User talk:Nat Krause/Archive4

Hows it going?

I'm back on Wikipedia and have moved to Jinghong! Come and visit if you get a chance... prat 7 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

Image copyright

You had asked on my user page about copyright for the photo of Lama Surya Das. I obtained this image from his Press Room section of the website. There are no stated restrictions on the usage of the photo. Thanks! --Evandra

Discussion moved to Image talk:Anhui Province Dongzhi County.jpg#Copyright.

Republics

Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political power of Dalai Lamas

My first impulse was to move

The Dalai Lamas, however, never had authority over every region of Tibet nor over the other sects of Tibetan Buddhism.

and

The Dalai Lama has been ruler of Tibet and Head of State from when the Gelugpas began to control the country (the mid-17th century until 1959, when the Dalai Lama had to flee to India).

to Talk:Dalai Lama with a note to the effect that saying nothing is better than asserting two apparently contradictory versions without acknowledging the appearance of contradiction.
But i searched back thru the edits, and was rewarded by finding your name at the relevant one. I recall you as a very responsible discussant, and i'd bet you can fix this without a lot of fuss.
TIA, Jerzy (t) 14:21, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Fixing it is not high on my priorities, but knowing you don't want to now do so may raise it, and if so i expect your assessment to be valuable guidance.
I hope our difficulty getting closer about Nhat Hanh hasn't put you off editing on Buddhist topics; if it did, that would be, at the least, information i would want to weigh in the long run. Be well. --Jerzy (t) 17:08, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

...etc.

How do i feel about the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? It's probably lucky that i lack the eloquence of Christopher Hitchens, who called Mother Theresa "a thieving Albanian dwarf"! Otherwise i might tell you my feelings, based on my inadequately supported suspicions.

I'm glad you mentioned him. (I see this titles thing as a minor calling; i gave "HH Pope JP" a Nhat-Hanh-like treatment a week or so ago, tho i dread to look at the article in the midst of all this.) I don't know right off how to deal with his case; his publicity machine may have made his title/name as, uh, untouchable as Gandhi-ji's. I found this quickly!:

Is Maharishi a title or a name?

MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI, SPIRITUAL GURU AND AUTHOR: Title, I think. People begin to call significant of the characteristic of the word "Maharishi." "Maha" means great and "Rishi" is a seer. The seer of reality. The seer, that's what people called, and it became a sort of name.

So at least i know what to say to [wink] stubborn supporters in this case. [still smiling, and hope you can as well]

I can't decide whether "Maharishi" (as if it were a name) or "the Maharishi" (explicitly a title) is more PoV! While i can't remember if i've ever mentioned him before now, my own inclination orally would in practice be "the Maharishi" and probably using "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" only to answer a properly phrased direct question. But i'm gonna scratch my head some more, and do at least a little more Google research. Thanks again; "I wanted a mission, and for my sins they gave me one."

"Zen" article

Hello,

I couldn't help but notice that you wiped out an entire section of the article Zen without even trying to discuss it at the talk page for the referred article. I don't think that's very healthy.

You wrote in your edit summary: Removing the entire further reading section. Does Wikipedia usually have those?

As far as I can see, wikipedia articles, many and many of them, do have bibliographies. And as far as I can see the majority of good articles and papers do include recommended reading.

I do not agree with what you've done, since many people must have collaborated to that specific section you just deleted. I ask you to please open a thread on the talk page and put back what you've deleted.

Porcher 20:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky

Chomsky supports the draft? Didn't know that. Have a source? Kev 06:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I figured as much. There is absolutely nothing there saying that Chomsky supports the draft. What he does say is that he didn't oppose it. You do recognise that there is a difference between supporting something and not opposing something, right? Further, he even explains why, " If there is to be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen’s army."

