Atisha's cook

Blocked: Checkuser shows that the accounts Truthsayer62 (talk · contribs), Atisha's cook (talk · contribs), Eyesofcompassion (talk · contribs) and Dspak08 (talk · contribs) are editing on the same topics from the same location. Using multiple accounts to influence article content is prohibited per the sockpuppet policy. Truthsayer62 is blocked for one week, the other accounts are blocked indefinitely. Thatcher 21:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Explanation accepted, pending further review of the entire situation. If this is a concerted effort by a group of people to influence article content it may yet be broadly unacceptable, or at least problematic, even if it does not involve the use of multiple accounts by a single person. The situation needs further study. Thatcher 12:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Further to your edit on the Western Shugden Society article. I have reverted your edit for two reasons. Firstly, I placed the "in use" tag on the article for good reason. Please bear in mind that it says, "As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed" and I would be grateful if you would respect this. Wikipedia is not going anywhere and you will have ample time to edit once the tag is removed. Secondly your edit summary of "there are plenty of sources" is not a valid reason or source. Third party sources (ie not connected to, associated with in any way the WSS or NKT) are needed to support the claim. Please be patient and wait until the tag has been removed. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to your second edit and summary. I am being perfectly reasonable. You are ignoring the In Use tag, and I would ask you again to stop editing while it is on. You could always have a look for some third party sources to confirm that chants are in Tibetan. I should stress though that they need to be third party sources such as newspaper articles etc. If you can find them while I am editing then we can add the info correctly. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have had to make the edits today to restore content that has been removed. However, that had to be done. I am now though reading through the WSS website and other press to add some new content. I am for instance adding info about the letter to Robert Thurman, about the online petition, about the WSS calling the protests a "Journey in compassion" etc.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have now amended the article further, mostly using the article entitled "Forced signature and ID card campaign" from the WSS to expand upon the background to the issue. As it was before the article didn't really give a detailed background to what had happened and why the WSS are protesting. I should stress that I have tried to word it in as much a neutral manner as possible, whilst still stating the WSS point of view. I am still checking other articles and sources to add. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be able to help with this - I presume that the WSS intention is to protest at all talks given by the Dalai Lama (while this is going on of course)? If so then the last protest that I can find reported was in August. Are there any recent protests or planned? I am wary of adding full details of future protests as it could be construed as adding "promotional material", but feel that something should be added. Is there anything on the WSS site? Also, if there are any pictures from protests that are added in the correct format then the article would benefit from a couple of pitures in my opinion. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are any further protests announced yet, as the Dalai Lama has cancelled his remaining engagements in the west this year, reportedly on his doctors' advice. Basically, afaik, there'll be protests wherever he teaches in the west (I think - at least, I've not heard of any planned in India, etc.)

What kind of pictures did you have in mind? There are lots on Flickr and so on that we could use.

BTW, I noticed that you'd removed the qualifier "anti-WSS" from the reference to "The website info-buddhismus.de". I agree that "anti-WSS" reads like a POV, but I think something *does* need to be added to show that this is, in fact, an anti-WSS site! Did you know that its author is one Tenzin Peljor, or kt66, who was involved in quite a lot of vandalism of wiki articles on this and related subjects - this is all in the history. He is pretty open about his anti-WSS/Shugden and anti-NKT agenda, and this site was set up specifically to discredit WSS and NKT. So his work is by no means neutral or reliable - maybe it shouldn't therefore be referenced without some kind of qualifier? How about "The website info-buddhismus.de, whose owner has written extensively on the internet criticising both WSS and NKT, points out..."? Or something less wordy. Maybe just lose that reference. It's hardly WPRS! Atisha's cook (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

re. "which takes a strong stance against the WSS" - that seems a reasonable qualifier; thanks. Atisha's cook (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WSS

Hey no worries I will have a look at the article. I've been meaning to have a look through the article again anyway, but it will need to be later today if that is ok. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The content about Atisha and ordination is not relevant to that article, as it deals only with the NKT. I've had chance now to see a number of videos of the protests including ones made by WSS and others and whilst there are clearly a large number of NKT sangha, there are also Tibetan monks and so the ASA comment in itself is more than enough content about that specific aspect, and I feel that adding to it is not needed, as it is focussing on it too much. (I'll probably copy this to the articles talk page too).♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI complaint, and possible WP:3RR issue at New Kadampa Tradition

Hello, Atisha's cook. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#POV edits and removal of templates and 3rd party sources. Thank you.

