User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2024

Happy New Year, Joshua Jonathan!

Happy New Year!

Joshua Jonathan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reversion of edits

you stated when you reverted my edit that'the authorship may be disputed, but not the fact that it is a Sikh-text'but if the texts were not written by guru Gobind Singh the supposed author in question then it cannot be considered a sikh text as it was written by some rando and not the Sikh Guru Dopplegangman (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Says which WP:RS? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WIitzel's translation of RV into German

Do you have a copy of the second volume by any chance? Thought you might have a copy ... TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: no, sorry... I mostly rely on English translatations. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I prefer Witzel's in parts but cannot trace my copy. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism page

@Joshua Jonathan Happy new year and best wishes...Thanks for correcting my mistake for [1]I - I missed that the google books cited skipped page 22 and went straight to page 24 after page 21! Also, its interesting you mentioned "Hindu-traditions also don't derive their "core teachings and beliefs" from the Vedas, but just "play lip service" to their authority," - I also read something similar recently in a reading I was doing, but that was for many Hindus in general now-a-days, not for the Hindu-traditions/schools of thoughts. Also, seems Michaels says something similar "Most Indians today merely pay lip service...". My change there was just to add clarity to the sentence that Buddhism, Jainism didn't consider vedas as authorities. Asteramellus (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four stages of awakening page - reversion of edits

To be continued at Talk:Four stages of awakening#Four stages of awakening page - reversion of edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi @Joshua Jonathan!

Thank you for your feedback on my edits on the Four stages of awakening page! I agree with some of your points, but if you could help me better understand your reversions, I’d really appreciate it. Learning from them would definitely help me become a better editor.

Regarding undisputed information:

I agree with your point that the information under Origins is common knowledge based on its original sources. I felt that including a specific citation could be helpful in accompanying the example introduced of the Visuddhimagga, but I agree with you nonetheless. Thank you for pointing this out.
Under Stream-enterer, however, I still feel that a citation would be helpful since the first paragraph seems to include two quotations—“one who enters (āpadyate) the stream (sotas),” and “opened the eye of the Dharma.” How can we consider that a reference is provided for this when there is no citation?

Regarding distorted meaning:

In my edits, I tried to cut down on repeated words that do not hinder the meaning of the passages. For example, in Line 2, I changed, “The four stages of awakening in Early Buddhism and Theravada are four progressive stages…” to “The four stages of awakening in Early Buddhism and Theravada are progressive…” I felt this was more concise and improved the flow when reading. There are a few such edits, but I am unsure how they are distorting meaning as I've retained the key information.
Moreover, I understand that I removed the third paragraph under the Origins heading which I felt didn’t add to the main idea of the heading/page. The paragraph before it succinctly describes the relevance of the Visuddhimagga, so I felt this additional detail about the treatise was not entirely relevant.
Finally, I felt that splitting the paragraphs under the Path and Fruit heading would be ideal since it was originally quite long.

Thank you again for your feedback! If you could help me understand some of these changes, I’d greatly appreciate it! Lunulla (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A cup of chai for you!

Thank you for your work on reverting various vandalism specifically on religions articles. Tusharhero (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tusharhero: cheers! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sikhism page

i noticed the most recent edit made to the Sikhism page has taken down one of your edits of the disputation of the dasam and sarbloh granth removing the word disputed but keeping the source this seems like and unconstructive edit made by User:MaplesyrupSushi and i was wondering if you could change it back as i am not an auto confirmed user yet IAMTHETRUESTREPAIRMAN (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

use this source for the sarbloh granth

https://sikhunity.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/debate-on-the-sri-dasam-granth/#:~:text=Sarbloh%20Granth%20is%20even%20more,known%20as%20%E2%80%9CDasam%20Granth%E2%80%9D.

as i belive it is better than the original IAMTHETRUESTREPAIRMAN (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sock

9lives2.0 editing is very similar to a recently banned account:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ultra8K

They both are using the same arguments, edit similar pages and have similar writing styles.

See the discussion here where 9lives2.0 is backing up the now banned account of Ultra8K:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sinhalese_people#Sinhalese_dna_study

Metta79 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Metta79: yes, I noticed; they're an obvious sock. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

. Thanks Shoshie8 (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism page

Hi @Joshua Jonathan sorry to ping you here, but I saw on Hinduism page edits for the sub-sections heading changes - not sure if the intention is to keep "Hindu modernism" under "Vaidika dharma" - seems formatting mistake? Asteramellus (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteramellus: you're right; thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits in the Ayodhya dispute page

Hello Joshua,

I hope you are doing good. It's good to see that you contribute to the Ayodhya dispute page. I have made some recent edits about the 1885 petition to construct a temple and the verdict of its appeal by the Faizabad district court in 1886. Can you review my edits to verify if the sources mentioned are valid and if the wording of these edits is as per Wikipedia guidelines? Thank you. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsskchaitanya: looks okay to me, except that you put it in the lead; you should use the lead for a summary, and put the details in the body of the article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. Will try to abridge the lede as you said. Have a great day ahead mate. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with References section on Hinduism page

Hi @Joshua Jonathan I noticed that on Hinduism page, References section layout is 2 columns and right side is not in "sync" with left side. I was wondering if you know why it is like that and best way to fix those extra spaces on left side. Is that formatting done manually? Asteramellus (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteramellus: we can use either a number, e.g. "2," or define the width of the columns, e.g. "35em." Presently, the width is not defined; at my screen, I see three columns, so your two columns (and my three) is related to some preferences stored God-knows-where. If you like, try to define the number or width of the columns in the references-section; just see what happens. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes let me try out. Thanks. Asteramellus (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok...just tried looking futher - seems it "auto-changes" based on the width of our browser window. Depending on the width, it shows up as just single column listing of references (if browser width is small) or two (as in my case) or what you got - as three. You must have a bit larger browser width than me. But can't figure out why for me right side is "longer" than left side. And I thought I had messed up while removing the not used printed sources few days back. Asteramellus (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your edits on the Vipassana Movement Talk page

Hi, please discuss the "potential for harm" section here before deleting it again, since it's hard for people to have a discussion of text that they can't see. Talk:Vipassana_movement#"Potential_for_harm". Arided (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, including a diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quote for you

A good quote for you since you have faced this superficial "everything was invented in India" notion many times on Wikipedia.

