User talk:Nat Krause/Archive3

Sorry...

Someone seems to be mistaking me for you and I ain't no glove puppet! Moreover, I am not sure I understand him/her. (20040302)

Lol - he knows that you and I are distinct now. Hope all is well! Thanks for the understanding. I'll send you a picture one day. (20040302)

Abolitionism

Why did you remove references to Abolitionism from the Buddhism article?

Wikimedia Commons

Hello Nat, I notice you uploaded a photograph from Wikimedia Commons. Did you know that you can link directly to images in Wikimedia Commons without uploading them into the English Wikipedia? You don't even have to write Wikimedia Commons in the link --- write the link just as if the image were on the English Wikipedia. A real time-saver! Fg2 10:00, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Shakyamuni

The copyright tag is {{cc-by-2.0}}, a tag accepted by Wikipedia. You can find out if you doubleclick on the image, then go to the site where I downloaded the image from, and then click on the "creative commons" logo. Then you'll see that the images can even be used for commercial purposes. Anyway, this site is a treasure-trove, full of photos that can be used in so many of Wikipedia articles. JoJan 06:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Appreciation

Just wanted to say thanks for your recent (and long-standing, of course) work on Buddhism-related articles! Much appreciated. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 21:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian Capitalism

Hi, I'd lie to remove the redirect in Libertarian Capitalism -- the edit, as you have it, removes some important information, and I don't think we're likely to achieve consensus anytime soon regarding making Libertarianism into a disambiguation page, which I think would be more ideal. Pending consensus for that, I think we should at least have the information and links on Libertarian Capitalism. --Improv 06:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John Randolph Club

Thanks for your excellent contributions to the John Randolph Club. I have learned from your example.

-- Eric 11:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Japan and Western Europe

A Comparative Presentation of Their Social Histories By Franz Oppenheimer

13 pages - sendto: ??

Did you know

It's not bad form to list that article if it's still younger than 72 hours, but to ensure all featured articles have sufficient exposure the current section will be up until 15:00 UTC today (December 6). Hopefully it's still fresh enough to add after that. Consider submitting articles on the day of their creation to be sure of their inclusion. And (of course) make sure they contain some interesting facts, which I believe this entry did. :-) Happy editing! [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yamantaka

Hi Nat! Good to hear from you. Yes - time has suddenly been in short supply once more, and my WP involvement has taken a hit. Regarding the copy for Yamantaka - you are right! I know the author well, and he is quite happy about the copy re-appearing on WP. However, it's status is pretty much placeholder text - I should expand on it sometime...

I would really like to author a page for ishtadevata/yidam too, but the background is quite complex, and there are several differing opinions.

How goes everything? (20040302 08:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mustafa Barghouthi, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:03, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Barghouti or Barghouthi

Marwan and Mustafa are from the same famly so their names should be spelled the same way. Google hits are 640,000 for Barghouti but only 85,700 for Barghouthi. You can change it back if you feel stromgly about your sources. It just seems inconsistent. --Alberuni 04:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Basketball positions

Hey, all the basketball position pages say "in a regulation basketball game", but the positions aren't really regulated - just universally accepted. Doesn't "regulation" imply that they're written down in the regulations? Just a thought. Neonumbers 09:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to think of a way to express that without using too many words, it's not proving easy... I would've said "normally used in a basketball game" but I don't know if "basketball" is generally accepted to include street games (I'm a basketballer but I don't know anything about variations). "Standard" would work, but if we could just find a word that means, well, the word we're looking for, then that would be best (if there is one). Saying that they're universally accepted is another option, but again that overlooks variations a bit. I'm stuck for ideas... if I get one, I'll get back to you before I change it. Neonumbers 10:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vajradhatu vs garbhadhatu

