648:
under WP guidelines it doesn't) would say 'no'. The majority of primary literature, outside of a very few (if somewhat influential) authors says 'no', but that isn't relevant, because the yay-sayers are vocal, numerous, and have a vast amount of karma (and samaya) risked on that one key fact. WP is not designed to be a soapbox for views - and yet again and again, we find that it is being used for just that purpose. The NKT-focussed pages have caused considerable upset and the vocal minority (who persistently use temporary accounts, unregistered accounts, and sock puppets to mask their identities) have managed to drive off other editors, some of them being pushed into retirement. Not only that, the same minority has made no significant contribution to
Knowledge, in that their sole focus are these controversial, NKT-focussed articles. Religious advocacy pieces have no place on Knowledge. At the moment, my view is that the entire set of pages are costing legitimate editors and contributers to Knowledge more time and energy than they do bring value to it. In light of this, I am beginning to be convinced that the sole recourse is to AfD
1047:(who himself is posting under different identities, as is evidenced by his recent contributions) engage in abusive behavior then it is the abusive user who should be banned, not the articles themselves. Eliminate the extremists and allow cooler heads to discuss the issue. I was unable to figure out the process of filing a complaint for abusive behavior of a user, but 'thegone' engaged in downright hostile abuse. He repeatedly called me a neo-nazi, Chinese collaborating, devil-worshipping, dishonest, blood-thirsty, murdering cult fanatical liar. Gee, that doesn't seem to me to be Civil. This can be seen in the talk pages of the
708:. The facts (as seen by the outside world) are not in accordance with the interests of the NKT. But they are intelligent, dedicated, computer-literate and have plenty of time on their hands. Deleting these articles actually helps to reduce the opportunity to air the issues that are well-known and published about the NKT and Dorje Shugden. A possible weakness of WP is that it gives too much opportunity to the minor communities to self-justify their position, and often the sole opponents are jaded, or destroyed ex-members (see eg
1043:
need to be deleted (as an example). I think the fact that WP requires consensus forces the different factions in this controversy to 'work together' and to 'try find common ground'. Not only is that good for a
Knowledge article, this is good for the overall resolution of the dispute. So I think not only is it is it a legitimate article on a topical subject, the keeping of these pages also accomplishes an important social function of helping reason and dialoge prevail. This is much needed! If users like
1529:
entry that fairly presents both positions and then the sites can be locked. The critical ones are New
Kadampa Tradition, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and Dorje Shugden. The rest should be eliminated as minor or left out of the controversy. If there is 'controversy' listed on the first two, they should equally be listed on Gelug and Dalai Lama sites, which are the counterparts. Then any mention of this controversy should be disallowed on any other sites so the battle doesn't just resume elsewhere.
1391:&etc. could all be merged (possibly simply called "Shugden" or "Gyalpo Shugden" since the "Dorje" part of the name is loaded. The Dali Lama and his followers call this entity "Dolgyal Shugden" while the NKT and other adherents use "Dorje Shugden"). If the number of articles surrounding the NKT and Shugden issues were reduced they might be somewhat easier to monitor for balance and neutrality. I don't think anyone would suffer from having the number of these articles reduced.
1417:. DS is the name of the movement. I don't know if NKT is -just- about DS? They do a lot of 'introduction to buddhism' courses in the UK and stuff too. But if they are 'really' the same thing maybe the articles should be combined. None of this is suitable for AfD though, what we're basically having here is a Request for Comments on this articles.:) Some of the ones on non-notable people could be speedied as having a risk of BLP issues IMHO, as well as being non-notable.