Aldous Huxley wrote about that in his book [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Jesting_Pilate/fdlaAAAAMAAJ?hl=en Jesting Pilate The Diary of a Journey] in 1926 that:

"In the course of the last thirty or forty years a huge pseudo-historical literature has sprung up in India, the melancholy product of a subject people's inferiority complex. Industrious and intelligent men have wasted their time and their abilities in trying to prove that the ancient Hindus were superior to every other people in every activity of life. Thus, each time the West has announced a new scientific discovery, misguided scholars have ransacked Sanskrit literature to find a phrase that might be interpreted as a Hindu anticipation of it. A sentence of a dozen words, obscure even to the most accomplished Sanskrit scholars, is triumphantly quoted to prove that the ancient Hindus were familiar with the chemical constitution of water. Remarkable people, these old Hindus. They knew everything that we know or, indeed, are likely to discover, at any rate until India is a free country; but they were unfortunately too modest to state the fact baldly and in so many words. Such are the melancholy and futile occupations of intelligent men who have the misfortune to belong to a subject race. Free men would never dream of wasting their time and wit upon such vanities."

Cheers, Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996: a quote to read with a deep breath... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation Third Opinion

Hi, I'm trying to start a WP:3O on meditation. I think that makes more sense than an RFC since it's just you and me arguing. BTW, I don't understand why you put "arbitrary header #1" etc. on the talk page. Did my formatting offend you? Anyway, I hope I'm phrasing our disagreement neutrally and accurately. I'm going to hold off on listing it to make sure you agree with my characterizations. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DolyaIskrina: when a talkpage-text becomes long, it's convenient to shorten the part to be loaded when editing by adding those "arbitrary headers." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks. I often tweak the indentations on talk pages for clearer demarcation of who said what. I worried I had done something untoward. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Joshua Jonathan!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look

Have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: thanks; totally escaped my attention. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have a look at these changes by a new user. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I noticed too, but this one seems to be okay. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Sutras page

Hi @Joshua Jonathan not sure if you saw this - I was going to revert as disruptive edits by the IP, but wanted to see if you are thinking the same. Asteramellus (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ateramellus: seems like a knowledgeable editor to me. I only wonder why they removed the link to Achintya Bheda Abheda? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks. I was a bit unsure about some of the terms that were used, which seemed somewhat inconsistent. Asteramellus (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reflist-talk

Hi Joshua, the reflist-talk usually includes not only the sources mentioned in a single editor's reply/comment, but also all the other sources mentioned in other editors' replies in that section. That's why the sources that were not mentioned by me, but by StarkReport, are also there. So ideally, it should be at the very bottom of the section. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Valley Civilisation Contradictory

What contradictory Afghanistan's Indus sites are just trading posts not important to the IVC sites India and Pakistan has if Afghanistan is included in the civilisation extended then why Daimabad in Maharashtra is not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:E280:3D48:133:B5F2:E934:7277:2C18 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan Do you have any argument for this, during the Indus Valley Civilizations prime period it was mostly centered around Indus between the Indus and Ganges rivers. 2402:E280:3D48:133:5C5E:C4CC:5B88:20A6 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hinduism#Adding "INFOBOX RELIGION"

@Joshua Jonathan You have not responded on the talk page section which you were previously active on, and you simply removed the infobox without any discussion. What is the reason? If you have any further points comment, but you are refusing to discuss and bent on taking action Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh496: responded to what? Your message All right folks, adding it on the main page now. Hopefully no backlash.? I've discussed this through and through; if you go through the talkpage-thread again, it should be quite obvious to you that there is a strong opposition to add this infobox. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, the messages above it! I have tagged you multiple times over the few days Pharaoh496 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take that as a non-consent. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Tantras" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tantras has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 7 § Tantras until a consensus is reached. JIP | Talk 19:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plz follow NPOV at article Ram Mandir

Hello, I'm BlackOrchidd. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackOrchidd: the term "controversial" is an understatement; NPOV requires the mention of it. Wikipedia is not a free hosting-site for religious PR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: you reverted my edit at Balak Ram murti (idol) of the Ram Mandir, not Ram Mandir; need some help with editing? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandragupta Muarya

Hy, Can I Know the Reason why u Reverted my Edit? It is stated in the Source, Chandragupta Muarya Later Converted to Jainism DeepstoneV (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeepstoneV: I think that my edit-summary was quite clear: "Hinduism" didn't exist t that time. That an author calls him a "Hindu Brahmanical king" is an error on the side of the author. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism & Jainism Are two Different things & Jainism Religion existed DeepstoneV (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category bombing IP

Also bombing Witchcraft, Asian witchcraft, European witchcraft, Neopagan witchcraft, Witchcraft in North America, etc. Perhaps you could watchlist? Some of the categories added might be appropriate, but IP editor should open a discussion on the talk page and only categories for which there is a consensus should be added! Skyerise (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adi Shankara. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. PastaMonk 18:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, ever heard of "Don't template the regulars"? Getting annoyed when you don't have sufficient arguments to get it your way? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: diff. A retaliatory action in response to the warning you received. Which you first posted at the talkpage of Adi Shankara diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He forgot to post one on your talk page. Just trying to be helpful 😁😁 PastaMonk 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't forget. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer:Sarcasm is lost on some people. You need a minimum IQ to get it 😁

@Joshua Jonathan: re : "you don't have sufficient arguments to get it your way". I don't care about getting my way any more. I quit editing Wikipedia more than 10 years ago due to to the Orc invasion. Sometimes I see something in a page that can be improved I try to help. Most of the time there is some Orc reverting all edits without rhyme or reason. I try to reason with him. Most of the time in true Orc fashion he does not get it. Then I say to to him. Have it your way. I quit. PastaMonk 20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never have I ever ... started into the week facing personal attacks. I can't drink, so I'll count — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to ping me on my own userpage... Regarding the term "orc," see the warning at your talkpage diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and call the admins 😁 Do you think most people give a rat's ass about being able to edit Wikipedia ?? They don't care even if they I can't "view" Wikipedia. If they can't see Wikipedia they will view Britannica or some other site. Grow up dude 😁 BTW, I reverted your edits to my talk page. I extend a cordial invitation to start another edit war on my talk page 😁😁😁PastaMonk 21:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Forgive my ignorance, but what is "orc"? -- Kautilya3 (talk)

