User talk:Truthsayer62

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Truthsayer62, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Gimme danger

Again, welcome! Gimme danger (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Truthsayer62, please don't take my strict application of rules as a personal attack or as biased. I am an WP:editor since 2005 and learned a lot in the meantime what works, and what doesn't work. When I am quite strict, then because I know other editors will fully support this. As you can see I have given you always hints on the related articles. I think we are able to improve the Shugden article and I appreciate your and others help. Many regards, and again welcome at Wikipedia:World. :-) --Kt66 (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Truthsayer62, I make the passage on the opponents more short, this may fulfil yours and TKelsang's intention. But your added unsourced passage, which moreover POV, I'll remove. If you have sources which are WP:reliable sources, you can use them to improve the article. I am happy with any reasonable improvement. Thank you very much. --Kt66 (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samden Gyatso

"I've removed the contentious claims. According to wikipedia rules such things are not allowed in the biography of a living person" -- Would you like to clarify what the contention is here? There is an undisputed letter in the public domain from GKG regarding this issue, and it's particularly salient to the individual.

Also, although I appreciate your intention of removing anything that may be harmful to the individual - and I agree with that sentiment - I hope you agree with me that mere deletion isn't always the best approach.

Would you like to contribute to the article by offering some more biographical information regarding Samden Gyatso ? Also, would you like to give some account on why the NKT have effectively wiped his name from their 'planet' ? From the outside, it looks like a classical case of religious shunning, so it may be a good idea to provide some reasons for the actions, or to offer an explanation that is at least credible to the non-NKT population. Kind regards (20040302 (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Deleting AfD templates on DS, NKT, KG pages

By deleting the AfD templates, you are attempting to interfere with the AfD process. It doesn't really help you much to do that (20040302 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

July 2008

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. BJ^Talk 15:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never edit a user page.

Never edit a user page. It is disallowed. (20040302 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To clarify this, if you would like to leave a comment for another user, as you attempted to do here, you should leave it on their User Talk page, rather than their user page. This may have been an error; if so, no worries, I have already moved the comment to the talk page. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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)[reply]

Dear Thatcher,

Things are not what they seem, I will email you with further information. Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Thatcher, I can assure you that there is no concerted effort by a group of people to influence the article content, but please make any investigation that you feel to be necessary. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail

I am in receipt of your e-mail:

Dear Sandstein,
Recently we've had a lot of problems on the Kelsang Gyatso. New Kadampa Tradition, Dorje Shugden and Dorje Shugden Controversy articles from a user called Thegone who has been posting a lot of defamatory material on the article without discussing the changes with the other editors. I noticed today that you have just blocked him indefinitely.
I would also like it to be known that he is meatpuppeting. Here is a link from the Tibetan forum Phayul:
http://forums.phayul.com/index.php?showtopic=6493
It's clear that he is exhorting people to join and edit these articles against Wikpedia policy. Although it doesn't mention his username, it's clear that it's the same style and also references the Rime article that he was most dominant in editing, and also references a post he made on the discussion page of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama article.
I thought you ought to know this.
With all good wishes
Truthsayer62

Is there any specific administrator action that you request to be done, such as the block of any specific meatpuppety? Otherwise, I don't quite see what I can do here. If meatpuppets actually appear and act disruptively, they can be reported at WP:ANI or WP:AIV, as appropriate. Sandstein 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sandstein, thanks for your consideration. I just want to make sure that Thegone cannot return to disrupt the editing of the articles. Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template removal

Dear Truthsayer62, please don't remove the template again. I added reasons and the templates are there to help to improve the article. A history can't be summed in a sentence which is on top of that also wrongly quoted. Thank you very much. --Kt66 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

next time you remove a well reasoned template I report this to the admin board. --Kt66 (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthbody

Hello. Recently, questions have arisen about whether you and Truthbody (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE) are the same person. Could you confirm or deny this speculation? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet of Truthbody, please check our IPs and see for yourself. Thank you.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorje Shugden Tags

I reverted your removal of the tags on the article- I stated my rationale for opposing their removal on the talk page in response to questions about their removal. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies- I had stated my objection on the Controversy page, not the main DS page. I'm correcting that now. I didn't see where anyone had asked on the DS talk page if the tags should be removed. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Kadampa tradition banners

