User talk:Thapkhay

Welcome!

Hi Thapkhay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Peter F. Barth has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Peter F. Barth. Thanks! Greenman (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I will review everything as per your comment.

I have tried to use only publicly available sources and use some quotes, for example, from them from the foreword written by others (some published 50 years ago or so, but I was unsure how to include them in the citation) but I will definitely tighten this and other points up in places, upon review in the next couple of weeks. Much appreciated!

Best,

Peter Thapkhay (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter F. Barth (March 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF) but presently does not. As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see referencing for beginners or the article Easier Referencing for Beginners.

Please note that given the author of the article uses the editing name "Thapkha", which is a moniker for the subject, and asserts the profile photo is his "Own work", he is almost certainly the subject and accordingly needs to declare a conflict of interest because COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a CV, which Wikipedia is not.

Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements then resubmit the page and ping me and I would be happy to reassess. As I said, I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere!

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter F. Barth and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thapkhay! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Cabrils (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Peter F. Barth has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Peter F. Barth. Thanks! Cabrils (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter F. Barth has been accepted

Peter F. Barth, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Georg Limnaeus has been accepted

Georg Limnaeus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cabrils (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hi Thapkhay! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Helpful comment and reference. Much appreciated. Thapkhay (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mind teachings of Tibet has been accepted

Mind teachings of Tibet, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cabrils (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest management

Hello, Thapkhay. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Peter F. Barth, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will avoid editing, and welcome anything removed that is not notable. I thought, based on the feedback from Wikipedia on pages Mind teachings of Tibet (top 3% rating) and Georg Limnaeus (top19%), I was honoring and avoiding COI, on those submittals.

That I continued to edit my own page, Peter after. Barth, was based often, on my discovery of a new independent reference. Thapkhay (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary employment

Lama, with all due respect, an average person's employment is not notable. For it to be notable, it has to have been reported on in published sources. So, for example, a securities analyst and assets manager working for an investment bank who is so good that they get mentioned by name in news articles or trade journals would be notable for that activity. If they go on to become CEO of their own firm, it provides the background which helps understand their career path. But an ordinary employee who doesn't make the news or the trade journals is not notable for that activity. We have a clear policy about not using a biographical article as a platform for a subject's resume.

However, you are notable as a Western lama and as a writer, not as a banker or entrepreneur. Anything you have done in your life which nobody took note of, nobody wrote about in news, journals, or books, will not have any reliable secondary sources by means of which it could be verified, and therefore should not be included in the article. This kind of material gets included in the articles of more notable people because after their death, someone took enough interest to research and write a biography of that person. The one exception is usually Internet-era work at an educational institution if you had a departmental profile page which either still exists or can be found in a web archive.

I'm also dubious about the inclusion of LearningKeys.com - the fact that the site was ever notable is dubious, as it is poorly cited. If there were a link included in the citation of the reported award, I could check - but you simply list the main page of the website, not a deep link to the specific page which verifies the award, which is what our verifiability policy requires. Were there any news reports about the project which mention you by name? Is there a page listing you as one of the creators of the site? This archive of the site taken in September 2002 (the earliest available) shows no content! That doesn't look like an award-winning website to me. Wasn't 2002 the year the site is supposed to have won an award? Where is it? I do find this in June of 2003, which says copyright 2003. It's not even verifiable that the site existed prior to June 8, 2003, much less that it won a minor award in 2002. And typically, we only consider major awards, awards which have their own Wikipedia article, to be notable enough for inclusion. Shall I go ahead and remove that material as well?

Sorry to have to wield the kartika here: but sometimes even lamas need a reminder that worldly activities come to naught when compared to Dharma activities... Skyerise (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise, I will now read the first posting again (and shortly the next). I just laughed so hard, as I have my morning coffee, why? Because, it is actually my sentimental exactly. I couldn’t agree more with you, and sincerely appreciate the words. I did have early requests for these in working with editors, but the more I looked at the career and college things, other than thesis and genuine one-off contribution to neural networks and a toy Ising model. Ok now I will read it all carefully,

Please allow me to suggest removing all or most of what you say (if you haven’t done so already.) A friend, early on suggested the story was a lama who worked all years in various industries, even contributed a minor footnote to history, had the infamous “full catastrophe “ of life, and still was standing as the years of ruin of his loved ones and students meet old age joys! That part however, may, in today’s capitalist societies, certainly not be notable, I can’t argue with Wikipedia standards…they (we) must be careful, and it is not easy. Peter Thapkhay (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma activities

