User talk:Rinpoche: Difference between revisions

Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you.

Welcome!

Hello, Rinpoche, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! (Thunderclacker the F22 (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Just to say great work on the page. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rinpoche (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Sutor, ne ultra crepidam, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutor, ne ultra crepidam until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you sort of think it's a dictionary item? It's a celebrated Latin phrase (for which Wikipedia has a category and many entries) and neither does it have the character of a dictionary entry (whose hallmark is that they have multiple definitions). You sort of marked this for deletion within literally minutes of my contributing it. Why? Don't you think you should have sort of discussed your concerns with the community first on the talk page? It strikes me as very high handed of you. Are you in fact an administrator? I do feel abused and I do think you sort of owe me an apology. At any rate please clarify your concerns on the deletion page so we can move on here. Rinpoche (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new page patroller who looked at the article and thought it looked like a dictionary entry so I submitted it to AFD to get a consensus on whether or not it should be transwikied. There I saw the reasons why the article should by kept at the English Wikipedia. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can clearly see that you are trying to make fun of my statements and also you should not even mention the word "stupid" in a discussion as you are likely to offend other editors. I kindly ask you to review wp:civility and respond kindly like other editors have. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby122. I'm not making fun of your statements. Rather I am expressing irritation at your unwanted interference with my contibution in much the same spirit as Appeles did when he uttered Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. Call it ironic. Do you agree the article should stand? Have we reached consensus? Your response on my talk page suggests you have. On the delete page you remain equivocal. Rinpoche (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any observation and advice readers may be able to supply as to how I can have this page restored. The page iself can be seen here as a draft page in my user space.Rinpoche (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have deleted the userspace copy iof the article under G10. Please do not repost it again unless there is first a consensus that it is OK. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be obliged if you could tell me where the article can be viewed to reach a consensus. The article was deleted without warning me that it had been tagged for deletion and I don't know whether it was ever discussed. Why shouldn't it be suitable? What is controversial about it? I have asked for the article's deletion to be reviewed. I would be grateful if you would give me a fuller account of your action failing which I do propose to restore the article in my userspace so that interested parties can understand what the dispute (from which I was nevertheless ever given the opportunity to contribute to) refers to. Rinpoche (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can't unless you have multiple concrete incontrovertible sources that name each and everyone one of the list as a sex offender then you cannot host this material on wikipedia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all you introduce the term 'sex offender', once again conflating abuse necessarily with criminality. This really is very remiss indeed of you. I'm surprised you are seemingly unembarrassed by this persistent error you perpetrate. Regarding your remark about sources, with the exception of Ole Nydahl all of the cases I cite are to be found sourced on the individuals' concerned own wiki pages, are adequately sourced by me and are entirely not contentious either because the behaviour had led to resignation or (in the case of Trungpa, Tendzin and Sogyal) is indeed multiply and incontrovertibly sourced. In the case of Nydahl the situation is unusual since he makes no secret of his sexual relationships with his students but justifies it as equipowered and this is noted by me in the article. Will you please now address the question of your confounding of abuse with criminality and let me know your proposals? Rinpoche (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rinpoche, I think if you are going to write something on this topic, to start with, you need a more cautious title. My understanding is the article concerns 'inappropriate sexual relationships' as opposed to what is more usually considered 'sex abuse'. From there you need a lead section, which clearly explains, perhaps even emphasizes, that inclusion on the list doesn't imply any illegal activity, merely there was a relationship that was inappropriate. The actual body of the article I thought was reasonably ok, but perhaps the 'literature' section should come first, with some sort of introduction to this section, commenting on shared themes, and noting any significant disagreements. Whether or not there should be a 'Recent alleged cases involving teachers in the Western Buddhist community' is debatable, but if included, it would require better sourcing - blogs certainly shouldn't be used. Finally, I would comment that criticism of this sort is possible, for example Western Buddhist Order#The Guardian report, however it should be noted this takes a very cautious approach. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I don't agree with the remark about 'inappropiate sexual relationships'. That strikes me as just a euphemism for abusive relationships. But I shan't be rewriting this article if the deletion is not undone. It's too much trouble and I have other projects underway as well my own work. This was supposed to be a service to the community. I am profoundly distressed it is treated like this. Consider the list in Sexual_abuse#Positions_of_power of cases in the 'Southern Baptist religion^[1], Catholic Church, Episcopalian religion^[2], Islam^[3], Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran church^[4], Methodist Church^[5], The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints^[6], the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Orthodox Judaism^[7], Buddhism and various cults'. I merely sought to include Buddhism.