You are formally over 3RR on New Kadampa Tradition, since you've made at least five reverts on November 26. You may avoid a block if you are willing to undo your last revert there. The warning normally given is {{uw-3rr}}. Feel free to join the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was unaware previously of the 3RR. I am willing to undo reverts, but the article has since been edited multiple times by other users - afaik reverting my last undo would also remove these later edits, would it not?

I can't find the specific ANI discussion - could you provide a link to it? I In my naivety I was acting to correct some false information that I believe is being maliciously added to the article, but I do understand that edit-warring is not desirable, and I'll try to refrain from this. If you're looking into it, you'll see why and what was going on - I don't think I need to say much on it, and I'll accept the Admins' direction on it. Atisha's cook (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. The ANI posting has been archived. It is now here. Try not to exceed the limit of three reverts in 24 hours. There seems to be forward progress on that Talk page; at least there is some discussion of sources. If it happens that you and other editors get stuck on a disputed point, consider opening up an article WP:RFC. Express the question to be decided and ask for opinions. If you don't know how to do that, I could provide assistance with the mechanics. Follow the RFC link to see the instructions. An RFC is a way of getting editors who are not regulars on the page to look at the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok - will do. Thanks for your help! Atisha's cook (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Prehistory of the New Kadampa Tradition

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 criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Emptymountains (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden

dear atisha, i gave extensive reasons and quotes from WP:RS at the talk page. don't remove WP:RS without discussing them. you clearly misrepresent wojkowitz as i have shown at the talk page. try to be impartial and read the sources properly. thanks- Kt66 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a further note on the talk page. maybe the term "misrepresent" is too hard in that context, 'fuzzy' or 'inaccurate' are more moderate and label my criticism better. a anonymous website without sources and authors which statements have no support by WP:RS and are rather extreme, can't be used for a WP article. if they are used it has to be stated clearly that this is a claim of this or that website. best wishes --Kt66 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

— neuro^(talk) 08:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden Controversy

I reverted your restoration of the YouTube video. The video claims that there was a riot in New York City; this is a pretty extraordinary claim. The video makes claims as to what is being depicted and what happened, but it is hard to tell what is going on. If there was really a riot or serious confrontation, it should be documented by independent sources as a notable event. If that isn't the case, then it seems that the YouTube video is inflating the importance of what it depicts. I don't believe that YouTube is generally acceptable as a reliable source for something like this, but let me know if you think I've misread the policy in this respect. --Clay Collier (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

the video itself may make somewhat strong claims, i agree; there was no riot thanks to the swift actions of the NYPD to evacuate the protesters. however, the WP article states only that "a mob of Dalai Lama followers also threatened Dorje Shugden practioners in New York", whch I think is clearly and inarguably shown, whatever editorial comment has been added to the video. i confess i don't know the WP policy on Youtube as a RS in general, but in this case i do feel that the video is valid. i believe there are other sources such as news reports, though, so perhaps these would be preferable. until they're found, can we please leave the reference in its original form, until we can agree on a replacement? i've readded the deleted ref.Atisha's cook (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree that the video is acceptable as a reliable source; the conditions for the use of self-published material are usually pretty stringent, given that it is very difficult to assess something self-published on the web. As to the claim being verified with the video... personally I have a hard time telling what is going on from that video. I see people with some signs that appear to be critical of the dalai lama (Shugden supporters?) on one side of the street, and some people who appear to be Tibetans on the other. There's some yelling going on, and gesticulating, but what is being said is not clear (except one person yelling that someone is in the Chinese army), and the cops push people back behind a barrier. You can't tell from the video 1) who is doing the yelling and shoving- they appear to be Tibetans, but it's not readily apparent whose side they are on, 2) who they are directing their gestures at- the people with signs are across the street, but it's not clear in the video that any interaction between the two groups is really taking place, 3) what is being said- yelling 'you suck' or 'you're wrong' is not the same thing as making threats, for instance, or 4) where the yelling and protesting is taking place in relation to the scene of the dalai lama leaving a building- the text of the video says that it is at the back entrance, but the scene of the protesters appears to be at the front of radio city music hall. Everything relies on the text with the video, but the text is making some claims that seem far fetched- the riot claim, and the claim that the Shugden supporters were 'surrounded', when in the video they appear to be separated from the other group by a city street and a barrier the entire time. I've left the citation in place, but tagged it of being questionable reliability. If there is an actual news source that can confirm the text, that would be a big improvement. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ok - that seems reasonable. i agree that the editing of the video makes it a *little* difficult to follow, but i wouldn't go so far as to say that it's not readily apparent what's going on! for the record, i didn't have anything to do with the making of this video, nor did i add it as a reference to the article, but i was in fact present. the Shugden supporters were indeed vastly outnumbered, surrounded (they were maybe 200 souls, in a small pen on the diagonally opposite corner of the intersection from the entrance to Radio City) and without any possible shred of ambiguity, explicitly and loudly threatened! bottles were thrown by some of the angry mob, who were mainly Tibetan, protesters were spat at, gun and throat-cutting gestures were made and protesters were told that they would be killed, and so on. in the video, it looks a little odd in that the protesters are seen to remain relatively calm but i can assure you that they were in absolutely no doubt about the temperament of the mob across the street. the mob *was* for the most part across the street, owing to the presence of the NYPD, who were taken somewhat by surprise and had to call in some mounted officers and extra foot officers and cars, and who ordered the evacuation of the protesters. they cleared a path for the protesters buses to come pick them up, and piled them onto these buses as quickly as possible (they shouted at them to "for your own safety - just get out!" and not to be concerned about how many people were crammed on each bus!) police cars and bikes then escorted the buses out to a safe distance. i saw all this myself and i saw and felt the crowd's vitriol. i have no doubt at all that it could have turned very ugly if the NYPD hadn't reacted so quickly. we can all try to find a more acceptable source for this info, though, i agree.Atisha's cook (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Yonteng