In order for you to demonstrate that he supports the draft you will need an answer to the question, "should there be an army?" Kev 08:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I tend to agree. I don't think Chomsky is an anarchist, he seems to think of anarchism as a far future ideal rather than something to push for today, which makes his position more akin to the less authoritarian communists than an anarchist. In fact, I've never seen a single interview in which he refered to himself as an anarchist or explicitly accepted the title, even though he is often introduced as one. However, it is a matter of controversy, I've seen debates go on and on about this, and I don't think there is any really solid evidence one way or the other, mostly because so many of his statements are qualified and conditioned like this one. I honestly wish someone on Zmag would just ask him, "do you consider yourself an anarchist, yes or no?" so that he can say no and there will be no more debate about it. Kev 09:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look at his 1970 talk on "government in the future" he states there that he believes in anarchism or as it is sometimes called libertarian socialism. It is actually a fascinating talk, you can even listen to the full original recording on zNet. Behind that there is a recent book published by AK press called "Chomsky on Anarchism" which is collection of works all about his thoughts on anarchism.--Fluxaviator 09:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Che

Your help and certification at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Che_y_Marijuana would be appreciated. Philwelch 05:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You apparently certify the RfC, but you also need to add your signature here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Che_y_Marijuana#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute -- Viajero 10:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Che y Marijuana. Philwelch 17:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop vandalising my Talk:Anarchism entry

Stop interfering/deleting my text. That behaviour is hypocritical and innacurate - You are only trying to deny me my voice and my opinion that "anarcho-capitalist"/right-wing vandalising and TROLLING is going on. - max rspct 22:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

libertarianism/property

I responded to your concerns on the property section. I hope you don't mind that I reformatted your entry to make it easier to respond to. Dave (talk) 18:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

left anarchism

The left anarchism page is up for deletion by Che. You might want to vote to keep it: [1] Thanks. (RJII)

Your nice articles on Buddhism

I saw your nice and informative articles on various topics, pertaining to Buddhism. I am sure to learn from you. As regards Mahabodhi Temple article, original pictures are being arranged from my contacts in Bodh Gaya, and shall be inserted in due course of time. Wish you happy editing.--Bhadani 14:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS: Ok I got your message right now on the Mahabodhi Temple discussion page. But, please allow me time till sunday. I will do a "medium path" - I promise and keep everything, which you had done.--Bhadani 14:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism related articles - Featured article status

I fully agree with you, I will use only few pictures, very few in the Mahabodhi Temple article. Pictures will not come by next sunday, but by sunday, I will edit the article, taking all information from your edit, which I reverted today. By the way, it is great to learn that you know so many things about Buddhism. Have a nice time ... One thing more, I would suggest all persons editing articles on Buddhism should try that some articles related to Buddhism get featured article status. Actually, we should move towards that objective. As and when I get pictures, say within a month, I will upload them for use by others interested in the same. byee ...--Bhadani 14:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pietro di Candia

What the fuck do you think you're doing? john k 03:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the confusion engendered by moves, I am falsely accusing you. If so, I'm sorry. That said, whoever moved the article out of Pope Alexander V to one based on his original name deserved it, since this is utterly unsupported by policy. Antipope Alexander V might be appropriate, and there was discussion of the move, but Pietro di Candia is simply wrong. john k 03:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All antipopes are at Antipope Name Number. Popes are at Pope Name Number. If you'd bothered to look at the talk page, you'd have seen that Alexander V had just been the subject of a failed attempt to move it to Antipope Alexander V. What made you think it was okay to move it to an odd title (I've much more usually heard of him as "Peter Philarges," or "Pietro Philarghi" anyway) I have no idea. The single exception to this is the Duke of Savoy who became antipope, since he was better known as a duke of Savoy than as an anti-pope. At any rate, making a move without even attempting to discuss it, on a page where there was, a few days ago, a discussion on the talk page about whether it should be moved, and in a manner completely inconsistent with every other article about an antipope or pope on wikipedia, is out of line, especially for someone who's been around for a long time. john k 05:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia:Profanity is completely irrelevant - I did not use the word "fuck" in main name space, but only in edit summaries and talk space. As to wikiquette, I suppose you have me there. But I'm certainly not going to apologize. I certainly might have expressed myself in a less offensive manner, but I particularly can't stand it when somebody does something stupid and then hides behind wikiquette when someone calls them on it. john k 05:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rockwellites

