User talk:Xeltifon/Archive 1

Losang Samten
I've moved your addition at the Mandala article to the Losang Samten article. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And considerably improved upon it, I might add!


 * Thank you.




 * Xeltifon (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The improvements were made by Yworo, not me. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. I've got a lot of reading and sandboxing to do! 20:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Service award
In recognition of your work on Wikipedia, I award you this service award. Only 180 edits to go before you can upgrade to the next level. Feel free to place this or one of its variants on your user page. Yworo (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Xeltifon (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Phaedriel
You left a long message on the talk page of this user. As she has not edited here since September 2007 I regret that it is unlikely that she will see it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course. It's more something I wanted to say for my own peace of mind, really. Thank you, though. :^) :^) Xeltifon (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am certain that she would have appreciated the sentiment had she seen it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Xeltifon
I see you added your name to the list of people in WikiProject Gastropods. So... you are interested in snails and slugs in some way? That's great. I see from your edits that you are interested in Tibetan Buddhism, which I am also very interested in. If you need any help with getting started editing gastropod articles, let me know; I am always happy to help. Invertzoo (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you - and hello right back at ya. :^) :^)


 * I happened across your project after admiring an undeniably bold yet surgically judicious edit on your part to clarify the introductory section of the entry for Kalachakra: the subject matter of which is, indeed, admittedly rather daunting. One link led to another, and before I knew it, I unexpectedly found myself utterly captivated by the entry for Love dart.  Stepping back for long enough to let whatever prurient interest I might have in that magnificently thorough entry cool, a mere cursory glance at WikiProject Gastropods was enough to impress upon me that yours was a well-functioning collaborative project which it would likely be well worth my while to become involved in.


 * My interest in slugs and snails is frankly both intermittent and marginal, to say the least; and yet, as sometimes seems to happen 'round these parts, I find such interests sparked anew and even fanned somewhat aglow by prior well-executed labours on the part of persons more engaged than I: persons whose expertise (and even - dare I say it? passion) for a given subject, shared quite freely here, I not only find personally infectious but know full well from my own first-hand experience actually benefit us all: readers and editors alike. How could I possibly not want to have at least a little pinky finger of my own in just that very kind of work?


 * While any contribution I might make to WikiProject Gastropods is (for the time being, at least) bound to be marginal at best owing in no small part to my complete and total lack of knowledge on the subject matter, I am also happy to report that I have found in my short time editing here that some of the most thoroughly rewarding, satisfying, and meaningful work I have done has derived precisely from low-visibility attempts on my part simply to improve entries in subject areas where I have no expertise or strong feelings to begin with whatsoever. Though I consider my attempts at Werner Fenchel and Rana Sanga to be representative examples of this, I also have no doubt that by this point you likely know more about what sort of mischief I make around these parts than me.


 * Please, therefore, consider me at your willing disposal to help improve WikiProject Gastropods in whatsoever capacity you might see fit to use me. It is a pleasure hearing from you.


 * And just in passing: yes, I know, my signature's absurdly long. I simply had too much fun, though, creating it in the first place to not use it at least once or twice before going back to exercise some modicum of editorial restraint on it.  :^) :^)


 * All the best, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; 01:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rana Sanga, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bahadur Shah and Wazir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel a bit silly thanking a "bot" (not knowing just how automated they actually are) but also don't want to delete a quite convenient link to "Dab solver" (which somehow I think may prove useful to me at some point in the future), and also want to point out my attempt to fix the "Wazir" link mentioned above opened up a whole new and completely different can o' worms, which I've addressed at the Rana Sanga talk page. Suffice to say here if there is a big ol' stinkin' controversy within 180° around the globe from where I'm sitting I tend to wade out waist-deep into it before I've even noticed I am starting to get wet!


 * Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; 01:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for the feedback you left at Training/For students/Training feedback! I'm curious... how did you find it?--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Editing my profile, didn't know what "Show your Courses" was about, followed a link that listed courses, found one which interested me enough to complete the modules as prerequisites, et voila!


 * Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade
Here's the upgrade! Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :^) :^)


 * That "Welcome to Wikipedia" thingamajoodle you put up ^there^ a while ago has saved my hide more than a couple o' times! And heck, I just discovered a couple of days ago your user page has some downright insanely helpful subpages as well.  Maybe I shoulda said somethin' about it before, but if I get "off task" in here I wind up makin' really downright stoopid edits!  Like, you know, making all the various schools of Japanese buddhism seem to come from some Tibetan dude born back in 1953 or so.


 * All the best, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; 01:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice username too, by the way. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 6669d02a7e0a0d8e7cb51115bec560d4
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Uhm, yes. 99.39.219.119 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

lol - whoops! secure login again. ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 5th Dalai Lama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Chinese, English, Enlightenment, Tibetan, Manchurian, Rime and Terma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Education Program!
Hi, Xeltifon!

