Andi 3ö

---

Home	Talk	Workshop	Subpages	Contributions	Guest Book

---

Comments

Om, I get it! /Ninly (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your persistent kindness!

File:Ushiku Daibutsu 2006.jpg	You radiate ahiṃsā		File:Ushiku Daibutsu 2006.jpg
	Not by harming life does one become noble. One is termed noble      for being gentle to all living things. (Thanissaro, 1997)	Na tena ariyo hoti, yena pāṇāni hiṃsati;      Ahiṃsā sabbapāṇānaṃ, "ariyo"ti pavuccati. (Dhp 270)
	You exemplify kindness and generosity and helpfulness.1 And I appreciate your perspective on WP disputation as well.2 I'm very glad you're on WP. - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess at this point "semi-retired" is more an aspiration ;-) Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The never-ending story about Shugden

Hi, I'm just starting another attempt to stop the NKT people from 'taking over' the Wikipedia with their continuous edit-war to promote the Shugden practice. If you agree, please leave a note at Administrators noticeboard. rudy (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Andi Please see New Kadampa Tradition talk page Ta!!!Yonteng (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Just placed more stuff on NKT talk YontenYonteng (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Andi Thanks for all your help-I think I am going a bit mental on this they keep just reverting any critical banners Please, dont you know any committed admins who will take this on???Yonteng (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC) THANK YOU for your valuable neutral contributions to the NKT pageYonteng (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Understanding the role of Dorje Shugden in NKT

You wrote in the NKT article, that Dorje Shugden is one of the two "essential practices" of the NKT (the other being Je Tsongkhapa Guru Yoga according to "The Essential Practices of Kadampa Buddhism"). Can you give me your view/NKT view on why this is so? There are many more Dharma protectors, right? Why this focus on him alone?

Taking the Heart Jewel sadhana or the Wishfulfilling Jewel sadhana as an example, it is what I call a "Lamrim sandwich." You have the Guru yoga at the beginning, the Lamrim meditation in the middle, and the Dorje Shugden practice at the end. The first part contains the six preparatory practices, the second is the actual meditation practice, and the Dharma Protector practice subsequently protects any realizations we may have gained during our meditation. In this sense, there is a logical flow.

There is also a parallel with the Three Jewels, wherein the three parts correspond with Buddha, Dharma and Sangha respectively. Dorje Shugden is Buddha Manjushri manifesting as the Sangha Jewel of a Dharma Protector. There are more Dharma Protectors, but we practice the one with whom we have the closest karmic connection, just as we now practice Buddha Shakyamuni's Guru yoga and not Buddha Kashyapa, and in the future we will practice the Guru yoga of Buddha Maitreya and not Buddha Shakyamuni. Also, while it is true that Je Tsongkhapa established three Dharma Protectors (associated with the three scopes), only Dorje Shugden has ever been called the "Dharma Protector of Je Tsongkhapa's tradition."

It should also be noted that in the 100-page kangso to Dorje Shugden (called Melodious Drum in the NKT), and in the Highest Yoga Tantra practices, prayers are made to other Dharma Protectors, including Palden Lhamo (with whom the Dalai Lama says Dorje Shugden is in conflict).

Also: has this practice been that prominent with earlier teachers like Trijang Rinpoche e.g. or is this emphasis on the practice an "invention" of Geshe Kelsang?

The kangso coming through Je Phabongkhapa was taken word-for-word from Sakya sources. The chapters on Dorje Shugden in the book Heart Jewel are easily recognizable as an abridged version of Trijang Rinpoche's Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors, completed in 1967. It is now translated into English, and the PDF is available to download here: [1]. Within the first dozen pages, Trijang Rinpoche pretty much sets out everything irrefutably. (In particular, you'll see how anti-DS views contradict the laws of karma and the doctrine of emptiness.)

Also, do you know if he has been practicing (and recommending) it so intensively all along or only after the seperation from the FPMT and subsequent founding of the NKT?

Dorje Shugden practice was the Dharma Protector of Sera Je monastery, where both Lama Yeshe and GKG attended, and it was Lama Yeshe who introduced the practice at Manjushri Institute (as he designated a particular Dharma Protector practice for each FPMT center). Since the early 1980s (and before Lama Yeshe's death) the kangso was practiced regularly, but only in Tibetan. A public empowerment and English commentary to the practice came in 1986. Friends I know who study under non-NKT Lamas practice their own version of Wishfulling Jewel daily.