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --> see nkt talk pageYonteng (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template removal

Dear Truthsayer62, please don't remove the POV template I placed on the Dorje Shugden article again. The reasons for adding this template were clealy stated on the discussion page. I added reasons to the edit this time as well. The template is there to help to improve the article which needs to prevalence of a perspective in found in high-quality reliable sources. If you repeatedly remove the template without discussion before the NPOV issue is resolve you are liable to be reported to the admin board. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not superfluous as the stated reasons it was added are not the same as before. Please see the discussion page. Anyway you should not remove such a template without discussion. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

The template IS superfluous - neutrality dispute is neutrality dispute, is it not? You have added more reasons why you believe the article is not NPOV but that's simply an addition to the neutrality issues that were flagged by other users beforehand. Best wishes, --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the issues are in addition to those flagged before and these have not been resolved. Anyway whatever your opinion on the matter, kindly do not remove the template on your own without discussion. I see from above you have been previously warned about removing such templates so it is also probably prudent not to do this.

Much of the material in the article itself is also superflous (as wll as being from questionable sources). If you feel you can delete a template for being superfluous, may I delete all that superfluous material from the article without discussion as well?

BTW as someone pointed out above: ( If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -->) - So if as you say you are "a practitioner of Kadampa Buddhism for fourteen years" (and presumably affiliated in some way with the NKT) isn't there likely to be a conflict of interest with you editing articles on the NKT and on Dorje Shugden an entity the MKT actively promotes? Chris Fynn (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoI ?

I'm wondering Truthsayer62 can you tell us whether or not you are affiliated in any way with with the NKT? I presume this is what you mean when you say you are "a practitioner of Kadampa Buddhism". 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, Kelsang Gyatso, Dorje Shugden, and Dorje Shugden controversy, and adding material on the controversy to the 14th Dalai Lama article. In making these edits 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 don't have a conflict of interest here? Thanks. Lodru (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this

Don't lie, that's not nice, thanks bye Shii (tock) 02:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI Template added to the New Kadampa Tradition article

Hi Truthsayer62. 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 orginization which is the subject of the article. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You clearly know that you should not be using the .dorjeshugdenhistory.org given the above section, and there is a consensus at [1]. Given other comments above I believe that a further attempt to add this source will merit another block. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Position"

Hi Truthsayer62 You asked if I have "declared my position". Well I've always used my real name, and don't belong to any Buddhist organisation - though I briefly did in 1970-71 when I helped set up one of the first Tibetan Buddhist centres in Canada - for Kalu Rinpoche (who was incidentally a friend of Trijang Rinpoche who took several empowerments from him and originally gave him the monastery at Sonada, Darjeeling). I also don't belong to any Tibetan political organisation and have no time for the TGIE. I speak and read Tibetan well and spent over a decade living in Tibetan communities in India in the 1970's and 80's. I have many Tibetan friends including some who were regularly practising Dorje Shugden. For several months I even shared a house with an elderly Geshe from Drepung who spent several hours a day on this practise and I learned a lot about it from him. Anyway I consider myself fairly well informed about the DS issue from several sides - and I do try to be objective. Take care. Chris Fynn (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for disruptive editing. You have been here long enough to learn our policies on neutrality and independent sourcing but you seem to have chosen not to learn. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Truthsayer62 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel this is unfair as I have received no warning. I have been continuously trying to edit the Dorje Shugden Controversy article which is very one-sided and my changes are always being reverted by Heicth You will please note from the talk page of that article that I have tried to be reasonable and have proposed changes using reliable sources but this user is being protectionist and stopping any editing of the article. The changes I made included reliable sources so why am I being blocked? Editor Heicth is by no means neutral but it appears that I am being penalised because I want to present an alternative reliably sourced view but am not being allowed to do so

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. The actions of Heicth are not relevant to your block: yours are. Until you realise why you were blocked (which is started in the block notice above) and are willing to present a good-faith case as to how these problems will not recur, the block will remain in place. I'd strongly suggest reading WP:GAB before requesting another unblock. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.