User talk:Joshua Jonathan: Difference between revisions

Charles Joshua Chaplin...Hafspajen (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplin conducted art classes specifically for women at his studio. Hafspajen (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope you have seen the Charles Joshua Chaplin on the main page... (now much longer and better) Hafspajen (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are you, Joshua? I know you're interested in psychology, so I thought I'd point out a comment recently added to Talk:Erich Fromm#Needs a serious reworking .... An editor added a comment in response to a comment that had been added in 2005. I don't know enough about psychology to figure out what, exactly, this latest editor wants done with the article, but you might. CorinneSD (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. A great editor on psychology-related articles is Lova Falk. Also Dutch, by the way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've roll-backed his editing of other editor's comments. As for his own comment: I don't understand it either, so either you might eask him there if he can explain, or just leave it this way, I think. Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly,please see the talk page of Rajus.Thank You. 06:06, 20 April 2014‎ User:117.200.29.60

Template:Indo-Aryan migration

[1] is a disputed map, and it should be avoided. I've check about it, and I don't think that it has correct information. You cannot add similar map twice on a single page, neither a same map can be repeated. The image that I am posting here, probably remains undisputed to some extent, although it is more about linguistic. There are also other maps, such as,[2] but many sources explains that migration or invasion may have taken place during 2500 BCE. Maps are usually disputed in this regard, but we wouldn't need more because [3] is enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed is not the correct word; someone asked for a reference. We both know which people "dispute" this information, and that those "disputations" have no academic credibility. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are academics who dispute this information, but this image is not really accurate, that was the main factor. Because the proposed aryan migration theory starts from the central asia, it includes even the parts of pakistan, china, india, the northern ones. I don't think that the links of the section Hinduism#Vedic_period_.28c._1750-500_BCE.29, especially the "see also" are coherent with the policy of WP:SEEALSO. Because they have been linked on the article. No hurries, but you can review them whenever you have time. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accuray: what's not accurate about it? Accurate in the context of "Indo-Aryan migrations", or inaccurate in general? I'd noticed the source-tag, and I've already tried to find out more, but it's a detailed issue.

Regarding the links: the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Hatnote; according to this policy, hatnotes shouldn't be used at all for sections, only for the top of the article. Nevertheless, they provide the context for the Indo-Aryan migrations. If you don't know where to look, it's hard to find. While it is a fascinating subject. I've just borrowed a book from my father, Empires of the Silk Road, written by Chritopher I. Beckwith. He describes the importance of central Eurasia in the exchange between Europe and Asia, looooooong before the colonisation of Asia by the west. It's fascinating. The Indo-Aryan migrations are part of this story. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need a gallery. Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the top of this thread! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart! Hafspajen (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has accuracy, the actual proposed module, I didn't objected. On your new reading, I would say that for last 20,000 years, there have been number of notable incidents. There are many more to be discovered. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked your last edits that you have made on Hinduism. To me this is more interesting. I had doubts about the idea of Anthony, but he referred it as "northern syria", it is not even surprising, but very hard to discover any similar modules. We probably agree that Anthony is a fair source, and he has been used for reference by multiple authors. I think his theories or modules should be added to Mitanni as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "similar modules"? Anthony gives a detailed broad overview of the Indo-European people: research-questions, linguistics, archeology. Fascinating. I've checked my historical atlasses; none of them has a map on the Indo-Europeans. What an omission! The typical order is: hynuter-gatherers, farmers, early empires, omitting the Indo-Europeans. Hey man, we share a common history! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have got 3 modules now. 1. Kurgan. 2. Indo-Aryan. 3. Anthony's. It has to be noted that Anthony's module is probably not discussed in Syria and in fact whole middle east, we know the reason. I will make summary about this module, it may even require a separate page if more has been researched. Indeed we all share a common history, I don't see any wars or massive conflicts before 2nd Century A.D. myself, there was a great harmony. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua - I agree with your proposal to merge the articles Mindfulness meditation and Mindfulness (positive psychology) into Mindfulness (psychology). I think Mindfulness-based stress reduction should be merged into it too, and will add a notice there. I will edit the tags you created so Discuss all point to the section you created on Talk:Mindfulness, as recommended by Help:Merging: "(1) Create one discussion section, typically on the destination article's talk page; (2) Tag each article with the appropriate merger tag. All tag Discuss links should be specified to point at the new discussion section." - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[4] is a Undue, than unsourced. Because it was unnecessary edit, from other user. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"More appropriate" sounds like an opinion, also because another editor argued, soem time ago, that "Sanatan Dharma" is not the correct term, because it is used by specific groups. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he just removed what you added again? [5] Do you remember what was your edit? Hafspajen (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes he did. He is indeed going to edit that article after his own head. Hafspajen (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So are we ready for a Dispute resolution? I will fill in one, if you agree. Or would you prefer doing it yourself? Hafspajen (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. This far, he retraced his steps several times. Don't forget you're a sensitive person to - I can tell, I recognize some of your responses, same as mine. Maybe try some shorter answers, and keep smiling. After all, it's just an article in Wikipedia, it's not like your life, of that of your loved ones, depends on it. Give them a hug! They need you! That being said, you might give it a try - if you don't minf doing "the paperwork". All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blast all sensitivity. Ok, wait. Hafspajen (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And where is it now? He just can't stand it. He is rewriting the whole article just to get rid of it. [6]. OK; it is somewhere in the religious section, but not in the lead, anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the lead; he's moving back in some of the info from the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshua ..you left me a message on my talk page.

"Ik ben een God in het diepst van mijn gedachten" - Willem Kloos.

Does it mean "I am a God in the depths of my mind" - Willem Kloos.

