Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/New Kalachakra

I have moved some of the discussion from the AFD page to this talk page. This is because the main page was too long. See Wikipedia:Article size. Stifle 02:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hello to all,

I have seen that this article is nominated for deletion. I'd like to point out a few things. Sylvain1972 is the one who wrote to nominate it. He's also written repeatedly at the Kalachakra original article and deletes all entries that I make there... in "toto". This is anti-Wikipedia policy, and I've rightly named him a vandal in the Shambala discussion page which he vehemently reacted to which shows at least a thin skin. On that page, he says that I "will probably use the New Kalachakra page to write whatever I want".

I'm sorry but this guy is trying to get the page deleted because he's afraid of what "will be written on it". This is some kind of preemptive war that far outreaches what Wikipedia is or should be. Personal grudges as he is bring to it are not the ideal of freedom WIkipedia embodies. This is a personal grudge being carried out onto the net and I'm sorry any of you may have been dragged into it. Please see the various links to that poster that I provide below as well, that show more about him.

Meanwhile, coming back to what he said, it's undefendable on his part to want to prevent someone from writing on Wikipedia and his attitude is anti-Wikiepedian in wanting to prevent the free expression of any given individual. His repeated deletions in toto of my posts in certain places (on the Kalachakra article) are certainly blatant anti-Wikipedia procedure that I have to roundly denounce. I should have reported him to Wikipedia when he did it again, instead of again letting him continue four or five times as he did.

He's a very stealthy poster writing, for example, the new title to the present "New Kalachakra" page as Geir Smith's crackpot original research . But, as one says : "One has to be one to know one". He's also done things on Wikipedia which are reprehensible -that I know of - which are, for example, to write to the discussion page of New Kalachakra right after making that crazy title change and not signing; which does show a degree of stealth.

Now to forget this person who's, as I said, been systematically deleting (he's a "deleting artist" ! in fine, and I call him nothing but a vandal to be truthful) I'd like to return to more reality-bound subjects and those are the article of New Kalachakra.

I see no grounds for deletion here because although the article does use the content of the Kalachakra article, you can see that it is not the content that you will see at Kalachakra itself (because Sylvain has not allowed any changes be made to it by me). And no changes are probable to be made there because it is iron-clad in it's allegiance to the Dalai-Lama and any scholarship that I can introduce is discounted and assaulted upon, on sectarian grounds. Anything that questions the veracity of what's written there is deleted, attacked or just downright rubbished. This is a sectarian cult-type activity that we are witnessing here. Anyone out of line with the "obedience to the chief" line is forcefully ejected without any remorse.

To dispel any hesitations about this - as to it being me who am sectarian - as is often hurled at me by this or that supporter of the mob at Kalachakra, - I've linked the New Kalachakra page here to the article Ban on Jonang that deals in detail and with ample references and external links, with the question of scholarship in Tibetan Buddhism and the question of the controversial debating between schools from the tenth century and up until today. Unless one broachs this all, I don't think one can just take on the task of deciding which position of the Kalachakra page's one and the New Kalachakra pages' one is right. Or doing so merely by relying upon the rubbishing and slander of people on sectarain agendas that vandalize Wikipedia : that's what Sylvain is doing.

You should look at Sylvains contributions and you'll see that he writes a lot about Trungpa and Shambala which is embroiled in scandals about all kinds of cult-related problems : drugs, child-making with disciples, etc...AIDS in his Regent-disciple who passed it on to all kinds of male and female disciples...ha ha ha ! They're horrible.

Sylvains clearly a front for this cult and his deleting people who don't agree with his agenda are obviously not welcome to him. He defends the Kalachakra page of the Dalai lama when indeed what he really wants to further is his cult agenda which seems to be that the Dalai Lama somehow serves his sects purpose. This purpose now seems somehow to have become that his gurus son is the future Messiah or something. I haven't really had the gumption to go check about this (seeing I really don't want to read crazy peoples writings) but one entry in an article said as much. It's so crazy that I can't really fathom the full extent of that mind's folly.

His entries in Contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Sylvain1972&offset=20051115181905&limit=50 that really show who he is are the ones that are to begin with and are called Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche (Trungpas son) Shambhala Buddhism, Shambhala International. They're all embroiled in multiple court-cases for cult-syle scandals so beware of the effect of this kind of person.

No, basing upon this kind of crazies assertions and vandalizing and who asks for deletion (he's the one who asked for this and there may also be cult-members writing along with him to get this deleted here) : this article should not be deleted.

It's also an article in progress that is changing and was already changed and different from Kalachakra to being with. It's a different thing from Kalachakra, because Kalachakra is just the thing created around the Dalai Lama, period. And it's furthermore based upon the way of seeing things from Tibet and that are completely ridiculed by modern scholarship (see Ban on Jonang).

I don't know if you're all into Buddhism here, but I'm, as for me, a thirty-five year Buddhist and would like to forwarn against people with hidden agendas who can maybe try to fool you into their ploys. Indeed, my experience enables me to know and see through these foils, - given a little time to study them... as I have now over these last few days.

I'm thus writing here to you all with references... and taking the gloves off with the person whose been vandalizing my posts about Buddhism for quite some time now. Whether you're into Buddhism or not on this present page and have interest in these subjects or not, no matter, because these are not questions of being in the know or not, but instead questions of moral honsety and attaining ones goals by moral honest methods as I believe in... and as the person I've mentioned, does not believe in, seeing he's a covert front for a cult, and posts under pretences and false names, or not signing his posts, so as to attain the goals he percieves as good for him, but with no matter as to what the consequences are thereof, and whether truth (or others) are harmed by that or not.

I believe in the virtues of consensus and that truth will prevail given a good chance to express itself. Please review the links I've provided carefully, and tell me what your conclusions are. I don't think this article is good for deletion. For NPOV trial : yes. For disputed status : yes. For deletion  : no. The person who elected it for that, sure does thinks it's good for it. But he's a "crackpot"-cover for a cult and needs not be taken into account on this count because if he wee so, the cult (up in Halifax, Nova Scotia - because Trungpa had to go there to die of liver disease from alcoolism - and because he was good for prison terms in several US States ! Crazy moron Trungpa and his cult-follower-dsciples ! They're just as crazy as their master - like master - like disciples ! Ha !) Sorry for this last outflowing of a form of passion, but when confronted with people with hidden agendas and shamless behaviour, one must be cowed it seems, and react in some measure... These people have been up in Nova Scotia for the last decades and their behaviour sometimes reminds more of woodsmens, than of anything else.

Kind regards to all and thank you for your patience in this matter. Please don't pay any attention to the person who elected the article for deletion because he's got a track-record that speaks of itself.Geir Smith 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

It is true that I've nominated this article for deletion. Here are my earlier comments about Geir's work, in his response to his accusation of vandalism: You are the vandal Geir. You have no idea how wikipedia works. You label changes minor edits that are not minor at all. You write long passages in broken English that are incomprehensible to anyone but yourself. You have been forthright about your intention to use wikipedia as a venue for publishing original research, regardless of the fact that that is expressly forbidden. Your decision to start an article called "New Kalachakra," which you will presumably treat as an avenue to publish whatever you want, is a perfect example of your total disregard for the conventions of wikipedia.

It's also true that I've often deleted Geir's edits wholesale. They are usually incomprehensible, and there is no way to clarify the meaning because the only source he ever has is his own equally incomprehensible website. When he does cite other sources, they bear no relation to what he has written. I am sure that when "New Kalachakra" is deleted, he will be back with other vanity articles. But I certainly welcome the involvement of other wikipedians, as I am tired of dealing with this alone. Sylvain1972 15:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hello,

I don't want to involve with Sylvain. I've levelled serious objections with references and pointed to clear anti-Wikipedian conduct by him; all can be seen above, and I welcome many to involve in this and thus indeed, not just one person to be here slandering alone, as he is. I'd just add that Sylvain is far too involved in this and is making this into a personal crusade. His whole Cursus Vitae on Internet as a Wikipedia contributor is oriented in his sects direction. His is thus a POV view. I've shown his clear allegiance to a cult-group that's got numerous cout-cases going on and his involvement writh the Kalachakra teaching is not innocent but agenda-driven because he thinks his gurus son is the Messiah announced in the Kalachakra. The father Trungpa was a drunk who died of liver disease and whose disciple infected many students with AIDS who died before he too died of his AIDS. Trungpa could not live in the USA because of court-cases and died in exile in Nova Scotia.

Can someone like this be taken as the norm for what shouls be considered the right stuff for Wikipedia ? I've given the links and also the link to an explanatory page at Ban on Jonang, that gives clear guidelines for my motives and my research. His baseless accusations are thus proven to be groundless and without merit.

I'd like Sylvain to back off of this and let others with less agenda-driven thought, step in and arbitre this. The mess is his and he brought it up, but it's time he was taken off this case. And rather his case be taken up ! Look at his track record : all "agenda"; all the way. Sylvain has no scholarship and just obeys his whim and personal point of view. How can he compare his scholarship to mine ? I've given many pages of research to Wikipedia, I've studied at the university in Tibetan culture for five years and done twenty years of further research since. He's done none of this or at least is not providing any of it in this deabte here. He's never answered on one of the pages I gave to Wikipedia, and only just used his delete skills so far. I'm still waiting for one constructive post from him. So far, no luck. On other boards Sylvain would be justly called a troll. All teeth and fangs; and nothing else. Geir Smith 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you would like me to back off, Geir. I haven't involved myself with most of your articles, including Ban on Jonang or Jalpo, because I would rather not deal with you either. But I contributed quite a lot of solid information to the Kalachakra article, as have many other people, and I won't stand by and let you ruin it. One has only to look at the talk pages of your other articles to see many other people saying the same things that I've been saying - all of your articles are disputed. You are the one on a personal crusade. Sylvain1972 20:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. People, you can just see what agenda Sylvain here is on. He thinks Kalachakra is his own and he's defending it. I don't think he read the first lines written under the frame on editing pages which says "Don't write if you're not ready to have your articles disussed and mercilessly corrected."

I'd like to get Sylvain prevented from writing to Wikipedia particularly for failing in Wikipedia spirit in fully deleting entries as he himself just recognized in a previous post just above.

First he's not justified in his defence of his actions because of having contributed on the Kalachakra article because his contribution track-record shows he's part of the Trungpa cult. They have a hidden agenda which makes him in fact an enemy of the Dalai Lama people whom he posts alongside. Is the son of Trungpa the new Messiah announced in the Kalachakra ? That's the question we'd all ike to hear Sylvain answer. Alternatively we'd also like to hear if Trungpa doesn't have several court-cases aginst him pending, among which unrecognized fatherhood cases ? Finally, how does he justify the facts about the main disciple infecting both women and male disciples of Trungpas, that he killed while he himself was going off too, fully knowing he was infected and that he was infecting all of them (saying things like that "Buddhist pure practise would not transmit the virus" !) ?

Now, he's hurled untrue accusations that he uses to bolster his case. The link to Taranatha's quotes was taken off Internet because Theosophy.org restructured. It is now back online and I've reestablished it. What Sylvain-moron's on about is that during a couple of days, I put the Google copy of it on my site because I needed the link. I don't have any links to my site and he thus has no fodder for his attacks.

His prejudiced mind doesn't have anything to hurl so he has to contrive "evidence". "Tamper with the facts". I have no links to my site in entries on Internet except for that short time of a few days to one page reproducing a copy of the page from Google. So ? Are you donna make a deal out that ? Grow up kid. You've not got a case, so what are going to do ? Create a guilty case. Force all the puzzle pieces into places they don't belong to ? Everything has to fit your preconceived conclusion ? What kind of a Buddhist are you ? Someone who invents things ? That's "dillusive reality", son. That's currently called madness.

The real question is where does all this hatred and pent-up feeling come from ? The question is really : "Is Trungpa in court-embroilings to this day and is his son the new Messiah of the Kalachakra ?" That's what needs answers and when they've been answered to, if he's pent-up or not will not really matter anymore will it ? And I won't be the person answering questions but he will, right ?

In no way does the fact of having made contributions to Kalachakra empower or give the right to prevent others to write to it. This is not Wikipedia policy and formulated this way, no Wikipedian will accept it.

If he doesn't stop in holding such an attitude and refusing to let it be, I'll just report it to Wiki with the references and instances of his actions to back them up.

People here can now judge and add to the folder his own recognitions that he has indeed done the various things I've accused him of. His crying about having made all the contributions to Kalachakra cannot cover for the wrong things he did. Two wrongs don't make a right.

His saying that his info is more "solid" than mine is not a jsutification for singling me out for deleting me systematically...and in full. Wikipedia clearly condems this. Wikipedia is about exchange, guy.

People, decide and remember, I want some questions answered from him. Talking nice doesn't cover up stealthy backhand stabbing in the back. If he's nice outwardly but does things he can't own up to behind the back of people, I call that dishonest.

I'm sure not going to let someone, who admits he's done things and doesn't even give a good explanation for them, to decide about what I write. Why not give one's publishing up to a mad monkey then in that case ? So is the son the MEssiah ? Carzy !Geir Smith 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Messianic cult of Trungpa-Shambala-Osel Tenzin

Concerning Ban on Jonang, your insinuations about it are not founded at all. It's a perfectly measured approach that describes the point by point differences between the out-of-date vision of Tibetan history between the tenth century and today of Tibetans, as opposed to the scientific fact-based research of modern scholars... of which I am one.

As for Jalpo you're also totally unfounded there (and I wonder what your agenda is in wanting to find fault with all I write. Why the singling-out process ? I should then denounce you for stalking to Wikipedia ? That's also got special sections describing it in Wiki's book, eh ! Wiki is not a blueprint for you to exercise your personal agenda, Sylvain.). Jalpo is the perfectly neutral point of view-page to off-balance the perfectly POV page that's written about it at the Dorje Shugden page - which reflects perfectly sectarian Gelugpa views - but on which they themselves cannot agree being deeply rifted and divided, ( or not to say even "ravaged"), between their own clans' in-fighting.

Jalpo gives a prefectly indepth, verifiable (Ban on Jonang is perfectly verifiable too and in no way referring to my sole site as reference which, on your part, is a smear to say - repeatedly - seeing Bann on Jonang and Jalpo don't in fact even so much as have reference to my site at all.) evidence as to the view of the Sakyapas on the Jalpo-Shugden problem-controversy. You are incapable of producing an anlaysis of the Sakyapa view and the evidences scholarship which I have produced and put in order on that page. The page thus puts into perspective and order - with a perfectly NPOV,- the whole issue behind the Gelugpa view, the Sakyapa, Kagyupa and Nyingmapa views, and draws the conclusions which are thus possible to be drawn - and which take all the steam out of the pent-upness that's developped by the Tibetans over this issue.... and that's made the Gelugpa school a collective battleground and hell.

The proof of this which I can prove and is undisputable... and proves that what I'm saying is not just empty spouting - which is apparently what you're claiming I'm doing,- is that on the Dorje Shugden page, (where they were fighting like cats and dogs until I produced the effort of wrting the Jalpo page), all fighting has quelled and all talking even has subsided. Rather than fight they just stay peaceful and quiet. The evidence that I've put on the table and published at Jalpo is satisfying and fodder for thought for them all. None dispute the facts I've put forth. I far prefer them being silent there than fighting. I prefer peace to war and thunder.

I don't know if people who are reading here know what we're talking about when speaking of (Chogyam) Trungpa. They should : Trungpa is a particlar crazy-case in Tibetan Buddhism and notoriously known across the board. There are several places on Internet where his failings and mistakes, his crazy AIDS-ridden disciple Osel Tenzin, etc... have been displayed and discussed and Sylvain may not like it to be made public. When one thinks that a master is judged upon his disciple then this Osel sure was not a good advertisment for the guru, to be sure. I'll just send some elements to think about : http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=17092&st=20

My own master who is the head of Tibet's second most influential school, told us about a conference by Trungpa he had heard reported to him about, in which Trungpa was drunk with a pitcher of a tinted-couloured liquid in it, that no one knew what it contained. In any case, Trungpa smoked throughout the conference and didn't seem to realize his cigarette were creating ash which fell down on his coat throughout the event and covered his suits front. A good example of "Buddhsit Awareness". And downright dirtiness too. When you think that Tantric Buddhism is supposed to be compassion-filled which materializes by acting in accord with peoples' views ! Ashes all over one's coat can't be what is called good harmonizing with peoples views, can it ?

So, the claims that either Ban on Jonang or Jalpo are unfounded are again solely agenda driven around this cult theme, and solely arise because of this torturing you and leaving you no because peace. You're still basically just a Trungpa cultee, railing around, flailing aimlessly because your aim which cannot be fulfilled. You made the promise of it to Trungpa which was to make his son the new Messiah who would realize the Shambala-Kalachakra prophecy and be the new King of Shambala - the Messiah, that's predicted. And it's not working that way and I'm the main problem to you. Tough, huh ! I call it idiotic messianic cultee-stuff !

For people on this page, I want you to know that I'm not a ranting lunatic as Sylvain describes but he's part of a group of lunatics and evil people. That's all : see the links below. His accusations merely reflect his shortcomings and not mine. I'm not even involved in his group at all and am frankly the odd man out in their own troubles. He also involves with this Gelugpa sect (which is not his own) out of some misguided political idea of meddling with the otehr sects.

He's a very misguided person and the worst of it is his attributing to me his various misunderstandings about a variety of topics and issues that he understands little or nothing about (the "ban on Jonang", "Jalpo", the "Kalachakra", anyone ? Yes that's what I meant in those "topics and issues" there.).

For all people here on this page I'll just give you a wiff of the kind of garbage this issue is all about here on this Google page which gives something like three hundred hits that are replete with the full details about this cult and it's deviated path in religion and understanding.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Trungpa+Osel+Tenzin&btnG=Recherche+Google&lr=

The sad thing is to see these people meddling with bona fide religion and scholarship such as I'm promoting on the web and them acting as if they were the real authority in this case.

I hope that this is clear and that whatever this guy puts forth about his cult or about his agenda is taken with that needed pinch of salt : now that people have been able to make up their own opinion and not be falsely taken in by lies and deceit. I hope the jury is out now and that this can be cleared up quickly. Kind regards to all. Geir Smith 10:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these latest entries Geir. They are very indicative of your work overall, far better than any description I could provide. Sylvain1972 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to be square with people on the subject of the deletion nomination here, which is that I've linked the New Kalachakra article to the Ban on Jonang page which gives a clear and graduated view of the differing view I have of Tibetan history from that held by Tibetans. I quote sources that are from Tibetan studies and which also clearly outline this differentiated view between an out of date, antiquated view of history of Tibetans and a new, scientific view of it. This is the approach that makes New Kalachakra, the article, different from the Kalachakra article... that it uses in it's content. But the content is clearly distanced from and shows the opposite conclusion to it. I clearly say that the content is not possible for modern scholarship to accept in toto. Very discriminating scrutiny must indeed be applied to it.

Sylvain here apparently only wishes that things go bad and that he does well. But that's supposing that his real motives and track record on Wikipedia not be made known clearly.

In the links I've sent above, some of them are pro-Trungpa and just reflect the propganda of his group on Internet or elsewhere. Wikipedia itself carries a clean propaganda page for the sect. But if one looks among the links that I sent earlier, some tell an awesomely strange and bizarre human story and those don't say much for Sylvain. I'd like Sylvain to tell us if his early entries in his Contributions that all reflect links to Trungpa, aren't where his allegiances indeed do lie - and whether he embraces all the aspects of that, which includes among them that of being the heirs of Shambala; of Kalachakra; and thus of the messianic mission that it prophecies for the world.

So, Trungpa is also what one sees in those links that are anti-Trungpa :

(in the links that I sent above the articles weren't all too clear because of wrongly spelling the disciple Thomas Rich's Tibetan name Osel Tendzin)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Osel+Tendzin+died+aids&btnG=Rechercher&lr=

In these links one will see that he brought on three deaths : his own and also that of two disciples that he knowingly infected. Trungpa's drinking and carrying on are also variously documented ad infinitum. I just want to say that the person who has initiated the deletion nomination and that has been followed here on this page is a follower of Trungpa and the group of his disciple Osel Tendzin. The head is now Trungpa's son and the disciples are still the same as with Trungpa and the agenda now is the same as with Trungpa which is to establish the rule of Trungpa on the world as the new Buddhist Messiah who would take control of the world's religions too, with the exception that in Trungpa's place it's now that of his son.

This is simple and speaks of itself I think. Thank you, I have nothing else to say as is eloquent enough. Geir Smith 19:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One has only to look at Wikipedia

Sylvain is so involved on Wikipedia with the Trungpa cult that his POV is glaringly evident. His involvement with the Kalachakra through the cult's emphasis on Shambhala and Kalachakra is thus easy to see for anyone who takes the time to browse the pages. His nominating is thus clearly agenda-driven. Look at the History of the Shambhala Buddhism page. Sylvain's contributions practically *cover* the page !!! He's invasive : he's a. all over that page, b. is omnipresent at Kalachakra and c. now wants to prevent me from writing what I want on other pages as well. He's some kind of plutocratic despot who wants to reign over all of Wikipedia ! This must square with some hegemonical view that Kalachakra followers have of some kind of world-take-over ! Hi hi hi ! Geir Smith 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I could publish the pages on Google about Osel Tendzin's killing his disciples if Sylvain doesn't stop ranting and trolling here, and also if someone still says they doubt that this is not a personal crusade for me but really looking at the facts of these people. It's also not a threat in any way, but would just be copying and pasting for me, no more. I'm not into doing anti-Wikipeida policy things. Sylvain and the Shambhala Buddhism is clearly anti-Wikipedia-policy as for it !... Geir Smith 19:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've contributed articles to just about every Kagyu and Nyingma lama on wikipedia, so any speculation about my background is just that: wild speculation. Unlike you Geir, my record reflects contributions to wikipedia across a wide range of subjects beyond Buddhism. It shows a commitment to wikipedia. Your record shows that you contribute only to the small range of subjects about which you wish to spread your propoganda.

But the edits of yours that I reverted, and my contributions to the Kalachakra, have had nothing to do with Trungpa. I don't object at all to expanding the information about Taranatha's contribution to the Kalachakra lineage. I object to the fact that most of the time your writing is illegible, and the few outside sources you give don't support your assertions. The supposed "scientific fact-based research of modern scholars" seems to mean your wild suppositions. Much like the wild suppositions that you've made on this page about me. Sylvain1972 21:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Crackpot Sylvain

You're not the one that's in accusation, Sylvain. You're nominating *me* for deletion. You're defending yourself here.

First of all there's no such thing as "Propoganda". You make mistakes throughout so don't talk about illegible English. Your link's for links for example.

Now in the line of your defence, as to the reasons that justify your doing anti-Wikipedia things like outright, full deleting of entries, as you've done in a sytematic way at Kalachakra, well your love of Wikipedia or your "commitment" to Wikipedia don't give you a dispensation to disrespect it's guidelines less than anyone else be they new or old to Wikipedia. It's not a club in which some people are more authorized than others. That's at the Pentagon things work like that. This is not a secret agency that gives you powers to do unauthorized and illegal things (...like Watergate).

Proving that you've contributed to all kinds of lamas' pages doesn't prove you're not a Trungpa follower. Trungpa's followers believe he is the father of the teaching that will provide the Messiah for this age. It's natural for Trungpa to want to have a hand in all things Buddhist because the Kalachakra prophecy is the take-over of all things on earth by Kalachakra, beginning by Buddhism (and all the sects and lamas of it), all religions (Christian, etc...) and everything. I see your interest in Kalachakra as a takeover bid by the Trungpa sect that thinks that they're the future Messiah's secret army. Ha ha ha ! Moronic, eh ! It's lall agenda, all the way. All lies.

They think that : that despite having to hide in Canada in Nova Scotia, the prophecy of his being Maitreya, the Messiah,... through his disciples or son, is still on track. Not to mention his disciple having willfully killed two of his disiples apparently (I'll publish those pages about the murders here seeing things are going from push to shove here !).

As for my wild so-called "suppositions", well they in no way authorize you to practise anti-Wikipedia full deleting systematically. I'd like Wikipedia to slam a no-edit restraint on you. You've been way out of line for months on this.

My Ban on Jonang tells the whole story of the full lineage of Kalachakra being totally false.

The Kalachakra article itself says nothing else. You can check it : it says the lineages are full of contradictions; which means "totally false" in clear English.

No, your case is as empty as a dried-up fruit, and the wild accusations I make against you are... founded... just as your contribution page, as for it, shows the trail you left behind you. You can't escape karma, Sylvain, it leaves traces. As for the "wild accusations" I've made in Wikipedia, well friend, they're not "wild" and not "accusations". You should be less wild and accusatory is what you should be. You're accusing others of your own faults, which is what Sakya Pandita, the famous master, said was the sign of evil people, something you're making out to be, big time.

My facts are verified and backed up in each case with ample outside external links that come from respected and well-known sources, in each and every case. No part or parcel of what I say anywhere is not so and coming from where you're coming from (the main disciple of your guru is a person responsable for the deaths of two of his desiples : and I'll publish it right here now) you're sure not a person to be a judge in this. Don't throw stones from a glass house, friend. Geir Smith 23:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The links in the article are not from my site as Sylvain falsely asserts above. No link to my site exists anywhere. Sylvain is POV in his contributions posting from the POV of a cult around Trungpa, (see Chogyam Trungpa or also Shambhala Buddhism) that's in court right now, and has many issues, among which the willfully killing by knowngly infecting two disciples by his arraigned maindisciple Osel Tendzin, paternity cases for Trungpa, drunken behaviour and various other claims that have made him exile and later die in Nova Scotia.

This is not the right path for deleting this article : to have as nominator for it, Sylvain. The agenda of the Trungpa cult is always to develop it's Kalachakra mission, which is the revealing of a world-Saviour, a Messiah : Trungpa's son presently.

I'll post to the talk page that Stifle has provided, the articles in the press about the people killed by the disciple Osel Tendzin and also the articles about Trungpa's drunkenness and bawdy behaviour, that's made him an outcaste among Buddhists, and makes him useless as a reference for Sylvain who's contributions are 75% about a. Trungpa, b. his organisation, and c. his afterfollowing.

The article is definitely for Keep because it can be worked on, developping the NPOV view that it already clearly has in the additions that are made to the original content from Kalachakra. The Trungpa organisation agenda is definitely not a good path to make or unmake articles on Wikipedia. It already has several articles that are apologetic of the cult and should be corrected there. A tolerant attitude towards Trungpa and his disciples' misguided and criminal activity is developped under the cover of what is called Crazy Wisdom, which includes apparently even crime. Geir Smith 16:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Definite keep Kindly check out conflicts Sylvain is in on the page he contributed 75% of at Shambhala Buddhism because he is not NPOV there. The article was downgraded, removed from [Good Article] just on 25 of Feb. two days after the conflict with Sylvain. He's got a bad track record. Not just this case with me. Geir Smith 17:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sylvain post above from Shambala talk page. Look at the History of the article. Sylvain's anti-Wikipedia deleting habits are highlighted. He fully deletes not only at Kalachakra but elsewhere too (Shambala) where he feels that the Messiah of the Trungpa cult is threatened. He's crazy. Geir Smith 17:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep New Kalachakra is not fork of Kalachakra. Read the former : the content in chapter "Spread to Tibet" and "Problems in spreading to Tibet" underline the basic difference between the two articles because the New Kalachakra describes a totally new and different view of Tibetan Buddhism, eliminating the mistakes of archaic and out of date scholarship or simili-imitated scholarship.

I just corrected the external link to my site on the New Kalachakra page ("David Reigle's article") which had just been established for a few days while the site it was on was being refurbished by their people, so Sylvain's false claim of my only linking to my own references and not external ones, is misleading and incorrect. I make many external links throughout my work which I provided there.

Sylvain's POV throughout Internet can be seen also in his articles about the Trungpa son. Geir Smith 08:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Further examples Sylvain-POV : Trungpa son talk page, (last paragraph : "Unattributed Comment") says Trungpa didn't recognize his own son for heir - wanting rather Westerner to succeed him.

On Reginald Ray (Trungpa oldie-disiciple) page talk-page, Sylvain says that R.Ray is creating rift-schism in Trungpa's son's organisation.

They're infighting in the cult-organisation and Sylvain is as POV as canb be, being the master-discplinarian, going around distrubuting authorised status to this and that of the "heretics" that he's putting on blacklists. (Hi hi hi !) Very serious mental disorder. When you start thinking you're the master of the world, (Trungpa's son does this) you've got a big problem, Joseph Smith, Mormon-style. This is all in Sylvain's mind and should stay there; not be on Wikipedia which he's polluting.

Sylvain's POV is pro-the son, and anti-the Trungpa old time stalwarts, that are out to stop him. I'm not into either of their fights and am rather instead, into making scholarship known on Shambala, Kalachakra, and all of the rest of Buddhist topics, and not bog down with mediocre minds there. My New Kalachakra is not part of their plan at all,- they may think I'm in favour or against them, the one or the other. That's not so. Geir Smith 09:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• See the embroiled strife between the Trungpa clan's infighting with this article's history page which page was that later renamed as Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche (Trungpa's son). Look at the NPOV tagging on it that's always there from the beginning and which shows these people are always fighting it out. I don't think that Sylvain posting in on such conflictual material indicates any efficacy on his side at Wikipedia policy and philosophical understanding. This is the page Sylvain basically started his Wikipedia career on : a NPOV tagged page... (check out the history of his Contributions)I think he's more of a street-fighter than anything else. "No rules" is more of his agenda than anything else. Geir Smith 22:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Geir, you can make all the speculations you want about me, but you are the one who has written a vanity wikipedia page about yourself, Phende in which you make your motives clear. "One person who furthers this agenda is Geir Smith, well-known on Wikipedia for authoring such articles as Jalpo, Phende, Ngor, etc...and contributing to many others." Your agenda is to publish original research, which is expressly forbidden by wikipedia. That is why I have reverted your edits. That, along with the fact your writing in English is often incomprehensible. Sylvain1972 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)