(talk page stalker) Orc --RegentsPark (comment) 22:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark and Kautilya3: the term is also used by the Ukrainians for their eastern neighbors; as the two of you will understand, I find the term thrrefor deeply insulting, given the brutal nature of the war there, the slaughter of civilians, the rapes, etc. But this is probably lost on our fellow editor... See also this comment.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you are offended by the term. It was not aimed specifically at you, I used it as a general term to describe Wikipedia regulars (with millions of edits under their belt) who spend their time bullying newcomers and occasional editors. I kinda lost it when DaxServer pasted an edit war message on my talk page for doing just one revert. The page history shows that you have been reverting almost everyone's edits and you were on the verge of violating 3RR rule on 24Mar2024. In the end you agreed that the page about a person should have a top level biography section. That's what I been trying to tell you since the beginning 😁. All of this could have been avoided. Yes ? PastaMonk 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: I'm getting pretty tired of this editor; could you take a look at this diff weird request they posted on their own talkpage? It's unsubstantiated, and feels like hounding. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Historical reliability of the Gospels. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This warning goes to both users involved and it not a comment on who is right Jeppiz (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: thanks; I'll take a break. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truce!

Firstly, sorry for getting us both a warning, I think we both could've handled it better. Honestly, I don't think my lack of sleep did me any favors either.

Secondly, I'm sorry for giving you a negative impression of me. I know we've come across each other a few times lately and I can understand why you may think I may be pushing a particular POV, or being "sneaky" (you have a funny way of saying it lol), granting that I do indeed tend to publish edits related to specific worldviews. This is because I have been deeply studying conservative/traditional views (from the bible to metaphysics) recently, and I have been adding information to Wikipedia based on the content I've found that would be handy for the encyclopedia. Its nothing personal, I'm just uploading stuff I've found that would be appropriate for the site (granting that I also learn how to use it properly which leads to my next point).

I have autism! If I ever get round to making userboxes its something I'm sure to point out. I don't know if that's the cause of it, but I've always had a problem with re-writing things in my own words (especially under expectations such as guidelines), so I just politely ask that you be mindful that whatever I write, I may just be writing poorly.

In regards to the edits that caused this situation, I should've been more specific in my reasoning for cutting things out, and for adding more than I needed to (I think I misread the Mitchell source because of my lack of sleep but not to excuse it). But the section on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels page definitely needed to be reorganized given that one Litwa citation was completely apart from the rest of the authors that talked about genre in one condensed section.

I'm not trying to downplay any actions that may have caused you a negative impression of me, and I look forward to writing better edits and hopefully representing different views that I read upon. I also hope, as a fellow Wikipedian, that we can settle our differences, respect each other, and get along. Thanks.

Also sorry for the textwall, I only remembered after typing all this that it might be against the guidelines or something. Divus303 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Divus303: thanks for your message. I'll read it later today; your lack of sleep is paired to a pneumonia at my side, so I'm also not in the best spirits for optimal Wikipedia-contributions... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's horrible, I hope things improve. Take care. :) Divus303 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Divus303: regarding autism: that's completely fine with me! I have a lot of sympathy for, and interest in, people who are in 'the spectrum': highly gifted/ADHD/autism. Many of the 'weirdo's' and unadapted are in the spectrum, and a lot of them are also creative and think 'differently'. For my work, I also use things like the triskele globe. Or the hoberman sphere; I guess you'll understand why. I'll take a fresh look at our disputes later; right now I need the oxygen to keep breathing. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with fidget toys (as we call them), had them in my classes years ago actually. I hope you're doing okay pal, get well! :) Divus303 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

editing pages related to hinduism

you are a non hindu. why do you care if I edit the Kamakshi Amman Temple page. My edit has made nothing messier, but more informative. I a hindu am editing a hindu page to make it more informative for my fellow hindus. Why do you, a non Hindu care about it. Carnaticnerd (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnaticnerd: if you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to comply to our rules and guidelines. If you think you can edit just the way you like, you're at the wrong place. And if you think that non-Hindus shouldn't edit Hinduism-related pages, you're definitely at the wrong venue. @Doug Weller: WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am at the right venue. Articles about hindu institutions should be edited by hindus for themselves. You westerners destroyed our nation and now you wish to control information about our institutions. Wikipedia might be a secular place, however it is extremely biased. And please state how my edits made the page messier. I would like to discuss Carnaticnerd (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the mess you created with "Kamakshi Ambal Temple." If you don't understand, that's another hint you're at the wrong place. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what carnaticnerd states is somewhat wrong. Non hindus have the right to edit hindu pages. But your argument is as weak as his. You should state why you feel his edits to be messier. P. S. N. Srikar (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that their edits and behaviour speak for themselves. And who are you? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user. By the way, I find your talk page amusing. Nice info P. S. N. Srikar (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

however, I found nothing offensive in his edits. P. S. N. Srikar (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you first try to change the name of an article from a common name to an obscure name, and then copy the whole article to your preferred name, yeah, that's a mess. And when you subsequently keep on pushing your preferred edits while ignoring all warnings, then it's clear you don't understand how wikipedia works. Which is also a warning to you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

right. by the way, who are you P. S. N. Srikar (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my changes to the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham page are constructive. why do you revert them. what wrong did i do P. S. N. Srikar (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced info, and repeating contested edits from other editors. But I guess you don't care. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what, is adding a photo and correcting the foundation year wrong. P. S. N. Srikar (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, in the Kamakshi Amman Temple version history, you said, in your own words, "Excellent version"? What are your standards?. I find that below morals. P. S. N. Srikar (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I heard quacking, but the duck was already dead. So sad. Thanks for the barnstar, haven't gotten one of those for years! Skyerise (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you at all interested in Discordianism? Skyerise (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC) @Skyerise: I already took a look; it's outside my reach. My range is actually quite simple to explain: when I was eightteen, I pondered the question "What is 'I'"? One day I realized "'I' does not exist," there's just 'emptiness'. That was great, but also bottomless scaring (eightteen, no mature ego). Since then, the question "If this 'I' is not what I am, then what am I?" haunts me. In Buddhism, and also some strands of Hinduism, I met this "emptiness" of mine, and felt recognition. So, my interest is basically in 'understanding, or recognizing, this emptiness. Which, by the way, is paired with compassion; after all, that may be even more important. Regardd, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought you'd recognize that in the following:

