on the page. I don't want to say too much, for fear of unjustly characterizing their concerns.

I know this is asking a lot. As a neutral party, would you consider reading some of the discussion and offering suggestions.

I would welcome it as I am perhaps too close to the material and the other editor might feel a little easier knowing that someone else was willing to read their concerns.

As I said, it's asking a lot and I would understand if you chose not to.

TheRingess 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmmm...I wasn't sure what to make of your statement.

I'm tempted to take it as a "no", if so, fair nuff. Thanks for getting back to me.

TheRingess 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Three times you've removed verified and notable material from the lead section [3] [4] [5], each time giving a vague reason that ignores WP:LEAD and my attempts to discuss on the talk page. Please engage appropriate Wikiquette (see WP:DR) and discuss at Talk:Adi Da before removing it again. thanks, Jim Butler^{( talk)} 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hanuman Das, I've looked it over and agree with you. It is POV to overemphasize the critical material in the lead. It does not deserve a long paragraph. One sentence, maybe two short sentences, would be proportional to the matter in artcle. Ekajati 15:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I just noticed your recent work on the Spiritual teachers category. I've got the Lamas and Mahasiddhas categories on my watchlist and so noticed your movement of them into the Tibetan Buddhist teachers and Spiritual teachers categories. That latter is quite correct as some of the Mahasiddhas are also claimed by Hindu sects such as the Naths.

I see you have gotten rid of the Gurus category altogether, which was an overloaded term attempting to cover Hindu, Sikh, Sant Mat, New Age American and other unaligned Gurus and doing it poorly. Now the Spiritual teachers category takes up the non-traditional gurus and the traditional gurus each have their own subcategory! Excellent!! Could you take a look at the Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers and Category:Lamas categories? I'm having a similar problem there. Most Tibetan Buddhist teachers are clearly Lamas, but a few may not be, so they end up in the teachers category. I'm not happy with this but don't see how it could be improved. :-( Any suggestions? Ekajati 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your discussion and correcting the articles. -- Kt66 10:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I see what you mean. I will think about it and perhaps come up with a solution. Ekajati 15:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Hanuman Das - I noticed on two articles I've created ( householder (Buddhism) and Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta) you've rearranged the post-content reference-related categories. When I intentionally arranged the post-content subsections as I did, it was based on what I had seen in another WP article. I like the scheme that I borrowed because, in the TOC, it clearly delineates the post-content material. So, your changing the sectional scheme confuses me some. Is there a WP standard about this or is it a matter of personal taste or perhaps something in-between? Thanks for any clarification, LarryR 12:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow! Thanks for sharing your excellent knowledge in such a kind and thoughtful manner! You've given me a lot to digest. For that matter, I'll abide by the existing layout standards in future edits, of course. And perhaps sometime in the future I'll have the presence of mind to present the alternate layout (which, in retrospect, I think I might have borrowed from the French WP article on the Skandhas?) as you suggested. Thanks so much again! Best wishes, LarryR 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Please be so kind to check my changes. Especially if the balance in the article is appropriate. I felt now in the article of NKT the word "exclusively" is over stressed. What do you think? Thanks a lot, -- Kt66 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

hello Hanuman,

Michael Roac is a geshe, but not a lama. You can read about the difference between these in the article on geshe. Greetings, Sacca 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Hanuman,

I wanted to call your attention to a removal of some critcal sites on the Andrew Cohen page. The "WhatEnlightenment.net" link is a substantial and important body of material that is a crucial resource for criticism of this teacher. Fair enough to cite it as a blog; however, the second link you removed, "EnlightenNixt.com" is a website and technically not a blog open to comments or discussion. It is a serious collection of articles that document first-hand accounts of abuse by this teacher. As such, it would seem of utmost importance that it be linkable to this page.

Also, as a note, the Mother of God website pertaining to Luna Tarlo's book is no more a book sale site than is Andrew Cohen's organizational site to which each of his titles are linked.