Your suggestion that the 'Literature' section should perhaps come first indeed sensible on reflection as your remark about a lead section and I will revise the article if it is restored. The list has to stay though. Really the whole reason I wrote the artcile was because I was so struck that every emerging Western Buddhism group I offhand know of over the past fifty years has been tarnished, not just peripherally but at its heart, by this sort of sexual scandal and this is what makes it notable (I saw a remark that perhaps the page wasn't needed and but for this I would be inclined to agree - the trouble is if I make much of that then I fall into the 'original research' trap ). The first paper I reference essentially addresses the issue in an interesting, and I think correct, way. I did look at the FWBO article you mention and list it as an external source and I think one of the references (essentially favourable) I supplied came from there. It was also the basis of the remark I made that the community remained supportive of its founder. But I stress I'm not prepared to interest myself further in a page like this unless my original version is restored. Thank you for your remarks. Appreciated. Rinpoche (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rinpoche. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you. Rinpoche (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rinpoche, if you truly want to be blocked for violating WP:No personal attacks, it is easy to grant your request. Your comment is here. There is still time for you to fix your comment at WQA. You should not be surprised that charges of sex abuse can lead to controversy. Any caution you can manage to exercise will be beneficial to all parties. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Course I don't want to be blocked and I'm not requesting it. I'm not surprised that an article about Buddhist sex abuse cases generates controversy. But I am very surprised I wasn't notified about a discussion to delete the page and that after repeatedly asking concerned parties to raise their issues on the article's talk page were never taken up.

Nor was I engaging in a personal attack. I was simply responding to the individual's request for advice and being helpful.

As I advised him or her that individual should not be surprised that deleting material about someone so charismatic and controversial as Ole Nydahl is likely to generated a heated response. Speaking strictly for myself (but I know I'm speaking for Ole too) being free to speak my mind plainly ('robustly' as the individual concerned would say) about the issues is the sort of thing I would be prepared to give up this life for. Even a wiki account (imagine).

Thank you. Appreciated. Rinpoche (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and other incivility, most notably "Now go fuck yourself". Resumption of the same behavior after the block expires will result in longer blocks. Looie496 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Looie496.

Thank you for advising me of this. Appreciated. I really do love Wikipedia but I must insist that I'm allowed to love it on my own terms because I can do no other (or go without, which I candidly admit is the fate of most of my love affairs oh dear ...).

As I think I must surely have made clear I really do have nothing further to add to the comments about 'Buddhist sex abuse cases' I have already made. I do hope the page is restored.

Currently I'm fleshing out the biographies of Leveller women. I've already supplied a stub for Katherine Chidley and I'm presently working on one for Mary Overton wife of Richard Overton. It will take a few days before it's ready yet.

Mary Overton was subjected to appalling abuse at one point in her life. She was nursing her new born baby when baillifs came to escort her to Millwall prison in London,an absolutely dreadful place. She refused so the bailiffs then called for some carters to take her away. They too refused out of common humanity. The bailffs then physically dragged her clutching her baby through the mire and dirt of the London streets while people spat abuse.

Well I don't know but I think it quite possible that some of them went as far as telling her to 'go fuck yourself' which is absolutely frightful of course.

The baby died some six months later.

Regarding the BSAC debacle what I've done with my Katherine Chidley stub is that on the talk page I've added at the top a section for contributors in which I myself, as a contributing editor, expressly ask people to contact me on my talk page if they have any issues with it; the lack of a definition for the term 'controversialist' for example which I can see might be a real no brainer for users of a certain disposition. I'll be doing the same in all future new pages I contribute in the hope of avoiding the same difficulties I had with BSAC (assuming of course that's okay with the wiki community).

Thank you for your attention. Rinpoche (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add. I had a quick look at your user page and I can see you're a very busy individual. I am sorry that I've encroached on your time like this and I will bear that in mind in future. I think it's admirable you spare the time as you do to further Wikipedia. Rinpoche (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologize. All you have to do is edit consistently with Wikipedia's core policies, including the policies on civility. Looie496 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, understood, but the fifth pillar reminds us that the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. However I'm embarrassed that I have taken up your time like this and I shall be more thoughtful in future. Rinpoche (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rinpoche. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at WP:WQA. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]