User talk:Truthbody

In addition to the abovr, you have edited the section about other Buddist groups views on the WSS so that it now reads as totally the opposite. That section is meant to show other views about the WSS and not how the WSS react to those views only. You need to be a lot more careful with your editing. I have restored that section to what it should be. Please do not change it again to somthing that it should not be.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tangerines, I'll take on board the points you make here. I have read that Wiki article about conflict of interest and am being careful about neutrality -- actually I have no wish to use this article to promote the WSS, I would just like the information to be accurate. I am trying to follow the example of the George Bush article, which seems to be to be a perfect wiki article. I do know a great deal of factual information about this subject, and feel the need to share it. I replaced "Buddhist" with "anti-WSS" for Tenzin Peljor's website because it is not a Buddhist website but full of anti-WSS propaganda which figures very prominently on this article -- however, I agree that we can just leave any adjectives out about it. I was clumsy with the other Buddhist groups views section, my mistake, and have tried to show the other point of view as many of these perceptions were solicited by Tenzin Peljor in a move to discredit the WSS, but those solicited for comment did not know the peaceful nature of the demonstrations. Also, the inaccurate comment by the ASA about ordination I believe does not belong on this article at all, but if you want to leave it there, I must be allowed to answer it. (Truthbody (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

When you say, "I must be allowed to answer it", wikipedia articles are not for discussion, that is what talk pages are for. You have to be very careful when editing. I note however that yet again you have ignored the In use tag and gone ahead and made a number of edits, completely disregarding the tag and my two requests above for you to wait until the tag has been removed before editing. I have therefore rollbakced all your latest edits and would for a third and hopefully final time ask you to wait until the tag is removed before editing. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you make those requests? I didn't see them. How does one go about adding a tag like that to an article? Please can you put my edits back in once you are done editing or let me know how I can do it quickly. I have been editing in good faith and don't have time to keep doing the same edits again. (Truthbody (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Firstly, my apologies, it was Atishas Cook who earler edited on the article and who I asked not to. However, regardless of that, the in use tag does very clearly say "This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed." And making nine big edits while the tag is on only creates edit conflicts.

With regard to some of your edits - US State Department Report by Special Agent Brockman is not a fully verifiable third party source. Sources need to be verifiable, and what you have entered most definitely is not. The comment by John Rees Burgess is not even sourced. I have tried to verify both the US State Dep't comment and the Human Rights Lawyer comments but there is nothing on google about John Rees Burgess that I can find. I would ask you to read some articles about editing on wikipedia -