This comment was inappropriate and excessive. Regardless of how he acts, you must act civilly in response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This [1] was incivil and inflamed an already difficult situation. I've blocked you for 12h and removed the comment. Please read WP:CIVIL William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

fair enough. have to admit, i'm getting pretty fed up with him. i don't believe his accusations of COI etc to be justfied, and i'd just like him to reason and discuss before tagging! Atisha's cook (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your block has now expired. Please remeber that you have to be civil even to people that annoy you. Walk away from the keyboard if necessary... 21:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

very good advice!  :-D Atisha's cook (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well i think in truth I will probably not trust you but its nothing personal, its just because of our allegiances. But I can see no reason for us to be rude to one another (Lets leave that to the boys!)I saw someone on the BBC the other day talking about the monstrous personality that the anonymity of the internet can create in contributors. Shall we say, when we get on line, its a bit like Jekyll's potion? All I want is a balanced article that includes a) the good things about the NKT and b)the critical info. If thats what you want, we dont have a problem tBest wishesYonteng (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

CoI ?

I'm wondering Atisha's cook can you tell us whether or not you are affiliated in any way with with the NKT and /or the WSS? If you are affiliated with an organisation or pracice beleif systems you have written about on Wikipedia, I'm afraid, as others have pointed out, you may have a conflict of interest. In particular it seems NKT members may stand in 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, Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy and Western Shugden Society. Indeed such matters appear to be almost your only interest in Wikipedia. In editing these articles you always seem particularly keen to stress the NKT POV and edit out or deprecate material conflicting with their views. Can you reassure us that you have no conflict of interest here? Thanks. Lodru (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

stated many times that i'm a Dorje Shugden practitioner, and that i edit on these topics because they are the only topics on which i feel i have a sufficient degree of expertise to contribute meaningfully. have also stated that i am aware of potential COI on my part and as a result take pains to avoid introducing bias by my editing, in accordance with WP guidelines on same. i reject your accusation that i "seem particularly keen to stress the NKT POV and edit out or deprecate material conflicting with their views"; i've stated, again, many times that i am *not* opposed to material that reports other views, traditions, beliefs, etc. - i *am*, however, opposed to bias. can you, Lodru, reassure us that you have no conflict of interest here, for example promoting the views of the Dalai Lama? look to your own house, if you don't mind. Atisha's cook (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not and never have been a DS practitioner, neither do I have any connection to the Dalai Lama, the TGIE nor any organisation which either opposes or promotes DS practice. Take care Lodru (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

my edits to Dorje Shugden controversy

Hi AC! I am right now going through the article, top to bottom, esp. looking at the sources and flagging those with issues. along the way i do some quick edits where i feel something is wrong. My feelings of course can sometimes be wrong themselves :) So please feel free to improve my edits or even revert them if u think they are inappropriate and let's discuss them then. Yours, Andi 3ö (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

appreciated - thanks, Andi. i'll get round to this later, right now i don't have much time. in general, i think most of your flagging points that need verification etc. is valuable; i disagree with removing quotes from the Yellow Book section, even though they're flagged for checking. did you check them? i'll post this also on the Talk page for the article, which is the better place to carry on this discussion. Atisha's cook (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

COI Template added to the New Kadampa Tradition article

Hi Atisha's cook. I've added the COI template to New Kadampa Tradition as you, and several other major contributors to that article, appear to have close connections to the organization which is the subject of the article. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Favonian (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Atisha's cook. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)