User talk:Rentwa/Archive1

Archive 1[edit]

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

It was a pleasure to help you. Please let me know if you need any further help -- Lost^(talk) 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks Lost! 2nd link is useful :) Rentwa 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is available at my talk page. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply is available. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My final reply on this matter, in which I take exception to what I consider a gross insult, is available. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at your reply - you bridle at the insult then tell me I would 'do well' to take your advice. You aren't my father, you know! Rentwa 22:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I simply don't think an objective reader would find anything insulting in any of my replies (I called you "high-handed" in reciprocation, but that was tit-for-tat.) I'm mystified why you do: I'm not your father, but that doesn't mean I can't offer you advice, and suggest strongly that you accept it. From my POV, that is normal human communication. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the discussion had finished as far as you were concerned?

You can't understand why people find you insulting? My dear Xoloz!

I'm afraid I can't rid myself of the suspicion that you're in this 'for the shouting', as a certain Vogon once put it. I'm sure that in many situations you are charming, intelligent and witty (perhaps that would make a good essay competition at the Village Pump) - but in a position of authority, I suspect that you care more for the wielding of power (especially when you can do so from the standpoint of academic rigour (your user page, after all, starts with a torrent of academic boasts)) than you do for the quality of the encyclopedia or the welbeing of the community. But perhaps I misjudge you?

On your user page you express admiration for Buddhism and Jesus, although when encouraged to be nice you agree that you could but are adamant that you won't. You also claim to be a Liberal and mention your ethnicity and background, but you seem to relish interpreting rules in the most oppressive manner possible. Am I hasty in interpreting this as laughable hypocrisy? And could I not be forgiven for percieving a certain worrying lack of self-awareness?

Your academic boasts together with a grandiose self image and detailed instructions on the etiquette editors should adopt when addressing you all appear (please correct me if I'm wrong) to add up to the fact that you think people owe you respect. Or have I again misjudged you? Being made an administrator appears to have confirmed this in your view (I'm reminded, incidentally, of a certain prefect at my prep school - but that's another story...). Again, I may be wrong, but I feel that this injects a certain arrogance into your communications - am I alone in finding this insulting? Perhaps I am!

With regard to your phraseology: I come from a fairly traditional English background. Even so, no-one has ever told me that I would 'do well' to do anything, and I have only ever encountered the phrase in Pythonesque parodies of uptight authority figures. Do you have an agent?

I continue to labour in the hope of making you a nicer human being...

Incidentally, I don't care in the slightest what you call me or where you do it - please feel free (my user page and posts ought to provide you with plenty of ammunition). Rentwa 21:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a discussion of Butler; this is, apparently, a discussion of me. It is readily apparent that you love assuming things, as I think any objective reader could see from the above. I'm honestly not sure how communication with you is possible, given all the things you've assumed about me. Curiously, you missed the importance of the "fat, ugly, smelly..." self-description. In normal circumstances, I'm devoid of presumption: I don't, though, suffer those who make unjustified insults a habit.

Incidentally, this line: "I continue to labour in the hope of making you a nicer human being" is the most pretentious sentence I've read all year. Thanks for the giggle. :) Maybe I am a bit haughty -- who knows? -- but, in this case, you've only sensed in another a quality you epitomize, at least in that one remark. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'This isn't a discussion of Butler; this is, apparently, a discussion of me.'

You invited it, old boy.

'Incidentally, this line: "I continue to labour in the hope of making you a nicer human being" is the most pretentious sentence I've read all year. Thanks for the giggle. :)'

You're welcome. It was intentionally ironic - couldn't you tell?

But please, address the points - I'd like to know how someone who specifically alludes to oppression on his user page justifies such a harsh interpretation of the rules.