I am asking this to get some hints (and maybe you could provide me with your view on that as well) as to how "sectarian" the NKT really is. Tsongkhapa as main practice already looks like theres a strong emphasis on Gelug views. Doubling that with Dorje Shugden as the other main practice could be interpreted in the direction of quite a strong sectarian attitide, at least the Dalai Lama would say, i guess... What's your view and/or NKT view on that? Why this emphasis on JTK and DS?

Maybe this blog entry can serve as a springboard for further discussion: [2]

Also: NKT people always cite "political reasons" for the Dalai Lama's ban. What are those reasons in your opinion? Is it all about sectarianism/upholding the purity of the techings vs. Rime or is there something else behind it? Would be very happy if u had some answers for me but would of course also understand if u had better things to do :)

I think Lopez hit the nail on the head (Prisoners of Shangri-la, p. 196):

[Dharma] protectors, some of whom are quite ancient, are native Tibetan deities (not from India) and have traditionally enjoyed great devotion as ancestral guardians of a clan, a mountain range, or a region. Shugden, a kind of clan deity for the Geluk sect and for a region of Eastern Tibet, having been carried into exile, thus must himself be declared obsolete and be exiled by the Dalai Lama so that Tibetans in exile may develop a national, rather than clan, identity. This national identity is required only now, after they have fled the land that they regard as the site of the nation of Tibet. Tibetan culture becomes the same culture for all Tibetans only in retrospect.

Hope this helps. Emptymountains (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Emptiness Section of Buddhism Article

Hi Andi. I just want to apologise to you for what might have looked like my deliberately messing around with your own alterations to the 'emptiness' part of the 'Buddhism' article. Our edits rather 'crossed' and clashed, I am afraid. Anyway, I did not intend to be 'contrary' or 'difficult' (unlike one certain infamous editor of Buddhist articles on Wikipedia - whom you surely know well!). I just wanted to clarify a couple of points on the tathagatagarbha teaching (e.g. that TG actually means 'Buddha matrix' or 'Buddha embryo', and that these teachings are given by the Buddha himself in the relevant TG sutras). Hope you are well. Thanks for your contributions. Suddha (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot, Andi. I appreciate your kind words. Yes, I agree with you: 'sentient beings' would cover all kinds of creatures (animals, even ghosts and demons!), so it is unnecessary to add the phrase 'creatures'. You are right that some Mahayana texts see absolutely everything as possessed of the Buddha nature. It is a pleasure to deal with such a benevolent and civil Wikipedian as yourself (such people are remarkable on Wikipedia by their general absence!). Incidentally, I've just added a little section to the 'eternal Buddha' article which you might find interesting. Cheers. Suddha (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Andi, for your help with my Talk Page: I've been wondering why people's postings on my page never showed up! That problem is now solved - thanks to your good self. Am grateful to you. Oh, no need to answer this message. Just wanted to express my appreciation. Warmly, Suddha (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern Buddhism

Hi Andi,

Disagreed with your reversal of my link to Modern Buddhism as well as you suggestion that the stub be considered for deletion. Modern Buddhism encompasses beliefs not found in the original "mainstream" forms of Buddhism. Buddhism has become for many a laundry list of nice to adopt precepts while deliberately ignoring more unpalatable edicts. An example, being a vegetarian is not necessarily being a Buddhist although there exists a tangible association. Finally secterianism has also found its way into Buddhism and the reader should be informed that all labelled Buddhism is not necessarily what was originally intended...

Look forward to you comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemesouviens32 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning stop your vandalism of the Modern Buddhism page

You have persistently vandalised the Modern Buddhism article, I urge you to stop or will report you for vandalism.Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already reported you, no worries...i guess now we will both be banned for 24 hours. I really don't understand the purpose of your actions. What's the purpose of having two articles on the same subject? Andi 3ö (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, in order to prevent further edit-warring at Modern Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andi 3ö (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I contest this block as a matter of principle. I have not violated the 3RR, and i will not. (as opposed to the other user involved in the edit war - resulting in the page now being to his liking) I have used every measure beforehand to reach a consensus, there have been extensive discussions on the subject. I have not made the slightest ad hominem, and will not. (again as opposed to the other user) Also sea report on WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Thanx

