Talk:Ogyen Trinley Dorje

message: Needs a complete rewrite. —valereee (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Valereee, I agree. The article seems to be written by religious fanatics. Is it possible to work in partnership? What sort of re-write do you have in mind? I could delete irrelevant sections and trim relevant sections for clarity.Badabara (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Badabara, the problem is I know next to nothing about Buddhism and really only ended up here because of a problematic editor whose edits I was checking. I could do things like go through and remove what seems like puffery, but I don't have a whole lot of interest in educating myself about Buddhism. :D —valereee (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Valereee. I know the editor you're talking about and I pretty much know which edits were made because they have that nutty fervor vibe. So how about this - I'll make trims and edit a bit of the structure. If the edits are too much, undo. Other editors are welcome to contribute of course. For the most part I want to shorten the page down to what's relevant.Badabara (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Hi Valereee, please take a look at the edits I made. I believe I trimmed it down to mostly whet's relevant. Still needs a once over for basic edits (not Buddhist related). Let me know what you think. Thanks Badabara (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Valereee please take a look at users LikeAnIllusion and Drakoool999. Both editors have only made edits to the Ogyen Trinley wikipedia page, and no other pages on wikipdia. Most recent edits were done within a few minutes of each other. One of the reasons I didn't look forward to putting time into this page is there are people that set up accounts only to edit this page, and the edits they make are fanatical in nature. How to best keep the article clean and unbiased? Thanks Badabara (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Badabara, I saw that. Do you feel it's happening often enough that the article needs to be semi'd? I probably can't, but we could put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Have you done that before? If not, it's important to mention this is a BLP. If you'd rather I make the request, I'm happy to, just ping me.  —valereee (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Valereee I haven't done a request for semi-protection before. I think it's a good idea to reduce the amount of time having to watch this page. Can you please make the request? One thing to point out, is the majority of vandalism isn't from IP users or users with less than 10 edits. Most vandalism comes from users (or sock puppets) that have made more than 10 edits, but all their edits are only the Ogyen Trinley page. CityOfGandharvas, LikeAnIllusion, and Drakoool999 would still be able to make edits with semi-protection. Any way to also block these accounts? They appear to be accounts created for the sole purpose of editing this page. Best Badabara (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left them NPOV welcomes on their talks. Let's see if we can get them to discuss. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Thank you! Badabara (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is a mess 

message: Hi Toto11zi. The section you created "Lawsuite filed by Huang" uses blogs and Chinese sources that are difficult to verify as reliable. See WP:RS. Also the suit appears to be between Huang and a student of Ogyen Trinley Dorje. I deleted it. Badabara (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit filed by Huang

message: @Bodhisato and @CodeTalker, please discuss here. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: People who know nothing about the 17th Karmpapa Ogyen Trinley Dorje interfere with the page and put in false information. This is wrong. He has millions of followers who are subjected to pain because of these malicious attacks against his person. It is mean and unnecessary. Bodhisato (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These smooth talking dudes are vandalizing the page by claiming the page has multiple issues. Then they state the issue is "too much detail"! Lol When did too much info become an offense to deserve that scarlet letter label. Anyway the smooth talking vandals are doing the theft and the good Samaritans are getting the kick in the hiney. Brave new world of new smooth talking robbers. Once again SMFH. By they way CodeTalder dude, we didn't come to pee on your tree. Why are you coming onto our page to pee on ours? It is not intellectually honest what you have been doing. Not manly. Not ethical. Weasley is the word that comes to my mind. Bodhisato (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

text: @Bodhisato, this is not "your" page. No one owns a Wikipedia page; see WP:OWN. It was not only I who reverted your edits, five editors in total have reverted the changes you have been attempting to make, and you have not made any argument for removing the Controversy section except for unsupported claims that it is false. Although I have not studied the issue in detail, there seems to be very adequate reliable sources cited which support this information. Edits on Wikipedia must be in accordance with Wikipedia policies, the most relevant one of which here is Verifiability.You will need to provide good reasons, supported by published sources, which explain why all of the existing sources are erroneous or misinterpreted. Furthermore, if indeed the article subject is your teacher, as you claimed here, then you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. Instead you should make edit requests on this talk page and allow a neutral editor to make the changes you suggest.Finally, please refrain from commenting on the character or motivations of other editors. We are all volunteers here, and ideally all have the same goal to improve this encyclopedia. Unsupported (and clearly false) claims that other editors are vandalizing or editing in bad faith are not going to help your case at all. CodeTalker (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Both Karmapa candidates state: "Reincarnation
Karmapa Co-claimant along with (other candidate)"
This is NPOV and needs to stay that way. Every few months an aditor attempts to take out the other claimant with the comment "minor edit", or "cleaning up". It's not a minor edit. See Karmapa controversy for more information. Badabara (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  info box "reincarnation"