User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2017

Haplogroup L-M20

The Haplogroup L-M20 map corresponds to the Indus Valley Civilisation map.

RedPlanet321 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation#Haplogroup L-M20. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Advaita Vedanta page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Indus Valley Civilization

Hi Joshua,

It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify why you consider Mehrgarh a more antique beginning of the IVC than Bhirrana. There have been multiple studies about the cultural continuity from Pre Harappan to Mature Harappan at Bhirrana as discussed herein: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Periodisation_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Sarkar_et_al._.282016.29) You've accused me of 'pov pushing'. I have cited multiple sources for my stance and have gone through all of your's. That being said, I would request you to please point out, concisely as I have, where it is that you think the evidence for the contrary stance is available; I would be glad to hear about it. My reply to you on the aforementioned talk page has also been unanswered. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgraghav (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kgraghav: See Talk:Periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation#Sarkar et al. (2016), and WP:NPOV. You can sign a message with ~~~~; it will automatically be turned into a full signature. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the material a bit more, and looking at other related material it seems to make sense to wait for further information on this. Thanks for the clarification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgraghav (talk • contribs) 04:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kgraghav: well, thank you! Ironically, I woke up this morning considering to add some info about Sarkar et al.'s proposal for an older chronology of the IVC. Their proposal may still be 'tentative', but it's backed by Marshall's older proposal (1930s), Possehl's proposal, and several radio-carbon dates. And it's published in nature, so altogether that might make it a noteworthy minority view. And, by the way, that's what really relevant about their publication: not Bhirrana having traces which are maybe a couple of centuries older, but the whole chronology being older. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Hatha Yoga

Howdy. I could use some backup for some edits made to Hatha Yoga that Victoria Grayson is block deleting without adequate explanation. I know she tends to dislike me and mercilessly attack my work so I could use an objective third party for support. Hope you are well!Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahāvākyas

Looks like that @Nrityam account mass deleted your old contributions to Mahāvākyas before getting indef blocked. May be worth a visit, recheck and spruce up. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: thanks; I'll take a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assalayana Sutta

Greetings Joshua! I hope that you are well and had a very Happy Chinese New Year.

Sorry to bother you this time but I need your help. I created a sandbox article on my wiki account related to Assalayana Sutta in which the Buddha debates with a Brahmin and disputes the supremacy of Brahmin Caste. I wrote the sandbox article in my own words to escape the Copyright Violation but unfortunately, I couldn't find online sources to support my article except SuttaCentral and Accesstoinsight. Can you add some sources and help me to create my first ever article? Terabar (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to User talk:Terabar/sandbox. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madhyamaka, Bhaviveka and crypto-Vedantins

@JJ: If you can get hold of the Bhaviveka's manuscript and translation such as by Watanabe, please review. Bhaviveka's chapters 3 and 4 (verse 137 onwards) are premised on "the Madhyamaka Buddhist school's belief that "things do not exist in ultimate reality", that "world is unreal", that "dravya, pradhana, jiva and atman" as false constructions of ignorant people"! Since it is 6th-century discussion of Madhyamaka, it may be a useful add to Bhaviveka and Madhyamaka articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to find translations; are you referring to this one? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watanabe's publication by University of British Columbia Press is more complete. Pages 125-126 of the relevant chapter in your link mention the other relevant works before 1990s. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Ingalls article was insightfull and usefull. Family of Laura Ingalls Wilder? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, but more accurately I do not know because I never tried to look up Ingalls' ancestors. He was a Harvard professor, advisor of many who are now notable professors of Indology, Hinduism, Buddhism and such. Michael Witzel now holds Ingalls' title. On Bhaviveka, I recommend a read of all of his publications, beyond the 2 chapters in the publication mentioned above, because they contain one of the better histories of the various traditions within Buddhism by the 5th century, and because they discuss Vedanta and other orthodox schools of Hinduism around 500 CE. Avoid pre-1960 publications on Bhaviveka because Tibetan manuscripts-related scholarship was scant or mostly ignored before then. Malcolm Eckel's publications on Bhaviveka are among the best WP:RS on this subject. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

@Joshua Jonathan: Could you please tell me how I'm POV pushing? Chittagong is not located in India, it's in Bangladesh so how is that POV pushing? The incorrect information was located in the section, "Survival of Buddhism in India". Chittagong and the people of Chittagong people are not part of India or Indian, I was only removing incorrect information so I reverted your edit. (121.219.51.186 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Copied to Talk:Decline of Buddhism in India#India and Bangladesh; to be continued there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what standing you have

By suggesting on my talk page that I can be blocked from further editing ^[1]. I have not made any racist comment. I am just pointing out the obvious fact that Indology seems to be a common pastime of Western academics who happen to be white. It is as if they want to own history of the World to write it the way they want. May be a hangover from their colonial past. I have been through the list of active Wikipedia administrators, and your name does not figure there ^[2]. So perhaps, you're trying to scare a fellow editor from pointing out race in an edit? I totally disagree with your assertion that I was being racist. I am reverting the edit. Reema (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Bishonen: can you take a look here? See also this edit (again), and Talk:California textbook controversy over Hindu history#Redoing HAF section and User talk:Reema wiki. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reema wiki: your edits are disruptive and inappropriate. If you fail to see how this is not so, please see WP:WWIN and WP:NOTHERE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Reema wiki on their talkpage. Bishonen | talk 10:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning doesn't matter as I have not put my opinion, it is the facts of the litigation referenced by news sources. Reema (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll take notice of this comment too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Pagels

Hello, JJ - I wonder, if you have some free time, if you could clarify the first few notes in Elaine Pagels. There are some hidden notes to editors with valid concerns, but I can't fix this. Also, there is something missing in the last note; there is a red comment about a missing date. – Corinne (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: that's an interesting puzzle; I'l take a closer look later today. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JJ. I'm also puzzled by something else. In this edit, an editor changed "had" to "have" in the sentence, "They had two surviving children." I can understand that the present tense would be correct if the two children are still living, but, according to the article (fourth paragraph of Elaine Pagels#Academic work, their son Mark died in 1988. I can't find any mention of how many children she had, or has. Is there any way you could find that out? "Have" would be correct if she really does still have two surviving children, but not if they had two, and one died, or if they only had one. – Corinne (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work you just did on the article. I read the Gnostic Gospels, but it was a while ago so I don't remember much. I feel sure you know what you're doing, but I thought I remembered reading some mention of the possible Eastern influence, possibly through St. Thomas, on early Christianity. Do you have a copy of the book? If this is actually discussed in the book, do you still think it should not be included in the article? If I have time, I will get a copy and re-read the book. – Corinne (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About Buddhism

Hello , I have been notified by you that the chenges I made to Buddhism page was reverted. It says Buddhism is an Indian religion but it's not true. Buddha was born in Nepal and Buddhism originated in Nepal. Sir, though there have been spread false fact by India that Buddha was born in India, it's not true. Sir, there are enough proofs to prove that Buddhism is a Nepalese religion. So sir I humbly request you to correct this error. Aayush Pageni (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aayush Pageni: scroll to Talk:Buddhism, or Talk:Gautama Buddha, to read the relevant discussions on this topic. To summarize: there was no state of Nepal at that time; "India" in this context is not the state of India, but an extended geographic region. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha, and the pizza!!

@JJ: do you know of any admin on wikidata? Every now and then, we get these edits/vandalism, such as the Buddha is a pizza lover and worse.