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for 3RR or for personal attacks; you're blocked for edit warring. The history of the article makes it obvious. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{Unblock on hold|CIreland|(last appeal) hmm... I find it a bit strange that after discussing the subject at length i can be banned for trying to make the changes all but one editor agree on. Anyway, it is absolutely not necessary to block me. To quote WP:BP:"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". As you can see from the edit history of Modern Buddhism I clearly warned the other editor that i would report him after breaching 3RR and planned on sticking to it myself from the beginning. I have never and do not plan on breaking any rules. I honestly thought what i was doing was the right thing to do, which obviously was a mistake. It is absolutely not necessary to block me. I had not planned on and will not touch the Modern Buddhism page. Instead i'd like to participate in the discussion as the page i wanted to redirect has now been put up for deletion by User:Kotiwalo - which imho is a more radical approach, that i wanted to avoid in the first place by discussing it all here. Anyway...Thanx for your time! (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring for more context) Also: it would be very nice if u could relay the following message to User:Kotiwalo: he got it wrong in the request for deletion. I was not redirecting to Buddhism but to Buddhist modernism, that's a very important difference he should fix imho. It is worth discussing the other option as well, but that is definitely not what i was suggesting. Andi 3ö (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)|rspεεr (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)}}

You seem to be handling this situation reasonably well, and I agree that Modern Buddhism doesn't look like that bad of an edit war. I'm going to ask CIreland if it's okay to unblock. rspεεr (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've now discussed this with CIreland. Your previous attempts at discussion were a good thing, but sometimes when a situation isn't going your way, the only thing for it is more discussion. The fact that you changed your strategy away from discussion to repeatedly reverting the other user is why you got blocked for edit warring.

Your unblock request is quite reasonable, though, and I'd like to approve it. If you'll agree here that you won't edit the disputed page or its AfD for the remainder of the 24 hours, then either CIreland or I will unblock you. rspεεr (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, i guess changing the strategy was a mistake. Although it seemed obvious (at least for someone closely following the discussion) that nobody was supporting his position, and i was as careful and understanding in my edits as i could be, User:Jemesouviens32 obviously interpreted things differently. Anyway, thanx for your effort. Although i don't quite understand why i shouldn't participate in reasonable discussion (as i always do) on the AfD page, i agree keeping my hands off. Thanx, Andi 3ö (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

See, if you went right back to editing the article with the approval of admins, it would be tantamount to us declaring you the winner of the edit war. And edit wars shouldn't be something you win. So that's why you should leave the article alone for a bit. Anyway, you're unblocked. rspεεr (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern buddhists

Hello. Once your block expires, I would like you to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Buddhism. I started the afd because that is the best way to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted/redirected. All constructive arguments are welcome. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"to ensure the decision is made based on consensus and arguments instead of edit warring" that's what you wrote on the deletion page. It's exactly what i was trying to do on talk:Buddhism#deleted_reference_in_intro_to_stub_"Modern Buddhism" All but User:Jemesouviens32 agreed with my reasoning. So what was i supposed to do in that case? Andi 3ö (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andi. Just wanted to say that, in my opinion, you're doing everything just fine! Don't let administrative procedure (getting blocked, etc.) discourage you. Keep up the good work! /ninly (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(Not that you should disregard admin requests or anything like that!) /ninly (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's as you suspect. Peter jackson (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Modern Buddhism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. User:Jemesouviens32 (User talk:Jemesouviens32) 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Please follow the guidance above to sort the dispute with the other editor. Thank you. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Dear Andi,

Thank you for commenting on the Admin board. I also want to thank you for considering me at least somewhat "reasonable."

However, I did want to point out one important impression I got from your comment, which I don't think you really intended. You said, "If it was left to them, the NKT-article would consist of merely an exact copy of the NKT's own publicity material. This behaviour at least does come across as a bit cult-like from time to time..." Do you think this therefore justifies Yonteng's inclusion of the word cult in the intro? Obviously, we would need 3RS's to make such a claim, not base it solely on the behaviour of Wikipedia editors who contribute to the page.

That is to say, I wish that you had commented the (de-)merits of Yonteng's actual edit, not just the editors involved. Granted, both the edit being made and the editors themselves are what contribute to the edit warring, but that's precisely why I think we should discuss both aspects.

Thank you for your time and patience. Emptymountains (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

fixed that. also: you're welcome. I might add, i actually find you very reasonable :)) Andi 3ö (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

fixed it even a bit more... ok like that? Andi 3ö (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I love you, man! Emptymountains (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

hehe...wait 'till i come up with my grand restructuring plan for the NKT article ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Andi 3ö. You have new messages at Emptymountains's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Buddhism edits

I have no problem with the additions you made nor with your comments. After all, Wikipedia works best when editors are willing to compromise. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing-by-proxy for Peter

However, Buddhist schools disagree over the exact nature of the path and on the importance and canonicity of various teachings and scriptures.