914:
issues are not grounds for deletion, those should be dealt with in the article and on the article's talk page". This article needs work (most specifically it needs an introduction that is more helpful to those unfamiliar with the subject such as myself), but "needs work" does not mean "get rid of it". Keep, keep, keep. -
926:
As mentionaed above, just because an article is POV and perhaps unbalanced does not make the subject irrelevant by sweeping it under the carpet - which is deletion. Rather the opposite as we see with this specific page... Still, how do we take the 'war' out of this edit-war when quite a number of the
1262:
is an obviously notable religious tradition. The other articles are somewhere in between. I have posted on ANI at least twice about this article. There are a lot of SPAs working on it. Some of them are trying to turn it into a promo piece and others want it to be an attack piece. But regardless
913:
With all due respect toward Jimbo Wales, he's wrong here. I have never read about this topic before, but now that I have it is 100% clear to me that this involves a widespread and extremely notable belief system, which therefore requires an article on wikipedia. A general guideline for AfD is "POV
703:
from their records and publications - even though he contributed a huge amount to their movement over many years, and gave initiations to many students. Likewise, they have worked particularly hard to hide some of the less palatable aspects of their movement, and their activities towards the
Tibetan
656:
and any other related pages, with a five year moratorium before they can be resurrected. As I understand it, such an action would be favourable in GKG's eyes - he has already ordered that the discussion groups be closed off elsewhere - he asks his students to get on with practice, rather than waste
614:
It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the
Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. The stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.
1470:
article was already nominated for deletion on
October 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. Of course the articles need balance again and are a battlegound for different views. Researcher Bluck and Mills pointed these out in their researches already. Prof. Bluck shows in his research how
992:
It's just too much hard work to maintain. I don't believe that a neutral position will ever be achieved because views are too polarised. I apologise for deleting the templates denoting the articles for deletion, I didn't understand the due process involved and thought that a decision had been made
678:
If we don't do this, what other options are left? What is needed is a completely unbiased admin with years of experience, tolerance of a saint, and weeks of time on her hands to assist and guide in the training of editors and balancing of articles. The current contributors and editors are far too
1042:
While it is true the subject is controversial, to delete it would be to deny people the opportunity to consider the merits of both sides and come to their own conclusions on the subject. If polarized views were the grounds for deletion, then articles on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict would also
647:
and beyond have been subject to massive edit wars and biased views. External publications and references often do not help here, as there are no unbiased opinions available. Why not? A primary issue here is whether or not DS is a Buddha. Of course, the majority of the planet, if it mattered (which
695:
The WP community cannot expect the current group of interested individuals to deliver short, sharp, purely-factual articles with individuals proposing article mergers and coming to the noticeboards as often as required. Why NOT? because it has already happened repeatedly for more than four years.
1528:
I would vote to delete to save everyone a lot of time, but since it looks like that won't happen, I suggest each side, because there seem to be two 'sides' elect a representative, someone who has tried to follow the rules and has not attacked individuals, only positions. These two can work up an
1185:--- i think that the fact that this article ha been set upon by POV warmonkers is quite disappointing but that isn and of itself is not a justoifacation to perpetuate the deletionist mentalitiy perpetrated by the original polemicist on an article that is clearly notable (Thought Conntroversial).
639:
within the NKT organisation itself, my guess is that it would be preferable for the pro-NKT and pro-Shugden lobby to have nothing at all, rather than to have articles that do not subscribe to their views. In my experience, as an editor of
Knowledge for over four years, the entire NKT-related
765:
Note to nominator-- that's the longest nomination speech I've seen since Bill
Clinton got booed off the stage in 1988 for his Dukakis introduction. You're very self-absorbed, and I don't think anyone has the time to figure out this monologue. If anyone cares to explain the reason for the
55:
without prejudice as to the final outcome. I do not see any value to be gained in leaving this blanket discussion open any longer, given that there is reasonably broad consensus already that the articles have different levels of notability and sources and should be considered separately.
1410:"Dorje Shugden" is the most commonly used name for DS though, as opposed to the alternative words, and that's what we name articles after. Some other buddhists might not call it that (though I've heard them do so) but that's what outsiders will've heard it called, if they've heard of it
630:
than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me. What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common
1280:-- yeah i have o agree again. while somet of these articles and not in themselfs notable, some of them are and one AFD wil not do justuce to all of them. if anyone can separate these AFDs for each article it would make this tteasier for every of us.
827:- not sure nominator is meant to express an opinion here, or if it is apparent via the submission. I do not believe that as per BJ, the editors are willing or interested in contributing to Knowledge or using the standard processes that are in place.