On tablets and mobile devices, this is what shows up as a one liner summary or embedded in the wikipedia lead section. I am wondering if there is a way to temporarily semi that wiki data page when the need arises. There was a lot of OR and amazing synonyms / vandalism on Asian religions and Africa-related topics in wikidata, which I have tried to bake out over the last few months. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I have no idea; let's ask Drmies and Bishonen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an administrators' noticeboard here, which looks like the place for it. But I'm otherwise unfamiliar with Wikidata, and right now also quite distracted by the thought of pizza. Mmmmmmmm, pizza. Bishonen | talk 10:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

So that's what the poor bird is looking for... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmarked that link. Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know ingenting about Wikidata--though I did discover I can edit it from my iPhone. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're being very IKEA these days, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

add numbers?

can u add numbers? The largest in terms of native speakers are Hindustani (Hindi–Urdu, ~590 million[2]) Bengali (about 200 million), Punjabi (about 100 million),[3] Marathi (about 70 million), Gujarati (about 50 million), Bhojpuri (about 40 million), Awadhi (about 38 million), Maithili (about 30 million), Odia (about 30 million), Sindhi (about 26 million), Braj Bhasha (about 21 million), Rajasthani (about 20 million), Saraiki (about 20 million), Chhattisgarhi (about 18 million), Nepali (about 16 million), Sinhala (about 15 miilion), Assamese (about 15 million), Haryanvi (about 13 million), Kannauji (about 9 million), Bagheli (about 8 million), Kashmiri (about 6 million), Dogri (about 4 million), and Bundeli (about 3 million), Garhwali (about 3 million), Kumaoni (about 2 million), with a total number of native speakers of more than 1347 million.

pls addddddddddddddddddd all of them and results say to me: ok???????????????????????????????

900 or 1347?@Joshua Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 08:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callofworld: I have looked into your edits. They are disruptive. Your presumptions in the comment above, and on @Kautilya3's talk page, is difficult to understand. Please try explaining yourself better at Talk:Indo-Aryan languages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wrong numbers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages

The largest in terms of native speakers are Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu, about 329 million),[2] Bengali (about 200 million), Punjabi (about 100 million),[3] Marathi (about 70 million), Gujarati (about 50 million), Bhojpuri (about 40 million), Awadhi (about 38 million), Maithili (about 30 million), Odia (about 30 million), Sindhi (about 26 million), Braj Bhasha (about 21 million), Rajasthani (about 20 million), Saraiki (about 20 million), Chhattisgarhi (about 18 million), Nepali (about 16 million), Sinhala (about 15 miilion), Assamese (about 15 million), Haryanvi (about 13 million), Kannauji (about 9 million), Bagheli (about 8 million), Kashmiri (about 6 million), Dogri (about 4 million), and Bundeli (about 3 million), Garhwali (about 3 million), Kumaoni (about 2 million), with a total number of native speakers of more than 900 million.

i was understand in wikipedia 900 = 1086!

329+ 200+100+ 70+ 50+40 +38 +30+ 30+ 26+21+ 20+ 20+ 18 + 16 + 15+ 15 + 13 + 9+ 8 + 6 + 4+ 3+3+ 2 million=1086 million, with a total number of native speakers of more than 900 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 14:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeticism

Hello, JJ - What do you think of this edit to Hermeticism? – Corinne (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: I'll bet it's not in the source; I've undone the edit. I still have to look further into Pagels; I will. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation for New Age Talk page comments

Dear Joshua, - I wanted to take this moment to thank you for your thoughtful responses to my "Four items that need to be resolved ASAP" statement on the Talk:New Age page. I love the democratic nature of Wikipedia (especially when weighted by expertise), and if the consensus goes against me I will pick myself up and try to contribute as best I can within the rules laid down. Also, I have to thank you for thinking to outline my humongous piece properly, so other editors can access it without a struggle. Finally, I have to thank you for exposing me to the wonderful Leonard Cohen picture and quote on your Userpage. All by itself that convinces me you know what you are talking about. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; your response is highly appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojshala

@JJ, @Kautilya3: While working on Indian festivals-related articles, in particular Vasant Panchami, I stumbled into an interesting and religiously sensitive article on Bhojshala. It is sensitive because the site has triggered a number of religious riots over the last few decades according to sources I just finished reading. I have done some cleanup, particularly of serious WP:Copyvio and WP:Plag issues along with neutrality issues. If either of you have time (or JJ's talk page stalkers), would you take a look and improve the NPOV of that article further please. An extra pair of experienced eyes and a fresh look may be the stitch in time that saves nine in future. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks Sarah. I have put it on my watch list. But I am not sure when I will get time to look into it. Too much going in the Kashmir space at the moment. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afanasevo culture

I noticed your correction of the line in this article containing the non-word "putating" with some confusion at first - and then with some amusement. It sounded almost - but not quite right to me. Then I suddenly realised that the author had made a non-existent verb from the perfectly acceptable word - "putative" (= supposed, believed, or deemed to be the case). It still would not read well if it had been a real word - and I am very glad you have corrected it - but I thought you might be interested in what apparently happened here. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the talkpage-stalkers: "putating Proto-Indo-Europeans under the Kurgan hypothesis." I thought the editor meant "putting." @John Hill: great, very nice! Thank you for the explanation! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good news

Did you know that ..."President elect Donald Trump is not going to organ harvest muslims."? JimRenge (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. Wiki-vandalism spike. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My! The details you know to find! I'll recuse from any further snappy answers, apart from "What will Comey say?" ("I know what you did last summer"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarianism

Hello, JJ -- I'm not sure, but I think this edit may have done something to the formatting of the bulleted list in Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs, but I can't figure out how to fix it. Can you take a look at it? Also, I sometimes try to improve the formatting of references, but there is one that contains either several errors or unusual formatting, and I don't know how to access the source to compare and perhaps fix it. It's the last reference in the section Nontrinitarianism#Following the Reformation. Can you take a careful look at that also? Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: I sort of fixed the quote, but unfortunately without indention. As for the reference, I made some minor copy-edits, but I didnd't see a probkem there. was it already fixed? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JJ. Regarding the reference, I didn't know what that "2" by itself was or whether I could just remove it. I also didn't know why the book title was in all caps. Do you know why? Thanks for making the edits. It looks better now. – Corinne (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hittites

The Hittites article says that The Hittites and other members of the Anatolian family then came from the north, possibly along the Caspian Sea and The Anatolian migration (indicated with a dotted arrow) could have taken place either across the Caucasus or across the Balkans, but a while back you updated the image to replace the dotted line with a solid line through the Balkan Peninsula. I don't know the first thing about Indo-European migrations, and you clearly do, so if the wording in that article is outdated could you please take a look at it? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@165.234.252.11: done! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saadi Shirazi

Hello, JJ - I was looking at the most recent edit to Saadi Shirazi, and it seemed to me that the addition is inappropriate. In the body of the article, while it is made clear that Saadi was a Muslim, there is no mention that he was a Sunni Muslim. I think the important fact (for the lead) is that he was a Persian poet. However, since I'm not a writer of content, I hesitate to revert the edit. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: I've removed it; it's clearly not neutral. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote: CMT

You may find more citable content at:

also RationalWiki

74.138.110.32 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@74.138.110.32: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goraknath

Hi JJ, it saddens me that my "Hindutva" folder now has a subfolder called "Gorakhnath" (click please). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: enlighten me; what's this about? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, a state probably ten times the size of Netherlands, is the Mahant of the Gorakhnath Math. His guru Avaidyanath was the leader of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement in the 1980s. And, his guru, Digvijay Nath, got the Ram idols placed in the Babri Masjid, capturing it for the Hindus. It might even be that the gun that killed Mahatma Gandhi came from Divijay Nath (never proved).