And however hard you may bluster on the subject of not leaving notes, and try to create the impression that your actions are normal, not everyone agrees with you - see the administrator talk page. Rentwa 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations, one person responded to your post! Compelling evidence, to be sure... My interpretation of the rules is hardly the harshest you'll find, "old boy." If you continue contributing with the same sense of your own importance, you're destined to run afoul of Wikipedia's proud rouge admins, who sometimes relish impoliteness for its own sake. Then you'll understand why I'm a tenderheart. I've tried to my best to educate you, but you rebuff my sound advice with a confidence ill-fitting of some who has been here for six days. You'll learn, or you'll be driven to leave by other interactions -- I'm comparatively very patient. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the phrase '..young Jedi..' was somehow excised from the above text! Seriously, try saying it with a cup over your mouth, it sounds perfect! Rentwa 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike Star Wars, so I'd be more likely to address you as a Starfleet cadet, if I felt the need for that sort of thing. I have, incidentally, graduated from Starfleet Academy (the correspondence school operated by the Starfleet International fan club.) If I cared as much for my CV as you seem to think, I'm sure I would have listed that on my userpage also. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 23:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Now, I'm going to type the following very slowly, so do try to follow it and try not to fly into a rage.

Since you were obviously too busy to follow the Vogon link (not the first time I've had the impression that you don't give your full attention to the things people write) and you express an interest in Sci Fi, I shall paste the relevant information below, to save you a mouse click:

Vogons

Far back in prehistory, when the first primeval Vogons crawled out of the sea, the forces of evolution were so disgusted with them that they never allowed them to evolve again. Through sheer obstinacy, though, the Vogons survived, wrecked the planet, and emigrated en masse to the Megabrantis cluster, where they form most of the Galactic bureaucracy, most notably in the famous Vogon Constructor Fleets (which allows them a socially-acceptable way to spend their time demolishing things).

You see? I didn't miss the 'fat, ugly, smelly' aspect - the allusion was quite carefully chosen.

You do seem to be almost human, so why can't you agree that genuine editors at least deserve a short note to tell them what has happened, and a link to their text? I've already accepted that the article was short and half finished. What else would you like me to do? Name your price...Rentwa 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told I look like Jabba the Hutt -- the Vogons posture is much too erect to represent adequately my deformities. :)

Writing very slowly, genuine editors can always check the deletion log, and send off a quick note to the admin in question; or, if they don't know about the deletion log, they can send in a non-ranting/insulting DRV request.

You see, although I have no doubt you're a good-faith editor now, when I deleted that short stub, I had no way of knowing how real it was. It didn't read like a sophomoric hoax, to be sure, but we do have a fair number of folks committed to "sneaking in" fake, realistic-looking articles just to amuse themselves. I wait for others to approach me, among other reasons, because (as I said before) it allows me to be sure of their good-faith. I do get lots of civil, short requests to userfy content, and I honor them (unless there's a further complication, like a copyright violation.)

Believe me, it would be easier for my typing fingers at this juncture to concede your point (even if I am in this "for the shouting," Wikipedia has many more fun things about which to shout.) My way of doing things is rational and efficient -- it occasionally enrages vandals, but you're the first intelligent user so miffed in my three months of doing these things -- and one outlying case is not sufficient reason for me to cease. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think at least you could agree to try informing editors and making deleted text easily available. For a month at least, then you could see if it really was such an onerous task.

If you're still inclined to resist, why not canvas opinion among some of your wikicolleages?

As I've said, I've already agreed that my article was short and half finished, I'm further prepared to withdraw my request for deletion review or endorse deletion, apologise for my angry remarks, withdraw numerous insults and agree that I breached guidelines on civility and assumption of good faith. Rentwa 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer of compromise is very kind, and much appreciated. There is, however, no need for you to withdraw your DRV -- it will likely succeed, which is right on the merits of the article, so long as you maintain your intention to expand it. Your apologies for incivility are reciprocated, and I also am sorry for any offense.

As for your suggestion -- I cannot in good-faith agree strictly to your terms. I did CSD patrol again yesterday, and there are simply too many cases where I'd be posting notices in counterproductive situations. (In the case of a clueless newbie, who writes something so horrible that he may be a vandal, but I can't be certain: this person is likely not to notice any deletion, and telling him about it is just an invitation to bicker.) I will, though, make an effort to post more notices in cases where the existing text is sensible and non-trivial. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your remarks and am grateful for the understanding and flexibility you've shown!

I do also appreciate the difficulty of your job - I've looked at some of your deletions and you have to deal with some very stupid and unpleasant people. 'Psychopathic' modding is, furthermore, the only way to maintain the integrity of any web-community - keep it up!

I shall do my best to do justice to the Butler article - my interest in Butler is, incidentally, hull design with regard to symmetry, drag, optimisation etc. In the days before computers (and calculators) Butler was known to use paper cut-outs of cross sections of his hulls to determine centres of mass, lines of symmetry etc.