Thank you Realsage

Please stop imposing your erroneous opinions as to what are "not reliable" sites and removing references to Enlightennixt.com and Whatenlightenment.net. These are reliable sites with articles by numerous named former students. You appear to lack impartiality in this area and should probably stop editing this article. Your continued vandalism of valid links and edits to the article will result in a complaint and further action.

Hanuman, Under the rule you site against linking to self-published books or booksellers, you need to remove all links to Andrew Cohen's books. ALL of his books are self-published as no self-respecting publisher would touch him.

Hanuman,

In response to my comments above, you are missing the point I was trying to make when you say:

I must disagree with you. Wikipedia does not have a mission to expose false teacher or to protect the public. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should simply be reporting what has been previous published in other media. Thus, newpaper and magazine articles are fine. But going to original unruled on affadavits - do you think Encyclopedia Britannica does that? No, they do not. That's original research and outside the scope of what an encyclopedia does. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't think all negative information should be removed, nor do I think that these teachers must be protected. By all means use whatever has been published in books, newspapers and magazines. But court documents other than transcripts and individual personal reports on blogs are unverified information. As you say, these teachers have the resources to defend themselves. That's just the problem. WP policies on the matter are to keep WP from being sued. But please, don't take it up with me, go to the WP:LIVING talk page and discuss there. Find out what WP administration thinks the dividing line should be. Don't just take a position that may leave WP vulnerable to legal action. —Hanuman Das 20:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You may have assumed what I was saying was that Wikipedia has a "mission to expose false teacher or to protect the public", but that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that Wikipedia has a mission to attempt to provide a NPOV on issues of controversy, and in the case of authoritarian gurus and sect leaders making extraordinary claims of rare or unprecedented attainment and authority there are higher standards involved and there are real consequences if that is not done when advocates and sympathizers use Wikipedia as a virtual propaganda organ. By NPOV, I mean that it is the role of Wikipedia to include mention all reasonable, comparably reliable sourced POVs, not simply an imbalanced emphasis on a single POV on a controversial and partisan issue, such as the simply restating extraordinary biographical and spiritual claims of some guru, teacher or sect, so the reader can get a broader perspective on the subject. Giving undue weight to the products of a controversial religous organization should not be done. Wikipedia states it well enough: The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source. But in fact, to be frank, I am not clear that your stated position is not so misunderstood as you believe. It seems reasonable that you have clearly stated your own POV when you said:

"...I'm not so sure the sources meet the requirements of WP:BLP. They are primary, not secondary, sources (i.e. letters). If they were published in books or journals, that would be one thing, but getting them off web archives seems to be a stretch...The rules of Wikipedia specificly allow a person's or organization's website to be used as a (qualified) sources. You are incorrect that just anyone can do so and then get on Wikipedia - they have to be notable. Also, any controversies will not be able to get put on WP just because a few disgruntled people set up a negative website. Again, this is precisely what WP rules are intended to do. Also, the organization gets to change its website. If they take something down, it can no longer be referenced. WP rules require not linking to something that may be a copyright violation. That means that the webarchive is right out - it violates the copyright of the site that it mirrors. It is useful as a search tool, but not as a Wikipedia reference or link. Until the negative material is published in books like Kay's, or in newspapers, magazines, etc., it cannot be reported on Wikipedia. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on other people's research and other publisher's legal departments to vet the potential liability of the source. I am happy to include a critical link - as long as the publishers of the site have the balls to put their names on it...I'm sure that in time appropriate critical articles or links will be found. Few spiritual teachers avoid such criticism, even I think ones that have done nothing wrong. It seems to be part of the nature of the East/West dialog on the whole idea of Guru. Not all may deserve the temporary protection WP affords them, but the rules do protect valid teachers from having their articles trashed by disgruntled ex-students. All in all, I think that the latter is more important..."