There is talk that Yogi Adityanath, the current one, is a likely successor of Narendra Modi. Is that enough elightenment? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - though "enlightenment" may be the wrong phrase here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the question is, how did Gorakhnath get stuck in this rut? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Tedious sockmaster Tirgil34 vandalized an IE topic, Kurgan hypothesis, with his new sockpuppet again [1]. His sock is currently blocked with an expiration time of 36 hours now. He should be blocked indefinitely for long-term socking. Please report this sockmaster, admins do take in consideration veteran editors rather than ips. @Wario-Man:@Kansas Bear:@Florian Blaschke: 78.166.51.123 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice phrases: "hypothetical theory," "hypothetical model." Are there also "factual models"? Anyway, we've had the same kind of discussion on "Indo-European migrations," with one editor arguing it's a hypothesis because it's not proven. Nay, as if the terms suggest otherwise. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With such nonsensical weasel words, he wishes to emphasize that the Kurgan hypothesis is highly disputed. (Because it doesn't fit his agenda). 78.166.51.123 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your words. :)

Hi, Joshua Jonathan. Just want to briefly thank you for your kind words and general proffered optimism regarding my TLE. I don't know if my words conveyed an initial sense of being distraught (that phase passed after the 1st few years and almost foolhardy continued wishful thinking it had passed or would wane), but trust me I'm stoic. Needless to say, it is appreciated. I wish I could reciprocate the support or decency. Thanks again. Kez. --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieronoldham: you already did. I'm glad my (intuitive) response is somehow helpfull. Brigthtens my day as well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Sutra

Hi JJ, Just to calrify, I was not promoting the Lotus Sutra and would like to respectfully correct your observation. I just corrected a quote from Paul Williams and expanded on Dogen's use of the Lotus Sutra which was already mentioned. I used citations that were credible. There has to be a basis for you to undo an edit on a page where we have credible citations and are simply explanding concepts already mentioned. I have also made additions to Pure Land pages and Pure Land traditions tend to be quite opposed to the Lotus Sutra which shows I am neutral. My expertise is East Asian studies so it would make sense that this is where I can make the best contributions. Is there an authority we can ask to adjudicate on this? Thanks and best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritus (talk • contribs) 08:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to move this to ProfessorEremitus´s talk page, where the discussion started. JimRenge (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. See User talk:Professoremeritus#Poor editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zenji Nio

Joshua - there are 40 different articles and references for notability and you yourself made the entry. Why are you behaving this way? It seems you are just trying to vandalize any page I contribute to. There is no need for this. Professoremeritus (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the explanation at Talk:Zenji Nio#Re-insertion, instead of re-inserting your stuff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, enjoy a cup of chocolate in your garden. There is no hurry to repair the article, please consider a self-rv. JimRenge (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I know. Thanks. Ehm, cold chocolate? It's a warm spring here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should all chill out. Kindly don't take my words the wrong way JJ as I've tried to be very respectful and courteous and a contributing member. Just felt that you were targeting any and every edit of mine like a witch-hunt when they are in good faith. I've listed my reasoning on the talk page. I'm glad to try and re-edit the portions I added. Olive branch and Namaste :) Professoremeritus (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Zenji Nio". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 April 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Zenji Nio, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ANI

FYI, I have taken the WP:NLT issue created by the new user Artbitration on Talk:Zenji Nio to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_at_Talk:Zenji_Nio. Michitaro (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And admins quickly blocked Artbitration indefinitely. Michitaro (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michitaro: thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zenji Acharya

I noticed you've been trying to edit the Zenji Nio page. I have also had some problems with that page, some of which have to do with the apparent fact that the person Zenji Nio previously or currently goes by the name Zenji Acharya (see images here and here). That itself is not a problem, but there were major issues with pages associated with Zenji Acharya on Wikipedia in the past. You can see them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika/Archive. This page and those other pages might have no relationship, but I thought you might want to know.Michitaro (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michitaro: thanks. I already noted the mention of SGI; that's a red flag for problems. @Dougweller, Bishonen, and Bbb23: to inform you there are some problems at this page. I suspect this "professor" is not a newbie; knows too much Wiki-jargon already. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was also interesting. @JimRenge: I've opened an SPI. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the info @Michitaro:. JimRenge (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professoremeritus is unaware of or misunderstands Zen Buddhism apparently. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh for the kind message and picture about the Bodhisattva - I took a few days off to visit my in-laws with the kids and deal with family stuff. In that spirit of the Bodhisattva, I have re-edited the article taking out every single reference to Buddhism and only focusing on the athletes he taught meditation to, the BBC, the Canadian Ministers mentioned in the National Post and the Paralympics. Thats it. Both you and Jim seemed to agree to this. Buddhists do not need to call themselves Buddhist and so no mention of Buddhism needs to be made as you recommended. But the Olympics, BBC and Ministers are relevant as is meditation and motivation. Also, his Compassion website says he dropped "Acharya" in solidarity with Dalits and to stand up against the caste system. In India, dropping a Brahmin surname to empower dalits is very much the work of a Bodhisattva. As all of us have read Buddhist sutras, we should now focus on putting the themes of compassion and fairness into action and I hope the final edits I made will bring equanimity to all. May we all be like Bodhisattvas Professoremeritus (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua - I edited the intro based on suggestions I saw of yours and Jims. Then I saw a message from Michitaro on my talk page and so I just added back the sections he had also edited (Olympics, Paras, Reception). I'll leave it at that. I hope you will yourself ok it or a senior Admin can deal with it as I've got other things to deal with. May the laws of Karma prevail.

With due respect Sarah, the majority of Buddhists, over 90 % are not Zen Buddhists and they find the whole "Kill the Buddha" concept to be blasphemous. So while popular with a small but vocal section of Western atheist Buddhists in online communities, it is deeply offensive to Asian Buddhists from many Asian nations as well as Western Buddhists from other non-Zen traditions all of whom also visit Wikipedia. Professoremeritus (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the talkpage-stalkers: see Talk:Zenji Nio#Comments by User:Artbitration and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika, and this nice quote [zenji.org from mr. Zenji himself (the irony, referring to a Zen-title, yet complaining about a famous saying from Linji about idolatry):

"The sutras make it clear that when the Lord Buddha returns as Maitreya, He will be born to a Brahmin Buddhist family. Above all, in the Lotus Sutra is says that paramparo or lineage based schooling is the highest schooling and that all Heavenly Buddhas have Bharadwaj Gotra which is the exact same gotra of Zenji's lineage! Therefore, Zenji's responsibility and role as a Brahmin-Buddhist Acharya is of incalculable significance (the term Acharya itself was originally for the exclusive use of Zenji's lineage - a tradition that India upholds to this day). (Inset - Zenji being ordained as a Brahmin where he shaves his head and gives up his social identity for the Dharma)."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fascinating thing is that Buddhist Pali, Hindu Sanskrit and Jain Prakrit languages do not have a historic word for "blasphemy / blaspheme / etc"! The closest may be Nindati (निन्दति) which means "condemn, ridicule, critique ideas". Nothing is blasphemous! Makes sense, given the dhamma / dharma texts in these three religions, their discourse on non-violence, loving-kindness and tough-love, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linji probably wouldn't have been pleased by the way the Buddha, or Buddhist spirit, is killed by the intolerance which is now prevalent in some Buddhist countries. It's exactly this kind of attitude this famous saying is directed against: idolatry kills Buddhism; when idolatry appears, smash it! As Sam Harris writes: "to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught." Idolatry, of course, can also appeal to persons... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Linji would be puzzled. Yet, 'smash' there is metaphorical. It is another way to understanding the three poisons. No moha. No raga. No dvesha. No attachments to icons/images/idols. No attachments against icons/images/idols. Let it be. Let the artists create. Let art thrive. Yet don't just see shapes. See the message. Feel the meaning. Feel the infinite. Feel the nothing. Smash the 'smash'! Poor Linji, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the metaphor is just a skillful pedagogical means, adapted to the specific obstacles of his listeners/readers. JimRenge (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my posts from article talk pages

@Joshua Jonathan: just to say, that I don't want you to delete my posts on talk pages as you did here: [2]. When I asked you to warn me about any problematical behaviour first and attempt amicable settlement before taking me to WP:ANI, it wasn't intended as permission to delete my talk page posts. I hope you understand. If I am in agreement with your reasons I can always delete the posts myself. Robert Walker (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my request that you inform me when you think I am going over the line, I only made one post in four months Re your comment here: [3] Do you really think that's too much verbosity? Robert Walker (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertinventor: the last post wasn't very long, but it added to the previous posts, which were already extensive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand. The other posts were from four months previously, from last year. Many predated the topic ban itself, so of course they were extensive as that is what you got me topic banned for. Most of the page was already collapsed when I added this new comment, and now nearly all my posts on the talk page are collapsed including the most recent one. [4]. Robert Walker (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom literature merge

