User talk:TenzinTashi5

AfD Sources

@Viriditas: Hi, this is now on wikibreak ZP5, laying low in this account. I appreciate your AfD participation. I have little recollection of how we specifically interacted years ago. Yes, I've been defensively obsessed recently. Was wondering if you might reconsider your AfD position, based on the ongoing discussion about the sources. Thanks. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Ok, I see where we collaborated on life purpose with user talk. That turned out ok. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] lol, cracking up here. TenzinTashi5 (talk)

Finaly found it too late [2] This one nails it as "This small lineage is notable ..." TenzinTashi5 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage

@Lily W: Please don't edit here. I suggest you approach the AFD article from the Lineage view. WP:FRINGE is about due weight, I believe the lineage issue has the weight in mainstream independent sources. At this stage, the article will have to be lead by independent sources with support from the authoritative sources. BTW, the authoritative sources can be applied in balance in other appropriate articles; however, they may be received as fringe in those articles. Kindly, TenzinTashi5 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking

WP:Votestacking if only this were taken to heart. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant

Doesn't this mean multiple independent reliable publishers verified the primary sources authorites, similar to the process occurring on wikipedia. They consider the subject notable to include in their publications. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self Published Sources

The reason we have a distinction between SPS and independent is the publishers ability to verify the authority. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used By Others in a Reliable Way

As may participants admit, the authorities are WP:USEBYOTHERS in a reliable way. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lily W and Arthur chos: My apologies, I can resit being involved here. The limits are being pushed with regards to "independence sources". The deletes propose that their original independent analysis of the source quality is better than what the authorities say and has been reliable published in independence sources. The very fact that independent quality publishers verify and publish the material (without original research) is notable and speaks to the publisher quality being higher than Wikipedia. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Thank you for [3] confirming the sources are reliable used by others without original research. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

@Lily W: I try to avoid ANI, cause is can cause further escalations, you might expect a sock investigation response. However, to make a compelling tag team case is difficult given your edit history. I believe there is motive on the user talk pages (defensively projecting negative karma), ANI would want to see the diffs on the deletions and reverts for each user, in the time series they occurred demonstrating that reasonable efforts to write good content were being disrupted. Thankfully, outright 3RR wars were averted. BTW, In my view, a warning to the users should be adequate at this stage. I was adding and removing material, so I feel kind of safe. However, I was being aggressive to the called in users. My concern is how, on what basis, they were called in. ANI may (want to) wait til AfD closes. Withdrawing the ANI yourself, is acceptable. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I can pray for here, is folks will see where the faith lies. That perhaps the AfD should have been avoided in resolving the content dispute. The ANI escalated and the SPI started the boomerang. And all will come back to making good content. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

In response to this [4]. This is my only other account, I had a ZP5 account but can't find it. I am on retreat here, and would like to avoid being brought out in the editor conduct issues. My only contact with Aro gTer is the article. I practice similar faith in wikipedia. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I just remembered, I do have another account, but not relevant here. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the case correctly, the evidence is that I welcomed two editors I was editing with in an article and this makes me a known banned sock. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and WP:MEAT and may notify the CheckUser. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own interaction investigation is 9 min min on article and 31 min min on talk with Lily_W. [5] TenzinTashi5 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, my IP log may show Amazon Web Service activity on Zulupapa5, I had edited through an AWS server a while back. That range was blocked from someone else's disruption. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own proprietary language analysis leads me to suspect Lily_W is Enneagram_of_Personality type 5 like myself. I suspect CFynn and VictoriaGrayson are also provocative Type 5s. CFynn and VictoriaGrayson and myself provoked the issues with OGRESS as type 8, leading to reaching out to others for help in teaming to escalating the dispute. Montanabw is likely Type 2 or 7 helping OGRESS. I am unsure about Arthur chos; however I would suspect Type 6 maybe. Many of these user were just working on a heated issue elsewhere in Wikipedia. I believe that animosity carried over in this content dispute. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deny the SPI claim, and intend to appeal if is granted. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was good [6]. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I do consider your unsubstantiated claims [7] as a test on everyone's faith. I suspect folks are having a hard time taking your baseless exaggerations seriously. I am ZuluPapa5 and am not the Lily W account or any other's you have involved. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks [8] this is a start. Selective, but in the right direction Montanabw. Good. Still based on your misleading mastery claim. TenzinTashi5 (talk)