Just for the record, I hereby appologise for numerous uncivil remarks and retract all negative descriptions - you are a decent, hard working and reasonable person and I take my hat off to you :) . Rentwa 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hugging, no learning. Rentwa 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stubs Sketches New and Old The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg Tom Sawyer Abroad Edmund Burke on Croker and Tammany What Is Man? Nergal (crater) Christian Science (book) Kittu (crater) Two Seas Canal Mark Twain's Autobiography Neith (crater) A Tramp Abroad Irving Joshua Matrix Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc Tom Sawyer, Detective Letters from the Earth Khensu (crater) Ganymede (comics) Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven

Cleanup Tyrant (comics) Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest Hazelwood Schools Merge Hannibal, Missouri Mark Johnson Despotate Add Sources Panarchism Offset printing Gerontocracy Wikify Decaborane No Income No Asset Lilli Pilli Junior Soccer Club Expand Junior Entreprise Mark Hanis Sylvania, Ohio

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 17:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your post on my talk page.

Also, in answer to a point on your user page, many people avoid the word "modern" because, in certain contexts (such as the arts), it refers to an era that is now in the past, while the more (ahem) contemporary term "post-modern" doesn't really convey the proper meaning either. For example, Nabokov, Kafka, Proust, and Freud are "modern" authors, but most people wouldn't apply that term to Tom Robbins, Kurt Vonnegut, Martin Amis, or Gore Vidal. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a matter of knowing that the word means 'of now' and refers to a style in art (not a huge intellectual feat) - I don't think the existence of more than one meaning justifies replacing the 'of now' sense - and, without wanting to sound at all snobbish, most of the people who use 'contemporary' for 'modern' wouldn't know a Mies if they fell out of one.

Re the difficulty of naming current art to avoid the seeming illogical 'post-modern', it might be simplest to stop using the broad term 'modern' and use 'art deco', 'international', 'cubist' etc and then abandon 'post-modern' in favour of 'functionalist', 'magic-realist' etc. Rentwa 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer. But you're offering help to the wrong person. I've only collaborated very little with the wikiproject Buddhism. The person i believe you should be speaking to is deeptrivia.

Cheers, João Correia 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Destina-butler.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Fine start. You might consider beginning more forcefully: make an immediate claim that this man is noteworthy (perhaps by mentioning the Association dedicated to maintaining his work, or by laying out in more detail the characteristics that won esteem for his designs.) This is certainly safe from speedy deletion now; but, without a more firm "claim to fame," the article stands the risk of being sent through Wikipedia's articles for deletion process.

How did Butler happen to name a design "Zyklon"? The only other use of this word with which I am familiar is exceedingly ominous. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I noticed it too, but didn't realise the poison also had the 'k'. Nothing suspect in Butler's use of word, since the design originates at least pre-1930 and I don't think Nazis had started using it for mass murder until well into the war (Zyklon-B had existed previously for fumigating rooms - releases cyanide - first degree was Chemistry - hated).

Most 'Zyklon' type boats built are of a sub-type known as "'Z' 4 tonners" - whether this was so at the time (pre-war) or whether this name has been adopted post-holocaust I don't know, but am beginning to suspect the latter. Not sure what Wikipedia should do - perhaps use "'Z 4 tonner" with footnote? Rentwa 09:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hull-butler.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my Talk page:

If you want to remove Dr. Butler's title and use his surname then it should be 'Harrison Butler' and not 'Butler' since it's double-barreled.

'anyone' is better than 'those' in this context, please don't change it again.

First of all, you share some responsibility in making sure that his name is listed properly in the article since you created it. My removal of his title is per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles and I had/have no reason to believe that his name must appear as either "Dr. Butler" or "Harrison Butler" (particularly since you have used simply "Butler" elsewhere). Secondly, your comments seem somewhat confrontational so you might want to read over some of the guidelines posted at the top of your page, particularly Wikipedia:Assume good faith, prior to addressing other editors. The fact that my improvements to your article went unmentioned in those comments is telling. Medtopic 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly acknowledge that you are responsible for creating and expanding the article, and I am sorry that you do not recognize or appreciate the minor formatting changes as improvements. There is some irony to be found in your comments as it seems I am as familiar with British naming etiquette as you are with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and its MOS. Similarly, my English is on par with your spelling. With such egregious errors, perhaps both of us should refrain from editing Wikipedia entirely. Regardless, if you sincerely believe that your initial comments on my Talk page were in good faith, then I do apologize. Medtopic 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stubs Lambhill All the Myriad Ways Tony Butler (bass player) Sketches New and Old Jan Johnston Shinichiro Watanabe Edmund Burke on Croker and Tammany Louise Bourgeois Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven Irving Joshua Matrix Mark Twain's Autobiography The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg Two Seas Canal Maria Ford Ærøskøbing Sool Marstal What Is Man? Christian Science (book)