IMO the articles: Wisdom literature, Sapiential Books and possibly Wisdom (personification) should be merged (WP:MERGE). - 74.138.110.32 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@74.138.110.32: I think you're right. I'd say, just do it! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts repetitions

I got your ping at ANI but I need more time to think about it. Your last comment at ANI introduces the underlying content dispute beginning with "Take the quote from Walpola Rahula at the section ..." It may be tempting to do this but ANI does not deal with content disputes, it is a forum where problematic behaviour can be discussed. A link to your reflections in your sandbox or some other appropriate page would be preferred. Please consider a move, it is still unanswered. JimRenge (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: I know; thanks. Looks like I should just let it go, again... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always, JimRenge is thoughtful and on the mark! Thanks you two for keeping Buddhism-space articles sans blogs, non-peer reviewed and self-published sources, more NPOV based on scholarly mainstream secondary and tertiary sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apophatic theology, Christian Mysticism, and Buddhism

Hi Joshua, your considerations are so interesting that they deserve a personal reflection, even if OR. However, you should always keep in mind that your sources don't cover the whole apophatic theology but rather only its section on Buddhism. In addition, they don't apply at all to the Christian mysticism template. As soon as I have a bit more time, let me come back on this issue that can't be treated quickly. PS: do you have any ideas to start adding images to the article? Lanari Mauro. --82.84.21.103 (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Try some. Make you (feel) younger. Happy munching, MSW

@Mauro Lanari: you know this saying "The older I get, the more I know how little I know." Yesterday it really dawned on me that one life is really not enough to learn everything I'd like to learn... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you could cite directly Shakespeare's Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Are you so sure? I'm not yet. Strange things are happening, but I don't know how much really significant. A problem of spiritual discernment and even historical-factual.

I can't sign, otherwise Google indexes your entire talk page on my behalf. Lanari Mauro. --82.84.34.228 (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It means my Wiki-life becomes part of your Wiki-life? Some 'Google-God-mode', so to speak? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, our Google-lives. Furthermore I am an atheist. Lanari Mauro. --82.84.28.46 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit skirting close to wikihounding

@Joshua Jonathan: just a friendly warning. I think your edit on Talk:Four Noble Truths here[5] skirts close to WP:WIKIHOUNDING. The only way you could have found my draft was by tracking my contributions record on my linked to alternative account. I hadn't linked to it from anywhere on wikipedia, and didn't even have a sub-pages listing on my alternative account.

Of course there is nothing Prima facie wrong with tracking another user, as there can be legitimate reasons for doing it. You could have been tracking me for a legitimate reason and stumbled on the article.. But at the time you linked to it, the article itself said in its lede [6]

"I plan to move this essay to my main user space when I return to editing there, and discuss it in the Buddhism project talk page, and perhaps suggest adding it to the project itself. I won't use it at all in discussions under this current user name, and I won't link to this draft from my main account. If anyone finds it, please don't link to it from anywhere else, though you can of course comment on the talk page here if you have any issues with me writing this."

You then proceeded to link to it from a very public place - Talk:Four Noble Truths which I had specifically asked readers of the page not to do. That makes your edit disruptive, of my activities on Wikipedia. And because you did a disruptive editing as a result of tracking my edits, then technically it is WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I am just saying this for the record, not going to take out any action for it. But please, do take care and if you track my edits, please be sure not to do it in ways that are disruptive to the way that I edit wikipedia. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertinventor: assume WP:GOODFAITH. You wrote your draft in userspace, which is not a private property, but accessible for everyone. I looked for it out of curiosity, because I was sincerely interested what you were writing. You worked on it using both accounts diff; I found it when I looked at the contributions you made from your normal account. WP:WIKIHOUNDING says:

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

I was not following you here from place to place, I was following your own mentioning of this work in progress, and your comment that I might find it interesting. It further says:

"The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason."

I did not read that draft to disrupt your enjoyment of Wikipedia; I read it because I was interested what you had to say, as I indicated in a previous comment: "I'm looking forward to the essay; it sounds promising." Which was in reply to your previous post: " I have prepared an essay on it as I said which you might find interesting."

The draft itself I read partrly; I saw only a few words of the introduction, and did not read your request not to link to it. I linked to it, as an explanation why I striked my previous comment, as a means to transparency. So, no bad intentions at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: and I hadn't even noticed you wrote it at your Robert C. Walker account! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no problem with you reading it, because curious of how it was going. I anticipated that that was a possibility which is why I wrote that introductory paragraph politely asking readers not to link to it. I wouldn't do that, but I don't see that as skirting in the gray areas of wikihounding if that was all you did :).

The problem was sharing it, when the article itself clearly asked readers not to link to it and gave reasons. I asked anyone who read it to comment on its talk page. You could have commented on its talk page saying "Can I link to this from the Four Noble Truths talk page?"

Now if I do drafts that I don't want to have shared, in the Buddhism topic area, I will no longer be able to do them in user space because I know you will be tracking my edits, no matter where I put the drafts, and could share them at any time, even if I say clearly in the draft that I don't want it to be shared. That is disruptive of my enjoyment and normal use of Wikipedia.

And you must have found it by tracking me. You couldn't have found it and not noticed it was on my alternative account - because there was no link to it from anywhere in wikipedia. Nor is there any publicly accessible link to it off wiki either. There is simply no way you could have found it except by going to my alternative account and tracking me. I mentioned that I was preparing an essay, but didn't say anything about where it was - it could easily just be a text file in notepad which I checked on wikipedia using the preview function - indeed that is how it started off.

The reason originally was that I didn't want that account to be associated with the Buddhism discussions. You could say - why edit it there then? The reason is because of convenience, I thought that a file hidden away in user space with no link to it could not be seen as contributing to the Buddhism discussion in any way, with no link to it anywhere, it was just like doing a draft and only ever using preview, but more convenient. I also don't want it to be discussed mid edit. Because mid edit, then many things may not be clearly expressed yet and it is an area that has caused a lot of heated discussion in the past. So it needs to be stated as clearly as I can possibly make it, or the central point will be obscured. And How could you not have seen the request not to share it? This is the entire introduction:

"Am writing this here because I am currently logged out of my main account in order to take a bit of a break from the discussions of the Buddhism topic area there. I wish to only log in for a few minutes at a time, at a time of my own choosing, to monitor the on going topic ban action against me being discussed there."

"I plan to move this essay to my main user space when I return to editing there, and discuss it in the Buddhism project talk page, and perhaps suggest adding it to the project itself. I won't use it at all in discussions under this current user name, and I won't link to this draft from my main account. If anyone finds it, please don't link to it from anywhere else, though you can of course comment on the talk page here if you have any issues with me writing this."

I'm sorry, I want to WP:AGF but your explanations make no sense to me. How could you possibly read that and not realize that I didn't want this draft in the user space of my alternative account to be linked to from Buddhism topic area discussions? Robert Walker (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're missing here, but I think I made myself perfectly clear: "The draft itself I read partrly; I saw only a few words of the introduction, and did not read your request not to link to it." Could you please stop now? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

If you consider A and B were one, like you opined, I can safely surmise the fault lies not in the mentees. --Omihbm (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Omihbm (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI review of Robert Walker's editing behavior

Please see this. I post this since you are also mentioned there, and I believe I am supposed to inform you. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4NT

No blogs, please ... :). Yes, the "Is happiness the goal of Buddhism?" question is important. I assume that high quality sources do exist. JimRenge (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JJ: I sent you something on Walpola Rahula from the Oxford Center for Buddhist Studies, to your wiki-linked email. May be relevant to different articles on or where Rahula's views are summarized. Check you email please. @Kautilya3: you too. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See. At 21,841 characters for now, that is way beyond "about 2,000 characters" guideline for DRN. But that is what it is, at least in a draft. Something to reflect on, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RW's comments on DRN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RSN

JJ, It may be best to avoid converting the RSN board beyond its scope and purpose. The action list, and changes you have made so far, may be irrelevant to RSN. It may confuse the volunteers there. May be best to move it to the article talk page it relates to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I see your point; I prefer, though, to keep it there, as a reminder of practical steps that have been taken. If to be moved, best place may be Robert's talkpage, as a reminder that we do listen, and that concrete proposals do work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to his talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thats lot better!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hinduism

Greetings Joshua ! I reverted an edit on above article. Do you think that this edit was vandalism? Terabar (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Terabar: I think that such articles are a waste of time. Better leave them aside. Besides that, "Varna system" should be called "Discrimination of Dalits," aand be merged with social structure. And some info from/about Ambedkar should be added, if only one line; he's the best-known critic of Dalit-discriminiation. But seriously, take care; these articles are great avenues for edit-warring etc., and baiting honest editors like you. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist|4

Hi. Just letting you know that reflist|2/3/4 are all deprecated per Template:Reflist#Columns.