I have to disagree with you about Rockwellians not being hostile to minarchists: according to one of the articles cited in Libertarianism, "attacks on Virginia Postrel, Brink Lindsey, Tom Palmer, David Boaz (heck, just about the whole Cato staff) and other alleged apostates galore are constant, vitriolic, ad hominem, and vicious."[2] For example this post is pretty clear about it: "Give state officials a monopoly on the use of force and they will abuse that monopoly to advance their power, wealth, and prestige. Depending on government to protect liberty is not tragedy, but insanity, which Einstein defined as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” (my emphasis) I wouldn't make a big deal about it, but I don't like having things as vague as "some anarcho-capitalists" if it can be avoided.

Let me know what you think. Dave (talk) 20:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for me to reply--I had final exams and my computer broke down. I'll defer to you on the issue. Thanks for your reply. Dave (talk) 16:20, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mahabodhi Temple

My Dear Nat Krause, I would invite your attention to the following message on Mahabodhi Temple discussion page, posted by me: Quote I just donot fine the reason for reverting an article to earlier position when the article has passed through several hands. I would request User:Nat Krause to consider all these factors. His reversal has taken down the templete conveying that it is a world heritage site. This is highly awkward. In case, you want to edit the article, it is ok, but always reverting to a particular point of time is against the wiki principles, I feel so. --Bhadani 08:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)Unquote

I would request you to please take care that your reverting to an earlier position does not wash away the edits by a series of other users – that also, without giving any cogent reasons. Please assist in maintaining the wiki traditions of discussions/consensus, before taking such major reversals. I hope that handing over this matter, which tantamounts to indirect edit war to the larger community of wikipedians shall be a better solution. What do you feel? Please carefully read what you reverted and what you have placed now. I am sure that you will agree that your reversal has made this bluechip article again read like a half baked bread? You being so senior should surely understand the difference. Am I wrong? Thanks.--Bhadani 09:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Basketball positions

Hi, do you think it would be better to have basketball positions on separate pages as they are now, or as one article outlining each one in turn as well as their interactions? There is no article on basketball position at present. There's only so much you can write about one single basketball position - is there enough to write an entire article on each one? Get back to me with your opinion, thanks (I ask you because you contributed to each of the position pages and I've asked you about these pages on a different matter before) User talk:Neonumbers Neonumbers 12:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that there won't be enough to write an entire article on any one position (i.e. the article will be doomed to shortness) - I say this because, as far as I can see, the only things left to write are how the positions work together (btw I will create the basketball position page after this). Sorry if I'm bothering you, but I just wanted to ask someone with more knowledge than me specifically what there is else to write on one particular position - I'm thinking even history and development would require all positions in one article. User talk:Neonumbers Neonumbers 10:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Haii guy Nat Krause, I stumbled on your user page and saw several topics waiting - on which you wanto2make article. I alredy starto worko - u may finish and updateo ok .. by bye tata - with a basketfoolful of thanks for the topic bank.--MissingLinks 11:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)postscript: in case, you r short of time, i will continue to exapand the topics to the best of my knowledge. bai bai ta ta --MissingLinks 11:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Suggestions - requesting assistance in improving articles suggested by you, please continue to expand your list of article you want to write, so that I am not short of topics. I would call you Guru - I am sure you must be feeling light at me having shared a lot of your responsibility and work. Now, I will also concentrate on your existing articles - please allow me, please.--MissingLinks 18:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

ACORN

Thanks for the NPOV edits, I've been resisting doing it for a while so as not to provoke another edit war, I think they were sorely needed though. Hopefully they will stick. --Wgfinley 16:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see you have modified other articles without thinking about it and reverting to previous version.