Cleanup Quintus Smyrnaeus John T Harrison Monsters of Rock Merge List of fictional butlers War is a Racket Descriptive linguistics Add Sources Joseph Campbell Butler Wilbert Harrison Panarchism Wikify Comparative government Marcus Brigstocke Lakota Local School District, Butler County, Ohio Expand Lupus erythematosus Buddhist philosophy Olivia Trinidad Arias

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 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered! Sure, please feel free to add it to your list. Cheers, FreplySpang 10:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your message on my talk page about Wikiproject Buddhism. Sorry I didn't get back to you right away ... I kept thinking there was something I forgot to do ;) I am actually a lot less active on Buddhism-related stuff (and Wikipedia stuff in general) than I used to be, but I am, nevertheless, glad to have you aboard. There are various things you can do to help depending on what you feel like doing (I'm sure you've discovered some of those things yourself). A few things off the top of my head: one thing you can do is to monitor recent changes on Buddhism-related categories. Do this by going to the category page and clicking on "Related changes", which gives a result like this. See if anything stands out as being suspicious and, if so, check it out and make sure it's okay. Also pay special attention to any new articles, which will be marked with an "N"; these can be particularly interesting and/or totally messed up. A particularly good place to do this is at Category:Buddhism stubs and Category:Zen stubs (the latter is much less busy), which have a lot of relatively obscure articles (meaning that there might not be anyone else paying attention to them).

Also, if you notice any edits that are at all problematic—especially if they are blatantly disruptive—it's a good idea to check the other edits by that user and see what they have been doing. Sometimes, that same person has made other edits that require attention but no one else has noticed them.

Another useful thing you can do if you have some free time is, because Category:Buddhism is usually too crowded, you can move things out of that category into more specific categories. For instance, an article about a Buddhist teacher can go in Category:Buddhists, instead of Category:Buddhism. Articles should not be in redundant categories, so, for example, no one should ever be in Category:Buddhists and also in Category:Buddhism (it would be okay, on the other, hand to be in both Category:Buddhists and Category:Pure Land Buddhism because "Buddhist" is not completely redundant with "Pure Land Buddhism"). I think it's good to keep Category:Buddhism small enough that it fits onto one page, but I haven't had time to do that myself lately.

There are a lot of Buddhist teachers, both modern and ancient, who don't have articles yet on Wikipedia. If you're so inclined, you could write up some brief biographies. You might also check the "Open Tasks" list for Buddhism (which, unfortunately, hasn't been updated in a long time), which includes a list of requested articles. Perhaps you would be interested in writing some of those.

I don't know how interested you are in Tibetan stuff (myself, I'm interested more in the language than in Tibetan religious), but I suggested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism a while back that it would be good to have a series of articles about individual Tibetan names. Tibetans seem to use a relatively small number of common names over and over in various combinations, and I think this can be fairly confusing for a lot of readers, especially since those names are often have severeal different spellings in English. You can help with that if you want. The article would contain different spellings, the meaning of the name, a list of people who have that name, etc. I have so far created one such article as an example: Gedun.

In addition, there is always plenty of text on Wikipedia that needs a good, solid copy-edit, including spell-checking and rewording of awkward prose; Buddhism-related articles are no exception.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if there's anything I can help with. Take care, Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for creating the Zen collaborations page. I'll take more of a look at it tomorrow, as I'm a bit busy this evening. I haven't really been involved much ever with any of the various other Wikipedia collaborations pages, so I don't have much idea whether this is going to be successful or not.

