User talk:Gwynand/Archive 1

"Ron Williams"

Hi Gwynand -- I changed the Ron Williams entry back to what it was in early August because this is the official executive biography of Chairman and CEO Ronald A. Williams. It is Aetna approved, so is neither a copyright violation nor a act of vandalism. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aetna (talk • contribs) 15:55, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Many months later I've struck this out. I reverted a vandalism edit on Ron Williams and didn't change anything about the official executive biography, it was other users. Just a clarification.Gwynand (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Unsourced" tags

I see that you've placed "unsourced" tags on articles, some quite old and inactive, which I state on my user page that I created. I know it wasn't your intent, but under certain circumstances that would be considered wikistalking. Not your intent, I'm sure, but something to keep in mind for the future. See WP:HAR. Cheers,--Mantanmoreland 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I already put a note on your talk page when I did this. Not being hostile, I often browse user pages and look at created content to see common errors. This is certainly allowed and miles from wikistalking or anything in WP:HAR. I actually complimented the pages, but they clearly have citation issues. If we disagree on that, then that would be a whole other discussion. Do you not plan to attempt to add correct citations to those articles?Gwynand 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. I was just making a gentle point to you, as a new editor, that what you did can be easily misconstrued when your acquaintanceship with the other editor stems from an editing disagreement. That is true for both valid and invalid tags. There's a lot of precedent for that, but I won't bore you with the details. --Mantanmoreland 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The funny thing was I browsed your userpage, and was actually thinking of not tagging some of your pages because of this reason, but then realized that would be biased and stupid. I felt my tags were completely fair and even went to the extent of posting the note on your discussion page... although ultimately that all felt a little too politically correct, as does this discussion.

On a separate note, I guess also regarding political correctness... how do you feel about my statement regarding "questionable notability" on your talk page. I feel this can be disparaging without much research to substantiate it. In general, I feel if an article is well written and informative, I'm certainly not going to look into notability of the subject which would frankly be a misuse of my time editing. If I am unwilling to get into a deeper notability discussion... should I leave out comments as such?Gwynand 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with questioning the notability of a subject of an article. I do it all the time. But I don't think it is an issue with the three articles you tagged. Richard Price is an eminent writer and screenwriter and Malcolm Johnson is a famous investigative reporter whose articles won a Pulitzer and were the basis of the movie On the Waterfront. Now, Willemse is admittedly more obscure, but he wrote two significant books on New York City police history, one of which was adapted into a motion picture. --Mantanmoreland 21:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethan Haas Was Right

Are you familiar with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Haas Was Right? It seems like jumping the gun to establish a whole article on this thing, especially if its notability is likely to be short-lived. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pulling Response Section (The Bourne Ultimatum)

If you're going to pull the "Discontinuity" section, you might as well go ahead and pull the "Response" section too. --D 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to play dumb, but how so? They are two different things. Response sections are often apart of film articles. "Errors" or "Discontinuity" sections are rarely part of these articles per wiki policy. The information isn't really encyclopedic. Gwynand 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodfellas

Hey, Gwynand,

I was wondering why IMDb is not a valid source - it's cited on that very same page several times. Thanks, --MosheA 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ocean's Thirteen

Hi. I don't intend to re-add the material, I know where you're coming from. I reverted to make a point - you should always explain a revert unless it's blatantly obvious why you are reverting, e.g. blatant vandalism. Cheers. Mark83 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cloverfield

Sorry, I can't help you regarding the plot. :\ I haven't had a chance to see the film, so I'm laissez-faire with the section except in cases of vandalism. I think, though, that whatever major changes you make to that section, you should explain in detail on the talk page. Just be aware of WP:3RR if you aren't already. What I (try to) do is not worry so much about the minute-by-minute perfection of an article and instead try to implement major changes and/or review periodically. Hope that minimal advice helps. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To respond about archiving the talk page, I think that quite a few discussions are relatively new, not even being a week old. This is pretty typical of a new film that does well, so I think that we can deal with the current discussion for a few days longer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Awards for actors

What actor awards are deemed relevant or not relevant is up to the actor, the actor's agent or the actor's family and fan base. Wikipedia doesn't support removing an entry just because an individual user deems a specific entry not relevant based on their personal preferences or standards. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWMNPoliSciProject (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jolean Wejbe

I think there's supposed to be an AfD tag on the page, instead of a prod tag. Epbr123 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD setups

Hi Gwynand. Be sure that you follow the steps at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion when you set up an AfD. I think I've corrected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyband (New Zealand band) at this point. Thanks and happy editing, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

Hi. Thanks for this comment. I'd be interested to receive any advice you have on ways in which I can help to prevent the editing temperature at the Christianity article from escalating further. I think we're (ever-so-slowly) starting to make some progress with the clarity/NPOV issues, but I'm sure there must be a less painful way of doing it. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