What you say or think about buddhism is not always right, please allow others to contribute to the articles on the wiki, and please don't assume you have the finally say on the articles and revert comple version of the articles.

Anyway, you asked for copyright information on the images that I have put on the buddhism article. I state that they are my images that I have taken, if you require further information please let me know.

== [o0paradox0o]

On the suject of: Bodhisattva.. specifically that image that you uploaded to the site on the subject. With the caption of "Image of a bodhisattva, relief, from Jiuhuashan in China's Anhui province. Photograph taken by uploader June 2004" I need some more information about this photo and where it's located etc.. If you could contact me perhaps we could speak on the subject a bit.. E-mail me at: o0paradox0o@gmail.com. Thanx for the info btw.. good stuff ;)

Buddhadasa

I'm fine with changing Buddhadasa Bhikkhu to Buddhadasa because, as you say, bhikkhu is a job description. However, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu is the name by which he is known in English (just as Ajahn Chah is known in English by the use of the Thai word for a respected teacher combined with his name). Because of this, I think for future edits we should keep the reference to Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in the article text even if the article is located at Buddhadasa. Also, do you have access to the Thai language version of his name? I don't know how to upload Thai-language scripts and I also have lost my source material which spelled his name in Thai. Any other info on his life is also greatly appreciated. Best. --Alabamaboy 18:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Update: I found someone to upload his Thai name. Any other info you have is still apreciated. --Alabamaboy 11:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Saka/Shakya

Hi Nat, as far as I know Saka (Scythian) and Shakya (the Buddha's tribe) are totally unrelated, although both were probably Indo-Aryan (since the Shakya were Kshatriya). I have never seen anywhere a connection between the two, appart from some vague suggestions from time to time. I really don't think the articles should be merged. Thanks for the notice. Best regards.PHG 11:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Crips

As for what you added to the Crips article, I do not doubt that is what that particular book said about the origin of the name, but that is only one of the dozens of versions of where the name came from. I personally don't think that particular theory deserves any more or less prominence than some of the other theories. I do think, however, that you should add Leon's book to the article as a new References section. The Crips article needs lots of work to improve it, but I haven't had the time. BlankVerse ∅ 15:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the Crips article as I was following all the "What links here" links for the Long Beach, California article that I was doing a little work on. It seems to be a regular target for adding urban myths and misinformation from wannabes, so I've kept it on my Watchlist. As I've read more about the various theories about the origin of the Crips name, I have decided that one of the more credible possibilities is one that is not in the article right now—that the name came from "crib" streets or cul-de-sacs.

I know that there is still garbage in the article, but I haven't done enough research to know what to keep and what to weed out. And worse yet, the subject matter is a perfect example of why you often can't rely upon the information that you find on the internet. At least the Crips article usually doesn't get a whole lot of racist shit added. I had the Kwanzaa article on my Watchlist for awhile, which regular gets bullshit added. BlankVerse ∅ 06:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Hi

I just found out your change to my user page :-) Thanks a lot for it, it means a lot to me, in particular since I am so little on en.wikipedia now. I honestly feel warmed up by it. I appreciated. Anthere 21:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Disinfo-test

The unused Template:Disinfo-test, which you created, has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 11:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism

Hi Nat, two things; 1) don't remove copyright violation tags. 2) your reason for removing the copyright violation, no url, has nothing to do with whether its a copyright violation or not. --Duk 01:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...but it would be good if you would describe your reasons for nominating it on the page itself, on the talk page, or at least in an edit summary... You are right, it's good to explain why the article was tagged as a copyright violation, but I didn't tag this article. I just do a lot of maintenance on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and noticed that the copyvio tag had been improperly removed.

In this case, no explanation was necessary, since the article noted what was copied and from where. --Duk 07:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

redirect

just to let you know, on the article Flemish independence, you created a redirect, to Flemish independence! I'm assuming this was an error rather than some cunning plan to trap wikipedians in a never ending redirect cycle. Just wannted to inform you so you could replace the redirect with whatever you originally intended it should be. Grunners 12:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Condorcet Voting for the next Arbitration Committee Elections?