account duplicate info

Hi, I notice in "SPI" section above that you acknowledge having used User:Zulupapa5 account before, but having lost access. I also found my way to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZuluPapa5, an investigation of ZP5 account links, and I just posted there myself, mentioning your connection. I'd like to help you avoid unnecessary problems. Any appearance of undisclosed duplicate accounts and/or sock-puppeting is taken really seriously (perhaps too seriously in my view) and can definitely be used against an editor to shut them down entirely. It's treated as if it is one of the worst crimes in the world...while I can think of lots worse things in the world, and lots worse behaviors in Wikipedia.

Anyhow, for one, I think you need to link more explicitly to the other account at your User page. Also, what is the actual problem with your access to the other account. Perhaps you can just get the access restored? If you were blocked accidentally by an IP range-block or something else, there's a process for addressing that described at Wikipedia:Autoblock#Requesting an unblock. I don't know about this kind of problem in general, so I do suggest you get better information, e.g. by posting at Wikipedia:Help desk. It would be a bit better, I think, for you to go back to using your older account, and clearly "retire" this new one, so all your contributions are kept linked together. Or if you prefer this user name, perhaps it is possible to get the accounts "merged" in some way, and/or to change the old account name to this one. Or maybe you just need to post a clear notice on your User page and get an admin to post a similar notice on the other account. I do advise that you take the potential issue seriously, and try to get the right information about what you are supposed to do, and do that. Otherwise you risk being treated very badly. Hope this sort of helps, sorry I don't know more. --do ncr am 21:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To cool off, I put "ZuluPapa5" on wikibreak, can't log in there right now. While "ZP5" is an older linked account that I could not find the password so I made this one. Honestly, I was kind of hiding here. Now, I can't complete my SPI true negative testing. However, I don't have an objective way to test a meat inquisition since that's really subjective. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is still a violation of WP:SPI so I have added this account to the investigation. Montanabw^(talk) 06:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would be better off if you catch the boomerang appropriately. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I feel bullied by involved Montanabw. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SO go to the SPI and prove you aren't a sockpuppet account. You are acting like one and admit you are ZuluPapa5, I think you have at least two or three others. If I'm wrong, fine. If I'm right, you are violating wikipedia policy. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: It's you who are accusing me. As far as I am concerned you're off, I deny your claim and deny to participate in it. It's your invention, you deal with it. I can see how you could accuse me, but you're off, you are wrong about me. I apologize for escalating in the article talk and AfD. If you want to maintain respect with your peers, I suggest you catch the boomerang with an apology and withdraw your claim on me. TenzinTashi5 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall let the SPI run its course, the wheels grind slowly. Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am patiently distracted on draft content. In efforts to collaborate effectively in a low impact environment. Where relevant RS issues may be discussed. Please come back here if you have something meaningful to contribute. TenzinTashi5 (talk)

Update: Hi, i see that a bureaucrat did perform the "checkuser" SPI investigation and found nothing wrong. See their evaluation just before they blanked the SPI page. There is some comment towards the end about how you should mark your link between this account vs. ZP5 account. I also note their surprise that the investigation was "endorsed", as the evidence of anything bad was extremely weak, which I thought, too. And they commented the commonality of a few people being interested in buddhism is, well, pretty mild. Anyhow, again, in my opinion there is an absurdly high danger for any wikipedian's career to using multiple accounts; it's like you can get put into jail forever for it. You mention somewhere above about trying an experiment to edit in a different account and see what happens...very risky. But, by the way, it is fine for you to edit without logging in, if you don't mind your IP addresses showing (which may or may not be revealing of your location). Somehow that is okay. Ever using two accounts without disclosing connection clearly, and ever using accounts and/or non-logged-in editing at the same page, is totally dangerous. I hope this helps in a small way. Good luck. --do ncr am 06:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 28 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Draft:List of schools and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]