On behalf of the Wikipedia Education Program, I wanted to thank you for taking the orientation. It's really helpful for us to know that you think we should add some information about potential negative editing experiences, so we can make it more useful for other students like you. It's great to hear that you've been editing already, and I hope you enjoy your unique class assignment! Maybe you'll want to become an Ambassador yourself :). JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment.  As to whether I should take an appointment as any sort of ambassador, well, suffice to say I have my reservations, and shall therefore have to take the matter under advisement.  If it means sitting in a well-appointed office in Luxembourg, having a cute secretary fetch fresh coffee every morning, and just occasionally typing out flattering letters on nice stationery, that's one thing.  If, on the other hand, it means trying to actively defuse hostage crises in Somalia, well -- I frankly doubt I'm ready for that task!  :^) :^)


 * Just to respond, casually, here – I call it "thinking through my fingertips" – nothing I'm saying should be read as chiselled into granite or the like, and I reserve the right to change my mind at any point in time.


 * I do suspect most folks are first inspired to try their first foray into editing precisely because of seeing something somewhere on Wikipedia which they disagree with: maybe very passionately. I don't believe most people actually dare to make their first attempted edits over things like misplaced semicolons in articles of little more than marginal interest to them; I do believe they tend to be far more willing to dare challenge the wall of text written in indecipherable wikicode at first because they perceive something to be "wrong" in specific existing articles which may in fact be very heavily trafficked, and because they believe themselves capable of somehow rectifying the situation.


 * This is, I think, an admirable tendency, over all; though the prudence which is well-advised as counterpart to the far more often isolatedly quoted dictum to "be bold" may initially be lacking, whereas understanding what constitutes prudence may require extensive reading through a downright byzantine maze of texts from which I'm sure some readers never do emerge before acting on the initial motivation to edit something which they've read. First-time editors, particularly, may know nothing whatsoever about policies and guidelines regarding such concepts as "verifiability" and "neutral point of view", which lacking, leaves their edits vulnerable to subsequent edits (or worse, reversions) which (however they might actually be intended) they might go on to take quite personally, indeed.  Meanwhile, not knowing anything about how "talk" or "user talk" pages are used, they may believe themselves to be victims of imaginary cabals with no recourse whatever to redress the grievous injuries they perceive themselves as having endured, all in the name simply of correcting some error they've perceived (which may, in fact, have been an error in need of correction).  Perhaps, therefore, some mention of WP:BRD would be well-advised more-or-less "up front", just so people know how the process works, ideally before they either throw up their hands and walk away in disgust or else become deeply immersed in circular back-and-forth flame wars mired in ad hominem attacks regarding various points of ever-increasingly trivial arcana.


 * I'm sorry I don't have anything more concrete to offer at this time than a vague sort of general personal statement about the dangers of operating heavy machinery while wearing rose-tinted glasses, but I do think the empowerment we all experience here must eventually be tempered with at least some sort of cursory understanding of the underlying process if it's not to devolve into high-flown flights of fancy and misplaced idealism vulnerable to simply being swatted down by others with far more experience. It would be very interesting to know how many first-time edits are made to heavily-trafficked articles which are specifically listed as controversial.  It would also be interesting to correlate users who've been around a while with what they first edited to begin.  What I mean by that, I suppose, is that I suspect there are far more first edits attempted to heavily-trafficked controversial articles than to quietly tucked-away non-controversial ones, and also that I suspect having early edits changed before understanding how the process works may sadly serve to drive away otherwise generally well-intentioned greenhorn editors.  Of course, my suspicions are based on nothing but my own personal experience; though it would be interesting to know whether the data does actually exist which might either confirm or refute this informal hypothesis.


 * Speaking only for myself, then: I know I have a way of wading out waist-deep into protracted controversies long before I even realize my feet are getting wet! I also know that the best introduction which I ever could have hoped to have to editing was provided by other editors moving something I'd added where it didn't belong to where it did, and then providing by example a whole slew of references I didn't even know existed for me to work from in crafting a nice little BLP.  :^) :^)


 * Again, thank you. I hope we'll be in touch before too long; but yes, I am still figuring out myself how things like talk pages work, and therefore hope I may be forgiven such attempts at juggling multiple priorities as may from time to time occasion such results as delayed responses, as this one is, and by which I certainly mean no offense.


 * Be well, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 5th Dalai Lama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Tumed


 * Khedrup Gelek Pelzang, 1st Panchen Lama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Kadam

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 6b8c9abd5c3cdf99535746236c421dd9
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Hm.75.54.99.145 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 796a48e681066be0df3b18a72fe863ff
secure login again. ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My first attempts at archiving
Your patience is much appreciated as I get some rather nonsensical-looking early results in attempting to create a User Talk page archive.