The image you added to Vairocana calls it a Garbhadhatu mandala, this being the Sanskrit name for the Womb Realm. However, at least in Shingon theory, Vairocana inhabits the Diamond Realm (vajradhatu) and the Womb Realm is reserved for the Five Wisdom Kings. Could you clarify the source and the thinking? There are, of course, countless variants of these and I'm only (passingly) familiar with the Shingon style, but here are two references to more authoritative sources: Womb Diamond (note that Vairocana is Dainichi in Japanese) Jpatokal 11:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Karen_Kwiatkowski

Quite an impressive work you have done, congratulations ! Rama 14:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) UPDATE: As an official confirmation of my comment above, the article is featured in DYK on 22th of December, 2004, unquestionably thanks to your excellent work. Tank you very much agin ! Rama 11:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nhat Hanh

See the talk page for why i'm putting it back.

Even if you can't sit still for the change for long, don't mess with it while i'm still working on it: you seem to have done a cut&paste move, which i'll have to sort out and repair.

Please click on Move this page, and carefully read the instructions there.
Thanks
--Jerzy(t) 02:05, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Sorry, i see now the move was quite properly done! I dunno, i've never before seen a history be out of date after a move, and the real significance of your summary

moved from Nhat Hanh to Thich Nhat Hanh; see talk

escaped me until i could view the diffs. (Perhaps they moved that task to a lower priority to speed up Cat-assignment updates. Or maybe i did something so stupid in checking that i can't reconstruct it!)

I kinda merged your and my versions of the lead 'graph; if you come up with something more solid, perhaps it will deserve further adjustment.
--Jerzy(t) 02:37, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Honored by DYK

Thanks for adding my article on Julius Schreck to the Did you Know page. I am highly honored to have my work shown on the main page (I say my work, but its really Wiki's, but its kind of mine, but its not, because, you know) -Husnock 20 Dec 04

Agathokleia

Hi Nat, thanks for the comment. See you around. PHG 02:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NanJing

I saw that you had a picture of Nanjing, China. I was wondering if you had any pictures of the Sun Yat-sen Musoleum and the Kuomintang era capital building. Thanks.

--Tlarson 06:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re:Buddhism template

Thanks for posting me a note. Templates are usually added to articles that are listed (linked to) in the template itself. In this case, the article was not part of the general buddhism template. To mark this article as related to buddhism (as opposed to marking it a part of a series), i think we should use categories instead of templates. This is already done: it is part of Category:Buddhist temples which is a subcategory of Category:Buddhism. Even the template i removed would be better served in articles it links to using Template:buddhism2 (a footer) since it's a grp of related articles and not a chronology. --Jiang 23:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nhat Hanh

I've finished the big job of getting the talk page back to being almost coherant, and i have two requests for you:

• The discussion is involved enough that it will profit from keeping the separable issues of the treatment of "Thich" and of whether either "Nhat" or "Hanh" should be used separately for subsequent references. Therefore i intend to respond to your Jan 10 contribs to the talk only after they are refactored between the Thich & Nhat sections. I would not mind (except in the sense i'll mention in the 2nd request) doing that refactoring, as i think the opportunity for you to do it your way is yours to give up if you choose to. I like to think i could do a very fair job of it, and it's still worth doing even if you choose not be the one who does it. My approach to refactoring is a wordy one, as i think you'll guess. Another way to do it without presenting a false picture of the sequence & substance of the refactored material is to
  1. strike thru the old version, using <s> markup at the beginning of each 'graph, and </s> at the end of each
  2. label the struck thru material, probably at the beginning, as something like "Obviated by refactoring by its author"
  3. Cut and paste, or rewrite (especially if it enhances fluency) based on just keeping the points you wanted to make in mind
• I hope you will give sincere consideration to rereading the relevant sections of the talk page, and considering a complete rewrite (perhaps annotating the struck-thru as "refactored and revised") based on that fresh look, and on a more careful attention to logic and relevance. I say this not in order to be harsh, but to fair to you: i won't make a fool of myself later by sugar-coating my criticism of your current reasoning. I've not convinced myself that treating "Nhat Hanh" as an indivisible unit is as bad an idea as i was initially assuming. But
  • your dismissal of my previous evidence re the status of "Thich" as if you had never read it,
  • your discussion of PoV-implying names as if i had even hinted that "Nhat Hanh" should be eliminated from the article,
  • your characterizing 68 words by your "[dis-]comfort" without indicating a single word that would contribute to your comfort by replacing some of them, and
  • frankly, your (however hip) "[not] dig[ging my] objection", when more informative words like "understand", "accept", or perhaps gradations between them, or forms of "digging" that vary in other directions, are presumably within your vocabulary. Why would throw out opportunities for confusion if you are serious enough about this for your view to be weighed? (I suppose one answer for that is that i'm weirding you out, or shall i say, addressing you in a tone that raises tension for you. My temperment is quite averse to conflict, so please say so if i'm creating difficulties for you; i'd rather help you be, well, comfortable, than not, as long as you're not mocking the value of what we're doing.)

