User talk:Nat Krause

Archives

• Archive 1 (January to mid-May 2004)
• Archive 2 (mid-May to mid-October 2004)
• Archive 3 (mid-October 2004 to mid-February 2005)

Image copyright

You had asked on my user page about copyright for the photo of Lama Surya Das. I obtained this image from his Press Room section (http://surya.org/pressroom.html) of the website. There are no stated restrictions on the usage of the photo. Thanks! --Evandra

Discussion moved to Image talk:Anhui Province Dongzhi County.jpg#Copyright.

Republics

Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic (http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Classical_definition_of_republic) from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political power of Dalai Lamas

My first impulse was to move

The Dalai Lamas, however, never had authority over every region of Tibet nor over the other sects of Tibetan Buddhism.

and

The Dalai Lama has been ruler of Tibet and Head of State from when the Gelugpas began to control the country (the mid-17th century until 1959, when the Dalai Lama had to flee to India).

to Talk:Dalai Lama with a note to the effect that saying nothing is better than asserting two apparently contradictory versions without acknowledging the appearance of contradiction.
But i searched back thru the edits, and was rewarded by finding your name at the relevant one (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalai_Lama&diff=prev&oldid=10091527). I recall you as a very responsible discussant, and i'd bet you can fix this without a lot of fuss.
TIA, Jerzy (t) 14:21, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Fixing it is not high on my priorities, but knowing you don't want to now do so may raise it, and if so i expect your assessment to be valuable guidance.
I hope our difficulty getting closer about Nhat Hanh hasn't put you off editing on Buddhist topics; if it did, that would be, at the least, information i would want to weigh in the long run. Be well. --Jerzy (t) 17:08, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

...etc.

How do i feel about the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? It's probably lucky that i lack the eloquence of Christopher Hitchens, who called Mother Theresa "a thieving Albanian dwarf"! Otherwise i might tell you my feelings, based on my inadequately supported suspicions.

I'm glad you mentioned him. (I see this titles thing as a minor calling; i gave "HH Pope JP" a Nhat-Hanh-like treatment a week or so ago, tho i dread to look at the article in the midst of all this.) I don't know right off how to deal with his case; his publicity machine may have made his title/name as, uh, untouchable as Gandhi-ji's. I found this (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/12/lklw.00.html) quickly!:

Is Maharishi a title or a name?

MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI, SPIRITUAL GURU AND AUTHOR: Title, I think. People begin to call significant of the characteristic of the word "Maharishi." "Maha" means great and "Rishi" is a seer. The seer of reality. The seer, that's what people called, and it became a sort of name.

So at least i know what to say to [wink] stubborn supporters in this case. [still smiling, and hope you can as well]

I can't decide whether "Maharishi" (as if it were a name) or "the Maharishi" (explicitly a title) is more PoV! While i can't remember if i've ever mentioned him before now, my own inclination orally would in practice be "the Maharishi" and probably using "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" only to answer a properly phrased direct question. But i'm gonna scratch my head some more, and do at least a little more Google research. Thanks again; "I wanted a mission, and for my sins they gave me one."

"Zen" article

Hello,

I couldn't help but notice that you wiped out an entire section of the article Zen without even trying to discuss it at the talk page for the referred article. I don't think that's very healthy.

You wrote in your edit summary: Removing the entire further reading section. Does Wikipedia usually have those?

As far as I can see, wikipedia articles, many and many of them, do have bibliographies. And as far as I can see the majority of good articles and papers do include recommended reading.

I do not agree with what you've done, since many people must have collaborated to that specific section you just deleted. I ask you to please open a thread on the talk page and put back what you've deleted.

Porcher 20:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky

Chomsky supports the draft? Didn't know that. Have a source? Kev 06:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I figured as much. There is absolutely nothing there saying that Chomsky supports the draft. What he does say is that he didn't oppose it. You do recognise that there is a difference between supporting something and not opposing something, right? Further, he even explains why, " If there is to be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen’s army."

