User talk:Owlmonkey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mandala Editing

It seems to me like the mandala means more to you than the article itself. I don't agree on having a protective position towards an article since this is a collaborative encyclopedia and what might seem trivial to you might not be for someone else and if it attracts all sort of trivial additional aspects of the mandala then so be it. The same could be thought of millions of articles with the "In popular culture" section and therefore based on your position they should be removed too. People usually have the wikipedia as a source of reference and many "in popular culture" sections are helpful to others (e.g. someone looking for materials on the related topic). Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment back and watch your talk page. Look for my response there. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change the title to satisfy your wish. I did it because the article is elaborated and it deserves a better title for the section. I don't really understand why you want to keep the article away from a topic that if it isn't me then it will be someone else who adds the Last Mimzy's use of mandala. I was reading about the "In popular culture" debate and there is no consensus regarding this topic. There is an essay and it reads that it is not a policy within Wikipedia. Look, when I feel that an article trivia section is really trivial I am the first one complaining about it, to the extent that many of my edits are either applying trivia templates to other articles or just deleting sections that are really trivial and non-contributing. This case is different. How many films in western society use the mandala as an important part of the storyline? I don't think The Last Mimzy uses it in an insignificant way. I understand your position trying to keep the article clean as far as additional things that in your opinion don't contribute to the meaning of mandala, but this is an online encyclopedia and therefore it's open to people's contributions, why wouldn't you?. I am not gonna make the change to the article because I think this is not a trivial addition. If you want to delete the section , then go ahead, I will just reverse the change. If you want we can have an open debate in the discussion section so more wikipedians can help us decide whether it's worth it or not to keep the section. Let me know.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for Sakya Edits

Thank you for your editing. The matter you've deleted needs to be reworked, especially as few people know about it despite the sources being there under the form of very reliable sources such as Berzin, not least of which. How is signature ? Double dilde ? Geir SMith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.141.184.146 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

CNNFOX

Thank you for your comments and suggestions Re: Robert Blake on various article pages and starting a new dedicated page on the BLB murder. Time will tell what will be done. One comment, the references to Cooley in the Blake paragraph are to his actions, not his office. Thank you again. --Cnnfox (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Monkey cap"

Yaaaaaay! Thanks for the citation on balaclava. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the cite deletion on the Free Will article

The cite you deleted on the free will article is essential to the point, since I am in fact the one who made this argument in a well regarded professional journal. You can't just make that statement without a cite, and I AM the cite for the point. Of course I or anyone can get a friend to post their own work, but surely the criteria is not who does the posting but does the posting enhance and contribute to the topic. It's not as if you see me citing myself all over wikipedia, but it DOES fit here. If you have a reason to believe it doesn't make a worthwhile contribution, please make your argument. Otherwise, I can't see how the Wikipedean community is being served by an automatic deletion such as this. There is no absolute Wikipedean rule about authorities in a field not contributing their knowledge. Please, in your spam watch, consider the dictum: Primum non nocere (First, do no harm).Jbricklin (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I reversed my removal of the Free Will citation. It does look relevant and without undo point of view but I'm still concerned. And whenever an author - even a domain expert - posts their own citations it should raise a flag around conflict of interest for the encyclopedia. So while the policy allows citing yourself in some cases (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself) I'd just ask that you please take time to review the following related policies when you have a chance: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No_original_research. I do appreciate your efforts and accomplishments, personally. If you can though, please try to cite neutral, third-party references whenever possible to avoid point of view pushing. Thanks again. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Chögyam Trungpa Picture