I wrote this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005:

I strongly recommend that we should change from approval voting to Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, a Condorcet method, for the next Arbitration Committee Elections. We can use Andrew Myers' Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS) to count the ballots.

Already during the last elections, it has been proposed by Johnleemk and Nat Krause to change from approval voting to Condorcet voting. But their proposal came to late. Markus Schulze 20 June 2005

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alfrem

I thought you should know, Alfrem has officially taken it upon himself to officially accuse you of vandalism [3]. I took him to task for it on his talk page [4]. Saswann 12:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Revertwarinprogress

I dont know, its hard to tell what the image is although it is "explosive" warning I believe.

Maybe you're right, mystery man. The image doesn't look so good in such a small size. - Nat Krause 15:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism

Nat, Buddhism originated in Nepal, not India. Many Indians believe that it originated in South India, but the vast majority of people in the world, including those who write the encyclopedia brittanica and other textbooks dealing with the history of Buddhism agree that it orginated in Nepal. kennethtennyson

Most historians would state that the area where the Buddha was born and lived would be considered the birthplace of the Buddha and thus the birthplace of Buddhism. It's difficult to state where Buddhism or any religion was truly born then if you use definitions depending on the Buddha's mental state or what he was thinking on the subject. If that were true, then Buddhism would technically be born when the first Buddhist text was published or the first disciple began preaching Buddhism to another disciple or perhaps the first Buddhist temple. Although from a Buddhist's perspective, it matters not where the Buddha was born but when he passed away as he reached enlightenment then. But most historians, tibetans, southeast asians, and Nepalese believe that Nepal is the Birthplace of Buddhism. Nepal and Tibet have a longer history of Buddhism than India, if I remember correctly. kennethtennyson

Dear Kenneth,

As you are never LOGIN to do EDITS please use following to sign your comments

{{user|kennethtennyson}}

It will output something like.

kennethtennyson (talk · contribs)

Nat~

I am Sorry to use your talk page to talk to Kenneth.

-Bijee 15:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism

Copied

"In my view, the naming of this article and the introduction are NPOV." I agree with this sentence completely. The rest of what you say is quite debatable. The anarchists I've talked to, other than anarcho-capitalists, are enthusiastically in favor of being regarded as socialists. - Nat Krause 11:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

"My friends tell me" is not a valid argument, and your argument Nat, is simply a play on words. Of course anarchism and Bakunin socialism are virutally equivalent - but for that matter so is left libertarianism. Youre saying that left libertarianism is indistinct from socialism, but forgetting to say that right libertarianism is equally equivalent to capitalism. How can "libetarianism" = capitalism. Your "I agree with this sentence completely" is likewise insincere and disingenous - you know the anon intented to say "POV," for which he would be correct. -SV|t

Libertatis Æquilibritas

You appear to have redirected Libertatis Æquilibritas to a blank page. Your edit summary suggests you had something reasonable in mind, could you please take a look and see if you can fix this? -- Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 05:20 (UTC)

Anarchism

My compromise was totally ignored by individuals on both sides of the divide, and RJ and Hogeye actually seem to enjoy having the article tossed about. I'm willing to accept your compromise of having both a disambiguation and an anarcho-capitalism section, but I think there need to be some specifics worked out.

I'm willing to compromise on the following points:

• The dismabiguation, which indicates that this article is about anarchism as it is traditionally defined (or whatever), points to the anarchism disambiguation article, saying that this is not the only use.

• The section on anarcho-capitalism does not appear under "schools" and is relatively small. Maybe two sentences for what it is, one sentence from prominent folks, one sentence explaining why it isn't discussed in this article and a link to both the anarcho-capitalism article and whatever debate articles ACs want linked.

• The disambiguation page, once it is unprotected, is strengthened to indicate clearly what anarcho-capitalists percieve the term to mean, and again points to their article.

