User talk:Lily W

Thanks for the welcome Zulu Papa. Lily W (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yo!
To poke someone on a page, use, not user. I adjusted a few in your latest comment, I really hope that isn't crossing a line but I believe you meant unequivicatably to get people's attention. You can also use, which creates the text at the beginning of this comment. Ogress smash! 08:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool, that's fine, thanks for the tip. Lily W (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI

 * I have filed an SPI here naming LilyW, JosephYon, ZuluPapa5 and Arthur chos.  Montanabw (talk)  21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Religious Prejudice and Hostility
Really I do take issue with this accusation of yours. I have no way of judging whether Aro gTér is "real" or not - though (conventionally speaking) there is nothing to show that it is based on anything but Ngakpa Chögyams visions - but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Most religious traditions are based on the visions and beliefs of their founder. Actually I lived in India from the early 1970's and have met all the teachers Ngakpa Chögyam studied with and have taken teachings from many of them myself. (I think I know Ngakpa Chögyam from that time) Anyway I spent almost 14 years in total living in India and studying with Nyingma teachers - and also for the past 12 years have been living in Bhutan a country that is full of Ngakpas and sacred places of Padmasambhava. Religious prejudice? - I think not. I do know that many other groups call Aro gTér "fake" - but how can they really judge that? However you can't blame people for being sceptical. All the Tertons in Tibet had there skeptics - even other Nyingma lamas.

The only thing we are really arguing about on the talk page of the Aro gTér article is whether the sources being used for that article are, by Wikipedia standards, independent reliable sources, and whether the subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (which again is often judged by the number of reliable independent sources and studies about the subject and whether the article is written a proper encyclopaedic style. Saying that there are virtually no reliable independent secondary sources on Aro has nothing to do with religious prejudice and hostility. Chris Fynn (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris, thanks for your message. 'Personal hostility' and 'religious prejudice' are not words I enjoyed using, or chose lightly. Using accurate, considered language matters to me - in public and private. (As does general friendly regard toward someone I may disagree with.) The incident I reported[] documents a plan of action, with an agreed outcome (AfD) in advance of talk page discussion. A quick glance at the Aro page editing history, between 14th and 20th January documents the actual process that took place. Whatever useful content there is on the talk page does not accurately reflect the editing bombardment against the article itself. Lily W (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)