If you don't know the best ways to format these are:

reflist|35em for 2 columns
reflist|30em for 3 columns
reflist|40em for 4 columns

Most of the time, 4 columns don't really need to be used unless an article has well over 200 or so refs. thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennica: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Jesus (archangel)

Per Jesus (archangel), you may be interested in some of the content. — 74.138.110.32 (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Joshua Jonathan §Famous Joshuas, You overlooked Buddy Joshua :) Original picture was removed, due to copyright-problems.

74.138.110.32 (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@74.138.110.32: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Daniel Boyarin:

Boyarin arrives at his desired thesis that Daniel’s Son of Man is the Jewish forerunner of Jesus Christ, long before Jesus was born, the divine-human Messiah, “a simile, a God who looks like a human being.” Ultimately, Boyarin assures us, these two divinities “would end up being the first two persons of the Trinity.” [Schäfer, Peter (May 18, 2012). "The Jew Who Would Be God". New Republic. Retrieved 13 May 2017. Book review: The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ by Daniel Boyarin]

74.138.110.32 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." Thank you for informing me of this. This is the first time I ever had to request an admin to help resolve a conflict. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditorial101: you're welcome, as the convention says ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your help!

Dear Joshua, - You were extremely helpful in commenting on an editing-theory dispute between Midnightblueowl and me on the New Age talk page on February 22 (although you sided with her/him in every instance!), and I would like to seek your assistance again. I promise it will require much less of your time!

I have been working on the Radical centrism page over many years, and it has been relatively stable for many years. Today I discovered that a maintenance tag has been placed over one of its most important sections, "Twenty-first century overviews." The tag states, "This section's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia."

I am floored by this. The section is crystal-clear, neutral in tone, impeccably sourced, and the list portion follows standard Wikipedia style. I must point out that the maintenance tag was put there by someone who is not registered with Wikipedia (or is anyway choosing to use an IP address here) and that radical centrism is even more controversial than usual just now as it is the self-described philosophy of the just-elected French leader, Mr. Macron, equally despised by far left and far right.

I do not feel I have the standing to remove the tag on my own w/o engaging in a long back-and-forth with its anonymous provider. I cannot tell you how little stomach I have for that. You have the standing on Wikipedia to remove it forthwith, and I wonder if you would do so. If, on the other hand, you think that the anonymous tagger is correct that the "tone" or "style" of the section does not comport with Wikipedia, would you please briefly tell me why, and I will try to change it. I'll look for your response here. Thanks so much! - Babel41 (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Babel41: I'll take a very good, and critical, look at it, and, where necessary, comment on it! Thanks for your thrust, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet it's the bullit-lists; plain text is to be preferred. But I've pinged the IP; we'll see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How I appreciate this! If Wikipedia (i.e., you) insists, I will turn the bullet points into standard prose. But I think that would be unwise. In this instance, where we're reporting briefly on many complicated political positions, I really think the bullet-point structure enhances readability and clarity. In fact, I have never seen a clearer brief statement of radical-centrist policy positions anywhere. I note with some pride that, even w/o the Macron boost from the last three days, vierership is up by 300% since I helped substantially revise this article back in February 2013. - Babel41 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Babel41: well, let's wait and see if the IP responds. If they don't, 'problem solved', so to speak. In case of doubt, you may also consult an editor who knows a lot more about such 'technical' questions. an dmaybe the IP has got some usefull feedback. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow it will be a week since you pinged the IP, and so far as I can tell there's been no response. In the meanwhile, I have revisited MOS:LIST and can find no grounds for objecting to the list. Wikipedia explicitly allows informational lists that are properly introduced and are grouped by theme and assist in expressing ideas clearly.

In my ideal world, you will now remove the IP user's maintenance tag and inform him or her that, since he or she provided no basis for their objection to the section's tone or list, and since you cannot think of one yourself, you as a senior Wikipedia editor are hereby removing it. I will then add my concurrence.

Well, as I say, that is my ideal scenario. But I hope you will do something. It is painful for me to watch a section that took easily over 100 hours to prepare, and that has been viewed w/o incident by at least 200,000 people since 2013, be discredited (in the name of Wikipedia!) by one anonymous viewer who did not even bother to state his or her objections. Or am I too thin-skinned for this line of work? Best, - Babel41 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Babel41: editing at Wikipedia can be demanding, indeed. But I'd say: remove the tag yourself, and explain why at the talkpage. You've waited a week indeed. Otherwise, ask for additional comments, for example at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

I've noticed some striking similarities between your edits and those of Ms Sarah Welch—have you been mentoring her? And do you always work as a team? WikiEditorial101 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Hinduism and Buddhism, my friend. No, she's my sockpuppet, of course (that's a joke). Seriously: we both have the strange habit to use WP:RS, and more of such weird habits, conveniently called following Wiki-policy. I'm a little bit more familiair with Buddhism;Ms Sarah Welch knows incredible much about Hinduism, and the scholarship about Hinduism. If she makes a statement, it usually is to the point, and supported with very good academic sources. We do have some disagreements, though, and dare to disagree. But I highly regard her opinions and insights. And no, we do not work as a team, but we do collaborate on many articles, sharing information and sources, and answering questions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all joking aside, she cannot possibly be your sock. Because she's mine. But technically she is your sock because I'm your sock :-D WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ready with sources for Krishnamurti edit.

How to discuss this edit, or add thoroughly sourced content?

PRP797 (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnamurti also wrote a number of books.

Writing include his Notebook, Journal, Commentaries on Living (three volumes), The First and Last Freedom, among others. PRP797 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also have primary sources for Krishnamurti's examinations of influence.

How can I add these? PRP797 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tathāgatagarbha

You may be interested in this article. The quality of the entries in Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism is impressing. JimRenge (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC) JimRenge thanks! I'll read it. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you call Buddhists Atheists?

