User talk:ZuluPapa5

Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace

Welcome!

Hello, ZuluPapa5! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I also noticed that you have been editing articles on Tibet-related topics. You may be interested in joining WikiProject Tibet, a group of editors working to improve coverage of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism on Wikipedia. Again, welcome! --Gimme danger (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Palyul lineage source

Hi there, thanks for adding information to the Palyul article. Would you mind adding the source where you found that list? If you don't know how to format it, that's okay, just put what you think is relevant on my talk page and I can look it up. Of course, perhaps you just have that all down in memory, in which case... wow! --Gimme danger (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The ref was the same as was on the page, but I have added a secondary source.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alyce Zeoli

If you have concerns about the article, bring it up in the discussion page. Longchenpa (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns about you. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I refuse to move this to a personal level. Longchenpa (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I should be specific, I have concerns about you and WP:HARM as it relates to the Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo article (Alyce Zeoli).Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no harm. This is all widely available information. Longchenpa (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is harm when you construct original research from negative information.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What-? Longchenpa (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP again. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jetsunma.jpeg licensing issues

I notice that you uploaded this image as having been released under the GNU Free Documentation License. However, the website which hosts this image has a copyright notice, and does not have any indication that the image has in fact been freely licensed. If you are authorized to release the image under such a license, please post a notice on the website that the image is released under a free license, or contact our OTRS team for help with verification. If not, the image will need to be deleted. Thank you for any help you can provide in clarifying this situation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did received permission to upload the image. I'll look into this again. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Still working on this, expect clarification this weekend.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, OK for GNFDL as per wiki standard. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversations between users, article talk pages and general etiquette

Hello. I notice that you copied a conversation between myself and Longchenpa to Talk:Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo. I'm also a little concerned that I found this out by myself by chance, investigating goings-on through my watchlist. Firstly, article talk pages are not for "building cases" against other users, simply for discussion of the improvement of articles. If you wish to reference messages, then simply link to their original location, as what you did can take messages out of context. My message to the user in question was advisory and discoursive, it wasn't a warning or anything of the sort. If you have a complaint about someone, bring it up on their talk page; if you can't find common ground, there are steps you can take. Thanks - Toon⁰⁵ 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, no offense intended. A link would have been better. I wrote my complaint on Lonchenpa's talk page and we moved it to the article. I appreciate and shared your concern about Lonchenpa and WP:HARM. I am not sure I agree with you about how Talk Pages are being used, it would be good to look at a policy. Just as you have done. It might have been better for me to add a new Subject heading to express my concern. Thanks for speaking up. We've gone through our first Third Opinion. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good. Clearly you both care about the topic and want to improve the article, I think that if effective compromises can be reached which allow for a balanced viewpoint, it could end up being a very detailed, well written article; take a look at the good article criteria and take a look at a few good article-rated biogs and aim for that sort of level. - Toon⁰⁵ 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looking at good article criteria "4. It is neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias." is difficult for the Jetsunma article, because there's little published to provide a balanced view on the controversies.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well balance doesn't mean saying as much good stuff as there is bad; it means including within the article all major reported viewpoints in relation to their weight. The problem with this, of course, is that news outlets do love to print the negative stuff. - Toon⁰⁵ 11:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. My main criticism of the overly cited source in the Jetsunma article is that it's reflective of "tabloid" negative reporting on issues and offers little for Tibetan Buddhist context. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As a follow-up to your WQA, although only a FEW of the user's edit summaries are more "discussion-like" and the majority are valid edit summaries, it appears that you and the editor are in more of a Content disagreement. Those should be properly dealt with first on the article Talk page, or in another forum if required. As a precaution, I have left a minor notice on the other editor's Talk page, but at the same time I would advise you to edit civilly as well. BMW(drive) 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:ANI

Hello, ZuluPapa5. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Jetsunma. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I can't find the reference, can you point me better?Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Still_problems_with_wiki-lawyering_and_a_possible_COI_on_Jetsunma Found it.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've disclosed my Conflicts of Interest here after I was invited to by a Third Party Review. Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#Third_opinionZulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to User:NonvocalScream for quick and timely resolution on this Incident.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but there's another thread about this, at WP:AN#Out Attempt. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Your query has been answered on my talk page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

new revert refs

• Orginal [1] - August 4, 2008

• 1st - [2] - August 4, 2008

• 2nd - [3] - August 5, 2008

• 3rd - [4] - August 5, 2008

Also off topic

• 1 - [5]
• 2 - [6]
• 3 -[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo&diff=prev&oldid=230017237

again on BL dispute notice:]

• 1 -[7]

ZP

Hey, I owe you an apology. Contact me? Longchenpa (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Accepted, thanks. The merit will be in your editorial virtue. Best regards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I removed the section added by Kunzang Lhamo. It's pure original research. They're using primary sources.

Also I called the Maryland court in Rockville:

1) They have the worst hold music I've ever encountered. Yeesh.

2) They have no record of a case number 5D00037826. Longchenpa (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I checked the other case number Kunzang Lhamo cited -- which can't be used for Wiki since it's original research. But going a step further, I can't find that case number on San Bernadino's Open Access, either in civil or criminal records. Longchenpa (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the cases were expunged. Which makes them unverifiable. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If they existed at all. I don't see any proof of it. Longchenpa (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment

Just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia cannot include copyrighted material. If you want to write a proper article you can do so, but verbatim copying isn't appropriate (or legal). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:copyvio and WP:NPA. Vsmith (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, it was fair use, changed some and on the way to being better.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring and removal

Re [8]. Please learn to distinguish refactoring (which is somewhere between frowned upon and forbidden, for talk page comments) and removal (which is permitted) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point taken, thanks. My point was about fairness and [WP:CIVIL]. Got to break now. Be well. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Scientific opinion on climate change shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You get the warning because i can't see such a notification on your talk, and because you are at 3RR on sci op cc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooling off ... from my attempts to defend a NPOV. If the POV-tag is being early reverted before talk, that is a valid indication the article has POV issues. Regards, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, actually its an indication that you haven't been able to convince people that your viewpoint is correct. Tags are there to be used when you have actually identified issues on talk (which you still haven't imho), they are not to be used as leverage to getting your will. (as it appears as if you do). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it indicated a fierce defense to a POV. Unless you are in denial, the whole talk page is filed with a POV dispute. Get real. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. tedder (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Tedder corrupted the NPOV resolution process. The tag belongs in a state of on during a NPOV dispute. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)