I'm not completey certain if it is him, but see this image also. Are they the same person do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Man we need you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet -this includes the WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism sub project. I;d very much like you to be a part and invite you to join ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Awww, thank you. Response on your talk page. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make a judgment from here ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha! found the person who took the picture and it definitely is him. Thank you for checking further! More on your talk page. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I thought. Later pictures though he is wearing glasses. Don't worry if you don;t have too much time, if you put your name down on the project page we know which editors are at least interested or edit tibetan related articles from time to time -perhaps you could also state your more efined interests such as Shambhala etc. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. The only thing there is a problem with the statement "not intended for commercial use". This is kind of directly saying this image shouldn't be used on wikipedia and is a passport for image tagges to delete. We can claim image use on deceased people if a free image is not obtainable most of the time but I don't like that statement. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We also have an image of Dhardo Rimpoche now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw that image earlier and liked it and even thought about swapping it before you prompted me. I'll switch them if this OK at that commercial thing would be problematic in the future. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done it already!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche now has an image. Also feel free to expand the Dzogchen Rinpoche which I started below:

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just created a Tibetan Buddhism template. Could you help develop it? It is to replace the too generalized Buddhism template on Tibetan articles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep I think the main Buddhsim template is too generic for all of the Tibetan buddhist articles. It is a very a large subject in its own right but its on the right track -this should replace the main Buddhism template I think for Tibet. Perhaps you could add all of the key belief systems etc when you have finished seeing all of those monkeys!! LOL! I;ll let John Hill know perhaps he could add something ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pema Chodron

I wanted to ask you something. That photo I inserted into Pema Chodron's article, I am not 100% sure it is actually her. I found the photo on Flickr under a free license and thought it looked a lot like her—so i assumed such. But something just doesn't seem quite right about it. I wanted to get your opinion, as she is not mentioned in the description on that photo's page at Flickr. Thanks. (Mind meal (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

left you a note on your talk page. also, you could email the author of the photo on flickr to see if they know... - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job! I uploaded the photo to Wikicommons already, and its in the article. No more worries about if it is or is not her. Thanks. (Mind meal (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Buddhism history in Battle of Baghdad article

Hi. I see you are undoing some specific edits by Geir Smith. Could you please remove them also into a separate article? While some of them are relevant as an aftermath of the battle, further theological text that is far bigger than the history of the battle is obviously not, it should probably be linked to from See also. I wanted to do it but my wikilanguage-foo is weak :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.120.90 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Battle of Baghdad (1258)? I haven't been following that article or making any edits to it at all. I did revert a change he made a month ago to Buddhism in Russia but he then paired it back and his revised changes stand last I looked. The complete details though that he was adding I think remained intact on one of the Sakya related pages which made sense. They were mostly notable to those. I haven't reviewed any of his changes since then and I only edit while signed in under this account so you'll see what edits I'm making on my contributions list. I've been mostly shepherding a merge of the Self-realisation article lately. Would you like me to review anything in particular? I'd be happy to. I just wish Mr.Smith would use the "Preview" button more often so the edit histories were not so long. It's more tedious to do the diffs and see what changed with multiple revisions. But that's just a pet peeve and not related to the content at all. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow that's a lot of content added to that article, I just skimmed the changes. I'm not sure where to start reviewing things honestly. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Followup: Looks like Mr. Smith ended up in a dispute over those edits and others and was banned indefinitely. [1] - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism in Mongolia

Dear members of WikiProject Buddhism!

As I can see that Buddhism in Mongolia has got many problems (sources,spelling mistakes, grammar, etc). Please help me to fix it together.

Thank you so much! Best wishes to you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideas on Karmapa Support

I am very new to this Wikipedia thing so you'll have to bear with me. I will become more adept as time goes on I hope. Thought most all of your ideas were quite valid and accuracy-oriented. It does seem that Sakyong Mipham has come down on a side again... he had originally expressed support for Tai Situ's candidate, then made claims of neutrality, now seems to be leaning again, although it is worth bearing in mind that even Shamar Rinpoche advocates calling both candidates by the title "His Holiness" so just because somebody refers to another as "His Holiness the Karmapa" does not apparently mean outright support within the strange world of lamaist politics!