Hi Joshua, I've been quite intrigued with this belief system, and keen to become one! In fact, one of the most intriguing things of Buddhism is, unlike other "religions", they have no belief of higher power, and want to focus more on humanist ideas instead (which may make Buddhism not really a religion). What do you think of Buddhism being "atheism"? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 00:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesomemeeos: personally I'm an atheist, sort of, but I'm really interested in why people believe and what it means for them. and there are plenty of Buddhist teachers who combine Christianity and Buddhism. So, I think that it's actually not so relevant if you're an atheist or not. Central to Buddhism is self-restraint and compassion; als, that's the same for Christianity. And see also Apophatic theology for some compelling similarities between Buddhism and Christianity (not to mention Gnosticism). All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting; something that I never thought was possible! However, I want to ask a more personal question about you. It's simple. Are you an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 09:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghee, I don't know. I quit church, and for me, personally, I don't believe there is a God, but I can understand that people experience a God. "Sunyata" comes closer to my experience of 'absolute'. But the really relevant question is: how do you live? That is: how do you live with others? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to you, I was forced especially by my mum to go to Church when I was young (she was a Protestant Christian). Realising now, it was the most beautiful brainwashing ever, when I faced reality and dared to think independently (with the help of true reality). I try to live a happy, safe and successful life. From what you said, it looks like you're an agnostic atheist. I have many friends of different backgrounds, cultures, beliefs, faiths, religions etc; and me being a cosmopolitan, I try my best to respect their identity and opinions. However, I feel a little concerned with "religious fanatics" - they can be very radical in their beliefs and probably convince non-believers to not believe in their religions. My friends say that they're Buddhists, they are very cool about their belief, and also don't believe in a higher power. That's why I'm thinking about being a Buddhist one day (most likely Tibetan) — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 00:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, I was never 'forced' to go to church, but I do have a Christian background, and it's part of who I am. More Than Anyone Can Do], by Ton Lathouwers, is my favorite book on Buddhism; have a look at it for a 'free-thinking' brand of western Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: one of the most puzzling aspects of Buddhism is that there is no 'hard core list' of what it is. It's no math or physics. When you read the sutras, you'll find stories and a lot of lists, but no definite "definition" (this I say after almost thirty years of Buddhism...). Those lists are interconnected, and point to each other. You'll have to study it and get it 'under your skin' to "get the idea" and get a grip on "it." And yet, the basics are simple: be a good human being. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Ton Lathouwers: “Religie is niet teksten lezen en bidden – maar dat er iets gebeurt in ons hart”. I hope Google translate works fine, in addition to your language skills. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my edits ?

Deshastha Brahmin page edits ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil.joshi.d (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at the talkpage there, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian background?

Hi, in the earlier talk we had above, it said that you had a Christian background. What does that mean? Were you brought up as a Christian? Are you simply 'culturally Christian'? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 11:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vrijzinnig Protestants. It means it was part of my childhood, but not in a pronounced way. "Love thy neighbor," so to speak. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

please revert only the disagreement edits, you are reverting two separate edits at once. one of them is just a UNESCO listing with official reference provided in the article. please check and read both edits before reverting things ok! Dont just mass edit!1NepalPatriot (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1NepalPatriot: Please read the Talk page archives of that article. For example, Joshua Jonathan and other editors have already discussed Buddha and UNESCO stuff in past. That discussion is a part of Archive 10, Archive 9 and others too. Please stop edit warring, and review WP:3RR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1NepalPatriot: you're giving absolutely WP:UNDUE weight to this one specific source, which neatly suits your agenda. See WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so UNESCO listing is WP:UNDUE and other sources with no credibility stating some unknown villages of india are Due? Wow.. Clap! I think you should remove teachings of buddha from your page when you clearly dont support true sources 1NepalPatriot (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1NepalPatriot:, your edit manipulated quotes by Gethin and Walsh and removed Piprahwa from another sentence, disrupting text/source integrity. Please read WP:NPOV. JimRenge (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kapilvastu is clearly in Nepal so there was nothing related about piprahwa to be put there? However, this is wikipedia and of course ignorance wins so you win..1NepalPatriot (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1NepalPatriot: Once again read through the archives. Scholars debate where the ancient Kapilvastu was? If the Nepali or the Indian government names yet another village or town as Kapilvastu, it does not automatically make the newly named place the same as the ancient one. Please drop this WP:Battleground approach, and those snide remarks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point! the earliest inscription about kapilvastu is from Ashokan pillar which dates back to 423 BC, the newly named places are the ones in India, why?- they have no inscriptions about themselves that dates back to before the ashokan pillar inscriptions! So do your maths. So is the original(oldest) one a copy or a copy(newer ones) is the original one then? It should be very obvious that the indian cities claims have neither proof nor base and are clearly noticeably copies from the 423 BC pillar writings ( and this ashokan pillar has no debate on any articles where it was made, in present day Nepal! )1NepalPatriot (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC tag

It should be removed, or else people will find it on the list of opened RCFs, see this category[7], with your edit[8] it is reappearing there. Capitals00 (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00: you're right WP:RFCEND; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I noticed that multiple ips from the US (probably the same person) are making questionable edits on haplogroup R1a. Since you are familiar with the article and the topic, i wanted to inform you. In addition, i am not sure but i think those ips as well as other ips edit warring with @Jytdog: on Anatole Klyosov belong to the same user (Barefact). Probably a WP:SCRUTINY case. 185.69.152.193 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same user reworded the sentence[9]. I doubt that this rewording is perfectly in line with the sources 185.69.152.193 (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Age India and Iron Age India

Hello, Bronze Age India and Iron Age India titles were recently changed without any agreement. Can you please change it back to the original title until consensus is reached? (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

"South Asia" seems to be more apt. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"India" in this case is historical geography, not the nation state. This was already established in the talk page of Indian subcontinent. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

You are right. But, as you note, it is an ambiguous term, and some people don't like the ambiguity. We should use India, where it appears in WP:COMMONNAMEs, but South Asia in other places. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie's World

@Kautilya3 and Ms Sarah Welch: did you ever read Sophie's World? It has a subchapter on the Indo-Europeans, arguing that Greek and Indian philophy and religion share similarities because of their shared Indo-European roots. Gaarder argues that knowledge and vision play an important role in both worldviews. It makes sense to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't read it. Makes sense though. Much overlap in their mythologies and ideas. Will read it. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blog

Hello Joshua, I removed [10] the link to the personal website of Susan Kahn [11] because we should avoid such links per WP:ELNO "except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" JimRenge (tal) 11: 27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@JimRenge:my consideration is point 1 of the same sector of elno; the blog provides a clearing explanation of sunyata. Especially the point that sunyata is not a transcendental reality, that there is no 'real reality' beyond the world of appearnces is explained here in an accessible way makes this blog worthfull to link to, I think. But, I do see your point here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javierfv1212

JJ, @JimRenge: Javierfv1212 may be worth a watch. I noticed and commented on problem edits by Javierfv1212 many months ago. They seem to be back, now with problem edits in Buddhism and related articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had the impression he's a good editor. I'll keep an eye on future edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Un-know thyself !!

Reminded by your Apophaticism note, I came across Rubenstein's Unknow thyself essay in Modern Theology. I will email it you for convenience. Dense text it is, but interesting. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; looks interesting. I'm printing it now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deities (or not) in Buddhism

Hello again. I thought that I heard that Buddhism was overall a non-theistic philosophy. However, I thought that I heard that some bhikkus and bhikkunis are considered to be gods. How is this 'god' phenomenon explained? Does a realm exist in Buddhism where there are deities in it? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 09:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesomemeeos: I've never heard of bhikkus whowere considered to be gods, though there is veneration of holy men (and women?) in Buddhism. And yes, there are gods, gogd-realms, and Buddha-realms in Buddhism. See Buddhist cosmology. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry about the 'bhikku' and 'bhikkuni', I actually meant to say Bodhisattvas. Interesting phenomenon, about the different 'god-realms' seen in Mahayana Buddhism. Have you ever heard of Secular Buddhism? It's a modern and more progressive type of Buddhism. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 11:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prasaṅgika

Hey Josh, made extensive edits to the Madhyamaka Prasangika page. Please no touchie. References and further editing will be forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3008:207:2c00:21ed:5b99:dcb3:cc74 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh,

Please note, I wrote the original article on Prasangika three years ago.

I'm logging in from a different computer, but this article is - at its core - my work.

Please allow me to finish the work I started three years ago.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3008:207:2c00:94d5:b62e:5b81:3d4b (talk • contribs) 06:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which user-account? The page is much older than three years. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavad Gita

ip is also on my talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC) @Doug Weller: I noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Er

Hello, Joshua Jonathan – I hope you are well. I was just looking at the latest edits to Myth of Er. I don't know about the addition of verse, but in the two edits before this one, it appears the editor added material that is unsourced. Is this possibly an instance of original research? I leave it up to you to decide what, if anything, to do. – Corinne (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, in the edit just previous to the diff, although the paragraph begins the same, the new paragraph is longer – some material was added in the middle of the paragraph about the Matrix. – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: I've reverted the edits. Interesting article, by the way; I've linked it from Christ myth theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan migration

Please add this info.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? The technical details, which is the subject of the largest part of the article?