Since you restored this to the lead section of Buddhism, please be so kind as to provide the entire paragraph from the source in context for me, per WP:V. Additionally, please explain to me how this meets WP:LEAD and where it is covered in the article. You are implying that there is a significant schism or disagreement, that Buddhist schools must agree on importance and canonicity, that there exists an exact nature of the path and that some teachings and scriptures are more important than others, and that this disagreement is covered in the body in a significant way to merit adding to the lead section. As you must be aware, none of these things are true. You are welcome to participate on the talk page, where discussion is ongoing. If you can't do these things, I will remove it again. Thanks for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

if you read the talk:Buddhism archives from last year you will find a couple of long discussion on the issue (esp. on the issue of a "common core"), with me arguing against(!) Peter. He finally (partially) convinced me, and as part of the compromise where we agreed upon the overall structure and approach of the article (inside vs outside perspective, treatment of different schools etc.) we agreed that there should be some kind of an introductory "cautionary statement" that makes it clear that there are very significant differences between the schools. That's why i put the statement back in. I'll ask Peter, if he can provide you with the info you request. Andi 3ö (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the archives as I just finished collating the first 90%. I can't comment on what went on between the two of you, but I will say, that on Wikipedia, we don't use "cautionary statements". If you want to keep the material in the lead section, you will need to write about it in the body of the article. I've reviewed the literature, and I don't see any supporting sources for such a statement in the lead section. Can you point me to a significant schism or disagreement? You can't, because Buddhism is known for its tolerance of other sects, and their councils have released statements saying that they all have the essential teachings of the Buddha in common. There seems to be POV pushing going on here, and I do not tolerate that well. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure if the statement in question really implies a "schism". That might definitely be too harsh of a word, but, as Peter and my subsequent reading about other traditions (other than the indo-tibetan variety i am very familiar with) convinced me, there seem to be quite significant differences, that the reader should be aware of. If the statement seems too harsh for you, maybe you can think of a better one? As for the WP:LEAD recommendation that only things mentioned in the article are summed up in the lead: You are right, that there is no section covering specifically the issue of differnces and/or a "common core", although some people thought about writing one, as far as i recall (i opposed including such an "academic" discussion). But there undoubtedly are A LOT of specific mentionings of the differences in the article, so i do tend to think that it is justified to have such a sentence in the lead. Andi 3ö (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this topic closely, and I've come to the conclusion that Peter is pushing this "common core theory" into the wrong article. Common core theories are never discussed in broad articles about Buddhism. They are only talked about in narrow treatments of Buddhism and psychology. So, Peter is in the wrong article. As for the disagreement, I don't see one, and none of the broad treatments discuss it. There are always differences between sects, and in the case of Buddhism, it was historically a natural adaptation from region to culture, and you can see it happening today in the U.S. But these differences do not imply an active disagreement where one side says there is only one way and the other side insists on their way. Can you show me an example of two Buddhist schools engaged in a significant, active disagreement? Viriditas (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

well, one of the arguments that pretty much convinced me was about pure land: there is a strong reliance on salvation throug refuge in Buddha Amitabha, so much so, that the idea of active study and meditation to achieve insight and finally liberation by your own means doses not play a significant role in that school. As you seem to think, that "disagreement" is too harsh, what about this?: However, there are significant differences between various Buddhist schools regarding the exact nature of the path and the importance and canonicity of various teachings and scriptures. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That is an improvement, and I appreciate your wise perception into the heart of this matter. Now, the discussion must address how to say this and where. Currently, it appears in the first paragraph after the path. Since this concerns Buddhist schools, it should appear after that is mentioned in the second paragraph, right after "In some classifications, a third branch, Vajrayana, is recognized, although many see this as an offshoot of the Mahayana." One could then add: "The teachings of different Buddhist schools vary on the exact nature of the path and on the importance and canonicity of various teachings and scriptures." This is not ideal, but it is acceptable to me for the moment. Viriditas (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

fine with me. As the statement would then be removed from the context of the now preceding sentence, i think we should add a qualification to the "path", e.g. "path towards liberation". I think it would actually fit in even better right before the practice section, where there apparently seem to be the biggest differences between schools. Also: it had been at that place for the longest period of time and only been moved up quite recently anyway. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you go ahead and make the changes so I can see what it looks like? Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