(*)I've been told that the Dalai Lama has since cancelled all his remaining engagements this year. If so is that at all related or relevant to the article to add perhaps? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangerines, I can see you are a good editor and have been fact-checking in a fair way, (plus, ahem, you have a sense of humour), so thank you for your contributions to this article. (I still don't know how one manages to put up an "In use" tag? Do you have to be an administrator to do that?) To answer your question, the Dalai Lama is suffering from exhaustion and so both his engagements and the WSS demonstrations in Switzerland and Germany have been cancelled. However, the situation continues to deteriorate in India, so my understanding is that the WSS is still committed to organizing peaceful protests in the future until the ban is lifted. As for pictures, does it have to be a personal one, or can it be one that we get copyright permission for from the WSS? Could you kindly remind me of the correct format. Cheers. (Truthbody (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have removed the tag now (as I need a rest I'm "wikipediaed", not that it is a word). If you wish to go through my edits and make any changes, and want to do so with the in use tag on it, so that you can edit in peace as it were, all you need do is add two {{ followed by the words "in use" (without the "), followed by two }} at the top of the article. That then adds the in use tag at the top of the article. I can always add it for you the first time if you are unsure. Just try to remember to remove it once you have finished editing. With the Dalai Lama, maybe nothing needs to be added right now until there are further planned protests, or any other activity? With any pictures, it just needs to be pictures that whoever adds them has the right to do so. It is a whole minefield itself adding pictures as they should be added to the wikimedia commons [1] with licence information and other information. They can then be used from there. I just feel that one or two small images will add to the article. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing before I stop for the night - the WSS logo was in the infobox but was removed because it did not meet the specific requirements for wikipedia. If you wish to add it again, have a look at the Amnesty International logo (located at Image:AI logo 2008.svg) and then click on edit, as that will show how the image should be formatted, and then the WSS logo can be added in the same way.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your last edit on the WSS article adding this, "They also argue that even if the worship of Dorje Shugden has now become a minority religion, it is still correct to protect the religious freedom of minorities." Whilst I am sure it is relevant, you have added it unsourced. I have not added the fact tag yet as I would prefer asking you to verify it first. Is there something on the WSS website to verify it and where you got that from, which I presume there is? It needs to be from the WSS official site though and not one of the numerous blogs or other sites. If so please add a source and please also try to use one of the templates I have used throughout the article. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tangerines, I will find the source, thank you. What do you mean by "templates"? (excuse my ignorance). (Truthbody (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Great, I'm sure I read it on the WSS site or something similar to what you added. The "templates" are all the source templates (basically everything between <ref> and </ref>. If you copy and paste one of the others in the article you can then just amend the title, date and URL. If you are working on the article I can add the "in use tag for you if you like? (I've taken the liberty of adding the in use tag on the article while you are editing so you can edit in peace!) ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see what you mean with this template thing but I can't quite get it to work... I'll keep trying. (Truthbody (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I might need some help with this! I don't know how to fill all the bits in. (Truthbody (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No worries, it will al work out in the end. Don't worry if you haven't got it exactly right. Once you have finished editing today on there, just take off the "in use" tag at the top of the article (you will see it in edit mode so just removed it like you would any other content) and I will have a check of it for you. Using those templates is straightforward in the end but they can be daunting at first. Just once you get used to using the various templates it does get easier to do! One suggestion by the way (in case you didn't realise so excuse my saying this if you already know) is to use the "show preview" button before you press "save page", have a scan over your edit, see if it has worked or not. And yes I intend having a go at the Dorje Shugden controversy article when I can! With the way the WSS article is now heading with the input of about 3 or 4 editors, I think the article is getting quite reasonable. So I (we really as others like yourself will edit too on there) can use some of the content and the sources on the controversy article. It will be quite a bigger task though and will not all be done in one go! But I feel it is worth the effort! Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Prehistory of the New Kadampa Tradition, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's

As you can see, I have put a similar 3rr warning on your user talk page as you are the worst culprit for this as can been seen by the other complaints about you on your talk page. (Truthbody (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

where did u get the idea i am new to wikipedia? Mitsube aready gave enough reasons, not necessary to mention those reasons again. Greetings, Sacca 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit surprising to see a self-described Buddhist quoting a South African official repeating the Chinese government's standard political smears against the Dalai Lama [2]. What's up with that? Fredwerner (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was repeating something stated by an official. I found it interesting that he was questioning the Dalai Lama's murky dual role of politician and spiritual leader. I have personally witnessed that this theocratic role has caused a great deal of trouble and pain for Tibetans who used to trust him but who do not agree with his politico-religio ban of Buddha Dorje Shugden. They have no recourse whatsoever, nowhere to turn, it is agony for them. I have also found that to dare speak a word in criticism of him is, as the South African official pointed out, regarded by many Westerners as unfavorably as shooting Bambi. This might be because they are holding onto an idealized view of the Dalai Lama and have not seen his dark side. I find this degree of slavish, even cultish, devotion very unusual and amazing in our modern age and it means the Dalai Lama gets away with far more than he should. It would be great if he could be one or the other -- either religious or political leader -- but both doesn't work. Truthbody (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your honest and clear response. You make a valid point about the universally one-sided favorable view Westerners maintain of the Dalai Lama, but he is not unique in that. Many other non-violent political underdogs receive similarly devotional portrayals (including most other Nobel Peace Prize winners). I don't understand the Dorje Shugden thing, so it's hard for me to get the root cause of your antagonism. But given you have that axe to grind, I understand your desire to put in something negative about the Dalai Lama. Even so, what you added didn't fit and set off bias-alert bells, which is why I toned it down and balanced it.