That may be your opinion, and as such, that is fine. But let's examine your logic more closely so as to help you understand why others don't necessarily agree without being wrong. It is widely accepted in spiritual circles from long ago to today that high levels of spiritual attainment such as claims of enlightenment are rare and that being an Avatar is far more rare. And there is a long tradition that gurus without authenticated lineages and endorsement by their own gurus, which includes most of these controversial ones we are discussing, are suspect. Thus even the controversial modern gurus claiming such attainments and some claiming to be Avatars are not claiming to be one of a great number of similar attainment, but rationalize why their gurus have rejected their claims, and while claiming some special level of awakening for themselves, criticize other gurus freely. And yet those whose attainment is widely seen as genuine are not noted for apparent egotism, personal concern about critics or suing others. ["Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes) become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the jnani." (Patanjali, Yoga Sutras, 1:37)]. That is why Vivekanada's assertion that even in India before the West became entranced with the guru idea, most gurus were not what they claimed, is relevant to your position, should serve as a warning, that in the case of authoritarian gurus making extraordinary claims, usually where there is smoke, there is fire. These modern controversial gurus could be what they claim, but clearly those who actually understand the subject and the implications of the claims realize that the burden of proof is on them, and not those who assert otherwise. Just as by analogy someone who claims to have discovered something in any scientific field that violates accepted understanding must demonstrate sound evidence to support their claims, or someone who claims to be a physician must present sound evidence they are qualified to those qualified to evaluate such things, rather than simply relying on the testimony of even thousands of satisfied clients as evidence, which a quack can easily do. Those who make such extraordinarly spiritual claims are subject to commensurately less expecation of privacy and greater scrutiny because of the implications of those claims. By merely quoting allegations from a critical sources as allegations and providing link(s) as one POV on a controversial guru, one is not making making determinations as to whether the allegations are in fact true. Virtually self-published works in more flashy form by gurus familiar to only a small population of those interested in such things are no more reliable than self-published materials by critics, when you apply common sense rather than rigid interpretations. You simply appear to be very zealous in protecting teachers against being "trashed" by what you term "disgruntled ex-students", when even you admit that it is the teachers who have the organizations and deep pocket resources to defend themselves while "disgruntled ex-students" are not commensurably endowed. Again, Wikipedia states: The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source. Until such time as research clearly shows that websites and publications by partisan ex-followers anad knowledgeable critics are any less reliable (which it has not), there is no a priori reason for creatomg a double standard with respect to the religious organization and credible critics.

Certainly, the gurus claims about themselves, their biography and their attainment, and their teaching, should be presented accurately and in sufficient detail to present their case, and without an pervasive negative tone. However, again, caution should be exercised in giving undue weight to their testimony (especially when it is "unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing" and can't be independently verified by more neutral observers) and the testimony of enthusiastic followers with a vested interest in their beliefs, and claims made in well financed publications which are virtually self published by these organizations, compared with that of what you refer to as "disgruntled ex-students", who have not been established to be less reliable than enthusiastic, true believing followers. And, when those sources are subject to revisionism, such as editing to sanitize earlier materials rather than merely correcting the record, fair use provisions allow one to cite links that disclose that revisionism without copyright violation. Your claim that a religious group can merely delete a reference previously made available to the public without further recourse to the information merely if "it may be" a copyright violation, as opposed to actually being one, and failure to recognize fair use provisions, is your position and I'm sure you mean well, but recognize not everyone agrees that you are being objective here even when you think you are simply applying the rules. I would hope to see more dialogue with those having actual experience with the problematic nature of many of these organizations and the imbalance of power between them and the ex-followers of those like Cohen.

04:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Dseer

TL;DR — Hanuman Das 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Is a NPOV the same as not allowing any critical remarks? rudy 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

please see my answers at my talk page. Regarding the quote from Sakya website there is no contradiction, I think:

1. they say Tibetan Buddhism in general terms
2. the Vinaya is the same (- as far as I read and know it - I can find quotes for this if needed), some points maybe treated differently with - according to local situations and internal monastery rules, but all the main points especially the expulsion is the same because it is from the Vinaya.