Nevertheless, the Principia Discordia contains a complex and subtle religious system, although this is often obscured by its chaotic structure. The theology of the Principia is perhaps best summarized in the symbol [...] The Sacred Chao [...] Taken as a whole, however, the Sacred Chao symbolizes the Discordian idea that both order and chaos are man-made concepts, and that to believe that either is more 'true' than the other is illusion. The Sacred Chao represents 'pure chaos', the metaphysical grounding of all that is, and a level beyond any distinction-making.^[1]

where Grounding grounds into the Ground. Skyerise (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Robertson (2012), p. 424.

Per your last post

I understand why you might seem suspicious of me. I’ve just reviewed all the archived discussions you guys had regarding the map, along with the many sockpuppets that popped up during that time… pretty wild for something as simple as a map. And the suspicions of me being a ‘sockpuppet’ is something I can ask an Admin with access to IP and detections to clear up real quick.

Nonetheless I came because I noticed the current map was a bit off on the westernmost tip, so I checked the Wikimedia image history and I gathered that the map is supposed to be based on the Joppen map… but the current map by Avantiputra7 has a tiny mistake, that it didn’t cover a small area which many previous Mauryan maps including the Joppen map did cover. I’m not asking for a map change like the people on the Maurya talk pages but rather point out a tiny mistake on the map. I hope this clears things out. (Discopleasant (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Edit War

This whore is reverting my edits everywhere Subodhak Shraman (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Subodhak Shraman: what a language for a Shraman; way to go, dude. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did Remove Updates?!?

Hey man. This is Mark Forman, a world's expert on Integral Theory and you removed a host of badly needed updates I put on the page. Every line was absolutely factual, and not everything is citable in a book or white paper - even though I linked several books and you removed them too. I brought the post up to date - here in reality - and you put it back fifteen years.

Do you have any knowledge of Integral Theory at all or do you just police the page and keep it in 2010? Mforman30 (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mforman30: regarding my revert diff: I studied Integral Theory for a couple of years after my graduation in the 90s, and concluded it's a bunch of eloquent bullshit, with Wilber deeply misunderstanding and misrepresenting both the theories and the traditions he's writing about. Obviously, I'm not the only one who drew that conclusion, but some tiny islands of support still seem to hold out.

Luckily, Wiki-policies are easier to follow. Like WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY; we don't use YouTube videos as references, especially not if we have made them ourselves. Or WP:SPAM: we don't use Amazon-links to our own writings, also not when they are from 2010, nearly fifteen years ago (nice irony). Or the organizing entity (IEC) for the statement "Similar attendee credentials have been present at the very well-attended 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2022 U.S. Integral Theory Conferences" - WP:SPAM and WP:OR. And we don't use inline links, especially not in headers.

And, to bring you back into reality: "over 50 published books that utilize Integral in some pragmatic or practical domain" since 2000: that's an average of two per year. Not what I'd call "this deficit has been widely addressed." Or "Bruce Alderman [...] notes that Integral is now being taught in some form in about 12 different colleges and universities, and has been taken up by dozens of individual academics." Where did he say that? In which form is it being taught? At which universities? I'd state it differently: this only underscores the irrelevancy. And Zimmerman surely didn't write that "This reality overrides a previous, early period in the 2000s." For additional input: see Ken Wilber at Google Trends. The direction is clear.

So, if you think I police the page: people like you make it necessary. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: your book, A Guide to Integral Psychotherapy: Complexity, Integration, and Spirituality in Practice, State University of New York Press, has 141 citations at Google Scholar. That's pretty good; I've re-inserted it at the article. Pity, though, that you forgot R. Elliott Ingersoll and David M. Zeitler (2010), Integral Psychotherapy: Inside Out/Outside In, SUNY, and John Dupuy (2013), Integral Recovery: A Revolutionary Approach to the Treatment of Alcoholism and Addiction, SUNY, both also published in the SUNY series in Integral Theory, of which you must be aware; and Andre Marquis (2018), Integral Psychotherapy: A Unifying Approach, Routledge. So, basically, still WP:SPAM and a violation of WP:NPOV.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can clean up how I cite things, but having you as someone you thinks Integral is bs is terrible policy for overseeing the page. I at least know the facts, and what has happened from 2000 to 2024. So I will take another stab soon at updating the page with tighter citations and then you have to think hard about whether you should play gatekeeper as opposed to literally a PhD and a world's expert such as myself. Mforman30 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Citing all the books is a hefty project, but yes of course I know many of them. I will put it in as many as seems feasible. Mforman30 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and then you have to think hard about whether you should play gatekeeper as opposed to literally a PhD and a world's expert such as myself. - you need applause, yearning for validation? It sounds like you're showcasing that IT doesn't work: talking about ego-transcendence, stuck in self-aggrandising. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: did you know that Danish is not Dutch? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun the process of adding to the page with clear, factual additions and proper citations. Prepare for a lot of additions. If you try to block these sound, factual, properly-cited additions because you have a strong, negative bias against Integral Theory, I will find a way to adjudicate this with Wikipedia.

Here's a question: Do you have the honestly and integrity to stick with the facts as they are here in reality, or will you - simply out of prejudice and out of a power-drive - block these changes? This is up to you and the quality of your character.