By the way, the article on Baso already exists. It's just that it has been listed under his Chinese name Mazu Daoyi and no one had created a redirect from the one to the other (which was certainly an oversight). This reminded me of another topic. We have generally followed a loose policy (a fairly consistent policy, I think, but one that hasn't really be tested by hard cases to any great extent) of placing the articles about Chinese Zen masters under their (modern standard) Chinese names. This caused me, for instance, to move Ummon to Yunmen Wenyan. However, now that I think about it, I'm not really sure that this is a good idea. If these people are better known by their Japanese names, then normal Wikipedia policy says that that's what we should use. Moreover, we have habitually used Chinese pinyin spellings, which are often even less well-known than the older Wade-Giles spellings (Ma-tsu vs. Mazu; it seems that many Buddhist scholars are among the last hold-outs on switching to pinyin). Moreover (again), because the Chinese language has changed a lot over the years, there's a fair chance that, in any individual case, the Japanese pronunciation might be closer to the original than the modern Chinese is. For instance, Zhaozhou's mu, was, according to what I've read, probably pronounced something like "myu", which is a lot closer to the Japanese than it is to the modern Chinese wu.

So, I'd like to continue to consider this point, and leave everything where it is for now. In Baso's case, to me, he is better known as Mazu than as Baso. However, I had no idea what Gutei's Chinese name was before I read your article, so moving that one would seem a bit bizarre.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: your edit

Magga-vibhanga sutta says otherwise. - Nearfar 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "stress" was used there (in Noble Eightfold Path) because of the fact that the passage in question is a quotation from one person's translation. I do not agree with the word "stress", either, and I, too, think "suffering" would be better. However, it cannot just be added into the quote without proper attribution, which I am going to do.

By the way, in the future I would watch the sort of tone that you used in your message to me: it was highly impolite and unwarranted to make assumptions about my native language (which, by the way, happens to be English), and I suggest you refrain from that sort of action in the future. —Saposcat 05:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rentwa,

so, did your IRC experiments work out? Hopefully yes :) If not, poke me on my talk page. When you get online, hit /query richih and say hi! RichiH 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I voted on ZCOTM (I voted for all of them). I also made a couple of suggestions. Thanks for setting that up!

As for the naming situation, I think we should let it simmer in our brains for a while before deciding to move toward a solid policy. There really is currently no well-established policy ... I think that if we directly apply the closest relevant established policy, we should use the most common version of the name regardless, thus Yunmen Wenyan would move back to Ummon, etc. However, it's important to remember that this doesn't really affect the information in the encyclopaedia at all. By using lots of redirects and the occasional disambiguation page, we can make sure that people can always find the right article. The question we're dealing with is really only a stylistic one. So, we can afford to wait and see what decision we should make later. FYI, I haven't really found this to be a major problem with regard to Tibetan names, because they reuse the same names, but they mix them up in different combinations: for instance, there's Lobsang Choekyi Gyaltsen and Choekyi Gyaltsen, Thubten Choekyi Nyima and Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, etc. The hard part is knowing which of the various variant spellings to use, but, at the end of the day, the reason there are variant spellings is that nobody cares very much, so it doesn't matter very much whether you get it "right" (there was a proposal a while back to establish a uniform standard for Tibetan names on Wikipedia, but I་་didn't think it was a very good idea).

There is a Tibetan Wikipedia, by the way, but it is largely inactive. This is one of a few dozen Wikipedias that were started in 2004 and early 2005 that never really took off. Hopefully, it will some day. According to Wikipedia:Babel, there aren't any Tibetan speakers who have identified themselves on Wikipedia (although I do know of one scholar who edits Wikipedia off and on). I actually think that Wikipedia would be greatly of interest to some people within that sort of minority-language community, but I don't know how to go about promoting it to them.

"Juzhi" isn't actually the equivalent of "Chu-chih", but I think I found the correct characters for Gutei, and they spell "Juzhi" not "Chu-chih". Juzi=Chü-chih, Chu-chih=Zhuzhi—"j" and "zh" are two very similar sounds which the older transcription simply writes the same; whereas, the newer pinyin writes u instead of ü for no good reason. A clearer transcription might look something like "Ĵüjĭ", but I guess it's too late to convince the world to spell it that way! Anyway, let's leave Gutei where he is for now, so we don't have to worry too much about the correct spelling.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what "no original research" means, and I know that I am not engaging in it. As long as the quotation from Thanissaro is there (you are welcome to remove it if you would like, or find a translation that you think is better), his words must be used within the quotation marks, and if they are changed, then we must—according to academic standards—indicate that they have been changed by means of bracketing the words that have been changed. That is simply how it is done across the academic world, whose standards also apply to Wikipedia.