We should discuss if you think it is nonsense or has to checked/improved/deepened further. -- Kt66 15:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I added some citations and reincluded passages which I found important to understand the emergence of NKT, like how Kay descibed the changes of GKG: "He thus became convinced that the Tibetan Gelug tradition as a whole no longer embodied Tsong Khapa's pure teachings and that he and his disciples must therefore separate from it. From this point onwards, Tibetan Gelug lamas would no longer be invited to teach within his network." This is an important, I think, to understand NKT policies of not inviting even Gelug teachers to their centres. The citation and quote is there inlcluded too. Regards, -- Kt66 13:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi there. If you have some time I am happy if you can leave your comment/critics or further suggestion how to improve or correct the NKT article. Thank you very much. -- Kt66 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakini. Thanks! :-) Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 17:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

While browsing the net, I came across the article on Haidakhan Babaji which has been edited by me, to clarify some facts, which readers would probably be interested in. I have changed titles of sections to include almost all that was originally written, as the intention is purely to provide information. I hope you will appreciate the changes to the page.

The article Brihadeshvara Temple was created as an apparent duplicate of the article Brihadisvara Temple temple. It was tagged for a merge proposal, and I took it upon myself to merge these articles which clearly referred to the same subject. I was reverting some misinformation [6] and noticed that the "duplicate" article was created the user who added the misinformation. A little more digging led me that editor's userpage. I don't know whether to WP:AGF. It is conceivable that a) he did not know of the other article, and b) was honestly mistaken about the misinformation added. On the other hand, looking at the history of what his socks have done, I am wondering whether this was vandalism. It is, rather annoying spend time cleaning up articles, only to discover that perhaps one article was a bogus contribution from the start. Anyway, you seem more familiar with this puppet master, so I thought I would let you know what is going on. Sincerely, -- BostonMA 00:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the warning! :-) Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Somewhat misplaced, since CheckUser indicates that Timmy12 is not a sockpuppet. I wold advise Hanuman Das to stop following Timm12 around, that kind of thing can get you in serious trouble around here. Guy 15:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You may want to check out Timmy12's Talk Page, as your name is referenced there by Mattisse. I don't know what's brewing, but thought you should get a heads-up.

Septegram 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed that you put an "importance" tag on the Kalpetta article. Kalpetta is the seat of government for the Wayanad district. Is that importance enough? -- BostonMA ^talk 18:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you have done a bit of work on the Wikipedia article on myself. I certainly would be happier if their was a bit more critical material, but that would be up to those who know my work, if they should care to work with the core article.

As it is, I am an author, not particularly computer literate (except as an end-user), and I have been asking repeatedly since the article first appeared that some good samaritan do whatever is needed to "Wikify" (if that's the correct term) the present article. I believe all the internal references are correct, but the format definitely needs work. Would you be kind enough to help? Thanks.

Allen Greenfield

Hi, I noticed you appear to not allow critical links on Geshe Michael Roach. I would think it safe to say that in general Tibetan Buddhist circles his recent behavior is certainly open to criticism to say the least as he is acting as a highly realized master and breaking his monks vows, while not really showing any signs of his realizations. According to traditional Buddhist rules, he is not a monk anymore after having sex, but he puts himself above the 2,500 year old law, which should be more than enough reason for some critical noises? I have personally no expereince with him, but when someone puts himself outside the rules of a community, whereas he wishes to continue as a teacher in the same community, I think one can voice some critical questions? He presents himself to be a monk whereas per definition he is not! rudy 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I changed the tag. Ekajati stated in an edit summary that citation tag is preferable. Please do not remove tags without addressing the problems of WP:V and WP:CITE. Removing a tag without fixing the problem is considered vandalism by Wikipedia. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your additions to the Starwood article. I wasn't sure what was appropriate in the way of references, but those are some good ones, including a book I'll have to look for myself now. You are a diligent and thorough editor, and I like the way you can recognize a sock-puppet when you see one.

