Talk:Tsangpa Gyare

Untitled
This item is tagged for deletion for copyright infringement. I oppose this state for several reasons.

1. As a webmaster for wiki.drukpa.com (username Jigmechoejor), drukpa.org.uk and l2love.org, all websites run as part of the Drukpa Lineage under the direct guidance of HH Gyalwang Drukpa I have authorisation to use copyright material produced by the Drukpa Lineage.

2. I am also secretary of the uk registered charity Drukpa UK. see this link

3. This article draws on other sources than just "copy and paste" from the page on the drukpa.org website that is cited as a copyright infringement, and significantly differs from it in content, i.e. contains items not on the page cited for infringement.

4. your message about deletion wikification came in while i was adding the citings, and i now have to retype them!
 * 22:23 to 23:08, 20 May 2008 User:GavinErickson


 * Hi. I have removed the speedy deletion tag, as I do not believe there is infringement in this current incarnation of the article. I wanted to respond to point #1 anyway just for future reference. If you have permission to release material that is on a copyrighted site under GFDL, in addition to stating so on the talk page of the article, you should also send confirmation of that to the Wikimedia Communications Committee. Instructions for doing that are found here. Again, this is for future reference, as I do not see enough commonality between the page cited on the speedy tag and the article as it is now to require it.


 * In response to point #4, I'm sorry for the inconvenience. There is a way to preserve material you were typing when an "edit conflict" happens. It's a little complicated to explain, but basically Wikipedia presents your version and the conflicting version on one page. The version submitted by the other editor is on top, since it's already in record. If you scroll down the page to reach your version, you can copy your own edits and paste them in the top. I'm not very technical, I'm afraid, so that may not be a very clear explanation.


 * As a final note, this article needs additional context so those unfamiliar with the subject know what it's about. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia presumes that readers have little familiarity with the topic, and we provide a "lead" section in articles that should explain briefly the necessary who, what, where & why of an article. I would be happy to help add one, but I'm afraid I don't have the background in the subject myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, there are neutrailty issues regarding the claims made for this person in the article. We can report stories about a religious figure, but Wikipedia cannot report them as if they were true. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to you all for taking the time to look and also to explain some of the wiki conventions. I shall endeavour to bring it up to scratch. GavinErickson (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)