--Changchub (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The politics is all beyond me. I can't even guess at what's really going on. I somewhat suspect the lamas see all this as a sort of apparition too, not entirely real and somewhat dreamlike, though with practical considerations to occupy the seating arrangements at dinner parties. :) Maybe it's just us common folk that get all the more riled up about it. :) Great tidbit about "His Holiness", it seems to almost undercut the notion of conflict: that there is an underlying respect in it all. That's wonderful to hear. Thanks for the note. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK notice

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shedra, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Woo hoo! I'm so proud. :) - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The saga of Editor5435

See the last 3 sections of Ronz talk. I'm curious if you know if that was the right way to save the discussion, if you think it's worthwile at all, and if it needs to be added to an index somewhere or if that's automatic. Thx for your attention to this Fractal Compression page btw, I am about to edit there next, trying to return to the primary argument. Spot (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by an index or saving the discussion? I'm not sure I'm following you. Was there an ANI that is no longer on the front page of ANI's or something like that? It looks like you're linking to a subpage on the noticeboard but I'm not sure where that referred to.

Yes, there was an ANI and Editor5435 was temporarily banned, but the problems are ongoing. Here is the archive/subpage, but i'm not sure i did that right. Spot (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened. Editor5435 added a new section header accidentally when adding to the top of the thread; this confused the archiving bot - which then archived only the top portion of the incident leaving the rest. So the top of the noticeboard still has the rest of your thread whereas the top of the incident went here: archived. So by making the subpage you were trying to make sure the incident was still ongoing but what really needs to happen is the top incident needs to be restored and the accidental section removed. You can remove your subpage once the incident is repaired. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I restored it properly. You can delete your subpage now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I still only see the top half in the archive. Spot (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

On the current issues page, it's there again. The archive just has the top but I left a note at the end of that explaining I was putting it back on the issues page. so it's an active issue again. at least until it gets archived again. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it thanks! But I can't figure out how to delete the subpage I made. Spot (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... guess the delete tab is an admin only function here, I'm used to see that on my own wiki. You can blank the page at least, or leave a note that it was temporary until the incident board was fixed. Or there may be a delete request page somewhere to ask an admin to delete it for you. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It did seem like Fractal Compression currently fails to have an assessment about it's overall merit versus other compression forms. Surely there is both scholarly and popular opinion on which compression methods are best for what cases, and perhaps even that one is so superior that others are no longer used at all. I did some periodical searches and was surprised that Fractal Compression really hadn't had any press in the last ten years, apart from some press in 2007 and this year. So my assumption is it just isn't that good. The patent argument seems odd, if it really was that much better than other methods then the patents would have been licensed. The quality of the approach would compel use in spite of the patent situation. Is that what you mean by the primary argument? That other approaches turned out to be better? - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Svatantrika

Hi Owlmonkey, and thanks for your kind comments. These are by no means the end of my intended edits--it's just that the books I need are not with me here. I think all these subdivisions should be noted--as Tibetan doxographic categories, of course, while carefully distancing them from their Indic Buddhist subjects. Along with Sanskrit/Tibetan transliterations, citations, etc. But I need to learn them myself first! Dawud (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How to handle WP:V WP:RS on Fractal Compression

Given these threads a and b and the reversion of any edit based on good sources without counter-sources (most recently), how should I precede? Thanks, Spot (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. The RfC is active which is great, but I don't see anyone weighing in yet. Perhaps mention the RfC to users that post to related topics as well? I think the approach of bringing more people into the discussion is good, and advertising a neutral RfC is fine. I also think your point is pretty cut and try, that the citation you added has not been refuted directly so it needs to be included as a viewpoint. Perhaps go to arbitration around that specific issue - inclusion of that view and citation. His "last century" denigration is specious, because not much has been published on the topic at all in the last ten years. I'm not familiar with the arbitration process but perhaps it's easy if it's a narrow topic like the inclusion of a very specific citation and viewpoint? Don't know though. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Twin Peaks

Hey thanks, yeah, it's a great show, big David Lynch fan – I think that adding the minor characters in the "Characters of Twin Peaks" seems like the way to go, since the article is about characters, making the minor characters page a bit redundant. So I think this will be the best way to go. Jv821 (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Owlmonkey (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Latest Battlestar Episode