By the way, Visitor is a DJ who has performed at Starwood, helped with the Island show, and worked with what's called the Time Machine parties. I hadn't listed him as a performer, but I'd reconsider if he got an article of his own to link to (if he can pass the notability standards), or at least contacted me about it. I'm sure he didn't intend to delete Yokeshire and the entire Notes and References sections, and I'm glad that was corrected. Rosencomet 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding the sock-puppets you and others have had to deal with, may I recite the Credo of the Vandal as offered by Ray Bradbury in the Martian Chronicles:

"I cannot create. But I CAN DEFACE! Therefor I, too, exist."

Ad Astra, Rosencomet 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I seem to have a problem with Timmy12 taking down the citations I put up concerning appearances listed on articles I've either created or contributed to. He's following behind me and reversing my actions. In the past, I got criticism for mentioning appearances WITHOUT providing a citation. He calls them commercial, but since the event (which I think was an important tribute to a great musician, Babatunde Olatunji, and was only participated in by musicians who either worked with him or were heavily influenced by him, all of whom have Wikipedia articles) was four years ago and no products are being sold on this page, I don't get that. If I'm wrong about these citations being appropriate, please tell me. Otherwise, is there something I can do? I think he will take down other material I contribute as well as a matter of course. Rosencomet 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you anti-pagan?

No, I'm anti-spam. And shoehorning in multiple mentions of this festival and external links, especially when its tangential at best, is undoubtedly spam.

And trying to pull some variant of the race-card paranoia defense, as intellectually bankrupt as it is, cuts no ice with me. It certainly tells me more about you than probably thought it would, like taking EVERYTHING you say from now on with a grain -- no, a BAG -- of salt. -- Calton | Talk 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

And when I see someone systmatically removing all mention of the biggest pagan event in the US, I smell a rat.

Then you'd better get your nose checked out or go see a doctor about that paranoia. If your FIRST reaction to anything is to look for enemies or conspiracies, that tells me that something is seriously amiss in your worldview. -- Calton | Talk 01:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Your last message violates WP:CIVIL.

Really? And accusing me, immediately, of having some hidden agenda of bigotry was tea-party nice? It certainly was an insult to my intelligence that you, right off the bat, reached for the most intellectually bankrupt of claims in your very first post.

Don't insult my intelligence again, and examine your own behavior before making accusations regarding "civility". -- Calton | Talk 01:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

:I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you a question.

I thought I asked you not to insult my intelligence again? -- Calton | Talk 02:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Starwood Festival is the most notable pagan event in the US. Any neo-pagan being a speaker or a performer at that festival is a significant event in their career and it deserves mention. Mattisse and her socks went around adding fact tags to every mention, which is why there are citations. Those are NOT commercial pages, but archives of past events. Are you anti-pagan? — Hanuman Das 01:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Rolling Stones are a very notable rock group. However, if someone started putting links to an advert for a Rollings Stones concert in Wikipedia articles, I would delete those as well. The degree of notability of the artist or the event has nothing to do with the matter. Further, the pagan-ness or otherwise also has nothing to do with the matter. -- BostonMA ^talk 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Or are you saying that Rosencomet only has spam references to document, perhaps? So I caused the link spam, you are saying? Well, feel free to protect the spam as fiercely as you have. I'm just glad that finally someone is looking at it. It hurts Wikipedia. Mattisse (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please do not make personal attacks as you did in this edit. -- BostonMA ^talk 01:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A fact: Mattisse has been confirmed to have used [ 18 sockpuppets, is probably running Timmy12 and several others. We will see, I see there is an open checkuser request. — Hanuman Das 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Timmy12 may or may not be a sock. That is orthogonal to whether your comment was a personal attack.

And while your tagging people for personal attacks, check out User:Calton's latest updates to my talk page. — Hanuman Das 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I reread the discussion several times. It seems to me that your first comment could be interpreted as playing the "anti-pagan" card. To be quite honest, that is how I interpret your remark. Although Calton's comments were not civil, I have deep reservations about whether you should be complaining about how others have treated you. Sincerely, -- BostonMA ^talk 02:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please read WP:V so that you understand what sorts of things qualify as sources for Wikipedia articles. Please do not add links to promotional websites as "references". -- BostonMA ^talk 19:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks.