Thank you, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 20:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your irrelevant long diversions on my talk page
Dear Xeltifon, you left a long irrelevant rant on my talk page. See my answer above. What you're defending is like a Catholic editing and erasing large sections on reformation while claiming to be unbiased. Plus knowing next to nothing about the subject. Not to mention his censorship on his talk page while he evades my logical questions and name calls in respose. Finally your long irrelevant diversions are truly a cause for concern as they are highly unstable in nature so I wish you well and calmness. User:The1973onez (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry, but I'm not actually seeing the "answer above" to which you've referred: neither here, nor on your talk page, where a paragraph (apparently identical to the immediately preceding one here) appears.  Any clarification would be appreciated.


 * Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; 07:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Xeltifon You said:
 * "What is the ultimate intent of Shakyamuni Buddha, then? To create suffering? To be a raving a**hole and piss people off?"
 * Your own lips have said it and shown your mind and state. Good luck. User:The1973onez (UTC)


 * Actually, I was asking you – based on your prior stated indication that you know Shakyamuni's ultimate intent – what it was. I only mentioned two possibilities which somehow came to mind because the simple fact is I don't know what Shakyamuni's ultimate intent actually was.  Truth be told, I am somewhat taken aback in my ignorance at your suggestion that the specific possibilities which I laid out merely as a rhetorical device – casually, and in passing – were, in point of fact, precisely what the ultimate intent of Shakyamuni Buddha was.  I hope therefore that you will understand my reticence to claim this as some sort of direct revelation as I do, in fact, rather intend to determine (by standard methods) whether or not those possibilities were actually what he did intend.


 * Precisely how, then, do 1. the creation of suffering and 2. behaving like an a**hole correspond to either A. the four noble truths as laid out in Shakyamuni's first round of transmissions or else B. the four sealing points of Maitreya as laid out by Acarya Asanga? While I can certainly appreciate the apparent novelty value of any teaching purported to derive from those of Shakyamuni Buddha, I can see no reason whatever not to "test it like gold" (as he himself said his students should do) in attempting to determine any such teaching's validity.  Any assistance you might provide will therefore be very sincerely appreciated.


 * On a technical note: my lips have said nothing. My fingertips, of course, are quite another matter.  I've also added three colons to your response in order to maintain the threading indicated by indentation; I hope and trust the meaning which you intend to convey will not be inadvertently obscured by such.  :^) :^)


 * Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 09:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Dear Xeltifon,
 * I hope you're well. Thank you for your reply.
 * 1- Your mind seems unsettled, erratic by proliferation and not at ease. So nothing can be settled as diversions will arise.
 * 2- The content and state of your mind are exemplified by the vile words you addressed me out of the blue on my talk page.
 * Thank you. The1973onez (UTC)


 * I think it's time for a nice little musical interlude. Wouldn't you agree?  :^) :^)


 * This little ditty's from


 * "H.M.S. Pinafore"


 * by Gilbert & Sullivan


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsAShdgTy-M


 * Buttercup.
 * Things are seldom what they seem,
 * Skim milk masquerades as cream;
 * Highlows pass as patent leathers;
 * Jackdaws strut in peacock's feathers.


 * Captain. (puzzled)
 * Very true,
 * So they do.


 * Buttercup.
 * Black sheep dwell in every fold;
 * All that glitters is not gold;
 * Storks turn out to be but logs;
 * Bulls are but inflated frogs.


 * Captain. (puzzled)
 * So they be,
 * Frequentlee.


 * Buttercup.
 * Drops the wind and stops the mill;
 * Turbot is ambitious brill;
 * Gild the farthing if you will,
 * Yet it is a farthing still.


 * Palden Lhamo, Lhasa, Tibet, 18th century - Royal Ontario Museum - DSC09681.JPG – the Lhamo La-tso Extravaganza that's taking Lhasa by storm!]]


 * Captain. (puzzled)
 * Yes, I know.
 * That is so.
 * Though to catch your drift I'm striving,
 * It is shady — it is shady;
 * I don't see at what you're driving,
 * Mystic lady — mystic lady.


 * Both. (aside)
 * Stern conviction's o'er me/him stealing,
 * That the mystic lady's dealing
 * In oracular revealing.


 * Captain.
 * Yes, I know —


 * Buttercup.
 * That is so!


 * Captain.
 * Though I'm anything but clever,
 * I could talk like that for ever:
 * Once a cat was killed by care,
 * Only brave deserve the fair.


 * Buttercup.
 * Very true,
 * So they do.


 * Captain.
 * Wink is often good as nod;
 * Spoils the child who spares the rod;
 * Thirsty lambs run foxy dangers;
 * Dogs are found in many mangers.


 * Buttercup.
 * Frequentlee,
 * I agree.