My intention was not to delete your work, it's simply easier for me to rewrite it from scratch in my own style rather than sift through what someone else writes and pick apart what to keep, delete or reword. You can always tell when an article was written by more than one person because it appears inconsistent. Everyone has theif own way of describing things. But don't worry, by the end of the night, once others come in and do housekeeping it will probably have been rewritten twice over again. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sussex

I did it for a couple important reasons: first, section relevance. two, and more importantly, stacking images in a row on the right so there is no space between them looks very bad, and is discouraged by WP:MOS#Images. VanTucky 04:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't look stacked so tightly to me, but perhaps that's just an effect of my browser. Also it will change if the article expands of course. The primary reason I was asking was to see if there were other policies at play. I've only added a few photos so far but I want to be consistent. But is the section relevance point a guideline or more your personal take? In some articles, adding photos to a subsection would cause stacking because of the number of photos so I've had to be careful and scatter the pictures. In other articles it's not an issue. So the MOS guideline seems to conflict with the section relevance. Thx. - Owlmonkey (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

HBDI

Not "utter rubbish", merely not validated. Which is always a bit of a problem in this sort of area. And based on a myth, even if that is becoming buried history. Any referenced information you can add would be valued. Beware, or embrace, the Hawthorne effect. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I retract my "utter rubbish" quip, just my hastily formed opinion. As I wrote to Tagishsimon i'm pretty out of my depth here (and generally distrustful of management-based psychology) - your edits to HBDI are welcomed with open arms! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work; much improved. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Prison contemplative programs

On 1 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prison contemplative programs, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Thanks. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts and assistance

Im not sure where I should leave this comment for you since I have a question. Someone new has now edited Steve's article and I would say they have edited in the style you taught me yesterday is incorrect, moreover they don't even have any citations or references. Someone, maybe me or you, should correct the edit. Since I'm really new at this I dont feel comfortable that I should be correcting others. I would merely copy more or less your first comment to me? What is your opinion. Also sorry if I left this inquiry at the wrong location. Im confused when I should use this discussion or the article discussion? Thanks for time. 71.177.147.64 (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vipassana addition

...sorry about my addition. I actually taken a 10 day's Vipassana course in Quebec personally and thought it would be nice to mention the voluntary/free basic how they all operate. They feed and house people very well. This is my first baby step on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IDreamCatcher (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

More assistance would be appreciated

Hi OwlMonkey, I appreciated your recent contribution to the discussion on the Sahaja Yoga article. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion I started on "Nirmala Srivastava section"? I'm trying to add a new reference to balance things out but one editor is trying to side-track the discussion and I think that constitutes disruption. My point is that it is a perfectly good new reference which adds to the article and should therefore be included. Two other editors have agreed to it. Could you please review? Freelion (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to weigh in exactly but I'll come review the latest discussion. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wang

"The Gelug school requires the practitioner to take a pratimoksha (individual liberation) vow before or during the ceremony." - this implies something that is not actually the case.

Berzin writes:"In the Gelug tradition, practitioners who wish to receive an empowerment or subsequent permission need beforehand to take and keep purely some level of lay or monastic pratimoksha (individual liberation) vow. If they have not done so, they need to take some level of lay pratimoksha vow during the ceremony. The non-Gelug traditions require at least taking and keeping purely refuge vows, which may also be taken for the first time during the ceremony."

I agree that Berzin's writing appears to make a distinction Gelug and non-Gelug - based on a differentiation between 'lay pratimoksha' and 'refuge vows', - but there are none, as we can find elsewhere in his website:

"Tibet is to uphold one of the levels of pratimoksha vow – either the five vowed restraints for a lay person or the vowed restraints appropriate to our particular class of monastic ordination as a full or novice monk or nun."  (http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/published_books/gelug_kagyu_mahamudra/pt4/mm_14.html?query=pratimoksha)

I have no idea why Berzin attempts to distinguish the Gelug initiation based on a spurious differentiation between 'lay pratimoksha' and 'refuge' - but I certainly feel that quoting him on this is particularly unsound. (20040302 (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

I didn't write that section, I just rearranged it. I agree it was a poor distinction and I'm happy that you removed it. Thank you for doing that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

---