P.S. I don't claim to be a flawless knower of all things, or all things Nordic. But feel free to go over my work and look for errors. You won't find a whole lot. Mforman30 (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mforman30: despite my scepsis, if you have any questions regarding formatting, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE etc., please ask. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Forman

You might want to note that @Mforman30: seems to be citing his own publications. Skyerise (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: no surprise; see my comments at User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Why Did Remove Updates?!?. But in this case I'm inclined to say: lei t be. He's a long-time contributor in the discussions on the Wilber's works. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anti-Brahminism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

LΞVIXIUS💬 16:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: action? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bish page blocked. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Doug. I'm disappointed. LΞVIXIUS💬 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing style

Could you please be more careful with the referencing? The article used sfn exclusively, and you keep adding sfnp references. And did you move a listed ref back into the article, or was that Forman? Skyerise (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cannot find any evidence that Het Atman Project published by Sevire even exists. Please provide the ISBN, OCLC, or a link to establish what book you are citing. Skyerise (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: sfnp seems to have become the preferred format. What do you mean with "listed ref"? Inline ref? And no, I didn't put that back inline, come on. "Het Atman Project" is lying besides me at the table; isbn 90-6325-419-9. The English original of course is fine too, but I have the Dutch translation, which was the quickest way to source the statements.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you include the isbn and language parameters in the citation, then. Skyerise (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sfnp may be preferred for new articles, but WP:REFVAR says that if an article has an established style, it should not be changed. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dasrajna war

(TPS: Battle of the Ten Kings)

dont use your headcanon or assumption in wikipedia , 10 kings don't have any background detail

i will look into proof if you got any factual detail on kings background from original source

so remove assumptions edits Simmorta (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I look into detail, some of them are sure Indo-Aryan but not all such as

Alina

Anu

Āyu

Ambaśṭha

Bhageratha

Bhalanas etc

so don't put your assumption unless u think wikipedia is for joke

kindly remove them, also casualties, there is clear detail of casualties....

don't add your fiction. Simmorta (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent messages

A user recently posted about WP:GAME and you decided to jump in the convo despite our conversation a while back regarding assuming good faith, afterwards I pointed out you did’t follow WP:GF back when you falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet for a discussion me and Avantaputra7 have been solving and started to peruse my edits ever since… Please assume good faith and refrain from making serial messages on my talk page like this or this since this behavior is starting to resemble WP:HOUND. (Discopleasant (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Discopleasant: do some self-reflection, and understand why your behaviour looks suspicious. Making incremental edits of one bite to your sandbox over multiple periods of time is not what our policies regard as a constructive contribution to building an encyclopedia. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect that. (Discopleasant (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Discopleasant: as an advice: disclose your previous account at your userpage, and store your removed talkpage-messages at an archive, instead of simply deleting them. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me how to do that? Idk how to archive previous messages. (Discopleasant (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Question

Hi Joshua, I wanted to start a new talk for this topic. I’ve been working on this in order to turn it into an article. I’ve been meaning to make it look as impartial as possible and use reliable sources, mostly I believe the problem lies on how it’s presented. And knowing you’re an autopatrolled I also want your opinion on the draft… (Discopleasant (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Your support would be greatly appreciated

Hi Joshua Jonathan. I've done some research I want to add to the page called "Yajnavalkya." Specifically I have done some research about his story in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Taittiriya Upanishad but every time I make updates you seem to revert them. I have more content I want to add but I can't seem to get my first edits from 5/19/24 through.

If you have concerns, can we discuss them instead and pinpoint specific changes you don't prefer? I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing so I am more than happy to learn but a complete revert with minimal commentary doesn't seem to be very constructive feedback. As I keep making changes to that page, I'd love it if you can give me specific feedback on which changes you don't like and I can implement them accordingly but reverting everything doesn't seem to be supportive to the Wikipedia community. If you are a senior member of the community, I ought to think you can be a better mentor.

Your support will be greatly appreciated. We all have one shared goal in mind at the end of the day. Thanks! Callmethesongofroyalblue (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Spy

#BDS Palestine. Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller and Bishonen: can one of you block this editor? See also diff. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esotericism

An editor recently made major changes to Eastern esotericism (mass removals) and changed the redirects Esoteric and Esotericism without fixing the literally hundreds of incoming links first, then changed the hatnotes of Western esotericism as well. I reverted them and left a message about why I did so on their talk page, but if you could also keep an eye on these articles and redirects, I'd appreciate it. Skyerise (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: added to my watchlist. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help

Hello Sir. i have made some changes on Aryavarta again. Can you please check it and tell me if it is up to mark? Varahmihira (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message; I will. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, @Joshua Jonathan Can you please check couple of sources related to my additions in Pañcāla?

Here in [History of Kanauj pages-212, 213], 10th century source about my addition is cited. In footer of both pages it's mentioned that Panchala was one single country which was later partitioned leading towards change in capitals. This article is about One prepartitioned Panchal with details of Partitioned Panchala too. Also check [source pages- 3, 4] and tell me if it can be used as a citation or not.Varahmihira (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removal of topics.

hello yesheua jonathan. You have reverted my edits on kanchi kamakoti peetham on the basis that i removed sourced info and added unsourced info, but perhaps, you forgot to see the four citations which I have provided for my changes. also also actually actually, mr jonathan, I have not removed any sourced info. Periyavacharanam (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the date may seem legendary, and catering to western idea, to the right of the date 482 BCE, i have mentioned (disputed). One more question your lordship, do you consider white western acadamia supreme and reigning over indian acadamia. Periyavacharanam (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one more question, is adding a photo a grave sin. Periyavacharanam (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Heart Sutra Content

Howdy! Joshua! If my addition has been reverted regards adding Content on the Heart Sutra, then can you suggest How I can add it Properly. as I believe some would appreciate seeing the actual Sutra content and not just describing it or adding link to it , you may compare to the Chinese Wikipedia version of same Topic here. which they actually do have the actual texts of the Sutra ..in different languages even. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%88%AC%E8%8B%A5%E6%B3%A2%E7%BE%85%E8%9C%9C%E5%A4%9A%E5%BF%83%E7%B6%93

Nevertheless Thank you for your time in helping me learn how to better contribute to the Wikipedia space which we are all enthusiastically working on ,Cheers

Regards,

Villkomoses Villkomoses (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Villkomoses: we simply don't put such large amounts of non-English text in our articles; if the Chinese Wikipedia does, maybe they have other policies. But for here, the only option is indeed an external link. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romila Thapar BLP

Hi, you reverted an edit, before I could add a source. I assure you, she is unmarried. What can be done now? I am two cookies away from it. -Polytope4D (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polytope4d: add the info together with the references. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Message

you have messages in my talk page Kpbolumbu (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swaminarayan Sampradya Caste