I've started rereading my draft, and without my anticipating it, i find i've come full circle: i'm now reminded i said i'd give one reason i want you to do the refactor of your recent talk contrib, and that reason is that i don't want to "beat you up" in any more detail than the above for the deficiencies i perceived, and especially not on a page more widely read than this one.

If you think we should talk more than this about the dynamics between us, let's do that here (or even by e-mail if you'd rather; i don't check it regularly, so say you've written me on my talk page), even though we owe it to the article and the community to hash out the issues of the article on the article talk page rather than user-talk pages. Thanks, Jerzy(t) 01:58, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC) Thanks, Nat, i think we'll work this out on the talk, tho not tonite. --Jerzy(t) 06:48, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

psych

Hope I am posting this in the right place (I am still a bit new here). I thought today about your edit on the Buddhism page and came to the conclusion that unless you want to include all sciences as a subset of philosophy (a defensible but esoteric concept) you need to make that distinction more clearly for this topic. Without venturing into the slippery terrain of defining philosophy (beyond its etymological import) we need to make a clear distinction between Buddhism and purely faith-based religions. Though there clearly is a devotional aspect to Buddhism, and for many people only that, its essence lies in it being a road map to the mind or, in modern terms, a psychology, ie. a science, a logos which may lead to sophia, but that is a different matter. Not that the article may not cover that elsewhere, I just think it is a fundamental enough distinction to merit appearing in the first few words of the article. Up to you. Haiduc 22:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Karmapa and captials

Dear Nat, thanks for the helpful edits on Karmapa. However not that my use of captitals was based on Wikipedia manual of style. While the "1st Karmapa, Düsum Khyenpa" is capitalized as the title of the person like "President Carter", "Düsum Khyenpa was the first karmapa" is not. Do titles like president and prime minister fall in to the same category as karmapa? I thought so although there are clearly differences, eg lots of presidents and prime ministers, but only one karmapa at a time (well usually!). Please reply here. Billlion 19:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's a tough question of English style. It seems to me that it would be weird to see "dalai lama" or "panchen lama", so by extension, "karmapa" is also probably incorrect. I'm not sure exactly why this is different from "president" and "prime minister": might be the uniqueness factor that you mention. I wonder ... you usually talk about about "the Pope", but, supposing there were going to meeting between the Pope of Rome and Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, would it be proper to write "the two Popes" or the "the two popes"? -Nat Krause 00:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it your way. I thought it looked a bit strange when I wrote it but I was trying to follow the style guidelines. Billlion 19:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nice job on Buddhism in America

Very well done job on Buddhism in America. I might have called it Buddhism in the US, as I think Columbians and Argentines consider themselves to be Americans. But generally, the article is a tour de force. Thanks. --Munge 09:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Really nice article. Wikipedia at its best. Thank you. Please note that there is a long-standing and heated dispute on Wikipedia whether the use of "America" to denote "USA" is appropriate. Some users feel that this is US jingoism, others that the US people have a right to define what they want to call themselves. If I may make a suggestion, it would probably create less trouble to say US if you mean US. Kosebamse 19:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(moving my comments from here to Talk:Buddhism in America. - Nat Krause 19:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)