User talk:Nat Krause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nat Krause is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in April.

[edit] Archives

• Archive 1 (January to mid-May 2004)
• Archive 2 (mid-May to mid-October 2004)
• Archive 3 (mid-October 2004 to mid-February 2005)
• Archive 4 (mid-February to August 2005)
• Archive 5 (August 2005 to the ides of March, 2006)
• Archive 6 (March to early October, 2006)
• Archive 7 (October, 2006 to January, 2007)

[edit] Nat Krause commits major fallacy on wikipedia

"I request, Attasarana, that you refrain from editing Wikipedia in the future, because you must cite sources here, but, unfortunately, we are unable to trust any sources cited by you.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:29, 26 January 2007"

This is called a fallacy of place. The claim of trust is foremostly unsubstantiated, not to mention that the article for ANATTA, after countless requests for discussion, go unheeded by yourself.

That you attempt to subvert the correct elabortion of anatta by constant reversion of anatta and other buddhist articles belies the fact that your attempting a Fascist dominance of wikipedia's definitions of buddhist lexicon, not based in doctrinal evidences, but sectarian dogma.

You, Nat, must comply with discussion before massive reverts in edits of the ANATTA article or mediatiation will be requested.

Of yet you've proven incapable of substantiating your position that anatta was a "buddhist denial of Vedantic monism".

Defacto, all claims require evidences and or logical coherency in doctrine. [Sola Scriptura rules of religious debate and arguementation]; Prof. Jennings.

Your above comment in logical debate is also called a "dog in the manger" fallacy, wherein one barks "you dont belong here, begone...". In addition this fallacy of place (i.e. 'your not qualified,'...'i dont trust your sources',,..etc.) only exposes your incapacity to logically defend your non-scriptural nihilistic position of anatta which is nowhere reflected in either the nikayas or any early mahayana sutra for that matter- User Attasarana. webmaster attan.com

By the way, Attasarana, I didn't write the earlier version of the anatta article that you've been reverting. It does not necessarily reflect my opinions. I simply reject your reversions of it.

If you want to do mediation, I'll come out of my wikivacation specifically to do that.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not referring to your additions as regards anatta, but the above quote from yourself in the first line; one sentence containing three fallacies.

In the future, I suggest you bypass low sophistry and present intelligent arguements for your, as of yet, unsubstantiated and illogical contributions as pertains any and all Buddhist definitions; past history indicates a given incapacity on your behalf to accurately denotate buddhist definitions.

Your 'rejection' is irrelavent, all claims require evidences and logical substantiation, preferably with citation, and always Sola Scriptura as pertains religious lexical definitions. I am in process of writting an article for www.attan.com of your ilk on the buddhist-internet and wiki, by and large specifically, it will appear within 4 days on said site. - User Attasarana.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.52.30 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
In the past you have edited Little Italy, Chicago. This week it has been selected as the WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the week. Each week a Chicago related article in need of attention is selected as the Chicago COTW. Feel free to come help us improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 00:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Central Lhasa

Thre is an enormous amount of confusion around these terms in the literature. Often because linguistics work with non native speakers, e.g. an Amdowa who has lived in Lhasa for ten years. Consensus has emerged on some points however. The city of Lhasa esp. the upper class speak a slightly different dialect than the surrounding area, and this dialect is usually referred to as Lhasa and has been described in some detail by Chang and Chang in several articles and two boks in he sixties. Tourandre is contiously avoiding saying he is descrbing Lhasa dialect in order to say he is not describing this diact but rather the Lingua franka of central Tibet, which generally speaking is also what is soken around Lhasa. This dialect is described in Denwood's monograph, which is not very good, it is also descibed by Tourandre, and in an old paper by Roy Andrew Miller. Roy Andrew Miller has written reviews of almost all of the relevant literature and they are usually in JSTOR and other on-line journal collections. There is a fairly complete list of his Tibetan-Studies papers on his Wikipedia page. It would be nice though if someone wroe a book that just went through the whole literature and straightened it all out. If Bielmeier ever prints his comparative dialect dicitonary, then some things should become more clear.

Also the question of what is phonetic versus phonemic radically changes different peoples descriptions including tone count etc. Tourandre explains this tricky matter in his handbook pretty well and it is also handleed in a article in BSOAS in the 1990s by R. K. Sprigg, who disagrees with Tourandre. Tibetologist 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I could send you a whole library of Tibetan Studies materials in pdf if you like, with a focus on linguistics, but you would have to expose a mailing address in a public place. I dont have Tournadre with me, but could have sworn that he described retroflex consonants and he writes them as tr, thr. I dont know lhasa dialect very well, though I could get buy in it once. Can you read Japanese, there is a lot of good material about Lhasa in Japanese, esp. by Izumi Hoshi. Tibetologist 09:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an email to your hotmail account. Tibetologist 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Tibet

It looks like it got created, actually expanded from T-Buddhism.

This user is a member of WikiProject Tibet.

Chris 08:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to organize the Category:WikiProject Tibet for starters but Please note though that Portal:Tibetan Buddhism exists and all the categories for WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism most of which are empty. SHould this be moved to WikiProject Tibet? Plus I don't think User:Sylvain1972 is aware of events. When I suggested it to him/her they didn't seem happy with the idea. I don't know how many articles are related to Tibetan Buddhism but it can't be a huge number although I do see the idea of the project from a religious viewpoint. But I am quick to say that a major part of Wikiproject Tibet is religiously entwined anyway. What shall we do? I don't want to offend people who started that project by moving their page but isn't it best under Wikiproject Tibet especially if their work is said to be inactive? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you interested in what I am doing or what? I have just tagged all of the cities and villages which are now part of WikiProject Tibet. I'm keeping Tibetan Buddhism as a sub project of it with its own tag to avoid the CHina templating but which also goes in Tibet articles too. I'd appreciate your reponse on this cheers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

THanks. Actually the projects have merged -Tibetan Buddhism is now a part of the Tibet project but I am still keeping the Tibetan Buddhism template for articles e.g like Dalai Lama which relate as Tibet articles but not to China!!!! THis is a tactful way to cover religious issues in Tibet I think which are not related or conflict with CHina ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 18:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies

Hi Nat,

I've requested an arbitration regarding Freedom skies.

Can I trouble you to write a brief statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies about your impressions of Freedom skies, his knowledge of Buddhism, and his conduct as an editor, particularly at the Zen and Bodhidharma articles?

Thank you.

JFD 10:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi friend. When you are taking break - I should be active :) --MissingLinks 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)