 * Captain.
 * Paw of cat the chestnut snatches;
 * Worn-out garments show new patches;
 * Only count the chick that hatches;
 * Men are grown-up catchy-catchies.


 * Buttercup.
 * Yes, I know,
 * That is so.
 * (aside)Though to catch my drift he's striving,
 * I'll dissemble — I'll dissemble;
 * When he sees at what I'm driving,
 * Let him tremble — let him tremble!


 * Both.
 * Tho' a mystic tone I/you borrow,
 * He will/I shall learn the truth with sorrow;
 * Here today and gone tomorrow.


 * Captain.
 * Yes, I know.


 * Buttercup.
 * That is so!


 * (Exit Little Buttercup.)


 * DIALOGUE


 * Captain.
 * Incomprehensible as her utterances are, I nevertheless feel
 * that they are dictated by a sincere regard for me. But to what
 * new misery is she referring? Time alone can tell!


 * (Enter Sir Joseph.)


 * Sir Joseph.
 * Captain Corcoran, I am much disappointed with your daughter.
 * In fact, I don't think she will do.


 * Captain.
 * She won't do, Sir Joseph!


 * Sir Joseph.
 * I'm afraid not. The fact is, that although I have urged my suit
 * with as much eloquence as is consistent with an official utterance,
 * I have done so hitherto without success. How do you account for this?


 * Captain.
 * Really, Sir Joseph, I hardly know. Josephine is of course sensible of
 * your condescension.


 * Sir Joseph.
 * She naturally would be.


 * Captain.
 * But perhaps your exalted rank dazzles her.


 * Sir Joseph.
 * You think it does?


 * Captain.
 * I can hardly say; but she is a modest girl, and her social position
 * is far below your own. It may be that she feels she is not worthy of you.


 * Sir Joseph.
 * That is really a very sensible suggestion, and displays more knowledge
 * of human nature than I had given you credit for.


 * Captain.
 * See, she comes. If your lordship would kindly reason with her and
 * assure her officially that it is a standing rule at the Admiralty that
 * love levels all ranks, her respect for an official utterance might
 * induce her to look upon your offer in its proper light.


 * Sir Joseph.
 * It is not unlikely. I will adopt your suggestion. But soft, she is here.
 * Let us withdraw, and watch our opportunity.


 * ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 16:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The1973onez
I've given him two warnings, for his behaviour at Talk:Padmasambhava and at User talk:xeltifon. Next time ANI, I would say. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds about right to me. I will follow your lead on the matter.  I'm not sure what exactly I can do to assist -- ANI is one Byzantine maze I've been happy enough to do nothing much more than cast cursory glances in its direction -- but, if there is anything which I can do to help (hopefully without inadvertendtly exacerbating the situation) please do not hesitate to let me know.


 * Made pretty good use of the tables on one of your subpages today. Don't wanna get all gushy and effusive yet again, but I will say this much: it sure as heck beats writin' on a palm leaf!  :^) :^)


 * Be well, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to confess that your English is so differenr from the Dutch Hoghschool textbook that there are some words that I can't follow, but I love it! Regarding the personal attacks, next time I'll simply report him. I'm quite through with this kind of behaviour. Just keep discussing with this editor, despite his behaviour. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone I won't name but whom I respect (on a webforum I don't dare mention by name) says it's a problem there when folks don't really read what other people write. I certainly don't know (because I don't read minds), but looks to me like that's about what's happened here.  It feels a bit like pouring water on a pot turned upside down.


 * If User:The1973onez would have taken offense at anything specific in what I actually wrote on his talk page – or if he'd backpedalled, denying having made the claim (to omniscience, basically) which I construed him as having made in his earlier post on Talk:Padmasambhava where (to my eyes anyway) he also insulted you personally (and, I am guessing, your religion as well) and threatened you, if only by implication when he warned you against "meddling" (before he directly threatened User:Afterwriting later in the same thread with being "monitored") I would feel better than I do about the situation. Instead, he claims somehow (I can't imagine how) to know my state of mind and throw me condescending pity.  Oh well.


 * I think he's probably not listening to anything anyone says. I wonder, frankly, whether he will ever even read this.  You'd think having a § header named after you on another user's talk page would draw a person's attention, but in this case, well, let's just say that I have my doubts.  Sad, really.  I sure would hate to be his teacher, 'cause whoever they might be, his actions here do reflect quite atrociously on them.


 * Be well, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 03:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome thingamajoodle
It ain't a subpage but heck. I'm lazy. Maybe I'll check back here more often anywho if I gotta come here anyway and scroll to get to this. It's just too useful to get rid of. ;^) ;^)

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;contribs&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Back up again. ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ &#123;say it&#125; &#123;did it&#125; &#123; ζ &#125; 06:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Eight Consciousnesses (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Chinese, English, Tibetan, Nama, Kadam, Rupa and Klesha

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)