In order for you to demonstrate that he supports the draft you will need an answer to the question, "should there be an army?" Kev 08:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I tend to agree. I don't think Chomsky is an anarchist, he seems to think of anarchism as a far future ideal rather than something to push for today, which makes his position more akin to the less authoritarian communists than an anarchist. In fact, I've never seen a single interview in which he refered to himself as an anarchist or explicitly accepted the title, even though he is often introduced as one. However, it is a matter of controversy, I've seen debates go on and on about this, and I don't think there is any really solid evidence one way or the other, mostly because so many of his statements are qualified and conditioned like this one. I honestly wish someone on Zmag would just ask him, "do you consider yourself an anarchist, yes or no?" so that he can say no and there will be no more debate about it. Kev 09:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Che

Your help and certification at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Che_y_Marijuana would be appreciated. Philwelch 05:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You apparently certify the RfC, but you also need to add your signature here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Che_y_Marijuana#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute -- Viajero 10:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Che y Marijuana. Philwelch 17:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop vandalising my Talk:Anarchism entry

Stop interfering/deleting my text. That behaviour is hypocritical and innacurate - You are only trying to deny me my voice and my opinion that "anarcho-capitalist"/right-wing vandalising and TROLLING is going on. - max rspct 22:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

libertarianism/property

I responded to your concerns on the property section. I hope you don't mind that I reformatted your entry to make it easier to respond to. Dave (talk) 18:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

left anarchism

The left anarchism page is up for deletion by Che. You might want to vote to keep it: [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Left_anarchism) Thanks. (RJII)

Your nice articles on Buddhism

I saw your nice and informative articles on various topics, pertaining to Buddhism. I am sure to learn from you. As regards Mahabodhi Temple article, original pictures are being arranged from my contacts in Bodh Gaya, and shall be inserted in due course of time. Wish you happy editing.--Bhadani 14:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS: Ok I got your message right now on the Mahabodhi Temple discussion page. But, please allow me time till sunday. I will do a "medium path" - I promise and keep everything, which you had done.--Bhadani 14:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism related articles - Featured article status

I fully agree with you, I will use only few pictures, very few in the Mahabodhi Temple article. Pictures will not come by next sunday, but by sunday, I will edit the article, taking all information from your edit, which I reverted today. By the way, it is great to learn that you know so many things about Buddhism. Have a nice time ... One thing more, I would suggest all persons editing articles on Buddhism should try that some articles related to Buddhism get featured article status. Actually, we should move towards that objective. As and when I get pictures, say within a month, I will upload them for use by others interested in the same. byee ...--Bhadani 14:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pietro di Candia

What the fuck do you think you're doing? john k 03:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the confusion engendered by moves, I am falsely accusing you. If so, I'm sorry. That said, whoever moved the article out of Pope Alexander V to one based on his original name deserved it, since this is utterly unsupported by policy. Antipope Alexander V might be appropriate, and there was discussion of the move, but Pietro di Candia is simply wrong. john k 03:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All antipopes are at Antipope Name Number. Popes are at Pope Name Number. If you'd bothered to look at the talk page, you'd have seen that Alexander V had just been the subject of a failed attempt to move it to Antipope Alexander V. What made you think it was okay to move it to an odd title (I've much more usually heard of him as "Peter Philarges," or "Pietro Philarghi" anyway) I have no idea. The single exception to this is the Duke of Savoy who became antipope, since he was better known as a duke of Savoy than as an anti-pope. At any rate, making a move without even attempting to discuss it, on a page where there was, a few days ago, a discussion on the talk page about whether it should be moved, and in a manner completely inconsistent with every other article about an antipope or pope on wikipedia, is out of line, especially for someone who's been around for a long time. john k 05:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia:Profanity is completely irrelevant - I did not use the word "fuck" in main name space, but only in edit summaries and talk space. As to wikiquette, I suppose you have me there. But I'm certainly not going to apologize. I certainly might have expressed myself in a less offensive manner, but I particularly can't stand it when somebody does something stupid and then hides behind wikiquette when someone calls them on it. john k 05:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rockwellites

I have to disagree with you about Rockwellians not being hostile to minarchists: according to one of the articles cited in Libertarianism, "attacks on Virginia Postrel, Brink Lindsey, Tom Palmer, David Boaz (heck, just about the whole Cato staff) and other alleged apostates galore are constant, vitriolic, ad hominem, and vicious."[2] (http://volokh.com/2003_03_16_volokh_archive.html#200013465) For example this post (http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski28.html) is pretty clear about it: "Give state officials a monopoly on the use of force and they will abuse that monopoly to advance their power, wealth, and prestige. Depending on government to protect liberty is not tragedy, but insanity, which Einstein defined as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” (my emphasis) I wouldn't make a big deal about it, but I don't like having things as vague as "some anarcho-capitalists" if it can be avoided.

