User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2024

Talk, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, list

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Have a look

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

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

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

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

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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

"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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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)

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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)

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

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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

References

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))