User talk:20040302

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sorry

I do appologise, in my eagerness I saw only you blanking an entire page with no comment and misstook you as a vandel. I should have looked at page title first. Please accept my humble appologies--Jcw69 20:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Pluralism

Thank you for your contributions to the article on Religious_pluralism. I am working currently on the section on the definition/scope of religious pluralism. You have input suggestions for such things on the talk page, and I would like for you to elaborate on your thoughts on the subject. I am finding that this is a very difficult thing to nail down, and even after I do so, will probably find a "No Original Research" template slapped on it... Let me know what you have thought/researched, that I may use it to enhance my work. --Cormallen 02:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pluralism

Hi March, here we are again, in for another round of our editing discussions we have already practised on Religious_Pluralism. Hope we have learned to understand each other better in the meantime, so discussions won't be as tedious as last time... :-) --Robin.rueth 09:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Hiya, thanks for the message. I'll say something about it on the talk page right now. :) XYaAsehShalomX 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There you go. :)XYaAsehShalomX 16:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NKT Pabongkha

Hi 2nd March. Perhaps you have time to help to find out what "secterian view" means and what the difference of Pabongkhas approach and Tsongkhaps is or if Pabongkhas approach can be named as secterian or not? I can not write more on that topic. (I didn't want getting to much involved and lack also time.) But perhaps there is a need and a benefit to clarify this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#Phabonkhas_Sectarianism Thank you very much. I will make a new Pause on that stuff. Kt66 13:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dorje Shugden

Hi 2nd March, if you have time; I'd like to ask you to check about the changes at Shugden article. It looks like that the author (Geir) is more interested to put his person in that article than improving it. Also I lack the English knowledge and time to try to understand what he is saying. thanks, Kt66 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Query

dear 20040302, please do not take this as sum kinda inquiry into your ancestry, but are you a cousin or a young'n of "texas constitution day"? the phase looks kinda familiar. many regards, 0* (zero-aster) p.s. Jon Awbrey helped me write this.

[edit] Note

oops, i mispoke, it shoulda been "texas independence day" 18360302. it seemed like i remembered calling it "constitution day" way back. either rote learning is not even as much as it b cracked down to b. or i can rack up yet another childhood memory corrupted by entropy. incidental musements: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/II/lki1.html http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/republic/ http://www.drtl.org/History/Alamo3.asp Jon Awbrey, on behalf of 0* (lone star xpatriot)

[edit] hi

I've replied to your message over at that article. If you want to email me, it's green_tulip1988 at hotmail dot com. XYaAsehShalomX 18:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] request

Hi second march could you please look at the Kelsang Gyatso article and the board - i's going about the expulsion section. I do not come to a desicion what the best way is and KP reverts my extensions always back (and I reverted his reverts back). What is reasonable for you on that. Plaese help by sharing the discussion or your thoghts on that. Thank you very much Kt66 22:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NKT once more - you opinion is needed I think

Hi 2nd March, User:Nat Krause made some changes to condence the article on NKT. Normally we did now agree on it. Now a NKT member wishes to extend once more a setion and I do feel there are no really reasons/need for it. Could you please be so kind to check if Patrick K's changes will improve the article and leave your opinion at the discussionpage? Thank you very much, Kt66 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User Billion answered yet and there is no need anymore. Kt66 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ishtadevatas

Don't worry, it's in the queue, along with about 10-15 others. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NKT article changes are discussed

Dear 2nd March: I'd like to ask you for your help and moderation. user:Robert wishes to change two sections of the NKT article and I feel his suggestions blurr the facts or take the clarity of what is stated yet. But I do not say we have an optimum now. You're help is most welcome! Thank you very much. --Kt66 21:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. He wished to change the present