Again, I politely ask you to refrain from saying things such as "messing with the article", and from pseudo-threats such as getting the page protected. We should be working together to make the article as accurate and academically honest as we can make it. Wouldn't that be more productive? —Saposcat 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One potential problem I can see with the website you pointed me to is that the person openly took that translation of the sutra from the Thanissaro translation you are objecting to, and then altered it himself. Myself, I would still prefer the Thanissaro original, even though I, too, object to the use of "stress" instead of "suffering".

What if we used Thanissaro's original, but pointed out clearly in the preceding paragraph that he is using "stress" to mean "dukkha (suffering)" (in a similar way to that with which I had originally pointed out he was using "view" instead of "understanding")? Because I would prefer Thanissaro's direct translation—flaws and all, so long as those flaws are explained—to the Geocities' fellow's derivative of a direct translation. What do you think? —Saposcat 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I've also put this proposal on Noble Eightfold Path's talk page, so let's continue the discussion there, shall we? Cheers. —Saposcat 07:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the Zen/Mahayana tradition, too, but those in that tradition are certainly not immune to alternate translations (Robert Aitken has translated dukkha as "anguish", for instance—better than "stress", but still not as good as "suffering", I think). I don't believe there is a Mahayana equivalent to this sutra, as it is part of the original Sutta Pitaka—specifically part of the Samyutta Nikaya—which were purported to be the Buddha's own words, and these tended to be passed on and preserved in the Mahayana tradition (even if they were less used than the Mahayana sutras).

I, too, would be surprised if there were not a more "orthodox" translation of the Magga-vibhanga Sutta around; the thing is, is there another one around on the Internet? I haven't found one so far, and the only way I can do any research at the moment is through the Internet. Anyhow, eventually I'm sure this issue will be hashed out. Thanks for your understanding (or "view"). Cheers. —Saposcat 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, cheers for the sig comment, but I still cant see how it would work, taking into account, time isnt bounded, so you wouldnt really have a box, but maybe you were reffering to an area on the timeplane, so I may have just minunderstood.

Ok this is very complicated, and involves what I was taught were called time cones, however there are no relavant hits for this on wikipedia or google. Ahwell. I will try to explain. In 1D IT (1 spacial dimensio 1 time dimension) time space can be expressed by a graph, the x axis being time, the y being space, and all points in the universe are within this graph, the graph is intersected by 2 lines, which are c, the formulae for these lines is y=xc and y=x(-c), travelling at a steeper slop than this lines is moving faster than light, and travelling at a shallower line would be moving at a slower speed than light, so as you can see, something moving slower than the speed of light's patth can never become steeper than y=xc or y=x(-c), and something moving faster's path can never become shallower than y=xc or y=x(-c), so as you can see for either of these objects to change direction 180 degrees they would have to violate this rule to turn, as the curve would at some point be steeper, and at some point be shallower than y=xc and y=x(-c), therefore in 1d 1t universes it is impossible, now to move on to explain in 2time universes is complicated, but if you look at the graph above an imgaine the third axis coming out of the centre, and the blue areas formed into two cones extending either way, with the time axis down the centre of each one, and two spacial axises at right angles. Now one thing is that once you exceed c, time and space axises swap round so to a tachyon (something in the red area) it appears that there are 2 time axis and 1 spacial axis which has the cone around it, so here we have a 2d universe, now as we know, the path of the tachyon must not pass the edges of the cone, leaving the only place for your circle or spiral to exist is moving directly in line around the two time axis's.

