User talk:Changchub

By the way

You made a comment on Talk:17th Karmapa recognitions, but note that this is the ersatz copy page made by User:Sacerdote. The real talk page is still located at: Talk:Karmapa controversy.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks Nat. LOL, that's why I didn't find it again!--Changchub (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For notification

[1], [2]Sacerdote (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to be reminded of this rule. However, my reversions of your changes clearly fall under the category of at least one of the exceptions

reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons

and are in my opinion also borderline vandalism at this point as your insistence upon making such drastic undiscussed changes have created problems for all involved in constructively editing on these subject matters.--Changchub (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSP

Hi there. You might consider listing probable sockpuppets on our suspected sockpuppets page, especially if they're reporting you for reverting them. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 02:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgable editors needed

For help with the Drukpa article. It would be appreciated. There is a new user who removes every mention of the Drukpa school being a Kagyu lineage, deleting legitimate sources in the process. Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my watch list now. Changchub (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

Over at User_talk:Sylvain1972 you wrote "Tsongkhapa was taught by the 1st Karmapa Dusum Khyenpa and we don't call Gelug's Kagyu" ~ This seems unlikely since the 1st Karmapa Dusum Khyenpa lived from 1110 to 1193 CE whereas Je Tsongkhapa lived from 1357 to 1419 CE. Chris Fynn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my bad. Je Tsongkhapa received lay ordination from the 4th Karmapa Rolpe Dorje. Not sure why I said the above, really!--Changchub (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Pema Donyo Nyinje Wangpo. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Allen3 ^talk 04:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section (or part section) blanking

Please do not delete sections (or parts of sections) because they offend your personal point of view. Thus you deleted the section on Trungpa in the Buddhist sex abuse cases article because it offended you and your personal point of view, advanced for example in Ole Nydahl's talk page, that a teacher is entitled to have sex with his students. Rinpoche (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was deleted because it offended my personal point of view. That was an aside. The deletion of Trungpa Rinpoche's entry was because it represents a misuse of the English language. Sexual intercourse does not equal sexual abuse. Now if for example you had a Wikipedia page titled "Non-celibate Lamas" or "Non-celibate Buddhist teachers" or something of the sort then that very same entry would be completely appropriate. You seem to enjoy exaggeration and the twisting of others words as I spoke to nothing remotely resembling entitlement and the only "personal" point of view I have tried to espouse is that weird obsessions with how an individual or individuals are portrayed usually don't result in good or objective encyclopedia fodder.Changchub (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

splitting Tib Bsm

Hi, Changchub. You've helped with the Tib Bsm article in the past. If you have a moment, would you like to check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibetan_Buddhism.

I've proposed something there that would involve work for me but would improve the Tib Bsm article immensely in my opinion. It's turned out to be contentious. I have something coming up in the new year that would make it hard for me to devote the time to this then, so it is now or never. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Moonsell (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karmapa 17th

Well this may be your point of view however dear Changchub. It's not anything to do with the 4 major different lineages, but the overall hierarchy of generally accepted seniority which I have heard & seen here in cyberspace. Such as Sakya Trizin being considered as number 2 who is of the Sakya lineage. It was even mentioned on a BBC programme about 17th Karmapa being the 3rd in seniority [of the 4 lineages]; to leave it in would not have hurt except maybe our egos! There are a lot of concepts we could discuss until the cows come home, but it would be useful to have left my edit in also as for the general public researching subjects such as this to know that HHDL is not he only head of a lineage. Anyway leave it up to you. I have enough with pro-chinese editiors on here reverting my work for the Tibetan cause :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroEgo (talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From "Surviving the Dragon" by Arjia Rinpoche: "Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy is not defined as strictly as it is in many Western religions, such as Catholicism. For example, the Dalai Lama is supreme in his secular role of political leader, but when it comes to religious authority, he and the Panchen Lama are equals. Then come the leaders of each of the four Tibetan spiritual traditions: Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug. After this, the hierarchy gets hazy. Certainly the abbots of the major monasteries are high ranking. Others are highly regarded because of the contributions and achievements of their predecessors. Still others have achieved prominence in this lifetime.(page 6)" Just because a BBC program says something does not make it the case. I am neither pro nor anti-Chinese, however I am opposed to socialism. My edit stems not from ego, but from the attempt to convey information on these subjects in an accurate manner. Changchub (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tib Bsm on Bon/ RfC

If you have a spare moment, can I draw your attention to the "Bon" and "RfC" sections on the Tib Bsm talk page of WP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibetan_Buddhism). There's been a hassle going on there for over a month.

               Moonsell (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]