Let me know what you think. Dave (talk) 20:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for me to reply--I had final exams and my computer broke down. I'll defer to you on the issue. Thanks for your reply. Dave (talk) 16:20, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mahabodhi Temple

My Dear Nat Krause, I would invite your attention to the following message on Mahabodhi Temple discussion page, posted by me: Quote I just donot fine the reason for reverting an article to earlier position when the article has passed through several hands. I would request User:Nat Krause to consider all these factors. His reversal has taken down the templete conveying that it is a world heritage site. This is highly awkward. In case, you want to edit the article, it is ok, but always reverting to a particular point of time is against the wiki principles, I feel so. --Bhadani 08:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)Unquote

I would request you to please take care that your reverting to an earlier position does not wash away the edits by a series of other users – that also, without giving any cogent reasons. Please assist in maintaining the wiki traditions of discussions/consensus, before taking such major reversals. I hope that handing over this matter, which tantamounts to indirect edit war to the larger community of wikipedians shall be a better solution. What do you feel? Please carefully read what you reverted and what you have placed now. I am sure that you will agree that your reversal has made this bluechip article again read like a half baked bread? You being so senior should surely understand the difference. Am I wrong? Thanks.--Bhadani 09:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Basketball positions

Hi, do you think it would be better to have basketball positions on separate pages as they are now, or as one article outlining each one in turn as well as their interactions? There is no article on basketball position at present. There's only so much you can write about one single basketball position - is there enough to write an entire article on each one? Get back to me with your opinion, thanks (I ask you because you contributed to each of the position pages and I've asked you about these pages on a different matter before) User talk:Neonumbers Neonumbers 12:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that there won't be enough to write an entire article on any one position (i.e. the article will be doomed to shortness) - I say this because, as far as I can see, the only things left to write are how the positions work together (btw I will create the basketball position page after this). Sorry if I'm bothering you, but I just wanted to ask someone with more knowledge than me specifically what there is else to write on one particular position - I'm thinking even history and development would require all positions in one article. User talk:Neonumbers Neonumbers 10:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Haii guy Nat Krause, I stumbled on your user page and saw several topics waiting - on which you wanto2make article. I alredy starto worko - u may finish and updateo ok .. by bye tata - with a basketfoolful of thanks for the topic bank.--MissingLinks 11:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)postscript: in case, you r short of time, i will continue to exapand the topics to the best of my knowledge. bai bai ta ta --MissingLinks 11:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Suggestions - requesting assistance in improving articles suggested by you, please continue to expand your list of article you want to write, so that I am not short of topics. I would call you Guru - I am sure you must be feeling light at me having shared a lot of your responsibility and work. Now, I will also concentrate on your existing articles - please allow me, please.--MissingLinks 18:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

ACORN

Thanks for the NPOV edits, I've been resisting doing it for a while so as not to provoke another edit war, I think they were sorely needed though. Hopefully they will stick. --Wgfinley 16:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see you have modified other articles without thinking about it and reverting to previous version.

What you say or think about buddhism is not always right, please allow others to contribute to the articles on the wiki, and please don't assume you have the finally say on the articles and revert comple version of the articles.

Anyway, you asked for copyright information on the images that I have put on the buddhism article. I state that they are my images that I have taken, if you require further information please let me know.