If you now one thing you have failed to realise is that we are dealing with objects that by default move faster than light, and can move infinitely fast, the length of their path is completely irrelavent to how long it has taken them to move through it, as unlike us, the longer a path, the longer it will take to travel it, for these objects any path can be travelled instantaneously, so therefore, whilst you may be correct in saying you can fit an infinetely long spiral into and 11² year period, the time is not infintely long, as if you do not leave the 11² year period, the maximum amount of time that can pass is 11² years, and no more, as although the object could have moved an infinite distance within that time, an infinite amount of time has not passed. And my point about you cannot go backwards still stands as two points on opposite sides of a spiral are going in opposite directions, meaning one of them is going backwards, which violates causality I think. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If youve done it thats alright then, because I thought my explanation was pretty shocking... I look forward to seeing how this works.. though not so much to kicking myself! hehe! You probably understand stuff to a much further extent than me if you've done post grad... if I keep on track I should be finishing mine in about 9 years! hehe. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont these spirals recquire that you regress as much as you grow though, eventually stabilising and rouglhy oscilating around the point of a mid-life crisis? Hmmm, food for thought for sure... the other thing is just because there are 2 dimensions in time, doesnt mean people would be able to harness them at will, as, people have failed constantly with our 1dimensional time frame, so what would define how you navigate through these dimensions?

I thing I raised when this was initially explained to me, is couldnt objects effectively dodge points in time, so say you had a a deadlinf of tuesday23rd(x)wednesday24th(y) couldnt you go round the deadline by moving on to 25th(y) when you get onto 23rd(x)... so how would this work? Philc _T^E_C^I 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things, one is i'm not sure the article parametrisation was quite what you intended when you made the link, and also, since the end of time is not the boundry which limits human life, but poor cell replication, just because there is a path laid out which is infintely long, since you said yourself we still travel along it at a steady rate, wouldnt eventually we die for the same reasons, and there be no infinite life?

Also, do all things travel along the same path, or do things pop in and out of existence reltive to you as their path crosses over with yours. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo I'm winning at something! hehe, cheers for enlightening me to all of this. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just keep an eye on a few articles, is all. Buddhism is one of them, for now. I usually only place warnings for clear vandalism, otherwise people complain, involve admins, etc. etc. which usually is a big waste of time. But for article blanking or insertion of nonsense, I will leave a warning. Sometimes it is pointless on an ip-address as they may not have a static ip. Thems the breaks... —Hanuman Das 01:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rentwa, for the invitation to nominate Zen articles. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a subject matter expert when it comes to Zen. Just have cursory knowledge. But good on you for soliciting participation! Keep it up. -- Metta, Deeb 06:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ta :) Rentwa 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rentwa, thanks for the invite. Frankly I dont have much expertise on this subject. But I will try my best to pitch in. You may also like to put this on the village pump under the relevant topic. Also, on the notice boards of associated wikiprojects and portals. You are likely to find more like minded people there -- Lost^(talk) 12:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rentwa. Thanks for your reply over on Talk:Noble Eightfold Path; I'll respond to it as soon as I have the time, but I appreciate the detailed response/explanation (which is really all I was asking for).

About the Zen Collaboration of the Month, I'd be delighted to take part ... the only problem is, I'm currently in the process of moving house, and so in a sort of limbo as regards access to the Internet and access to any reference books that I might use. Once I get settled, however, I'll probably start helping out on the project. Thanks for the invitation.

Also, again in regards to the Zen Collaboration, that template that you're putting on articles—

{{Zen Collaboration This Month}}

—should go on the top of the talk pages of articles rather than on the top of the article itself (i.e., at Talk:Zen rather than at Zen). Because it's more of a notice for editors than for readers of the encyclopedia, it's generally put there.

Cheers. Take care. —Saposcat 05:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though if not be able to start afresh, I could help editing this article. Nearfar 07:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to go on Wikibreak (which means I won't be editing for a while), when I noticed that you had asked a while ago if I am an administrator. I am, in fact, not; I've never sought this role. I don't entirely know whom to recommend to you as a vandal-fighting admin. User:Quadell is an admin who I know to be a good guy, but I don't know if he is particulary interested in blocking vandals. Perhaps, if it becomes necessary, he could recommend someone else. You might also look at Category:Wikipedia administrators and pick someone at random—a nice way to meet new people. Anyway, since I won't be around for a while (not sure when I'll be back), I guess my votes on the Zen collaboration of the month shouldn't be counted in the meantime. I might check my talk page from time to time and respond to comments, and you can certainly reach me by e-mail if you'd like. Take care, Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rentwa - I've seen from various articles that you're both knowledgable and enthusiastic about Zen-related material. I was wondering if you might toss some of your energetic smarts at the Householder (Buddhism) article. Frankly, I know something about Theravada Buddhism, but I stumble around clumsily when it comes to Mahayana texts. (For instance, see my generally pitiful/deplorable efforts to write something intelligent about Mahayana/Vajrayana texts on the Skandha article.) I know you're a busy WP editor. Any content you could add would be much appreciated. Wishing you peace, freedom and bliss, LarryR 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rentwa :)

Thanks for your speedy & helpful reply.