The BAPS did not file the case and did not partake in the case. I have shared various links to the court case in which it is shown that the Nar Narayan diocese filed the case. Shastri Yagnapurushdas had passed before the case finalized and reached a verdict in 1951.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145565/

https://libertatem.in/blog/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-others-v-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-anr/

https://www.legalbites.in/amp/landmark-judgements/case-study-sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-ors-v-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-another-943421 Ram112313 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aldous Huxley

Drop by the talk page when you have some time? Skyerise (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: I read the views-section, and the talkpage-threads, but it's unclear to me what I could contribute. I agree with your application of the word "spiritual"; is that still disputed? As an aside, I disagree with AH's take on perennialism: the 'essence' is not some common Godhead, but a common stance of non-attaching awareness and compassion. "Godhead" is metaphysics, an aid to detachment, not 'the' 'goal' itself. But that's an aside. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was still pursuing "religious". And of course, that's exactly the problem with interpreting primary sources. Skyerise (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism

Hi. Just reverted some more edits in Sikhism article after you've reverted some. Not quite sure if that's the last good version. Please review if possible. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasnaboy: I checked some more edits; I think it's okay so. Regards Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better to deprecate the source, or it may become an obstacle (Because, obviously, Wikipedia editors know better)

Lal bhargava 1996, pp. 44: "It is interesting to leam that the king left his palace to offer sacrifices also. The fact probably shows that Chandragupta was a Brahmanical Hindu at least for the greater part of his life, although he inclined towards Jainism during his last days, according to Jain authors" Jaybjayb (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, what's your point? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either you pretend to be ignorant and oblivious to the things I say, or maybe I just overestimated your intelligence and impartiality. Or perhaps you are just a pretender with some motives of your own, or you think you are extremely smart and everyone else (especially me) is an idiot. Maybe it's all of the above.

I don't even blame you for being biased about certain things, as we are all human and not perfect. However, your double standards are baffling. I have also noticed that whenever something irks you, an IP or a random new account with deliberately broken English suddenly appears and deltes what irks you. If someone responds to them, you are always the first to counter it. Maybe i am overthinking this one but what do you do might be called POV pulling?

This is very confusing for me, and any conversation with you does not prove to be fruitful. You have a set mindset that cannot be changed, nor do I wish to be a lone warrior representing my side in this information warfare. The world's population is 7 billion, meaning there are 7 billion types of people, and I am not going to waste my energy arguing with highly motivated individuals. This is the last time I am bothering. Do what you wish. However, there will be severe pushbacks in the future when more people get involved in Wikipedia. For now, enjoy your 'POV pushing,' (in an already messed up free platform) which spans multiple South Asia-related topics. I am sorry but i am extremly frustrated and disspointed and would hope i never come accross you in any topic ever again. Ill avoid. You won. Jaybjayb (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOODFAITH, WP:PERSONALATTACKS, and WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS. Ping User:Abecedare to expose your stance. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expose what? I am already an open book, unlike you. You needed some exposing, and the way you always act whenever someone tries to criticize your edits is like a small, spoiled kid calling for their badass father (or maybe fathers) every time they feel uncomfortable. As I said, I am going to avoid you. So chill and relax! Jaybjayb (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea who this is?

User talk:TipTap21#July 2024. Thanks Doug Weller talk 19:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this is a separate issue, but rings a bell. User talk:TuberGotTubed#List of wars involving Punjab moved to draftspace] Doug Weller talk 19:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: you mean, likr editors I've interacted with before and who were blocked? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the types of edits. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: no, sorry; too many suspicious accounts with a small number of edits. Right now two accounts blocked for sockpuppetry which I'd recently warned. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted now and blocked anyway. Doug Weller talk 06:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Vedas, would you be interested in a wikiproject on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: no, sorry; my interest is specifically in Buddhism and Buddhism-related traditions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t have to do general articles, you could still just focus on a specific area/topic. I imagine most people would stick to the area/region they’re interested in, it’s just about get people interested in each area/region Kowal2701 (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem?

[2] Doug Weller talk 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Telugu Chodas seems to be the common name; Google books gives only one hit for Andhra Chodas, and just a few for Andhra Cholas (...). Same for Google scholar. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renati Chodas

Good article or? Same Tamil editor. Doug Weller talk 18:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: no. Crucial info is unsourced ("The Renati Cholas, also known as the Renadu Cholas, a branch of Andhra Chodas who belong to the family of Sangam Tamil King Karikala Chola, ruled parts of present-day Andhra Pradesh between the 5th and 10th centuries CE."; "Historians refer to them as the Renati Cholas"); other info is not backed by the source ("They were independent mostly but mostly they were forced to suzerainty of the Pallavas."). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan Any suggestions what to do about it? I'm not sure I have the time or knowledge. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: some coaching? Shall I give it a try? I have bad experiences with mentor, but this editor seems to have good intentions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look; hopeless... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt account

Hello, I am wpondering if you could help with some information regarding editors with alt accounts, there has been a editor that has started doing some large edits on some off the Buddhist pages that you would be aware of. Does a wiki editor have to declare when they have another account, if they do and they haven't done this what is the next step. Thankyou for your time Foristslow (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Foristslow: yes, an WP:Alternate account has to be disclosed. Who is the editor in question? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me it is a editor by the name of Likes Thai Food. Foristslow (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're very good; what alternate accounts could they be using? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

