Grn78

Hello Grn78 from Dusepo

I added the section which i translated from German because the German page for Ole Nydahl is much more complete and factually correct. I was aware that when I came across the article, there had been extensive vandalism by many people all trying to present Ole in a different light. I guess that is the nature of such a controversial figure! I agree that the phrasing is not perfect because it has been translated from German, however I feel that the lack of the 3-year retreat is necessary to explain the issue later on in the article where the Sharmapa letter allowing him to use the title of Lama is shown, and present the reasons some people do consider him a Lama, and some don't. this way both viewpoints are covered. I can't think of a better place to put this than in the 'teachers' section because it is not a criticism, it is a fact (the criticisms stem from people's interpretations of this fact).

Of course his faith is completely irrelevant, what is relevant is...

Of course his faith is completely irrelevant, what is relevant is his position in a Buddhist world, or his lack of it. This violates 1) guidelines for editing as I see it and 2)- as stated and backed by documents - is quite irrelevant as high buddhist teachers hold Nydahl's teachings to be correct. I don't care much about this statement staying there or not and I understand you dislike for Nydahl but come on, waging this type of personal campaign against a teacher, even with so light artillery, is not proper buddhist conduct. Let your lamas handle other lamas. I could also go on and browse the pages of teachers on "your" side and write lots of things there, a whole book actually (as there is one on the market) including court rulings regarding Rumtek and that prediction letter of Tai Situ and other stuff which is much more serious than irrelevant Baumann quotes; heck I could even go to Baumann-level and put a link to PBS with the correspondent telling not too good things about her personal impression of Orguen Trinley; however I am not here to wage war against your side and don't understand why you bother my friend, things will sort themselves out some day, I am sure both of us can agree at least on that:)

Diamond Way Connection?

This user has shown himself to be a member of the Diamond Way cult, and has been attempting to cover up critical information about it's leader, the controversial Ole Nydahl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.154.98 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Ole Nydahl article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ole Nydahl. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

This user appears to be engaged in persistent whitewashing of the Ole Nydahl article in an attempt to create a one-sided favourable impression of his teacher on Wikipedia. While such one-sided ideas are fine inside his own head, they have no place on a neutral website such as Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.154.98 (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ole Nydahl

Hello. As much as I disagree with you about Ole Nydahl, I agree that the editor who insists on calling Ole a self-styled Lama is being unfair, the sources he sites are hardly notable, as opposed to the well-sourced statements by Oliver Freiberger and Baumann. If this continues I will request that the article is given protected status. My aim is for the article to reflect reality in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, not for it to become a mud-slinging contest. You and me do not agree on Nydahl at all, but I agree that user 82.13.154.98 is out of line.

Peace :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.56.239.101 (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I requested the page protection we discussed, you can see it here

Peace :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.56.239.101 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Libelous information removed

In a recent edit summary at Ole Nydahl you wrote, "E.2020, you keep removing info about Nydahls lineage and telling me that this info is "libellious"?? BTW, whatever you want to add about the "controversies" -pleaseadd it to the controversies section"

Actually, the information I labeled “libelous” and removed as a violation of WP:BLP was:

"Ole Nydahl has also attracted criticism for being a cult leader, having a mistress (Caty Hartung) and having sex with his female students, even while his late wife Hannah Nydahl was still alive."

Email

You have been unblocked. Thanks for the nice note. Toddst1 (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Ole Nydahl. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)