American Idol 7 Elimination Songs

I'm going to add it back once another one is played. There will be more. It's just that week two didn't have one. Week three probably won't either, both week four probably will. Followed by the rest of the weeks, but until then it shouldn't be on the there. YET! It will go back once they start doing it again. Tcatron565 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the elimination song! I mean the song that is performed live. (Or in Week 1's case - music video is played.) "Dance Like There's No Tomorrow" was played week 1, no song on week 2 because they were running out of time. That's why it was so weird to see a song in the top 24. The actual elimination song would be the Reuben Studdard song. The last two weeks I have no clue, and Hollywood weeks was "Hollywood's Not America" by Ferras. Just to be straight, I was talking about the live song. Tcatron565 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad Renfro

Thanks for catching the anonymous IP edits to Brad Renfro. It's basically that one IP that keeps adding unsourced content, POV wording, and the link to the fansite, but they're quite insistent. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Eve Carson

What's needed is a consistent policy. Natalie Holloway is no more notable than Eve Carson is. Probably less notable. The deletionists keep saying it's about the event. I'm inclined, at this point, to agree. You could use the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre as sort of a model. It's about the event, plus information about the victims and the alleged shooters. Kind of an extreme example, but that would probably make everyone happy. And in both the Carson and Holloway cases, it could say "Murder of..." or "Disappearance of..." and for just the names there could be a redirect to the case file. In fact, maybe "Eve Carson case" and "Natalie Holloway case" are better, because then you won't have to rename the Holloway article in case her body turns up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eve Carson and other victims of crime

Given your comments at the AfD, I'd particularly welcome your input to the draft guideline User:Fritzpoll/Victims of crime guideline which you are free to edit, and to discuss on the associated talk page. I'm afraid I'm "one of those" who thinks the article needs to be about the event and any relevant biography, but I'm hoping we can reach a consensus to prevent these AfD discussions getting out of hand. - Fritzpoll (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This has now matured and been moved to project space at WP:FELONY Fritzpoll (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

	Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»» Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

from Psychad concerning Smash Bros Brawl

Thank you for the welcome, yes I am new. =) The information I view as needed for verification is 1. that data can't be backed up, this is verifiable by anyone that owns the game. 2. That the update has a "bug" concerning Photo Channel. The only proof I have is that japanese page. Washed thru babelfish gives some interesting information. I don't know if or when NOA will verify this. I talked with them on the phone wednesday last week. They promised to get back to me, but they have buried it. Actually it is only this technical oddity I view as important. If I want to use Wikipedia as leverage or if I truly want this technical oddity to be document - I can't say. However, trying to be objective: it IS interesting that a game warrants a special update from Nintendo, the first standalone bugfix so to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychad (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well, now we are on to wp:note. Take a look there. Even if we can all verify these technical issues on our own, if they are notable enough to warrant inclusion then their should be some english-language independant coverage of the issue somewhere. Try a google news search on "super smash brothers" and "technical issues" or something like that. If there is some sort of press release from Nintendo regarding the issues you mention, that may also be appropriate as a source. If you add info regarding this oddity without sourcing it will likely be removed. Gwynand (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrigley Field

Thank you for stepping in on this point. Given the red-link's comments about nazis, censors and such, I don't think he's really a newbie as he claims. I also don't think it merits even one sentence, truth to tell. It's obviously just a P.R. gimmick for the CBOE. It certainly doesn't merit more than one sentence. (Nor does this comment, actually :) If he does take it to ANI, I expect it will be shot down quickly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he will take it to ANI, but if he does, it's a content dispute and we are more or less 100% backed by policy. Unless he has other (non sock) editors that agree with his take on this, he will quickly get into 3RR trouble anyways. Gwynand (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Actually, I was the one who first proposed taking it to ANI, on the grounds that he's posting 2 paragraphs of advertising, about 70 box seats or roughly 1/600th of the capacity. I was going to argue advertising-pushing and notability, and he was going to argue that it's acceptable because it's "factual". Hopefully it won't come to ANI discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well he just reverted for the 4th time today. I'm not getting in an edit war myself so will leave as is currently (I'd reccomend you do the same at the moment). I'm going to report him as violating wp:3rr and I think they'll give him a short block. Gwynand (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I already reverted him a minute ago, but he might have reverted back. Feel free to use this sometime. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I go "running to Mommy" with this, I've posted a question on the talk page of WP:Baseball to get an honest opinion, from anyone interested, as to which edit is better, so to speak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have conceded the second paragraph as excessive and believe this was a fair compromise. After that concession I cannot see how my post differs from the rest of those in the corporate sponsorship section. Contrary to the implication, I have only been a member for a month and thus far have only made small grammar and punctuation changes. I have become the target of an unfair attack. I can understand the initial issue, but as I stated, I feel it has been properly remedied. I have no idea what an ANI is, but I will go there if I have to. Again, I can see the point of the initial comment, but the only difference I see between my statement and the others in that section is that it is cited. There are three separate corporate sponsorships happening there. I thank you for your time and consideration in this manner. --Lmusielak (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lmusielak, I've replied on your talk page. Gwynand (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The other sponsorships cover large sections of the ballpark. But if the user thinks there is too much info, he could do further trimming. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I was trying to keep the topic condensed. I have no more comments to make. I have asked for public comment and will wait for it. --Lmusielak (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your 3RR Report

I could have been clearer about the report, but I don't see the logic here is protecting obvious vandals. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin and made no decision regarding this. I was trying to help you with the vandal by letting you know the report was malformed and would automatically fail because it wasn't a 3RR violation. It should have been reported/moved to the [vandalism reporting section on AIV]. In fact, in light of the obvious problem editors that the IP is making, I would do just that. Basically it wasn a 3rr and shouldn't be reported there, but believe me I wasn't defending the vandal. Gwynand (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're just now acknowledging it was vandalism, before you were calling it a content dispute. WP:AGF does not mean if you template (or support templating) and scold users who are trying to do the right thing, that you're beyond reproach. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was honestly trying to help you. You reported a 3RR (which requires 4 reverts in a 24 hour period) on a user that technically only reverted twice. I understand that it looks like red tape everywhere, but my goal was not throwing the red tape, rather pointing out that there won't be a block given because it wasn't actually 3RR. I'm not involved in the AA page, but I'd say the other editor's edits might have been vandalism, but definitely not the obvious kind that can override 3RR. I said AGF to you because I was receiving hostility from you for just trying to assist. I'm not an admin and couldn't have blocked that guy if I wanted to. Gwynand (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This was intended for your talk page. I'm not trying to be hostile, but it seems that the feeling of receiving it is mutual. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'll guess I'll just finish with this here then. I didn't template anyone nor suggest I agree with templating anyone. In fact I definitely would not have put that template warning up. I'm still not sure how the message was meant for me and not the admin and I thought I gave a friendly correction suggestion, but guess not. Gwynand (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Confused

I didn't post anything on your page, I even checked the history and have no idea what you are talking about? could you please elaberate. (ps. I do understand in this whole fiasco you didn't do anything)Coffeepusher (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant to post on Scarpy's page. Haha... this conversation is going on in 3 different places and it gets confusing. I'll remove and put on his page. Gwynand (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

I do not have the time, nor the desire, to figure out how to create subpages or whatever. Also, not to be rude but, as a conversation is a dialog between two people, I can tell a conversation is over when I decide it is and delete it from my page. I would hope people don't actually go through my usertalk history because that would be sad, creepy, and semi-stalking. Have a fantastic day! --Lmusielak (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I gather the above was based on my practical suggestions on how to do archiving, after he had deleted everything from his talk page. His comments reinforce my suspicions that he is not new to wikipedia, since he talked right away about nazis, and now he's talking about stalking. Both of which are both incorrect and are terms that difficult editors tend to use after they've been on here for awhile. If he's truly a newbie, he needs to understand that everything here is public information, and that there is no rule against reading what anyone else has written. Stalking is harassment, such as reverting every edit the user makes just to hassle the user. In this case, nearly every edit he had made was to the Wrigley Field page, so that definition doesn't quite work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, thank for the message. I was unaware of bots that would automatically archive. I might look into it. I doubt there will be anymore discussions on my talk page since I am giving up on wikipedia. I thought I would do a good thing and join since I use it for info quite regularly. A "give back" sort of thing. Next thing I know I'm being accosted after I took the time to add to an article. I even had a friend who works in copyright law read the source and my contribution to make sure it wasn't plagarism. The funny thing is, I'm not even a Cubs fan, I just moved to the Wrigley area and wanted a little history of the field. When I got to the section on corporate sponsorship, I realized they were missing something I had just read about. I don't actually care that much, I just thought the response was rude and unnecessarily overboard so I figured I would have a little fun with the zealot who thinks he owns the baseball section of wikipedia. It was an eye opening experience and I would like to thank you for your help in explaining the nuances of Wikipedia protocal and manners. If everyone took the time to politely explain things as you do this would have been an entirely different (and infinitely more pleasant) experience.

(^{Baseball Bugs, I dont really care about your opinion. I don't care if you think I plagarized. If you think I am an ad exec of the CBOE. Or if you believe I am new. Believe it or not Seinfeld and stalking are two very common references in the real world. I'm moving on. Go harass someone else.)}

Gwynand, thank you again for your patience and time. --Lmusielak (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When I initially informed the above user that I was going to scale back his 2 paragraph entry about 70 box seats, he took the first shot by making a patronizing remark about my grammar. [1] So he didn't exactly start out very civilly either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll just comment that Bugs may have been guilty of WP:BITE in this case, but he did not violate 3RR in the conflict and he did end up taking the discussion to WP:Baseball to look for consensus as opposed to just insisting he was right. Lmusielak, I'll just say that there are indeed plenty of editorial situations on wikipedia that can be tough to deal with, but trust me when I say a lot of it is pleasant and rewarding in the longer run. I'd like for you to stick around and become more comfortable with policy and customs, after that things will become much more comfortable and understandable. Gwynand (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One subject I am very sensitive to is spam and advertising, and my radar is constantly up for it, on articles that I watch. Given that it took him 19 edits to post the two paragraphs initially, it's possible that he actually is a newbie and not just a single-purpose account, and that I responded to a bean-shooter with full artillery. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, reviewing everything, I think the issue wasn't that Lmusielak was advertising himself or had any improper conflict of interest, but rather the new edits read as advertising and shouldn't be included anyways. Being new, I think he felt threatened (and you can comment on this Lmusielak) by what he saw as improper accusations which didn't help any early-on content discussions. Gwynand (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another behavior of spammers is to try to post something and then feign anger and disappear. I would welcome the user to prove my suspicions wrong, and become a useful editor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Going against my better judgement and a promise I made to myself, I am again responding. Here are my first three contributions. While they are small grammatical, sentence structure, or grammatical changes, they are the first and only changes I made to wikipedia until a few days ago.

21:20, March 14, 2008 (hist) (diff) Woodstock '94‎

14:45, March 13, 2008 (hist) (diff) Galliano (drink)‎ (top)

14:41, March 13, 2008 (hist) (diff) Harvey Wallbanger (cocktail)‎

I guess it is possible that I got the account and made changes to random pages in order to make it look like I wasn't a spammer, but seriously, who would pick "Harvey Wallbanger" as their first edit? I appreciate wikipedia, but if one has to go through this to prove the veracity of their status as an editor each time a contribution is made; it is miraculous so many have chose to contribute. I had a FBI background check recently that was less in depth then the inquisition into the age and purpose of my account on wikipedia.--Lmusielak (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ps. Sorry for the double edit. I'm still forgetting the signing thing.

I'm done with this topic. It's up to the user whether to continue editing or not. No one blocked him for his 3RR violation, no one is stopping him from posting edits that are within the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

And thank you for engaging in the discussion rationally and clear-headedly. Despite our disagreement, I certainly regard your input as contributing positively to the discussion.

As for your reminder, yes, there's certainly no harm in my holding off for another twelve hours or so. And it's certainly worth it to see if anyone else cares to weigh in on the discussion. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Help to stop Sylvain1972 vandalizing our editing of the Drukpa Lineage

Dear Sir/Mdm,

We are working very hard to present the right facts of the Drukpa Lineage, but Mr. Sylvain1972 keep taking out our editing. You can check our credentials, www.drukpa.com and also facts about the Drukpa Lineage under His Holiness the Gyalwang Drukpa's personal website www.drukpa.org and others. If somebody can easily edit what the real source has edited, then anyone can misrepresent the site. A lot of people rely on Wikipedia for research. For example, for the Drukpa Lineage and the related websites, you should at least know who are the authorised organisations to do that. We are also working with Rinpoches in Bhutan, Tibet and India to get the facts right. The information that Mr. Sylvain1972 is very biased based on some texts which were written in the recent century for political reasons. Anyway, we would appreciate you can let us know how we, the authorised organisations of the Drukpa Lineage, can expand on the facts of the Drukpa Lineage, without anyone sabotaging it.

We are about to expand on the Lower, Middle and Upper Drukpa Schools, suddenly this Sylvain1972 came and reverse "vandalising" - who is vandalising? We are very shocked. Anyway, we will also be writing to the relevant departments within the lineage and the various offices of His Holiness and our Rinpoches to explain this issue.

Your assistance is wrongly urged, so that Wikipedia does not become a political platform of misrepresented facts which are biased.

Thank you. Jigme Tobden Drukpa Publications, Information Centre —Preceding unsigned comment added by JigmeTobden (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the COI

Dear Sir/Mdm,

I have read the COI and note the "Conflict of Interests" - but we need to know who is Sylvain1972 to represent the Drukpa Lineage to put the historical facts on the Wikipedia. Is he a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism? We will get Mr. Gene Smith, Mr. Lobsang Thargay, the relevent personnels in charge of religious affairs departments in Bhutan, Ladakh and India to write to Sylvain1972, if this helps to resolve the conflict of interest.

As far as we are concerned, history of the Drukpa Lineage cannot be just from English books that are available in the bookstores, because some of them were biased information. We have in our hands translated information, provided by scholars in Ladakh, Tibet and Bhutan, which can be verified by Mr. Gene Smith. But since these materials have yet been published in English, are you saying that these are not valid facts?

Tibetan Buddhist facts should be provided by authorised people who belong to the lineage that can provide a open, unbiaised and fair picture of the Drukpa Lineage.

There are the facts that are quoted wrongly by Sylvain1972 and we know they are wrong and that should not be misleading the public.

(1) We are known as Dongyu Palden Drukpa (2) The Fourth Gyalwang Drukpa Kunkhyen Pema Karpo left a prediction letter in Tibetan that says that he would have two reincarnations that returned to this world (3) Ling Repa is not a disciple of Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje. He is the ROOT GURU of Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje, and Ling Repa's guru is Phagmo Drupa. (4) Drukpa Kagyu Heritage Projects are not representative of the Drukpa Lineage (5) Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche's poem on the 4 greater and 8 lesser schools are not representing the full picture. (6) The Drukpa Lineage belongs one of the the Sarma schools of Tibetan Buddhism, which is not wrong. The Nyingma is known as the old school and all others are under the new school which is called Sarma (7) Great lineages of the three Victorious Ones (Gyalwa Namsum) and the Three Divine Madmen are not mentioned. (8) Phajo Druggom Zhigpo was not a disciple of Tsangpa Gyare, he was the disciple of Onre Darma Sengye, he never met Tsangpa Gyare.

This is the history of Phajo Druggom Zhigpo (part of it) already translated:

One day he learnt of the spiritual reputation of Tsangpa Gyare from some traders of Jang Taklung. Merely hearing the name of Tsangpa Gyare generated a deep sense of devotion in him and tears came to his eyes. Moved with great devotion, he made up his mind to go to Ralung to see Tsangpa Gyare. He sought his teacher's permission to go on a pilgrimage to Lhasa and Samye. After receiving the remaining instructions from his teacher, he set off on his journey. It took him almost a year to reach the U-Tsang region of Tibet.

While in Samye, he heard the news of Tsangpa Gyare's passing away from two ascetics and he fainted. When he regained his senses, he heard about Onre Darma Sengye, the Regent of Tsangpa Gyare at Ralung, whose spiritual attainment was equal to that of Tsangpa Gyare. At the age of 33, Tharpa Gyaltsen arrived at Ralung. As instructed by Tsangpa Gyare, Onre Darma Sengye took him as his disciple and transmitted the teachings of the Drukpa tradition. After receiving the teachings for about a year, Tharpa Gyaltsen meditated at Jekar and Longdol for three years. He then went back to his master Onre Darma Sengye and related his experiences; after receiving the remaining teachings and empowerments, he again did extensive meditation and realized Mahamudra. Onre Darma Sengye was impressed by his realization and gave him the name Phajo Druggom Zhigpo.

We have all these already translated into English.

We just want to know in this case, who is conflicting the interest of the Drukpa Lineage.

Thank you.

Yours, Jigme Tobden JigmeTobden (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwynand

Hi Gwynand, I just saw your comment at my RfA, and I understand your concern. Perhaps if I elaborate a little, I can alleviate it somewhat. I went to the KKK article after someone posted to ANI (or maybe AN, I'm not sure) over what they felt were attempts to whitewash the article by editors with single purpose accounts. User:GodSavetheSouth was one such editor. In the link to which you refer, I was trying to draw things to a close (in hindsight, I guess it didn't work). OM didn't understand why an editor who is probably a member of the KKK (due to the modern photo uploads of recent KKK cross-burnings) was given such wide latitude to disrupt the page, frankly I did not understand it either. I made the linked comment because I thought OM was justifiably upset, but wanted to point out that he should drop it as there was no good outcome to what he was doing ("I don't think there is much point to posting to Hersfold anymore"). I also wanted to point out ("If something similar happens again any time soon, well. . .") as I did at the end, that if Hersfold made a pattern of unblocking without consultation (with the blocking admin) under dubious circumstances, that would be the time to consider further action.

Probably, editors will think I'm foolish for having involved myself in that situation (realizing that my RfA was around the corner). All I can say is that, I felt that something needed to said, I was involved, so I did. I don't have anything against Hersfold, but I don't think the unblock was wise, and I don't think it was good for Orangemarlin to keep after Hersfold either -once it became clear that not much would come of it. But it just plain looks bad that a single purpose, pov-pushing account, GSTS, gets a pass while one of our most prolific editors gets a block as a result of that situation. Hope this helps, and thanks for giving me a chance to address it. R. Baley (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, and I think it is a good one. That situation was muddled everywhere. All I'll say further is this: you need to stay totally unbiased, or as unbiased as possible, to even the most "prolific" of editors. An editor being prolific should have very little to do with your evaluation of his actions as being civil or not. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a little muddled, there were conversations in multiple places, and it was at times hard to keep up. Just to clarify about the "prolific" thing, I don't rank editors, or hold some contributions in higher regard than others, but I do make a distinction between people who have demonstrated that they are here to help/participate (it doesn't take very long at all, to show this), and those that come in and cause otherwise good contributors to inexplicably turn on each other. R. Baley (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The man who could have been

He who seeks power over others ultimately falls under their power instead. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you not get the reference? Is your name not taken from the character in The Fountainhead? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No one ever said it (it's a Kurt original), but I find it adequately surmises what Wynand represents and the reason for his downfall. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Violence is justified in the service of mankind." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Whaa???

I just noticed that you were approved for rollback...which presumes you are not an admin. Wha? I always assumed you were an admin. What gives? Why not? Have you gone through RfA before? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your response: Yes, it was a compliment! I haven't dug that deep into your contribs, other than to see that you've in fact been here longer than me (and I've been an admin for 2 months). What's stopping you? Have you thought about it beyond just thinking about it? Have you ever done admin coaching (which isn't required, but helpful). Have you been involved in lots of controversies? What's your editcount (right or wrong, people love to oppose based on editcount...) I can say for myself that I've personally been very impressed whenever I've run across you and your contribs, I think you'd make a fine and impartial admin if you so desired. Any skeletons in your closet? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ack. Unfortunately, your edit count (less than 1000) is gonna kill any RfA chances ATM. All I'll say for now is that you are a valued contributor, and well on your way! If you want my advice (and if you don't, meh? I'm giving it anyway :-) it's that you stay balanced in your edits. Wikipedia pages are good. Wikpedia talk pages are good. Be sure you're also contributing to the mainspace (you probably are, I haven't checked). Check back with me in a couple of months, or when you reach 3k edits, for a reasonable chance of passing an RfA. (side note: RfA is broken, yes, but it is what it is. You would not pass one as it stands right now with <1K edits). Thanks for your continued fantastic contributions. Let me know if you need anything, or if you wanna run anything past me as far as contribs! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your questions: #1. Yes, of course I'll watchlist your talk. (I have already:-). I've been thoroughly impressed with your contributions to this zany place. Second, as far as admin "coaching" goes, I am an admin coach. Currently, I'm coaching Tan and water, as well as partially coaching Dusti with AfDs. That being said, I hesitate to take on any other coachee, for the coachee's sake, because of time/effort constraints. Have you looked at the coaching page? Although there is definitely a backlog there (more coachees than coaches), perhaps you could get paired with someone? (eventually)? Whatever happens, I'm glad you're here and I personally appreciate your contributions to both mainspace and wikispace. I have no doubt that you, if you continue on your current path, will make a fine admin if that is what you choose to be. Looking forward to future interactions with you! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do! right now coachee#1 is set for a May/June Rfa, coachee#2 is July/August. If nothing happens before then (for example, me supporting your RfA:-), then I'd be happy to coach you! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do it!!!. If Wikipedia needs anything, it's more drama! </sarcasm> (and by the way, that better be a redlink when I save this....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber

I want to stop arguing about Kmweber as soon as possible, but there's one last thing I wish to clear up. The discussion on the RfA talkpage has resulted in my name being mentionned a number of times, and I've also been indirectly referenced to as a 'pighead'. Now then, what I wish to know, is why I have attracted that amount of harsh criticism, when all I was doing was defending the candidate's whose RfAs haven't been read at all by Kmweber before he inserts his opposes? It appears to be a case of those who are vying for what is right here on Wikipedia get bitten back and put in a dark light. Could I have some sort of explanation to your views? Thankyou. (This comment is for both John Reaves and Gwynand). Lradrama 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user:Lradrama's talk page. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. It is just that I appeared to get all the bad remarks in that discussion, and I do not believe I have done anything wrong. OK, I may have been getting a little passionate about proceedings, but my reference to Kurt wasn't intended to seem so centred around him. I was just tired of his reasons for opposing which don't seem to heed much thought.

And no, you were not the one who called me (and others it seems) a pighead, but I thought I'd just use one comment, as it generally applied to both of you. Thankyou very much for replying, it has cleared the things up I needed clearing up. Many thanks, Lradrama 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. You have been much more clear and helpful than John Reaves (click here for relevant discussion) has been so far. Lradrama 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've read them. Thankyou. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say, but he was by no means being co-operative when I started talking to him. I think you have done a great job in sorting this whole big situation out tonight. The Kmweber saga has got tense before, but it sort of boiled over unexpectedly today. But I'm goin to make sure it won't happen again. Thanks once again, Lradrama 21:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks

I read the qualifications and nominations process pretty throughly and did not see anything negative about asking for support. I only asked those 2 guys since I have had interactions with them in the past, they know a bit about my history, etc. Mom always said don't expect help if you don't ask for it. I will take your suggestions under advisment. Thanks again.Wjmummert (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Got really busy over the past few days at work.... I don't have the time to fight for adminship right now, and I think you may be right, I should gain a bit more experience. I realized this as I was going to withdraw and discovered I dont know how to withdraw.... HA!!!! So, since you offered, any idea how to do this?Wjmummert (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD discussion for Say hello to my little friend!

Can you please revisit the discussion here and reply. Thank you!! Dusti^{talk to me} 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock comment

Its entirely possible. I'm on a University campus and there are over 2,600 students on campus. This is my only account. Sorry for the confusion!

--DiamondElusive (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that the IP address is likely from something large... but this was you correct? This IP also posted in the same exact thread, agreeing with you, on the J.K. Rowling. I assume you made both comments. If you are going to comment in the same thread, make sure to sign in. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do

--216.229.227.141 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to do it in this thread... it might confuse others. See what I am getting at? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Laughing

See what happens when you go away for a day or so? :) I think an admin might have cleared it from your page. I keep that kind of stupid stuff on my page so it will be in one place when I archive it. Meanwhile, that guy found yet another IP address. He might be blocked by now, I don't know. Ordinary vandalism I can understand. But some of this stuff makes me wonder what chemical the user is injesting at that moment, their stuff is so off-the-wall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He was suspended, by a user called Gwernol. I get you two guys mixed up, as you have similar names. But he's the admin. So I'll say about that IP as I did about the other one: "And just like that... Poof! He's gone." Do you recognize that quote? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could have been your Uncle Keyser, or at least one of the usual suspects. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thourough Discussion

Twice within the WP:RFA protection issue you posted messages that require a thoughtful response. I would have loved to give them, but since the first ANI report was closed literally under my fingers (edit conflict), I don't have the time. Please be assured that I will come back to them later. --Yooden ☮

Philosopher RFA

Hey there Gwynand, I think this might be the first time I'm on your talkpage (instead of the other way around :-). I'm writing here for your consideration. After perusing Philosopher's contributions to Wikipedia, his talkpages, his archives, etc, I came to the conclusion that he would make a fine admin. I always do that before I read any of the current support/oppose !votes to avoid being swayed or biased by RFA. My next step before I lend my support or oppose, I do take a quick gander at who's landing where, and more importantly, why. The third and last thing I check before casting my opinion is the questions, and the answers to the questions. Why do I do things in this order, with the questions/answers having the least bearing? Two reasons: #1: It's way to easy to answer questions correctly when you are in the spotlight known as RfA. Every candidate (besides of course the obvious trolls/vandals) is on their best behavior. Simple stump speeches and campaign promises. I get a much better feel for someone by literally disregarding the questions/answers, unless there is something so blatantly wrong with an answer as to cause me to hesitate and "dig further into the candidate". Reason #2: It's way to easy for a questioner to stump a candidate with either a loaded question, a question that requires an opinion in the answer (and thereby garnering opposes by those with the opposite opinion), or somehow otherwise "trap" a candidate into answering incorrectly. I very much appreciate the "AGF challenge", and very much respect User:Filll for presenting it to the community, as I feel that those scenarios, in their intricacies, are "challenging" in every sense of the word. I very much disagree that they are appropriate for an admin candidate however, or even an admin with several months experience. They are, in my opinion, better exercises for the most "seasoned" of admins, that have been to the trenches and dark dark corners of adminship and have come out the other side relatively unharmed, unretired, with battle scars of glory to prove their merits. Not admin candidates though. I agree with you in this sense, that Philosopher in some ways botched his answer. But you have to realize, he was doomed to fail before he even hit "edit this section". I'm hoping that you'll change your opinion of Philosopher's qualifications (bear in mind, I've never interacted with Philosopher before, I'm not opining for an admin coachee of mine or anything like that). At the same time, I respect your opinion and beyond "hoping" I have no expectations that you'll do so, nor will I hold ill-will towards you if you don't. Regardless of how you receive this note, I'm hoping you'll look at a broader picture of this particular editor, who is likely feeling quite blindsided, probably downtrodden, and perhaps even unappreciated, and at the very least, iof you could dig deeper into his merits and contributions to this ridiculous website beyond Q4 to see if he is in fact a viable candidate. Cheers, Gwynand, thanks in advance. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All that to say, Gwynand, this was extremely classy, in my opinion, regardless of anything else I've ranted on about here. Extremely classy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Keep, thanks for stopping by. As you were typing this, I was already looking into damage control as I feel I broke a personal rule of mine: I was giving undue influence in an RfA because I was partaking in lengthy discussion over a single point, also my neutral and oppose votes said the same thing. Per agreement with Naerii, I removed a discussion we had and trimmed my oppose vote as not to be repetitive. I read, and reread, everything you wrote above and will consider all of it. I believe your order of importance in admin criteria is sound, but as I've said so many times, I think it is totally harmless to make a candidate wait over a (legitimate) concern than to promote them because of assuming good faith, or benefit of the doubt. Is that definitly for the good of the project? Making potentially good admins wait a few more months for the tools? Putting the community through another RfA? To tell you the truth, I'm really not sure. I hate red tape and politics. Philosopher seems good, and it seems likely he'll pass this time around. If not though, his next RfA will come up and if he was a good editor for three more months, then great, we promote him then. If that previous question comes up and he clarifies then good, if he has the same answer... maybe I oppose again... I'm not sure.

What it comes down to for me is its always easier to promote in a few months then to de-sysop -- ever. There are soooo many candidates flying through RfAs who are near perfect, they go through with 95- 100% pass rates, and as I've said before, this is great. These are the candidates we want. As for the ones that have a few stumbles, does it definitely mean they get my oppose? No, but if it really concerns me, I probably will oppose (usually with a lengthy explanation) or comment in neutral. I hold candidates to high standards of judgement, above any other criteria. I also think making them wait just a few more months to let the community gain a deeper confidence -- and for them to gain more experience --can be what's best for the community in the long run. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwynand, and I'll say again as I linked above, very classy move in conjunction with Naerii. The only thing I would have you consider in your response (which is an excellent response nonetheless), is the statement that "it is totally harmless to makea candidate wait". While I agree with that in theory for a candidate that isn't ready, and have !voted as much in the past, I don't agree with that when a candidate is ready. Obviously, I feel this candidate is ready. He botched a loaded question and has garnered opposition for it. Outside of the one edit that he made in his own RFA (answering a question), this particular editor has "done it right, and done it well." At least as far as my research into contribs tells me. So what's the "harm" in making him wait? What if he leaves? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Superfan Roundtable Rockford Metros Kip Pardue Nicholas Pileggi The Pitts Die Hard Trilogy Roger Graef WABC (AM) Hynix Kafka (film) Frenchie Davis Dino Stamatopoulos King of the Hill (film) Barry Watson (actor) The Big Shave Cape Fear (1991 film) The Gospel Philip H. Frohman World Radio Network