editor.The editor in question has not verified their account and obviously they have vast experience with editing 8n comparison to time first joined. So if I want to get this investigated what do I do next.Thank you for your time Foristslow (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the editor themself if they have edited before? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think if they were going to be honest they would be transparent with a legitimate account. So what is the process to have 5his investigated. Thankyou Foristslow (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that there is nothing unusual about the account, that it is unlikely to be a Alt account and that it doesn't warrant investigation is that what you are saying. Do you think other experienced editors would concur with you. Foristslow (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to jump in real quick and say that I actually know Likes Thai Food personally. He's a very knowledgeable person when it comes to certain topics on Chinese Buddhism. That is why I personally encouraged him to join wikipedia even though he wasn't initially interested. And now that he did he is being treated in a rude manner by you. Please be more kind to new editors. Assume good will and so forth. Javier F.V. 13:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, my problem was how does this editor have so much editing experience and gumption as a new account. Is this even allowed on this platform you are editing the same pages. Foristslow (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have much experience, he's just a good writer. I showed him a few wikipedia editing things when he asked me, but generally, he's not doing anything particularly difficult, just adding sourced content. I'm not sure what else you want to confirm he's a different person? Also, I've been on wiki for over fifteen years making standard edits in specific Buddhist pages. Why would I make a sockpuppet account all of a sudden to edit more other wiki pages? It's not like our accounts are doing anything against the rules. Why would I go through the trouble of making a second account just to keep editing Buddhist wikipedia pages? Also, even though we've worked on a few pages together (again, what is wrong with this?), we are doing different projects. For example, July 30 I was working on Shandao (check the logs) while he was working on the Koan page.Javier F.V. 12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Foristslow, Javierfv1212, and Likes Thai Food: as far as I can tell, Likes Thai Food is a very knowledgeable editor, who's learning very well how to edit and argue. And, funny thing, I can see that Javier taught LTF; they both use<blockquote> instead of {{blockquote|, and both put their sources in the body of the article, instead of using the sfn-format. So, I'd say, drop it, Foristslow, and concencrate on editing and arguing on content. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Foristslow (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024: WP:ANI thread re Rolando 1208

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Rolando 1208 continues to remove English pronunciations from articles, despite MOS:LEADPRON and MOS:DUALPRON. The discussion is about the topic User:Rolando 1208. Thank you. Theknightwho (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Shankaracharya

Could I know why my edit was reverted? I had provided reference from a very authentic book ever written on Adi Shankaracharya Useless3078 (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Talk:Adi Shankara. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renati Chodas

I'm considering WP:ECP for this, what do you think? Doug Weller talk 07:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, how bad is the origjnal? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renati_Chodas&oldid=1238141016

I just blocked the last diff editor and note that the article creator had asked for their phone number. Doug Weller talk 07:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw[3] Doug Weller talk 07:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: bad; hopeless articles. They would need a check of all the sources, and a search for reliable alternative sources. I'll have another look. Regards (hope you're doing acceptably well), Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Pikachu 9988's last edit diff: "claimed descent" is probably correct, "belong to" incorrect. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, appeal declined. Tingling in my hands, neuropathy. A bit unsteady, Parkinson's. Last chemo first painless, but started the tingling. Should be ok, it's the 4th round that knocked me out last time. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit funny

Hello @Joshua Jonathan, this struck me a bit funny but an editor DeccanFlood had once accused me of being a "Muslim editor" and that I "support Islamic states", while you recently accused me of being a "Hindutva supporter" which, as you know, are at the extreme opposite ends. PadFoot (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008: you're an universal man, then. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F

Dei kena punda..endha mayirthuku page edit panra.. 171.79.55.75 (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

Your recent editing history at Michael Witzel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
It appears you may be engaged in an edit war in which you are repeatedly re-inserting content. Please note that additional restrictions apply on WP:BLP articles, and be aware of WP:BLPRESTORE Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: get a better grip on policies, will you? You misinterpreted WP:CRIT, and you also don't seem to understand what edit-warring is. You probably reverted my edits at Michael Witzel, but I can tell that a misplaced warning like this lowers the threshold to request sanctikns against you. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Indus Valley Civilisation. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you want to take part in[[4]]

It needs a 2nd person to go forward. Not sure if Bish or I will, if you do it will carry on. Up to you. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I think the discussion has not finished yet at the talkpage; and some problems can also be solved by further editing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it will finish unless someone else continues, as it's moved to the DRN. Of course. if that is closed because no one else participates... Doug Weller talk 13:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging

Hey, JJ, thanks for weighing in at DRN. About this edit of yours on article talk: you know a ping doesn't work without a new post, on a new line, with a new sig, right? Mind you, it probably doesn't matter in this case. I've already seen it, and I should think the other two are watching the page. Bishonen | tålk 18:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

spread of agricultral languages

I don't support it, nor do most historical linguists, but according to the Anatolian hypothesis, the spread of agricultural languages has quite a bit to do with the PIE homeland... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: hm, yes, you're right. Nevertheless, the usual pov-pushing for an Iranian homeland. Bart Ehrman put it nice: "Most people don't want to know what happened, they want to know what to believe." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing

I'm old-school on WP:INDENT, when I remember to be, any way. Here [5] you change my reply to Dimadick, indented as such, to be indented as a reply to you. I don't like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: okay; I thought it was a typo. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha….Indian subcontinent

Hey, would be happy to know what exactly the word India or Indian subcontinent has that makes this word political or unacceptable as for the place of birth of lord Buddha? As a Buddhist, I appreciate that you want to be constructive, but every source one looks into, one almost certainly finds the birth place of Buddha in india or Indian subcontinent (very ambiguous but it’s ok too), even ancient ones! Please help me to comprehend how South Asia is best to capture what Buddha is! South Asia is a political term, almost never used in the past. Besides, many Indians see this word as too political, a way to steer clear of the name of India somehow. furthermore, India was not in Asia but part of Gondwana and Australia. It clashed with Asia and Indian subcontinent has its own Indian plate. so why would you like to insist to erase India in this? Should we start calling Indian Ocean, the “south Asian ocean”? Since apparently India is a taboo word for you!!!??? Divinemomentever (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Divinemomentever: it's very simple: there is WP:CONSENSUS at The Buddha to use "South Asia"; if you want to chnage it, you'll have to gain consensus to do so. Personally I don't mind to use "ancient India" there, but others have objected to it. And I disagree that "South Asia" is a political term: it is "(ancient) India" which has become political. But please, discuss this further at Talk:The Buddha#South Asia, not here - with arguments, not rhetorics. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, the whole thing called argument is political! Don’t tell me replacing “ancient India” with South Asia is not political!!! What kind of science (if any, it’s the science of rhetoric) are you talking about?