== [o0paradox0o]

On the suject of: Bodhisattva.. specifically that image that you uploaded to the site on the subject. With the caption of "Image of a bodhisattva, relief, from Jiuhuashan in China's Anhui province. Photograph taken by uploader June 2004" I need some more information about this photo and where it's located etc.. If you could contact me perhaps we could speak on the subject a bit.. E-mail me at: o0paradox0o@gmail.com. Thanx for the info btw.. good stuff ;)

Buddhadasa

I'm fine with changing Buddhadasa Bhikkhu to Buddhadasa because, as you say, bhikkhu is a job description. However, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu is the name by which he is known in English (just as Ajahn Chah is known in English by the use of the Thai word for a respected teacher combined with his name). Because of this, I think for future edits we should keep the reference to Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in the article text even if the article is located at Buddhadasa. Also, do you have access to the Thai language version of his name? I don't know how to upload Thai-language scripts and I also have lost my source material which spelled his name in Thai. Any other info on his life is also greatly appreciated. Best. --Alabamaboy 18:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Update: I found someone to upload his Thai name. Any other info you have is still apreciated. --Alabamaboy 11:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Saka/Shakya

Hi Nat, as far as I know Saka (Scythian) and Shakya (the Buddha's tribe) are totally unrelated, although both were probably Indo-Aryan (since the Shakya were Kshatriya). I have never seen anywhere a connection between the two, appart from some vague suggestions from time to time. I really don't think the articles should be merged. Thanks for the notice. Best regards.PHG 11:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Crips

As for what you added to the Crips article, I do not doubt that is what that particular book said about the origin of the name, but that is only one of the dozens of versions of where the name came from. I personally don't think that particular theory deserves any more or less prominence than some of the other theories. I do think, however, that you should add Leon's book to the article as a new References section. The Crips article needs lots of work to improve it, but I haven't had the time. BlankVerse ∅ 15:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the Crips article as I was following all the "What links here" links for the Long Beach, California article that I was doing a little work on. It seems to be a regular target for adding urban myths and misinformation from wannabes, so I've kept it on my Watchlist. As I've read more about the various theories about the origin of the Crips name, I have decided that one of the more credible possibilities is one that is not in the article right now—that the name came from "crib" streets or cul-de-sacs.

I know that there is still garbage in the article, but I haven't done enough research to know what to keep and what to weed out. And worse yet, the subject matter is a perfect example of why you often can't rely upon the information that you find on the internet. At least the Crips article usually doesn't get a whole lot of racist shit added. I had the Kwanzaa article on my Watchlist for awhile, which regular gets bullshit added. BlankVerse ∅ 06:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks

Hi

I just found out your change to my user page :-) Thanks a lot for it, it means a lot to me, in particular since I am so little on en.wikipedia now. I honestly feel warmed up by it. I appreciated. Anthere 21:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Template:Disinfo-test

The unused Template:Disinfo-test, which you created, has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 11:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism

Hi Nat, two things; 1) don't remove copyright violation tags. 2) your reason for removing the copyright violation, no url, has nothing to do with whether its a copyright violation or not. --Duk 01:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...but it would be good if you would describe your reasons for nominating it on the page itself, on the talk page, or at least in an edit summary... You are right, it's good to explain why the article was tagged as a copyright violation, but I didn't tag this article. I just do a lot of maintenance on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and noticed that the copyvio tag had been improperly removed.

In this case, no explanation was necessary, since the article noted what was copied and from where. --Duk 07:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 15:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

redirect

just to let you know, on the article Flemish independence, you created a redirect, to Flemish independence! I'm assuming this was an error rather than some cunning plan to trap wikipedians in a never ending redirect cycle. Just wannted to inform you so you could replace the redirect with whatever you originally intended it should be. Grunners 12:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Condorcet Voting for the next Arbitration Committee Elections?

I wrote this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005:

I strongly recommend that we should change from approval voting to Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, a Condorcet method, for the next Arbitration Committee Elections. We can use Andrew Myers' Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS) (http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/~andru/civs/) to count the ballots.

Already during the last elections, it has been proposed by Johnleemk and Nat Krause to change from approval voting to Condorcet voting. But their proposal came to late. Markus Schulze 20 June 2005

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alfrem

I thought you should know, Alfrem has officially taken it upon himself to officially accuse you of vandalism [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#User:Nat_Krause). I took him to task for it on his talk page [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alfrem). Saswann 12:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)