However, if I went with such a solution I would be firm about the following:

• The disambiguation warning which states what this article is about is not to be defined by anarcho-capitalists, this article would not at that point be about them regardless of the fact that it mentions them, because it is disambiguated.

• There will not be mention of anarcho-capitalism throughout the article, including historical precursors that only apply to anarcho-capitalism, constant comparisons, and history of anarchism through the AC pov.

• The link and books section will not contain information on anarcho-capitalism, again because this article has been disambiguated and all those links can go on their page which is linked both directly and through the prominent warning at the top.

I hope this sounds reasonable to you, but I seriously doubt that RJ, Dtobias, Hogeye, or ChuckO would agree to any of it. I'm hoping that the combination of outside editors, a few reasonable caps, and a few reasonable anarchists, would allow this compromise to work. Kev 05:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Maitreya

If you are knowledgeable on the subject, could u add the Yin Shun view of what the Maitreya is? freestylefrappe 02:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ali bin Hussein of Hejaz, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 2

I thought I had explained. This was Mr Kinsella's vanity page, deleted a while ago. He recreated it to illustrate a point, thus disrupting Wikipedia, so I speedy deleted it for him. The proper bureaucracy is for it to go on WP:VFU. Dunc|☺ 13:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Greetings - as an active participant in the ongoing edits to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article, I wanted to inform you that I have started a "Request for Comment" (RfC) proceeding over this article in light of continued disruptive and abusive editing behavior by two other participants there. The RfC is located at the link here [5]. In case you have not participated in an RfC before, it is the first step after the talk page in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process for articles in which an agreement cannot be easily reached (outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). I decided to initiate this RfC over the actions of two users who I believe to be seriously impeding the constructive development of this article into an encyclopedia-quality description of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In one case the editor's behavior was long term. In the other, the editor responded to negotiation efforts I initiated with him on the talk page with unprovoked personal hostility against me, which in turn led me to first warn him of the potential need for an RfC and then follow through as his belligerence continued. I am hopeful that this process will assist in working out the differences that exist on the LVMI article and help to direct the responsible editors toward making their future contributions in compliance with the neutrality mandate and with other Wikipedia standards and policies.

You are also welcome to contribute to this RfC, and as a participant in the LVMI article development your participation here may be beneficial. To those who are unfamiliar, participants may contribute by endorsing (or declining to endorse) the RfC case regarding the problem users as stated. Endorsements should be placed here [6] per the RfC page's instructions and entail the use of a tilde signature in the normal fashion. RfC participants may also contribute by way of discussion of the RfC case and all pertinent materials here [7]. A formatted area is also provided on the RfC for the named editors to respond to the complaint. Thank you for your continued work on the LVMI article and for your patience during this process, as it is my hope that we will be able to produce an agreeable quality product upon its conclusion. Rangerdude 00:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

exoticindia.com

Hi Nat,

Thank you for the feedback. Indeed I have been authorised by the website (exoticindiaart.com) for the content that I have posted on the Wikipedia pages, you are welcome to restore the edits. Also I have been careful to add only those links that will add value to the content of the page. Most of these links are to the articles on exoticindiaart.com, which are essentially non-commercial pages. As you have suggested, I will not be linking to any page that is selling anything.

Thanks again.

Seemagoel July 30, 2005

Uładzimir Karvat

Question, how was the image vandalized? But thanks for doing what you have done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Guru/disciple relationship in Buddhism

Could you take a look at Guru-shishya_tradition#In_Budhism to validate some of the assertions made there as well as to expand, if possible? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sadako page move

Sorry about that. However, since the Sadako Yamamura page was originally a redirect for the other (and thus had already been created), the quickest way to do so was to C&P everything. It wasn't my intention to obscure the authorship. Again, apologies.--Mitsukai 05:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi too!

Well, I never know if I will stick around - WP is something I have to monitor -- so many things need doing! But indeed, everything is copacetic, and my life is complete. Good to hear from you! (20040302 08:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC))