User talk:Owlmonkey: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:28, 25 January 2008

Thank you for Sakya Edits

Thank you for your editing. The matter you've deleted needs to be reworked, especially as few people know about it despite the sources being there under the form of very reliable sources such as Berzin, not least of which. How is signature ? Double dilde ? Geir SMith

CNNFOX

Thank you for your comments and suggestions Re: Robert Blake on various article pages and starting a new dedicated page on the BLB murder. Time will tell what will be done. One comment, the references to Cooley in the Blake paragraph are to his actions, not his office. Thank you again. --Cnnfox (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Monkey cap"

Yaaaaaay! Thanks for the citation on balaclava. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the cite deletion on the Free Will article

The cite you deleted on the free will article is essential to the point, since I am in fact the one who made this argument in a well regarded professional journal. You can't just make that statement without a cite, and I AM the cite for the point. Of course I or anyone can get a friend to post their own work, but surely the criteria is not who does the posting but does the posting enhance and contribute to the topic. It's not as if you see me citing myself all over wikipedia, but it DOES fit here. If you have a reason to believe it doesn't make a worthwhile contribution, please make your argument. Otherwise, I can't see how the Wikipedean community is being served by an automatic deletion such as this. There is no absolute Wikipedean rule about authorities in a field not contributing their knowledge. Please, in your spam watch, consider the dictum: Primum non nocere (First, do no harm).Jbricklin (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I reversed my removal of the Free Will citation. It does look relevant and without undo point of view but I'm still concerned. And whenever an author - even a domain expert - posts their own citations it should raise a flag around conflict of interest for the encyclopedia. So while the policy allows citing yourself in some cases (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself) I'd just ask that you please take time to review the following related policies when you have a chance: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No_original_research. I do appreciate your efforts and accomplishments, personally. If you can though, please try to cite neutral, third-party references whenever possible to avoid point of view pushing. Thanks again. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chögyam Trungpa Picture

I'm not completey certain if it is him, but see this image also. Are they the same person do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man we need you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet -this includes the WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism sub project. I;d very much like you to be a part and invite you to join ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thank you. Response on your talk page. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could make a judgment from here ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! found the person who took the picture and it definitely is him. Thank you for checking further! More on your talk page. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I thought. Later pictures though he is wearing glasses. Don't worry if you don;t have too much time, if you put your name down on the project page we know which editors are at least interested or edit tibetan related articles from time to time -perhaps you could also state your more efined interests such as Shambhala etc. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. The only thing there is a problem with the statement "not intended for commercial use". This is kind of directly saying this image shouldn't be used on wikipedia and is a passport for image tagges to delete. We can claim image use on deceased people if a free image is not obtainable most of the time but I don't like that statement. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an image of Dhardo Rimpoche now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that image earlier and liked it and even thought about swapping it before you prompted me. I'll switch them if this OK at that commercial thing would be problematic in the future. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done it already!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche now has an image. Also feel free to expand the Dzogchen Rinpoche which I started below:

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a Tibetan Buddhism template. Could you help develop it? It is to replace the too generalized Buddhism template on Tibetan articles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I think the main Buddhsim template is too generic for all of the Tibetan buddhist articles. It is a very a large subject in its own right but its on the right track -this should replace the main Buddhism template I think for Tibet. Perhaps you could add all of the key belief systems etc when you have finished seeing all of those monkeys!! LOL! I;ll let John Hill know perhaps he could add something ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==Thank you for Sakya Edits==
+Thank you for your editing. The matter you've deleted needs to be reworked, especially as few people know about it despite the sources being there under the form of very reliable sources such as Berzin, not least of which.
+How is signature ? Double dilde ? Geir SMith
 ==CNNFOX==