As an aside, do you recognize that you are playing into the hands of a common threat? The Chinese government and its apologists have been trying and waiting for decades to do anything to take the Dalai Lama down a notch, because they know that weakening the Dalai Lama means weakening opposition to their oppressive control over Tibet. They are thrilled to exploit the split in the Tibetan community that you describe. Just because you see the Dalai Lama as causing the split doesn't mean you have to help Tibet's enemies use it.Fredwerner (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Dalai Lama who is playing into the hands of the Chinese, no one else. He alone has caused the split and weakness in the Tibetan community that the Chinese are now able to exploit. There was no split before his actions, the Tibetans in exile were united. The Tibetans he is segregating were (and many still are) devoted Tibetans who love their motherland as much as any other Tibetan. Moreover, if the Dalai Lama wanted to solve this problem, he could do so in one speech. (When people find out more about the other actions of the Dalai Lama, the ones hidden from view, they might not be so inclined to shoot the messenger.) (Truthbody (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with you that it is not ideal to have Tantra focused mainly on the Hindu tradition. It would perhaps be better to have a single short overview article on all strands of Tantrism and daughter articles on Tantra in Hinduism, Vajrayana etc. Do you think this is a good idea or worth doing ? Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, very much so. It is misleading at the moment to have the generic term Tantra describing Hindu Tantra only. (I could help with the Buddhist Tantra part of the overview, improving what is already there, in a few short paragraphs. But I am no expert on a general overview of Tantra, so someone else would have to extract the Hindu elements and move to a new daughter article, while summarizing the main points on Hindu Tantra for the general Tantra article). (Truthbody (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The main problem with dealing with Tantra is that it is an umbrella term for traditions with many strands, interpretations and varying emphasis. That, along with the esoteric terminology, makes it difficult to write an understandable encyclopedic summary of the topic. But it should be worth a try. Would you mind proposing this on the article talk page ? That way we can invite other views and perhaps a cadre of knowledgeable editors who will be ready to help. Since there is no urgency here, I think we should wait for a week or so before actually splitting the Tantra article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to encourage you to directly converse with those you're in dispute with on their talk pages or on the relevant article's talk page, rather than continue on with edit wars. Failure to communicate and reach consensus could end with edit blocks to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Thank you.

Hello Nja. I'd be happy to do this. Could you give me a pointer as to where to go from here? I have been having a lot of trouble with Mitsube, who seems to be following me from article to article and undoing all my edits and references with no valid reasons. I have tried talking to him/her on his talk page, so far to no avail -- he ignores me there and carries on reverting my edits. I notice from his talk page that other editors also have a hard time with him. What do you suggest I do next? Thanks for your help. (Truthbody (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am not following you, you have just chosen to target pages on my watchlist. Mitsube (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've tried the talk pages and are still having issues, I'd recommend reading over the many options available under Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy. I'd particularly look

247 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Nja, I have followed your advice. So far, no success (Mitsube is still simply undoing all my edits with no reasons and no discussion), but I live in hope. (Truthbody (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

user:Sacca seems to be Mitsube's sidekick insofar as he is following suit and just referring to Mitsube for his reasons. I have tried discussing good faith editing with him on his talk page also, but five days have gone by. (Should I ask for the relevant pages to be protected? Might that work to preserve the edits?) (Truthbody (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have answered you in various places, but not on my talkpage. Tone your rethoric down a notch please, your edits do not show good faith to me. Fact is you are spamming info from one source of low quality, so in general your edits just have a low credibility. Your spelling corrections are sometimes less controversial even though their merits are debatable. I would suggest to you to try adding the spelling corrections without the POV material Greetings, Sacca 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that you have good faith because your didn't undo any edits I did? thats not how it works. Greetings, Sacca 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, its the bad sources. Try to read some scholarly books on the subject. Your edits might become more acceptable. Greetings, Sacca 23:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Please take these discussions to the article talk pages so that others may participate. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently, questions have arisen about whether you and

]

I can confirm that we are not the same person. I am not sure who Truthsayer62 is, other than what it says on his/her user page. (Truthbody (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Vajrayana