I very much like your contributions by the way -- I never knew of Gutei before and I enjoyed reading your article. Also, I applaud you for your Ten Bulls article -- one of my favorite Zen artifacts. (I have four of the bulls tattooed on my arm ;) ). As for Harrison Butler, golly, mighty well-constructed and visually attractive piece. (I'm guessing you've been out to sea before?) Also, your "Zen Collaboration" box puts you in a league of your own in terms of creativity and enthusiasm. My hat's off to you!

As for "press-ganging" me (which I'm guessing is a Britishism [?] and has nothing to do with what happened to Ganymede), if I can be of service, I'd be happy to contribute; but, regrettably, my Zen knowledge has liberated itself from my samsaric brain for the most part. (I had a daily solitary Zen practice for years in the early 90's but to make a long and uninteresting story short, I replaced it with a Theravada practice in 1998 or so; in addition, even back when I was doing zazen, my practice was fed by contemporary Dharma talks -- e.g., Aitken, Beck, Glassman, Kapleau, Nhat Hanh, S. Suzuki, etc. -- thus my bookshelf is light on Zen scholarship [e.g., some D.T.Suzuki].) If you think however an article could use a boost with something from the Suttapitaka, I'd be happy to be press-ganged :)

And, again, your advice and possible future contributions to the Householder (Buddhism) article are much appreciated. May you find within your RL hassles Gutei's student's finger, even if disembodied. Best wishes, LarryR 03:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rentwa :) - I was struck by our similar backgrounds too (though I can safely say that no one would ever want to interview me to be a male stripper ;-) ). Maybe we can start a WP cat: "Category:Mathematically_inclined_social_workers_with_bovine_tattoos" (or would that go on Wikimedia?). Regarding Zen stories, I appreciate what you're indicating in terms of their appealing freshness, verve and kick-in-the-head clarity. It's been a while since I've read any; thanks for reminding me of such. And, as for your writing, I think you're obviously gifted and I wish you great success with that. Best wishes, LarryR 16:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'll owe ya! Hope your RL wiki-break goes well. LarryR 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Fret not, I have a pound of my flesh set aside just for you. :) LarryR 13:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ref your question: the entry originally read (emphasis mine):

*Diagnose - takes the physician as subject and disease as object. It is used to identify a disease, not tell us what a patient is suffering from. The passive voice is ugly in the following context, and the sense could be expressed as 'Mr. Smith has lurgi,' or 'The doctor said Mr. Smith has lurgi.'

- ** Disputed usage: Mr. Smith was diagnosed with lurgi.

- ** Undisputed usage: The doctor diagnosed lurgi.[1]

Diagnose does indeed have the meaning "diagnose a disease"; however, the entry as worded above baldly stated that it has that meaning, period. In looking for cites for the article, American Heritage Dictionary (meaning 2)[2] and Merriam-Webster (meaning 1b)[3] both indicate the usage "diagnose the patient" as standard; my Oxford also lists "Jane was diagnosed with a disease" as a valid option. Thus I found no evidence of any dispute.

The POV statement I referred to was the comment that "The passive voice is ugly in the following context". While the sense could indeed be expressed (as above) as "The doctor said Mr. Smith has lurgi", AHD and M-W both clearly indicate that "The doctor diagnosed Mr. Smith with lurgi" is a valid option (if one wants to avoid the passive voice).

Hope this helps clear things up a bit. --SigPig 01:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is just a message to let you know that I fixed up the beginning bits of the Ten Bulls article to make it a bit more accurate and informative. Cheers. —Saposcat 09:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I also moved Gutei to Juzhi Yizhi (Yizhi means "one finger"), the Chinese name by which he seems to be known, insofar as he was Chinese and not Japanese. I know that one of your references gives his name as Jinhua Juzhi, and I'm still looking for info on that, but for the time being, hopefully this can stand the way it is, since he seems to be best known with the "one finger" appellation (and for very good reason, too). What do you think? —Saposcat 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]