783:
per BJ. To
Mandsford: the nominator is in despair that this and related articles will ever be neutral. There was an exchange of views on my talk page and his. To nominator: Mandsford has a good point; the nomination was much too long and confusing.
1124:
were considered in isolation they could be quickly deleted as no sources can easily be found. The nominator is also the only editor of one or more of them so he could delete ones on which he's the only editor per author's request. Some of the
858:
BJ, thanks.. So what is the process for that? I sure get lost trying to find the right processes for the job - even though i've been around a while! The nominated articles need a strong and heavy hand, IMO.. But who has the time?
1504:
per B above. Some of these are obvious keeps and grouping these together was a bad idea from the start. One AfD should not determine the fate of all of these articles. I have no other opinion until these are separated.
314:
831:
has already been nominated for deletion before - and nothing changed there, which resulted in a primary editor retiring. As I write, one of the 'warriors' is just removing the AfD template from the articles above.
1236:
per Beamathan; I'd _almost_ say this was a bad-faith nom. The notability (and notoriety) of the subject is indisputable. To suggest deleting the article outright in the face of controversy is pretty distressing.
1411:
1051:
article. Can one of the WP authorities here please look at these pages and see what kinds of things he is saying. Therefore, I say keep the articles, crack down on abusive behavior and ban the extremists.--
1415:
1301:
and indef block some editors. There is a notable lack of consistancy of administrator action across Knowledge at the moment and you cry about edit wars, well block the edit warriors and see what happens.
696:
Nothing changed. Sometimes the pro-NKT got their way, sometimes the anti-NKT got their way. The process needs outsiders to sit on the articles for quite some time. Or they need deletion with moratorium.
625:
The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work. I would prefer to have no article on
1168:. it seems dishonest to me winsce we inevitably have to send an admin through to dlete the articles that really should be speedied and instate separate AFDs for whatever is left. It is quite afgaravating.
1413:
1069:
clear notability (which to me is what should govern whether we have an article)- controversy surrounds many articles, but if we let that stop us we might as well give up on the whole idea of wikipedia.
1475:
from NKT or Shugden followers and they were step by step removed from the articles. My suggestion to remind them and insert these researches again, and to follow the WP:Guidelines for articles. The
944:
As above, especially per Markeer. I suggest re-writing the articles in a neutral way, and have the involved editors agree to the final version and agree to work together to maintain neutrality. --
751:
process nor where discussion has taken place external of the articles in question. We don't bow to pressure from warring factions, and to carve out two entire subjects because it of it is absurd.
1090:: Notability is established. I might add that the nominator's comments are exceedingly wordy and lengthy, and as a result, I did not read all of it. I did take a look at the articles, however.
965:
will never let the edit war die. Please see the edits he just made, with no regard for the talk page. In fact, he just added the same copy-and-pasted material again to the beginning of
1466:. If these articles are deleted all the discussions and the trancparency of their development get lost (all discussion pages are deleted as well!). I see no use in this. Moreover the
1483:
article received that quality vote. Then block the article from edition and moderate edition step by step via discussion on the talk page. (Similar as compromises were worked out on
1548:
Thank you for locking the Dorje Shugden page. Could these other articles please be locked until after a compromise is reached (which might take longer than July 21)? Thanks. --
124:
621:
believes that two warring factions can never, ever, hammer out an article that is NPOV. He has said (regarding the NKT article, but it could just as well apply here)
747:. If the articles can't be well sourced they should be reduced to what can be well sourced and protected. The nomination has shown no attempt to follow the the
148:
143:
152:
240:
235:
244:
135:
286:
281:
1379:
article - otherwise Knowledge could eventually end up with hundreds of articles about individual NKT teachers and centers. Similarly the artices on
579:
574:
290:
227:
1129:
ones are not that notable and could go. Some of these could be considered individually in AfDs. But NKT and Dorje Shugden themselves are a clear
583:
395:
390:
1471:
to find a balance. In general if the present academical researches are used there is no conflict. Sadly the researches are strongly rejected as
399:
273:
566:
487:
482:
382:
441:
436:
491:
445:
744:
349:
344:
194:
189:
23:
1447:
again as we had it in the past. As far as I know the separation of both articles was a result of an organized Wikiepdia-campaign of
533:
528:
474:
353:
198:
91:
86:
428:
537:
95:
336:
181:
17:
1396:
Once merged we could perhaps then ask contributors to try and develop the articles to fairly reflect all sides of the story.
740:
520:
139:
78:
1104:
748:
231:
679:
involved in the issues at hand. The article list is long. Time is precious. Here is the article list that I know of:
1593:
1534:
1513:
699:
I suggest this with real, legitimate misgivings. The NKT has completely excised the existence of individuals like
277:
1572:
1472:
1463:
1444:
1384:
683:
653:
644:
570:
131:
43:
1571:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1553:
1028:
974:
949:
386:
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1423:
1388:
1139:
1121:
1076:
689:
223:
1557:
1538:
1518:
1496:
1428:
1405:
1376:
1345:
1311:
1289:
1272:
1246:
1228:
1206:
1194:
1177:
1144:
1110:
1081:
1060:
1032:
1016:
1002:
998:
978:
953:
936:
918:
903:
888:
868:
853:
841:
814:
793:
775:
757:
729:
635:
In light of the strong internal censorship of ideas and thoughts, along with almost medieval practices of
325:
60:
1202:- It's disgusting that the reason to delete would be POV issues. Knowledge is better than this. Grow up.
1530:
1507:
1479:
article also was nominated as B-class on the quality scale. I suggest to revert it to the date when the
1467:
1455:
1285:
1190:
1173:
1156:, i hate it when people group dozens of articles for deleiton even though they have different levels of
789:
627:
478:
432:
269:
676:
so I am pretty sure that he also would see the time and effort spent on these articles as wasteful.
1549:
1368:
1242:
945:
700:
562:
1372:
1356:
1307:
1255:
1214:— The phenomena in question clearly exist as part of a religious teaching. Nothing else matters.
1048:
1024:
970:
771:
424:
378:
340:
185:
1052:
1418:
1134:
1071:
864:
837:
810:
725:
524:
82:
57:
672:
Resort to solitute and generate the power of effort. Accomplish quickly your final aim, my child
657:
time chit-chatting on the Internet in a manner which has little or no value. Je Rinpoche (Lama
1056:
994:
932:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1360:
1281:
1186:
1169:
1098:
785:
470:
882:
is the next step. ArbCom can levy article restrictions and bans that admins alone can not.
1401:
1238:
878:
to get an outside viewpoint from the wider community. If that fails to solve the problem
1120:
This poorly considered mass nomination is putting people off. If some of these such as
1492:
1459:
1336:
1303:
1203:
879:
805:
Apologies for the length of the nomination. I have not exercised this process before. (
767:
686:
332:
177:
1327:
is, the others might or might not be, but that would need separate AfDs to determine.)
1440:
1380:
1364:
1324:
1259:
1153:
1126:
875:
860:
833:
806:
721:
680:
649:
641:
516:
74:
66:
1330:
1215:
1157:
1044:
1011:
989:
962:
928:
915:
898:
883:
848:
752:
716:
to the Scientology-related articles, though they have received less attention from
600:
554:
508:
462:
416:
370:
307:
261:
215:
169:
112:
704:
Community have been divisive; they have then projected their own faults onto the
609:
The liberal dilemma - how can we show tolerance towards those who are intolerant?
1484:
1268:
1165:
1161:
1092:
618:
1397:
705:
658:
318:
1594:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kadampa_Tradition
1488:
709:
1258:
is an obvious delete as there are no external references of notability.
1023:
Please also consider protecting the other related pages up for deletion.
636:
847:
This isn't the process for that, which is why it did nothing last time.
662:
612:
Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others.
315:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination)
24:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition (2nd nomination)
1264:
1565:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
988:
If we continue to have these articles vandalised by users like
1480:
1476:
1448:
828:
739:. If the articles are indeed being used as a battle ground a
1355:
For a start I don't think we need individual articles on
596:
592:
588:
550:
546:
542:
504:
500:
496:
458:
454:
450:
412:
408:
404:
366:
362:
358:
303:
299:
295:
257:
253:
249:
211:
207:
203:
165:
161:
157:
119:
108:
104:
100:
665:, and the appointed root lama of the NKT) says in the
313:(uninvolved admin note: added this from redirecting
961:
These topics are just too polarizing. Users such as
712:. I consider the NKT-related articles are like a
1375:etc. IMO These could all be merged with the main
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1575:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1263:of that, it's an obviously notable religion. --
1297:- information is notable, and admins get some
8:
1526:Delete or lock until & after compromise
1586:
1152:i sagreed. While I wish I to assusming
897:AfD template restored and user warned.
1333:, protection or blocks, not deletion.
927:serious editors have run out of steam?
640:articles - all the way through from
7:
1010:Dorje Shugden protected for a week.
317:here due to identical rationale. --
874:The first step would be to file a
745:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
31:
743:should be filed, if that fails a
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
969:the articles up for deletion.
741:Knowledge:Requests for comment
1:
1329:Disruption, if any, requires
749:Knowledge:Dispute resolution
667:Three Principles of the Path
53:close and relist separately
1612:
1546:Please lock other articles
1321:Clearly notable subjects.
1558:12:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
1539:21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1519:14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1497:13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1464:Dorje Shugden Controversy
1451:leadership. But strongly
1445:Dorje Shugden Controversy
1429:12:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1406:10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1385:Dorje Shugden controversy
1346:07:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1312:07:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1290:04:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1273:03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1247:03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1229:02:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1207:01:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1195:01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1178:01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1145:01:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1111:00:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1082:00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1061:20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1033:19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1017:18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1003:18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
979:17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
954:16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
937:15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
919:15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
904:15:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
889:15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
869:15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
854:15:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
842:15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
815:14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
794:14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
776:13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
766:nomination, let me know.
758:12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
730:11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
684:Dorje Shugden controversy
654:Dorje Shugden Controversy
645:Dorje Shugden controversy
326:12:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
132:Dorje Shugden controversy
61:14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1568:Please do not modify it.
39:Please do not modify it.
1389:Western Shugden Society
1122:Western Shugden Society
690:Western Shugden Society
661:- the root lama of the
224:Western Shugden Society
675:
634:
1468:New Kadampa Tradition
1456:New Kadampa Tradition
669:
628:New Kadampa Tradition
622:
617:We already know that
270:New Kadampa Tradition
1377:New Kadmpa Tradition
1369:Thubten Gyatso (NKT)
701:Thubten Gyatso (NKT)
563:Thubten Gyatso (NKT)
1373:Manjushri Institute
379:Manjushri Institute
1502:Close and separate
1473:WP:reliable source
1331:dispute resolution
1200:Strongest of Keeps
1344:
1328:
1252:Separate the AFDs
1109:
1015:
902:
887:
852:
756:
328:
324:
22:(Redirected from
1603:
1596:
1591:
1570:
1531:Eyesofcompassion
1516:
1510:
1487:.) Good Luck! --
1361:Kelsang Khyenrab
1343:
1341:
1334:
1322:
1225:
1222:
1107:
1101:
1095:
1091:
1014:
901:
886:
851:
755:
604:
586:
558:
540:
512:
494:
471:Kelsang Khyenrab
466:
448:
420:
402:
374:
356:
323:
321:
312:
311:
293:
265:
247:
219:
201:
173:
155:
122:
116:
98:
41:
27:
1611:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1579:
1573:deletion review
1566:
1550:Iheartmanjushri
1514:
1508:
1337:
1335:
1223:
1220:
1105:
1099:
1093:
946:Iheartmanjushri
577:
561:
531:
515:
485:
469:
439:
423:
393:
377:
347:
331:
319:
284:
268:
238:
222:
192:
176:
146:
130:
118:
89:
73:
70:
51:The result was
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1609:
1607:
1598:
1597:
1585:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1577:
1561:
1560:
1542:
1541:
1522:
1521:
1499:
1460:Kelsang Gyatso
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1393:
1392:
1349:
1348:
1315:
1314:
1292:
1275:
1249:
1231:
1209:
1197:
1180:
1147:
1114:
1113:
1085:
1063:
1036:
1035:
1025:Emptymountains
1020:
1019:
1005:
982:
981:
971:Emptymountains
956:
939:
921:
908:
907:
906:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
821:
820:
819:
818:
797:
796:
778:
760:
687:Trode Khangsar
606:
605:
559:
513:
467:
421:
375:
333:Kelsang Gyatso
329:
266:
220:
178:Trode Khangsar
174:
128:
69:
64:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1608:
1595:
1590:
1587:
1581:
1576:
1574:
1569:
1563:
1562:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1520:
1517:
1512:
1511:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1441:Dorje Shugden
1439:
1436:
1435:
1430:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1416:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1381:Dorje Shugden
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1365:Samden Gyatso
1362:
1358:
1357:Kelsang Lodrö
1354:
1351:
1350:
1347:
1342:
1340:
1332:
1326:
1325:Dorje Shugden
1320:
1317:
1316:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1261:
1260:Dorje Shugden
1257:
1256:Kelsang Lodrö
1253:
1250:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1226:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1102:
1096:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1068:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:Rime Movement
1046:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1006:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
987:
984:
983:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
957:
955:
951:
947:
943:
940:
938:
934:
930:
925:
922:
920:
917:
912:
909:
905:
900:
896:
890:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
870:
866:
862:
857:
856:
855:
850:
846:
845:
843:
839:
835:
830:
826:
823:
822:
816:
812:
808:
804:
801:
800:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
782:
779:
777:
773:
769:
764:
761:
759:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
734:
733:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
702:
697:
693:
691:
688:
685:
682:
681:Dorje Shugden
674:
673:
668:
664:
660:
655:
651:
650:Dorje Shugden
646:
643:
642:Dorje Shugden
638:
633:
632:
629:
620:
616:
613:
610:
602:
598:
594:
590:
585:
581:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
539:
535:
530:
526:
522:
518:
517:Samden Gyatso
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
493:
489:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
447:
443:
438:
434:
430:
426:
425:Kelsang Lodrö
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
401:
397:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
355:
351:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
322:
316:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
288:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
246:
242:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
200:
196:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
154:
150:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
126:
121:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:Dorje Shugden
72:
71:
68:
67:Dorje Shugden
65:
63:
62:
59:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
1589:
1567:
1564:
1545:
1525:
1506:
1501:
1452:
1437:
1424:
1419:
1352:
1338:
1318:
1298:
1294:
1277:
1251:
1233:
1219:
1211:
1199:
1182:
1149:
1140:
1135:
1130:
1117:
1087:
1077:
1072:
1066:
1065:
1045:User:thegone
1039:
1007:
995:Truthsayer62
990:User:Thegone
985:
966:
963:User:Thegone
958:
941:
923:
910:
824:
802:
780:
762:
736:
717:
713:
698:
694:
677:
671:
670:
666:
624:
623:
611:
608:
607:
52:
50:
38:
35:
1485:Scientology
1323:(edit: OK,
1282:Smith Jones
1234:Strong Keep
1187:Smith Jones
1170:Smith Jones
1131:speedy keep
1067:speedy keep
803:Duly Noted.
786:Itsmejudith
619:Jimmy Wales
1582:References
1398:Chris Fynn
1339:Sandstein
1239:Zero sharp
1216:Kurt Weber
706:Dalai Lama
659:Tsongkhapa
1304:Shot info
768:Mandsford
710:User:kt66
1106:contribs
861:20040302
834:20040302
807:20040302
722:20040302
637:shunning
125:View log
58:Thatcher
1278:comment
1150:comment
1118:comment
1053:Dspak08
1008:Comment
916:Markeer
880:WP:RfAR
763:Comment
718:on high
714:brother
663:Gelugpa
631:ground.
580:protect
575:history
534:protect
529:history
488:protect
483:history
442:protect
437:history
396:protect
391:history
350:protect
345:history
287:protect
282:history
241:protect
236:history
195:protect
190:history
149:protect
144:history
92:protect
87:history
1425:Parkin
1420:Sticky
1224:Colts!
1164:, and
1154:wp:agf
1141:Parkin
1136:Sticky
1127:WP:BLP
1094:seicer
1078:Parkin
1073:Sticky
986:Delete
959:Delete
876:WP:RFC
825:Delete
584:delete
538:delete
492:delete
446:delete
400:delete
354:delete
291:delete
245:delete
199:delete
153:delete
120:delete
96:delete
1443:with
1438:Merge
1353:Merge
1319:Keep.
1299:balls
1183:keeep
1158:WP:RS
601:views
593:watch
589:links
555:views
547:watch
543:links
509:views
501:watch
497:links
463:views
455:watch
451:links
417:views
409:watch
405:links
371:views
363:watch
359:links
320:slakr
308:views
300:watch
296:links
262:views
254:watch
250:links
216:views
208:watch
204:links
170:views
162:watch
158:links
123:) – (
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
1554:talk
1535:talk
1515:ergy
1493:talk
1489:Kt66
1462:and
1453:Keep
1402:talk
1308:talk
1295:Keep
1286:talk
1269:talk
1243:talk
1212:Keep
1204:Beam
1191:talk
1174:talk
1166:WP:V
1162:WP:N
1100:talk
1088:Keep
1057:talk
1040:Keep
1029:talk
999:talk
975:talk
950:talk
942:Keep
933:talk
929:rudy
924:Keep
911:Keep
865:talk
838:talk
811:talk
790:talk
781:Keep
772:talk
737:Keep
726:talk
720:. (
597:logs
571:talk
567:edit
551:logs
525:talk
521:edit
505:logs
479:talk
475:edit
459:logs
433:talk
429:edit
413:logs
387:talk
383:edit
367:logs
341:talk
337:edit
304:logs
278:talk
274:edit
258:logs
232:talk
228:edit
212:logs
186:talk
182:edit
166:logs
140:talk
136:edit
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
1509:Syn
1481:NKT
1477:NKT
1449:NKT
1367:,
1363:,
967:all
829:NKT
692:.
1556:)
1537:)
1495:)
1458:,
1404:)
1387:,
1383:,
1371:,
1359:,
1310:)
1288:)
1271:)
1254:-
1245:)
1227:)
1221:Go
1193:)
1176:)
1160:,
1133:.
1103:|
1097:|
1059:)
1031:)
1012:BJ
1001:)
993:--
977:)
952:)
935:)
899:BJ
884:BJ
871:)
867:)
849:BJ
844:)
840:)
813:)
792:)
774:)
753:BJ
732:)
728:)
652:/
599:|
595:|
591:|
587:|
582:|
578:|
573:|
569:|
553:|
549:|
545:|
541:|
536:|
532:|
527:|
523:|
507:|
503:|
499:|
495:|
490:|
486:|
481:|
477:|
461:|
457:|
453:|
449:|
444:|
440:|
435:|
431:|
415:|
411:|
407:|
403:|
398:|
394:|
389:|
385:|
369:|
365:|
361:|
357:|
352:|
348:|
343:|
339:|
306:|
302:|
298:|
294:|
289:|
285:|
280:|
276:|
260:|
256:|
252:|
248:|
243:|
239:|
234:|
230:|
214:|
210:|
206:|
202:|
197:|
193:|
188:|
184:|
168:|
164:|
160:|
156:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
1552:(
1533:(
1491:(
1400:(
1306:(
1284:(
1267:(
1265:B
1241:(
1218:(
1189:(
1172:(
1055:(
1027:(
997:(
973:(
948:(
931:(
863:(
859:(
836:(
832:(
817:)
809:(
788:(
770:(
724:(
603:)
565:(
557:)
519:(
511:)
473:(
465:)
427:(
419:)
381:(
373:)
335:(
310:)
272:(
264:)
226:(
218:)
180:(
172:)
134:(
127:)
117:(
115:)
77:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.