sections and merge both. But the way he did I felt is done so that the sections looses their clarity on what NKT really is and based on. You can see it by looking in the history (I reverted and asked for discussion). The present discussion takes place here: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#Changes_.40Robertect Thank you very much, --Kt66 10:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your moderate discussion on the cult issue. It protects me too. --Kt66 10:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi 2nd March, I will not be online until the 7th of June. Could you please care a little bit for the NKT article? There are three open topics: Cult allegation, ordination section and I asked if there is a need to inlcude the missionioary drive as stated by Kays. (see disc. board) Thank you, --Kt66 23:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear 2nd March, as far as you are interested, and possess the time and money I can really recommend the doctoricial research of David N Kay on NKT. It points out all the stuff in an unbiased manner with many sources and quotes and is embedded in the historical and cultural backgrouds, especially Gelug exclusivism and inclusivism. It gives many points interesting to Gelug history, Shugden controversy, and FPMT/NKT shism and all the backgorunds leading to this and founding and developement of the NKT. What I see as helpful are less the many facts but the unbiased attitude of the research, trying just to descrive what happend and trying to give the underlying forces or backgrounds for it without judging it, so one can understand it. I will try to bring the sources of this research in the article and hopefully you will help to balance the article so that it is really useful and clear. Thanks a lot, --Kt66 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear 2nd March. I revised the History section of NKT based on the research on NKT and discussed it on the dp. Because NKT put always much effort to hide the history with FPMT, I expect they will attack the section strongly. Your help is most welcome. I gave references to all additions and changes. Thank your for your consideration. --Kt66 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi 2nd March. It's me again. Please be so kind to look and give your suggestion on the discussion on the growth section of NKT, also a look on grammar and spelling is needed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Kadampa_Tradition#Growth Thank you very much. --Kt66 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tibetan Translator ?

Dear 02/03, Yes, it is me. The mo text I translated in only found in the Qianlong edition (as reproduced from the Otani Library copy). All my paperwork connected with that translation have long since been packed away. It is easy to find in the Suzuki Foundation catalogue -- it occurs towards the end of the Tanjur, in the sna-tshogs section, I think, under mo-rtis. I you can't find it,I'll try and remember to look it up for you. Do you read Tibetan ? Of course, I suppose you do, asking for this information. Hope you are enjoying the current ding-dong. --Stephen Hodge 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shugden

Hi 2nd March. I added two new sections in the Shugden article to make the conflict more transparent and help westeners to understand it better. Because I am no native English speaker and also I lack being unbiased - allthough I try it - I appreciate if you can read and correct the sections or help by discussing it. See: Background of the conflict in the Gelug tradition. Thank you very much, --Kt66 10:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi 2nd March. Could you please be so kind to take time to check a short discussion and give your opinion there. In the Shugden article I put a paragraph on NKT/GKG's view to make it more understandable. Robertect removed it and I can not really agree on that removal (see: [1]) We came to no conclusion and are seraching for a neutral editor to mediate the discussion or listen to his view. See "removal of first paragraph" at the Shugden Talk Page. Rudhy has still given his opinion and I have not really one on that. I like that para there. Your opinion is most welcome and I think we will follow it in the end. (I will be absent until the 20th of August). Thank you very much, --Kt66 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, it was helpful. (I stayed for a montn abroad and didn't read it until now...) --Kt66 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] polemics in buddhism

I appreciate your input on the critics-section, I have moved it now (Buddhist polemics), and changed the title to 'Theravada Criticised and Explained', and I hope that's where we can leave it for now. greetings, Sacca 02:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Buddha

Hello 2004, when you asked me to stop editing on this subject, some kind of discussion was started, and Tony asked you to come up with Mahayana references on your Three Kinds of Buddhas-theory. I did stop editing while waiting for some input, but now, while I haven't seen you respond to the request of 'proof', you changed the title on the article and obviously plan to totally rewrite it from the subject of Types of Buddhas to Types of Enlightenment. But these are different subjects. I suggest you leave the Types of Buddhas page (which means moving it back), so we can adapt it to the 'two types of Buddhas' which are recognized in mainstream Buddhism. Also the 'Three types of enlightenment' should better be renamed to 'Types of Enlightenment', since again there are various opinions on this. From now on, I will again continue the edits which I stopped at your request. greetings, Greetings, Sacca 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geshe Michael Roach

Dear 2nd March, after observing for a long time the efforts at the site of Geshe Michael Roach either to repress critic or to have biased critics (I am not free of such faults too), I felt the urge to use selfsources of Geshe Michael so that the critics can be put in the article without endless discussions. It would be nice if you can have a look and improve or comment it. (It maybe possible my last edit is reverted once more, so please look in the history too. I wish to avoid provoking an edit war but see also not much hope to avoid it.) Please look also to the link of the controversies if it is against WP rules, Thanks a lot, --Kt66 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have a look at

Hi 2nd march, it would be fine if you can have a look at Geshe Kelsang Gyatso if the article is fair, unbiased uses proper language and leave your comment for improving it there. Thanyk you, --Kt66 11:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NKT NPOV

Dear 2nd March, since you have a view on this article already I would appreciate your advice regarding my comments on the talk page of the NKT article. Excellentone 15:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/0/User_talk%7E20040302.html"