ok. in a couple a minsAndi 3ö (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

done Andi 3ö (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's eerie. It's like it was meant to be. The prose can be cleaned up a bit, but nice work. Viriditas (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

thanx :) feel free, of course, to further improve! now i gotta continue my "real" work ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

oh, and thanx a for the productive discussion :)) keep up the good work! Andi 3ö (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Very impressive. Viriditas (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to give some context about the previous discussions we had: one of the issues was about how (and Peter was actually arguing "if") to present "core" buddhist ideas (now in the "concepts" section). If i remember correctly, Peter argued that you cannot for example present the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path there because, while being recognized as teachings of the Buddha by scholars of all schools, they do not actually play any significant role in the eastern schools, in fact, he says they are hardly even known there, while for example the tathagatagarbha teachings play a huge role there and a very minor one in the indo-tibetan context. So the question was, what do we present in the concepts section. Our compromise was, that we present select important doctrines of all schools but always add a brief comment on their importance to the various schools plus preceding the presentation with said "cautionary note" Andi 3ö (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recollection of events is vaguely compatible with my vague ones. I'd add, since Viriditas asked about the source, that it's a false citation. There are a number of these in the article, & no doubt large numbers of them across Wikipedia. This isn't usually deliberate. What happens is:

1. someone changes a statment they don't agree with, but leaves the citation, which no longer supports the statement in the article
2. someone deletes a statement they disagree with or think inappropriate, but leaves the citation, which then attaches to the immediately preceding, previously unsourced statement, which may have nothing to do with it; that's what's happened here
3. someone adds a statement in between a statement & its citation, thus hijacking the citation to another that may have nothing to do with it

Now that you've invited me here, I may as well comment on some other things said above.

Carl D. Olson, The Different Paths of Buddhism, Rutgers University Press, 2005, would presumably disagree with the wording discussed above: "vary on the exact nature of the path" (I've already mentioned this twice in Talk:Buddhism#Path of salvation).

"... in the centuries after Buddhism's arrival in Japan ... the so-called "schools" of Chinese Buddhism ... became institutionally distinct, and at odds with one another; in fact, in time they literally were at war with one another." (Lewis & Lewis, Sacred Schisms, Cambridge University Press, 2009, pages 79f)

"Dōgen ... claimed that ... he, Dōgen, had brought the only true Buddhism to Japan.

Tathagatagarbha is important for many Nyingma & Kagyu teachers.

Let's keep the common core discussion in 1 place. Peter jackson (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about "common core" theories related to Buddhism belongs in Talk:Psychology of religion or Talk:Buddhism and psychology, not in Talk:Buddhism. Peter, please take a look at any current general reference work with an entry on Buddhism. It does not in any way reflect your POV. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Dorje108's edits were reverted per Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Moreover other editors including myself have edited the article. Reinserting Dorje108's edits is not following Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, it's the other way around. Dorje tried to revert the earliest of Joshua Jonathan's edits to Four Noble Truths when he started on his major rewrite of it, requesting discussion, but his revert was immediately undone by Joshua. And Andi tried to restore some of the deleted sections from Karma in Buddhism and you immediately reversed his edit. Robert Walker (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOVS is not a policy guideline. Its an essay.

WP:NPOVS is not a policy guideline. Its an essay.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 08:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Preparation of Dispute Resolution Notice on Joshua Jonathan's edits

Hi Andi, just to say that I am preparing a notice for the DRN on Joshua's edits. It is just a notice asking for help and advice, to see if anyone has any idea of a possible way forward.

I've named you as one of those involved in the dispute, along with Dorje, myself, Joshua, Victoria and Jim Renge, because of your help on the Karma in Buddhism article when you tried to reinsert some of the deleted material for discussion. Is that okay? I think all the other named editors are already aware that I'm doing this, but you might not be so thought I'd post to your talk page about it.

See User_talk:Dorje108#Attempt_at_filling_out_the_content_dispute_notice.

Also of course welcome any thoughts you have on all this. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably not going to happen now. Joshua Jonathan is proposing to restrict me to 300 words a day on wikipedia on all talk pages including my own and three edits max per day. I obviously can't do a DRN notice within that restriction, indeed, will be hard to even talk to other editors here. So doing a few posts right now before it happens, as it looks as if it is going to happen now, and won't be easy to communicate with other editors after this. Robert Walker (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_max_1.2C500_bytes_a_day_for_Robert_Walker

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 post a few notices about it 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) 13:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)