On June 17, The Hindu published an article by Tony Joseph (“How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate”) on current genetic research in India and stated that “scientists are converging” on the Aryan migration to the Subcontinent around 2000-1500 BC. This conclusion was mainly based on the results obtained from the paternally inherited markers (Y chromosome), published on March 23, 2017 in a scientific journal, BMC Evolutionary Biology, by a team of 16 co-authors including Martin P. Richards of the University of Huddersfield, which compiled and analysed Y chromosome data mainly from the targeted South Asian populations living in the U.K. and U.S. However, anyone who understands the complexity of Indian population will appreciate that Indians living outside the Subcontinent do not reflect the full diversity of India, as the majority of them are from caste populations with limited subset of regions.

Or the last lines by Chaubey & Thangaraj, and Joseph's response, to which the title of the article refer?

C&T: With the information currently available, it is difficult to deduce the direction of haplogroup R1a migration either into India or out of India, although the genetic data certainly show that there was migration between the regions.

Jospeh: But the rejoinder makes no reference to a single peer-reviewed genetic study that makes a serious case for ‘Out of India’. If the hypothesis were tenable at all, shouldn’t there have been many peer-reviewed papers by now making the case and fleshing out the details?

C&T's comment that the conclusion that "“scientists are converging” on the Aryan migration to the Subcontinent around 2000-1500 BC" is "mainly based on the results obtained from the paternally inherited markers (Y chromosome)" is wrong, and patently misleading. Joseph is right: there is a strong concencus on the direction of Indo-Aryan migrations. Comments like these are only notable for their resistance to mainstream insights. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thangaraj is a geneticist published in the world's top journals. Joseph is not a geneticist. And Joseph focuses mainly on one flawed paper. That is not consensus. And how can you sample Indians living in the UK, get a limited diversity Y chromosome, and then claim that limited diversity gives direction? That makes no sense JJ.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yoga physiology

The article Yoga physiology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This information is redundant with the main Yoga article and is misleading in its title, as no actual physiology is discussed or sourced. The article title misleads the user in believing yoga is a form of physiology which is a medically and scientifically defined discipline

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zefr (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove templates

Hi Joshua, How do you generate WikiLove posts without cheesy messages like this? These templates ignore everything I write and put their own message! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navayana Buddhism

JJ:, @JimRenge: I updated the Navayana article a bit for a quick fix. Please check, revise and add. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Udumbara (Falun Gong)

A year ago I found in Google search has 3000000 for Udumbara by Falun Gong.

Please helping write Udumbra by Falun Gong from sources : ^[1] ^[2]

Base Buddhism's book and ^[3] then Udumbra (by Falun Gong) is Chrysopidae eggs and photoshop. See more, or translate from in ^[4]

References

Thank you very much. Nguyenquocminhminh (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nguyenquocminhminh: wow! I'll read the article you've created tomorrow; this topic is totally unknown to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caste system in India

Need tell you have already made 3 reverts on Caste system in India, any more reverts can lead to block for edit warring. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder; I know. Now please start following other Wiki-policies as well, and try to understand RegentPark's comment on the inclusion of genetic research. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto-Hinduism

I saw this new article today and wondered if this is compatible with GNG. JimRenge (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: GNG? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, GNG. JimRenge (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: The article is in poor shape, with youtube etc non-RS cited. However, the topic is notable because there are WP:RS on crypto-Hinduism (and crypto-Judaism, crypto-Buddhism, crypto-Islam for that matter) in the South Asian and Southeast Asian context. People were sentenced to death for the "crime". See, for example, pages 346-347 of this published by BRILL. I suggest we remove the non-RS there and tag it for refimprove for now. Others or we can work on it and add RS when we find time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch:, yes, sources do exist. I have removed one sentence which was sourced to a youtube video (primary source). The "Indonesia" section is unsourced and may be off topic. JimRenge (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help

@Ms Sarah Welch: I need some help on the page Rally for Rivers. I want to expand it and need someone to help me IndianEditor (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about it, sorry I am the wrong person. This is JJ's talk page, may be the wrong place for such requests. Is it a notable topic, the article reads like a plug? Please consider asking for help/guidance on WP:TEAHOUSE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction

Hey Josh, we've been going back and forth on the Svatantrika-Prasangika distinction page. I would appreciate if you could give me a wider birth to flesh out references and materials. I've been a practising Tibetan Buddhist (and a student of Prasangika) for 12 years under a Geshe Lharampa and another gentleman who trained with the foremost living Prasangika's on the planet, including a number of H.H. The Dalai Lama's personal instructors. I understand that our writing styles and approaches differ, but I'd appreciate your patience in careful and intentional development of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dienekles (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time; I have doubts, though, about adding lengthy* explanations and examples without sources; this may be undue, and making the article less clear. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it does take time. There are very few of my lengthy explanations left that have not been backed up thoroughly with credible sources. Admittedly, I have used poor judgement in one or two cases in regards to an example or a long-winded personal thought. That being said, I have condensed and reinforced almost all my material with very high quality scholarship. Please note places you'd like to see more sources, rather than removing large sections and re-arranging text before I've had a chance to complete the thoughts. Best Regards.Dienekles (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dienekles: your edits are defintely improving the article (except for "it makes sense to speak of inherent existence); most pressing point are the long quotes; leave them in the notes, it's better for the flow. Personally, I prefer to edit only when I've got the sources available and can add them right-away. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: I agree on the quotes. I am parring those down and placing most of them in notes. There are few key quotes and points I have pulled back out because they are critical to the overall position. Let's work together, rather than against each other. Dienekles (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, they represent the consensus of the wp community. JimRenge (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: I'll bet he's hardly aware of those guidelines. So far, his edits did improve the article, I think, but so far I find his attitude highly annoying... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He presents an inside view based on historical religious texts without adding secondary sources that critically analyze these texts. WP:OR may look like an improvement, it still violates our OR policy. Articles in an encyclopedia differ from preaching or a religious brochure, dhamma wiki, rigpa wiki etc. Articles about religious topics are not owned by the religious group(s) that hold these views. We do not present articles about products from the point of view of their manufacturer - although the producer may be extremely competent. I have sent him a uw2 de but it seems he can not "hear" it. JimRenge (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: I have added large sections to the part of the discussion about the particular viewpoint of one figure, with extensive referencing outside himself. I have also requested that others - who have knowledge outside of my niche interest - to fill in the sections on Modern Scholarship, Critiques, Non-Gelug Interpretation... etc etc. I have also repeatedly asked Josh to open dialogue concerning any key points of the section I have expanded upon, and I have been ignored. I have also praised his ability to par down certain elements and make them much more understandable. However, the edits he is undertaking now are incredibly destructive to the integrity of the philosophical argument being made by Tsongkhapa. He needs to take more care and discuss how those edits are being made, and what to include and exclude. I'm new-ish to the ways in which things are done here, so I made some mistakes.Dienekles (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dienekles (talk • contribs) 08:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help in posting it? Read WP:BOOMERANG first, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits of User:Dienekles at Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction have been extensively discussed at Talk:Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction#Recent changes. Strong objections have been voiced against his "flooding of the article with more text referenced to historical religious sources which are are not independent" diff; other editors have also commented diff diff; to no avail.
Dienekles has received multiple hints and warnings

diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff

At 05:08 WET I placed the "In use" tag at top of the article diff and started editing.
Despite this, at 05:24 Dienekles started ediiting too diff
07:11 first revert by Dienekles diff
At 07.19 I warned him at his talkpage that the page was in use diff
At 07:20, I reverted his revert first time diff: "note the tag at top, and stay away"
At 07:22, second revert by Dienekles diff
At 07:23 I gave him a formal warning at his talkpage diff
At 07:41, I opened a new thread at the talkpage regarding the editing by Dienekles, despite the "in use" tag diff
At 07:45, second revert by me, after tryng to understand what exactly he had been doing diff: "what a mess..."
At 07:53 third revert by Dienekles diff
Meanwhile, at 07:53 I'd restarted editing at a next section diff, apparently unaware of his third revert
At 07:54 I gave him a level 4 warning at his talkpage diff
08:04, fourth revert by Dienekles diff