Cleanup My Stepmother Is an Alien V for Vendetta (film) The Lord of the Rings film trilogy Merge African slave trade Ralph Cirella DotA Allstars Add Sources Gary Dell'Abate Jackie Martling Override (short film) Wikify Fraternal Order of Police Attilio Gatti Saraswatichandra Expand Ocean's Twelve Erin Brockovich (film) Captain Underpants

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..

After seeing your courteous behaviour on Philosopher's RfA and the thoughtful removal of our extended discussion, I took a quick peek at your recent contribs (pure nosiness) and was quite surprised to find that you're not an admin! Is there a particular reason that this is a redlink? You have 10 months experience and (from what I can see) have exhibited exemplary behaviour throughout... I think you'd make a great addition to our admin ranks. If you're waiting for a nom or whatever, I'd be happy to oblige, or I'm sure other (better respected) people would happily nominate. Either way, hopefully we'll see you at RfA soon? :) Cheers, -- Naerii 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been asking Gwynand for months. Or it seems like months. Turns me down everytime. Offer still stands when you're ready. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1,209. Plus I oppose too much at RfA... :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

G3 deletions

Hi Gwynand, I've read through your diffs on WBOSITG (cripes, that is hard to type), I haven't gone in any camp yet. The diff where WB... added "hoax" to WP:CSD was in my opinion a valid addition to try to clear up ambiguity. If you read the language of WP:CSD#G1, it says that hoaxes are not G1's, but can sometimes be G3's. Seems from what I can tell to be an honest bold edit. Other than that, I agree with him also in telling the editor to G7 the article that he created instead of AfD'ing, as he was the only (major) contributor. His "short nom" he explained, not great but acceptable as yousaid, and he called the second one a mistake more or less, which we've all made. What else did you see? I'm truly undecided on this guy. He's a great guy, means the best for Wik, has his footprint literally everywhere, seemingly always civil and helpful. I was neutral in Rfa#1 back in January and I'd like to support, but you're diffs, if they truly are the "tip of the iceberg" are worrying. If its only those four, I'm going to support, but you alluded that there were more. Would you mind showing me some other "concerns" you had? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76, in totally good faith, I imagine you will support, because I will tell you that this candidate is not a huge red alarm or anything like that. I spent a good amount of time reviewing his Wikipedia space edits, and in general... I see a lack of maturity/judgement. I left this out of my oppose because of his younger age, and I think it wouldn't have gone over well. I think he is almost always too quick on his decision's anywhere in XfD, and my main reason for opposing is the significant worry I would have in his actions in CsD and XfD in general. I don't think he has a great, or even very good, handle on policy. This comes off as me hating him... no way. I think you are coming to know my school of thought on admins and I just want better judgement in a candidate and think he could wait another 6 months. I guess I'm too lazy to do the whole diff thing again, but if you look at his XfD contribs over his last 1k edits in the wikipedia space, it doesn't look too good in my opinion. He seems to be a great editor, but weak in the areas that he would actually be using the tools in. Hence the oppose. I appreciate you coming over here to discuss. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwynand for allowing me to pick your brain. I'm going to abstain from RFA#2 until tomorrow. I wasn't trying to imply that I wanted you to "go get the diffs" again (although that woulda been sweet), I thought you had them somewhere. I'll do some digging of my own in the mornintime. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFA

Hi Gwynand, thanks for your comment, and for bringing it to my talk page. I realize that my support comment can/could be seen as addressing you directly, which, I assure you was not my intention. I was just scared of seeing another decent candidate getting trumped by pile on opposes. It really stomps on one's morale. Anyway, you are extremely diligent when it comes to examining a candidate at RfA, and I certainly appreciate the level of scrutiny. You even minorly addressed your reluctance to have your oppose just cluttered with a bunch of negative looking diffs with a tendency to sway the majority. You raise good points, but I just wanted to assert my stance that a few diffs don't scare me anymore : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to you man! Please only oppose from now on. Of course joking. I wanted to point out that I'd be the last editor to oppose over just a few diffs... in virtually every candidate review I do I find the same diffs. I further explain in my response to keeper above, I didn't like most of the XfD. Also as I pointed out, the is not exactly a candidate who will make me queasy if he gets the mop, I think I just would prefer more experience. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

David Archuleta and Jason Castro

Thanks for your recent support in the thread at WT:BLP. I've removed the ethnic categories from these two pending reliable references. I would encourage anybody to do the same. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My sig

I have modified it and given a couple of examples of the new design here, I would be grateful of your opinion on whether the box makes the sig harder to read or simply breaks page layout. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:29, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

prima facie

True enough =). xenocidic (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI...

[2] Gerrish (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)