Please make your improvements to articles without adding links to promotional websites as references, when those links are not appropriate to use as references. Combining genuine content with your link spam will not prevent your edits from being reverted. -- BostonMA ^talk 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Hanuman,

I was asked by Sally Eaton to take down the page I created for her entirely. She decided she would rather not have a public listing, for personal reasons. I intend to delete much of it right now, but if you would either take it down or tell me how to do it, I would appreciate it.

Thanks, Rosencomet 02:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

What is Wikipedia's policy on this? I seem to remember hearing that we don't delete pages just because the subject of the page is unhappy with it.

Of course, I could see it being deleted as "non-notable" or somesuch...

Septegram 16:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear Hanuman,

I now have new stalkers removing my work. BostonMa, Maxreg, and Calton are all removing any citation, and in some cases mention of appearances at Starwood, from all the pages I've worked on. Other events are being left alone, I notice. Making the report 999 suggested has seemed to make things worse instead of better.

I have also been contacted by someone named Samir who says he/she "was asked to intervene here". Do you know who that is?

Thanx, Rosencomet 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Rosencomet, rather than continuing to add your links and complain about the editors who remove them, I think it would be to everyone's advantage if you discussed the issues that have been raised on your talk page. Sincerely -- BostonMA ^talk 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Hanuman Das/Archive 3,

A new project has been created, to exclusively deal with Maharashtra and Marathi-related articles. You are invited to join the WikiProject Maharashtra. The project aims to develop Marathi and Maharashtra-related articles to Featured Article-status. You can join the WikiProject by adding your username here. However, don't forget to visit the project page. This is of course, a sister project of Portal:Maharashtra. Come, join us in developing Wikipedia. Thanks,

-- N R S | ^T/ _M\ ^B 05:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding reversions [7] made on October 31 2006 to Lu Sheng-yen

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Srik e it ^{( Talk | Email)} 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You should asked to be unblocked. That 4th "revert" is not a revert. - 999 ( Talk) 14:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support. I shall do so. — Hanuman Das 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

with Lu Sheng-yen. As that's more my area of expertise than yours, I've done my best to help out with the defusing some of the inappropriate criticism. First, I don't see any definitive statement that he took monk's vows, from whom he took them, and whether or not he later abandoned them, nor dates for any of these events if they even occurred. Second, vegetarianism in Buddhism is the exception rather than the rule, as noted in Vegetarianism in Buddhism, so the fact that he does not prohibit eating meat is in no way unusual and thus not a valid criticism. In general, it is necessary to establish the facts or lay out the actual teachings with citations before presenting criticism of those teachings. One must also cite who has made the criticism. If the criticism cannot be cited to an actual person or organization, then it is original research and not permitted. The field of Buddhism is very large, with significant differences of doctrine between schools. It just won't do to have amateurs criticising a teacher of one type of Buddhism based on the rules of another! Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help. That is much better work than I could have done on the topic. — Hanuman Das 19:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem. Thanks for the compliment. :-) Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Reasons:

1. The fourth edit was not a revert. In fact, only the third edit was a revert. If you disagree, please indicate to what version of the article I was reverting. Here is the list of edits:
   1. edit 1
   2. edit 2
   3. edit 3
   4. edit 4 (and this was a WP:BLP removal of unsupported information)
2. The block is too long for a first offence. My only previous block was ruled invalid as there was no 3RR violation and conflict of interest on the part of the admin. See [8]

— Hanuman Das 19:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It's showing that you're unblocked (at least I can't unblock you), throw another unblock up if you can't edit. -- Tawker 06:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I still see a block in the block log and also get a block notice for ip address 66.68.124.168. — Hanuman Das 13:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Should be unblocked Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply