Talk:Karma in Buddhism/Archive 4

Proposed Summary and Sub-article breakout

In the spirit of Be Bold and her bastard cousin, Git 'Er Done, I've taken a hatchet to the development section and moved the meat of it to Development of Karma in Buddhism. I suspect at some point I will create a Views on Karma in Buddhism article to stash the more detailed versions of various academic and traditional views if no one has major objections to this approach. I think this has the following virtues:

It cuts down on the overall article length (good for readability and accommodating small devices and bad connections)
It improves readability by reducing the number of block quotes
It limits the amount of they-say we-say that can go in the main article, and provides a location for further, more narrowly focused expansion
It simplifies the presentation of the topic by leaving out the nitty-gritty of the full range of academic and traditional views, which better serves the needs of the general reader.
It can be done in a nearly mechanical way starting with the existing text- I wrote maybe 2-3 sentences that I think uncontroversally summarize their sources, but the section in question went from being 2-3 very dense pages to being a couple paragraphs, with all of the content remaining intact in either the main article or its subarticle.

I've likely made a gory mess of the Reference section on one or both of the article. Thoughts? --Spasemunki (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS- There is another example of my proposed brand of whittling here: User:Spasemunki/Karma_(proposed)

May be a good idea. Ehm... You're also goinf to copy the sources? I've already added some appendices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At second thought: you've also removed some essential and elementary info on the (non)importance of karma in earliest Buddhism. This info provides a bigger picture, and shows that Buddhism is not some revealed, eternal truth, but a man-made tradition, which develops in time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker

Please note that this discussion is going on.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker

If it goes ahead I won't be able to submit the DRN Notice. Joshua Jonathan has posted notices about it to all his friends talk pages and to many article talk pages, so don't see why I shouldn't also.

What do you think. Should I be restricted to 1500 words a day and 3 edits a day on any given talk page, and also same restriction for drafts of my posts in my user space? Please vote, either way. Robert Walker (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result was no outcome and I've developed some Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments which should help in the future. Robert Walker (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN Notice, again

Result no outcome, so DRN can go ahead once more

The result of Joshua Jonathan's ANI action on the length of my posts on these talk pages was no outcome and I've developed some Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments which should help in the future.

So , after a break of a week or so from wikipedia, it is once again a "go" for the DRN notice.

Specific wikipedia guidelines violated by Joshua Jonathan's rewrites

Following advice of an off wiki friend who is far more experienced in the ways of wikipedia than myself, the DRN Notice will focus now on the specific wikipedia guideline violations in these edits. DRN Notice Details

The aim is to protect NPOV and the core policies of wikipedia. If we had a roll back, to the previous articles, I would then be happy to step back at that point, and see the outcome, whatever it was, of considered debate by experienced editors, and consensus decisions about the articles. I never felt any need at all to get involved before as they were in good hands. My only previous talk page posts here were to ask the editors for help with other Buddhist sections of wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]