Interesting question you asked Sacca. I think that the lead was fine, especially once I cleaned it up and used better sources. I thought that (using non-practitioner sources) would satisfy the objections to it, but it seems that may just have been an excuse rather than a reason... Will in China (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sacca and Mitsube have reverted all your changes back again :-( Between them, they reverted my stuff many times (with bad or no reasons), carefully avoiding the 3RR. (Truthbody (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's pretty common on Wikipedia. Take a look at my latest note on Talk:Vajrayana, perhaps there is something you could do. Will in China (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quick question

Hello, Truthbody. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ok, I'm back. Tell me if you want to do manual archiving or if you want a bot to do it. If you want the bot, the you need to set it by day. Archive once a week? Once a month? Also, if you want the current page archived, I can help you with that too. Would you like the contents of this entire page moved to an archive, or do you want to keep some stuff here? Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Kadampa tradition banners

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see

our frequently asked questions for organizations

. Thank you. --> see nkt talk page please could you replace the NPOV banners you removed since you are contradicting WP guidelines on this issue. Moreover, 72 hours ago, our colleague AC suggested the banners be debated. 72 hours is not long enough to wait before taking the somewhat draconian decision to eliminate the banners without adequate discussion.Yonteng (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I am contradicting WP guidelines. I believe you contradicted them by putting the banners up in a draconian manner in the first place without checking with other editors, and especially without giving any specific article content to back up your unilateral decision. Meanwhile, it seems other editors are making the article even more qualified as we speak, and there is even less call for the banners. Better if you could do your editing work yourself, making your improvements to the article -- those edits will remain if they are backed up by

wp:rs and follow other WP guidelines. We should also keep this conversation on the NKT talk page, not have it here. (Truthbody (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC))OK, I have replied there.[reply

]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see

our frequently asked questions for organizations

. Thank you. -->

Email

Could you

Mailer Diablo 01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not sure how to go about doing that? (Truthbody (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Edit 29 May

Welcome back We are doing fine here, after some rough days, and EM is behaving very sensibly.I beleive I am tryng too, though, like all humans, I get lost sometimes. We have discussed the insert you reverted (EMs edit BTW) and come to an agreement. Please read the section near the bottom of the discussion page. Hope you had a good weekYonteng (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, and in light of your recent edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Please, could all concerned read these guidelines since there appears to be considerable confusion in relation to them in the content of this article.

In particular,there it says:It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

and:Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

Please bear the content above in mind before attempting to remove the banner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonteng (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarianism

http://www.thangka.ru/gallery/img/drakpur_6.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.15.163 (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoI ?

I'm wondering Truthbody can you tell us whether or not you are affiliated in any way with with the

conflict of interest on WP if advancing the cause of the NKT or their beleifs are more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. I ask as the overwhelming majority of your edits are on NKT related articles such as New Kadampa Tradition, Kelsang Gyatso, Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, Tharpa Publications, The New Meditation Handbook and in this you always seem particularly keen to stress the NKT POV and edit out or deprecate material conflicting with their views. Lodru (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You can read about me on my user page. I have no

wp:coi and bias than any I might have. (Truthbody (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC))[reply

]

Come on, you claim to be a follower of the Kadampa Buddhist tradition, which in the UK and USA is synonymous with the often controversial group known as the

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and one of its central (also controversial) practices Dorje Shugden? That is almost like claiming you are neutral about your wife. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

COI Template added to the New Kadampa Tradition article

Hi Truthbody. I've added a COI template to New Kadampa Tradition as you, and several other major contributors to that article, appear to have close connections to the orginization which is the subject of the article. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External linking

Please do not add inappropriate

talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

New Usercheck

Hello: if you are receiving this, you have transcluded

rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE), I have created a Usercheck with more content, that I plan to update with more when I come across it, as of right now Usercheck-Super has only three more things than Usercheck-full, but as mentioned, I plan to update it, the three things I mentioned are pending changes log, giving all of the revisions you have accepted or rejected, Abuse filter, which gives you the ability to examine your edits, and get many details about an edit, along with Articles created, which links to a page which gives a breakdown of all the pages you have made. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]