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varna

You removed [12] this

The sources are totally perfect and now if you you think my grammar isn't good please add that in your own wording. GhostProducer (talk)18:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pure WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this Original Research??? . I am not saying Varna can be changed Sources are saying.Then how is this Original Research GhostProducer (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??? No reply Should I add it back??? GhostProducer (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment at Talk:Varna (Hinduism)#What is your problem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You might want to comment on this Sockpuppet investigation. PepperBeast (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrawiya

Hello, Joshua Jonathan – I just finished copy-editing Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani, and looked at the linked article Kubrawiya because just below the lede is a red link to Kubrawi and I wanted to know if there was another article to which I could link it. I started to read the article on Kubrawiya, and I saw several errors right at the beginning. The whole article probably needs a copy-edit, but for now, I'll just ask you about the first sentence:

The Kubrawiyya order (Arabic: سلسلة کبرویة‎‎) is one of the Sufi orders and way that trace its direct spiritual lineage and chain (silsilah) to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, through Ali, Muhammad's cousin, son-in-law and the First Imam, via Imam Ali raza.

We've got singular "Kubrawiyya order" (with two "y's" even though the title has only one "y"), followed by "one of the Sufi orders and way" (if "way" is essential, it should be either "ways" or "a way"), followed by an adjective clause ("that trace...") with a plural verb. Finally, I think "raza" should be capitalized. Can you (or any tps) help sort this sentence out so that it is grammatically correct and clear? – Corinne (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: would you know some Pakistani/Islamic editors who can help here? Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne and JJ, I did a bold edit and cleaned it up. I don't think Kubrawi is any different from Kubrawiya. LouisAragon, please check my edit and correct if necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why can't you explain why the ACIM article should be rubbish?

What is this, a gang bang? Nobody willing to discuss with me exactly why they believe a book summary shouldn't be in an article lead, but everyone happy to do the ole "gang bang?" Nice. Please tell me why you don't think an article summary should be in an article lead? Scott P. (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab

Hello, Joshua Jonathan – I was just looking at the latest edits to Punjab; an editor struggled with getting the right degree of decimal point approximation for an altitude change, but I think it's all right now. If I have time, I may change 0.2 to a fraction, which is more comprehensible for those used to inches, but that's all. I came here to ask you whether you thought there might be too many images in this article, particularly in the Punjab#Photo gallery. How would one go about selecting those to keep and those to remove? Feel free to make that determination and remove some. – Corinne (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divine madness

Hi. I've made a suggestion for renaming Divine madness (religion) on its talk page. PopSci (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PopSci: Thanks for the note on my talk page. @WikiEditorial101: how are you? you may also want to peek at PopSci's suggestion and comment! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dashavtar

Don't start editing war at Dashavtara page If u know than answer me that HOW CAN THERE BE TWO INCARNATIONS OF THE LORD AT SAME PLACE AND TIME ON EARTH? Dbkatira (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless topic; sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dbkatira: Please avoid using capitals, unsourced arguments and edit warring with Joshua Jonathan. This issue of two or more incarnations is well debated in Vaishnavism, since Parashurama never dies, he meets Vishnu avatars and others in Hindu epics/mythologies. It is a part of the dvaita / advaita / etc debate, and the short answer is that Vishnu is neither two nor many in these interesting debates. He (more accurately it, since the word is gender-neutral) is envisioned as everything and nothing and what is beyond everything+nothing... etc etc etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-being contributing factors

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for creating Well-being contributing factors! Dr.enh (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.enh: thank you! That's very kind! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Swami Chetanananda (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swami Chetanananda (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Chetanananda (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Certes (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroaster

Hello, JJ – What do you think of these edits to Zoroaster? See also the comments at User talk:Vsmith#Article on Zoroaster. – Corinne (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: I think it's okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks! – Corinne (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actions against Eguthier and EWR925

Could we back up on the blocking of these two users? I know them IRL and can confirm that they are as they say, students working on a wikipedia editing project. I had introduced them earlier this semester to the process and am hoping to encourage students and faculty to continue to engage with this platform in a way that is constructive to the quality of the encyclopedia . Coming in hard like you've done in this case is exactly the kind of lesson I had not wanted them to walk away from the experience with- we need to Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers to ensure the future development of diverse editors and I don't feel that this was constructive in that regard, where an in-talk conversation and suggestions would have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardjames444 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've got a job to do giving them a better introduction to Wikipedia... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha and there you have it. Perfect example of the Wikipedia establishment's arrogance and hostility. Capstone example of why Wikipedia's future is limited. I have 45 minutes in class to introduce the basic editorial standards and processes. I have tended to end the classes with the note that Wikipedia can be very unfriendly and clubby, so it looks like I was right on the money with that point even if I missed other essentials. Richardjames444 (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not an example of helpfull "in-talk conversation and suggestions," and not very helpfull in encouraging such conversations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: more helpfull would be to ask to lift the block. Someone like Drmies probably knows exactly where to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Joshua Jonathan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
—MBL ^Talk 05:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Bon & Buddhism

Hi - you may be interested in this: Bon and Buddhism, Two Faces of the Same Coin? By Professor Per Kværne.
Chris Fynn (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vastu Shastra

The new pseudoscience on the block?

The Chakrabarti book seems reasonable. Perhaps a deeper study of it can lead to better content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Indeed. A backdoor way to plug Hinduism into 6000 BCE! Safely 3000 years before the Egyptian pyramids, which to the best of our knowledge started around 2700 BCE, and then the rest! Imagine, 6000 BCE! Why not go one step further. Bhimbetka cave drawings are probably from ~30,000 BCE.... call it vastu sastra! I see some IP just did that today in Bhimbetka rock shelters. Klostermaier is cited as support, but I can't find Klostermair stating Bhimbetka is the "earliest evidence of dance and music in India". Please check. That article needs some watch. Much source misrepresentation and WP:TE, possibly out of over-enthusiasm in a series of articles by the same IP. It may be unrelated to the issues in the Vastu Shastra article, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history

[3] ttps://www.google.com.vn/search?q=Udumbara&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1wLzhx9bVAhXBNI8KHXccB7AQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=794#imgrc=_

[4] ttps://www.google.com.vn/search?biw=1600&bih=794&q=Udumbara%2BFalun+dafa&oq=Udumbara%2BFalun+dafa&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4047.10366.0.11454.19.16.3.0.0.0.360.1646.6j6j0j1.13.0.foo%2Cnso-ehuqi%3D1%2Cnso-ehuui%3D1%2Cewh%3D0%2Cnso-mplt%3D2%2Cnso-enksa%3D0%2Cnso-enfk%3D1%2Cnso-usnt%3D1%2Cnso-qnt-npqp%3D0-1701%2Cnso-qnt-npdq%3D0-54%2Cnso-qnt-npt%3D0-1%2Cnso-qnt-ndc%3D300%2Ccspa-dspm-nm-mnp%3D0-05%2Ccspa-dspm-nm-mxp%3D0-125%2Cnso-unt-npqp%3D0-17%2Cnso-unt-npdq%3D0-54%2Cnso-unt-npt%3D0-0602%2Cnso-unt-ndc%3D300%2Ccspa-uipm-nm-mnp%3D0-007525%2Ccspa-uipm-nm-mxp%3D0-052675...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..4.10.1064...35i39k1j0i13k1j0i30k1j0i8i10i30k1j0i8i30k1j0i8i13i10i30k1j33i160k1.g1w4OTRtpOQ

[5] ttps://www.google.com.vn/search?q=Chrysopidae+eggs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqmMSGydbVAhUSSI8KHVdbBQ0Q_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=794

[6] ttps://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoa_%C6%AFu_%C4%90%C3%A0m

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]