What the article really needs is more information about your Dharma activities. A couple pieces of information which Western students usually want to know about Western lamas include: when and where did you complete your three-year retreat and under whose supervision? When, where and by whom were you enthroned? Surely your enthronement was covered in the newsletter of the Dharma center where it occurred? These are the sort of details that belong in an article about a Dharma teacher... Skyerise (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Skyerise, I concur with your edits. My one edited bio that I only last month became aware of (other than 1 surviving LinkedIn done as their marketing page of me while briefly working for HealthPocket, inc. in my later years, at their request) that is posted by a descendant of Shakya Shri, Khandrola (who’s brother Sey rinpoche holds the (“bone”) lineage of Shakya Shri.) She was a young girl that at the time of my visit, and took the bio and edited it independently, establishing its validity and importance to them, and posted it in 2016 on her site (Shakya Shri tradition in European Union) taken, photos and all, from the mahamudra center’s corporate posting (which by the way, had a full board etc, as a California corporation, and yes I served on the boards of local centers such as that of Lama Palden of Sukhasiddhi, and was invited to meet the Dalai Lama at Spirit Rock, but couldn’t because of work commitments.) Khandrola suitably added some additional things, and left out my praises of Thrangu Rinpoche. (They link to Mahamudra Meditation Center site, but only show my photo, quite embarrassingly (surely accidentally) posted above the great Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.) Unfortunately, I found I could not quote, for Wikipedia, from that site (since it has a https://shakyashrieu.wordpress.com/khandro-rinpoche/ Wordpress aggregator web person, a technology that is used by amateurs,mi think.)

The way I learned from Gegen (Geagen Khyentse) is we don’t talk much about our practice, but also don’t lie, about our dharma activities, should someone ask.

Naturally, I first took refuge in 1974, and indeed received traditional ngondro teachings and empowerments. In the drukpa, many practiced solo retreats, but it is often undocumented. I obviously completed them…but some were completed on my return to Germany.) I received all teachings and transmissions on the Ngondro from that lineage before I returned to our Western madness. I can’t point to a source, but it is undoubtedly so. And then, later, I studied under Thrangu Rinpoche, who nurtured me, provided word, meaning and experiential transmissions in group sessions, and in individual guidance (he was known for his accessibility),, for the decade of the 90’s, and so, he helped me “complete my studies and transmissions.” I received a handwritten lineage thank you letter from him for my mahamudra practice, on behalf of all mahamudra practitioners, translated, independently officially translated by David Curtis, of the Tibetan Language Center, for our center…a rare jewel. This verified that I indeed achieved the “the practice of mahamudra”, something which cannot be achieved. Still, as you well know, one never completes mahamudra (e.g. non-meditation stage…yes, I was so delighted to see you edit the dual thing on mahamudra wikipedia page where duality is obviously indicated and did not belong. Truly the Mahamudra Wikipedia is a disaster, and we (our center) opted to stay out of the fray, we did post an external link to the online free, version of our mahamudra manual, which is still there…btw, please edit the first sentence for that page the the fact of “ the fact” …etc.. what an awefyl entry, into a sublime , and yes, the reference is to Duff’s work, by a boo published by his center, where he is a director, analogous to the manual being published by Mahamudra Meditation Center. Yes, Indeed, Duff has done much magnificent work.)) contuing.l

Although I received all of the transmissions, of the traditional three year retreatants, I have never completed the three year retreat. Still he made me a lama while attending his 1998 Tilopa Ganges Mahamudra retreat in Vancouver, sponsored by KTC. This is documented in our newsletter (and is given briefly in a reference.) The distinction was clearly stated, that I can and should teach drol lam, the path of liberation, and, only help out a little, if need be, for thap lam, the path of skillful means. (Ironically, however, he kept my Thap part of my name…ok now I must bore you..) Until my retirement (due to health issues) I was posted under his site at Rinpoche.com under Mahamudra Meditation Center, Petaluma, California l

short answer,…if this fits..“There is no indication Barth completed the three year retreat. He did complete trainings of Mahamudra under Thrangu Rinpoche, being recognized by him for establishing the practice of it.” (The MMC online reference to this is http://www.mahamudracenter.org/RinpocheLetter.htm.) (Also published in later editions of the manual.)

But even that is all way too much said…

Skyerise. Thank you for your direct words, that different editors have different views is a strength of Wikipedia. I am now happy to return to my retirement . I have appreciated that I could contribute a homage to just a few of (our?) distinguished Mahamudra and Dzogchen teachers and their notable contributions by launching the “Mind Teachings of Tibet” page, and the “Georg Limnaeus” page..(proving, yes, even small things can be deemed notable in Wikipedia – the acceptance of the Georg Limnaeus page …science history is one of my hobbies) speaks well of Wikipedia.

I will leave this all in your capable hands. (My wife of 46 years, who I met in Oneonta, is laughing in the background..oh now, you will check it again, daily, if now weekly, and be unable to keep your hands off it! She is the wisdom bearer of our family, for sure…and most definitely a reliable source!) best wishes, LT Thapkhay (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(My wife was right…here I am 1 day later!) I now fully understand and concur (not that Wikipedia needs me to) with your latest edits to Barth page and appreciate the reasons and your diligence in implementing them (and omitting my above suggestion!) on behalf of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please do reconsider returning to Wikipedia Mahamudra page, and editing the opening paragraph. In particular, please review “ refers to the fact that "all phenomena inevitably are stamped by the fact of wisdom and emptiness inseparable".” … ( fact of inevitability stamped by a fact..? My oh my, and just referring to wisdom and emptiness as inseparable, although true, but, this reference to “fact” (even the word, “actuality” would have been better, and less redundant) of it sounds authoritarian, and would be meaningless to the unschooled reader,…isn’t it so?) Also, the number of R. Ray references is quite strange, when there are so many references available. Thapkhay (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]