Who decides about the consensus? Please don’t shift the subject of discussion. Should we change “Indian Ocean” to paradise ocean for political consensus? It is corrupting the history, man!

give me a reason why everyone says Buddha was from india or Indian subcontinent and the so-called consensus is suddenly different? The very fact that you want to change history in order to placate someone’s sensitivity is wrong. So Leonardo Da Vinci is not Italian. There was no Italy at that time. So he is south European! Well, Southern Europe apparently is a more neutral term. Please bring about some historical facts instead of calling for political consensus! Divinemomentever (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: But please, discuss this further at Talk:The Buddha#South Asia, not here - with arguments, not rhetorics. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did you block me? I saw I was blocked! Did I do anything problematic? not fair. Divinemomentever (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balarama

See Dashavatar talk page.Lets sort it out. Uriiix (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needed guidance for source cited at Sukha page

@Joshua Jonathan I had a quick question. I was reading Sukha page and came across this section, where it mentions "Bodhi (1980)". I was going to add citation since there was no citation for that (Bodhi 1980 is already used on the page, which links to this). Was wondering if that website is considered good source to use. Asteramellus (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteramellus: yes, certainly. Bikkhu Bodhi has a somewhat conservative or tradjtional interpretation of the suttas, so it's good to attribute information to him ("according to ..."), but he's a respected author. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes thanks. I will add the citation. I was wondering if there is any alternate way to cite the book (including the page numbers) instead of using the website or you think using this website is fine? It actually does have lot of sources easily searchable. Asteramellus (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteramellus: the website is fine; Bodhi is respected. Thanissaro Bikkhu is a nice contrast; he's more liberal. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More nuance?

Rig Veda uses the term Antigriha (अन्तिगृह) in hymn 10.95.4, as still a part of the extended family, where older people lived in ancient India, with an outwardly role. I guess it would not be entirely accurate to term the rishis, munis, and similar figures from the Rigvedic period as completely non-Vedic. Instead, describing them as 'outside or on the fringes of Brahmanical traditions' would be more appropriate. Many of them might very well have been former Vedic practitioners. Do let me know what you think. DangalOh (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there was any group of non-Vedic Indo-Aryans waiting for the arrival of Vedic Indo-Aryans. There is a high probability that the "non-Vedic Indo-Aryans" were, or their forefathers were, former Vedic people. I believe we are overestimating the number of ascetics; no society can be built purely by wanderers and ascetics. One thing is clear: during Rigvedic times, those who left their homes for new adventures were fringe elements. I agree there’s no need to directly relate ascetic or sannyasi movements to the roots of any Brahmanical tradition; they might very well represent completely new ideas. The term itself isn’t entirely reflective. Whatever you deem fit, I will not argue. I just wanted to add a little nuance. Thank you. DangalOh (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DangalOh: the Yoga-page? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Thank You :D DangalOh (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another breakdown of discussion in 'Genesis creation narrative'

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that content you have written for 'Genesis creation narrative' has been deleted on grounds that it is part of a 'stealth POV pushing campaign' to have Wikipedia state that 'deity magic' is involved in the biblical texts (see recent edit). Even information about genre has been deleted. You are the only one who actually engaged with my arguments and tried to build consensus rather than just complain about evangelicals and delete content. Could you please review/evaluate the discussion? I would appreciate your advice for this situation in general too. I thought this was over but now I'm wondering if I have to request dispute resolution again. Thanks. Violoncello10104 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Violoncello10104: I will, but not today; but I will. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broader attention useful at an AFD discussion

Hello JJ, although it's been a fairly long time since we've interacted, this message is a friendly request that you take a peek at the article on Hindu University of America, which is presently undergoing an Article-for-Deletion discussion HERE. So far there have only been 4 contributors. I think it could benefit from broader attention. As you've been much more active than me on WP in recent years, I suspect you could much more easily discern the appropriate ways to ensure the discussion gets the level of attention that it needs (the appropriate and balanced ways to get more community attention; feel free to just go ahead and invite in an appropriate way). Many thanks for whatever you can do/suggest! Best Regards --Presearch (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the editor, can you raise an SPI?

As I'm not a CU anymore, may be again but not for a while. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I will; thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lululululululu 117.231.195.45 (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lalalalalala. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:English translations of the Bhagavad Gita

Template:English translations of the Bhagavad Gita has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bhagavad Gita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vidhya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

Hello Joshua Jonathan,

I have recently made an edit to the Hinduism page about Saura being a major denomination in the past. However, you have reverted my edit. Can you add something briefly in the lead section to indicate that Saura also used to be a major denomination? It can help any neutral reader who is not very aware of Hinduism know about this fact. I would appreciate that.

Secondly, soon, I intend to add a sentence in the etymology section of the same page about the fact that Vijayanagara kings referred to themselves as 'Sultans of the Hindu kingdom'. I would equally appreciate it if you could verify if my edit is as per Wikipedia guidelines and if not make the necessary corrections. Thank you.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bsskchaitanya; thanks for reaching out. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; Saura is mentioned, twice without any explanation, or even a link, so there is no reason to add this to the lead.

Regarding 'Sultans of the Hindu kingdom', the Vijayanagara kingdom is mentioned only once in the whole article; adding this to the etymology-section would be WP:UNDUE too. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Joshua Jonathan. Regarding my first point, I agree with your clarification. However, regarding the mention of Vijayanagara kings in the etymology section perhaps you have not understood my point. In the etymology section, information is given to provide historical usage of the words Hind, and Hindu by various travelers, historians, social reformers etc. Even though 'Hindu' is an exonym this word gained currency among the native Indians gradually over centuries. In that context, when and how this world became popular in South India (or Deccan as per the chronicles/works of Delhi and Bahmani sultanates) is worthy to mention so it won't be coming under WP:UNDUE. Anyways, when I am free I will add the sentence with valid academic references and then we can see. Thanks for your input friend. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavad gita

Happy to see you more contribution on Bhagavad Gita, however it's sacred text for Vaishnavism and Vishnu devotee. Please add Religious significance of Bhagavad Gita Add sub article text with link.

Here is the link

Gita Mahatyam https://bharatabharati.in/the-myth-of-saint-thomas-and-the-mylapore-shiva-temple-2010-ishwar-sharan/bhagavad-gita-mahatmya/ @Joshua Jonathan Keshava Kumar (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTERobertson2012424-1] Robertson (2012), p. 424.

[1]