User talk:Orgyen108
Hello...
[edit]When you have time have a look through my editing history and if you have the time, facility and inclination to collaborate, contact me.
Blessings in blood
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
[edit]
Hello Orgyen108! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 329 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Trulshik Rinpoche - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposed Tibtan naming conventions
[edit]A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
[edit]Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Christine Longaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Santa Cruz
- Rigpa organization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Terma
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
References
[edit]Hello Orgyen108! I noticed that you add bare references a lot. Please take a look at referencing for beginners - it's full of good helps, especially using the Reference Tool. You've been consistently using bare URLs as references, and bare URLs are prone to link rot, which can create ongoing issues for the verifiability of your editing work. Thanks! Helpsome (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Addtion of controversy statement to Introduction
[edit]Dear Orgyen108,
Firstly thank you for your contributions to this Bio and the reformatting. It has improved the look of the article quite considerably, and also now has better sourced material then previously.
Now to the issue you raise. Firstly, the guidelines that are relevant to this issue state that sources be from a verifiable, reliable, published and non-tabloid third party. They are NOT from "poorly sourced references" as you claim in your talk to me:
'Challenged or likely to be challenged Main page: WP:SOURCES
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.' [bolded type is my emphasis]
It is clear then that these sources (four of them now) are from verifiable, reliable and published sources. There is stipulation that the sourcing not be from tabloid journalism. It is also clear that "The Guardian" and "The Sunday Times" are not tabloid sources. Cogent Benger is also a reputable documentary producer. So, the added line on controversy in the Introduction is neither "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" or from "tabloid journalism."
Secondly, criticism (as well as praise) should be included in a Bio if it can be reliably sourced. So the guidelines state clearly that not only can criticism be added but "should" be added:
"Balance Further information: Wikipedia:COATRACK
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." [bolded type is my emphasis]
Further to the above point, it is quite clear that the way in which the statement in question is made ("Significant controversy, due to claims of student abuse have been prominent for much of his career.") is "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." It is making the point in a detached and non-sensationalized way. Also, 1 line out of 8 in the introduction, is not giving "disproportionate space to particular viewpoints," particularly considering that there is a section on "Controversy" within the body of the article. Furthermore and importantly, the criticism is also of public interest, as you would not doubt agree that the praise is, which I am not objecting to.
So in conclusion Orgyen108, The inclusion of this brief statement in the introduction addresses all criteria more than sufficiently, as required by guidelines.
Finally while gathering the above information to support this, I did notice the below guideline:
"Avoid self-published sources
Shortcut: WP:BLPSPS
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[4] See below for our policy on self-published images."
Perhaps you would like to give this some consideration, in light of the the amount of sources and content the above relates to in the article.
Regards, Christopff Christopff (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Christopff (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopff (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Tsikey Chokling Rinpoche/Temp
[edit]Hello Orgyen108, Any chance of some help on this page (Talk:Tsikey Chokling Rinpoche/Temp), had to create new one for Tsikey Chokling Rinpoche, as my first attempt seemed too much like another site. Many Thanks ZeroEgo 12:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroEgo (talk • contribs)
Polu Khenpo Dorje
[edit]Any chance you can help on this article ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polu_Khenpo_Dorje
Someone has however nominated for deletion for some reason; seems good to me.
ZeroEgo 11:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroEgo (talk • contribs)
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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Orgyen108. 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)
New requested move
[edit]Have you seen this new requested move?A ri gi bod (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Orgyen108. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Orgyen108. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.