Its very nice to know that you have a keen interest in Buddhism. Its good. I am a Buddhist too. I make videos on Buddhism and I run a youtube channel. I hope you will see it here. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5UPirykoyG6cAbySvyxovw

Regarding the edit on page 'God in Buddhism".

I gave source from accesstoinsight and it already had sources from this website too. But Bladesmulti removed it saying that it is a unreliable source but there were many sources taken from this website.

Regarding the Vedic culture. Gautama Buddha never accepted the Vedas so how it can have an origin in vedic culture. (Read Tevijja Sutta and other suttas too)

Hindus have been trying to include Buddha as an Avatar or a Hindu God while he rejected that he was any God in Dona Sutta (Search it.) And I think to some effect the page Hinduism and Buddhism has been edited by some hindus for their personal benefits. I have seen it .

You can also watch the page Buddha in Hinduism...there you go. You can discuss more if you like. Thanks.

Don't forget to visit my youtube channel if you like. I just thought to share. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronautabhinavstar (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Astronautabhinavstar. Thanks for your message here! Willem Kloos was a Dutch poet, influenced by Upanishadic thought. Regarding "God in Buddhism", just don'try to push it. For most people it's quite clear that Buddhism does not believe in an ultimate reality called "God". Regarding Vedic culture, as far as I know Buddhism emerged in interaction with Vedic culture, just like Yoga and Samkhya. It's not like either/or. See Geoffrey Samuel, "The Origins of Yoga and Tantra", for an insightfull exposition on the origins of Indian religions. And yes, quite a lot of Indian editors are pursuing political agendas when editing at Wikipedia. Which is a very good reason to be careful, use WP:RS, and stay polite. Interesting videos. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua and @Bladesmulti: -- I just undid an edit to the article on Parsi, but I am puzzled by one thing in the restored sentence. It says that Parsis are "legally and ethnically distinct from the Iranis..." I don't understand the necessity of including the adverb "legally" there. While it may be true, laws change over time, so in India it's true only now. It may not be true ten years from now. I think it is less important than the ethnic distinction and the historical development of the groups. The way Parsis fit into Indian society, and the laws that apply, can be discussed later in the article. I just think it is strange to introduce a group of people as being legally different from another group. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know about India, it wouldn't surprise if something like this distinction is caught in some law. But I don't know enough about it; maybe Blades? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm quite sure there was no Hinduism at 1200 BCE [7]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad that you at least caught and corrected that bit of information. @Bladesmulti:, what do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there was no word like Hinduism during 1,200 BCE. Maybe that's why I had used the word "Brahminical", by the next line. CorinneSD, I had no ping from you, I am wondering why. Whatever that IP had written, it was half information. Parsi people are those Zoroastrians who migrated to India from Iran during 7th century AD - 12 century AD. Those who migrated from 16th century - 20th century, they are "Irani". Although such generalization is even more common than the actual term "Zoroastrian". Bladesmulti (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thanks for the explanation, but you didn't answer my original question, above, about the necessity or appropriateness of including the word "legally" in the lead/lede. CorinneSD (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No source available for the word "legally", it is better not to include it. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua bro....I ask you to please kindly watch the page Ambedkar..as some people are trying to vandalize it (Blaedsmulti). He has been reverting my every addition though it was sourced. In India around 95% of Buddhists are following the example of Ambedkar by abondoning Hinduism(as it has caste system) and converting to Buddhism. Bladesmulti is reverting the changes...Kindly see and watch the page. I just request you and I hope you will accept it. With regards, AstronautabhinavstarAstronautabhinavstar (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, wow, great! But hey, cool down, Bladesmulti is my brother too, so take care - both of you! I'll take a look. But seriously, Astronautabhinavstar, take care: India-related articles are prone to clashes, so stay calm. And don't use the word "vandalize"; it may easily stir up emotions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua bro...you reverted the changes back to bladesmulti. But you removed 2 pics also ...kindly restore them. Dr.Ambedkar was the first law minister in India. How can somebody use the word lawyer for him? Bladesmulti has called all his big brothers (like the redpenofdoom) for seeking consensus. I am new to wikipedia user.

You reverted the changes but what you changed was already there much longer in wikipedia. I asked for a consensus. Bladesmulti called his big brothers. You are the only one whom I have found good in wikipedia. Similiar laundry lists are found in Brentrand Russell page too..I asked Bladesmulti but he arrogantly said that if I want I can edit on his talkpage but the page is semiprotected. Isn't this an Injustice done to Dr. Ambedkar just because he was born in a low caste? Astronautabhinavstar (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to check the spelling of that famous British philosopher's name. It is BER trand Russell. CorinneSD (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua bro...you reverted the changes back to bladesmulti. But you removed 2 pics also ...kindly restore them. Dr.Ambedkar was the first law minister in India. How can somebody use the word lawyer for him? Bladesmulti has called all his big brothers (like the redpenofdoom) for seeking consensus. I am new to wikipedia user.

You reverted the changes but what you changed was already there much longer in wikipedia. I asked for a consensus. Bladesmulti called his big brothers. You are the only one whom I have found good in wikipedia. Similiar laundry lists are found in Brentrand Russell page too..I asked Bladesmulti but he arrogantly said that if I want I can edit on his talkpage but the page is semiprotected. Isn't this an Injustice done to Dr. Ambedkar just because he was born in a low caste? Astronautabhinavstar (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures have been placed back; I reinserted again the shorter sentence. Don't bite Baldes' hooks; he's good at provoking arguments. And I doubt it that TheRedPenofDoom is a big brother - though, unless you mean like "watching and controlling". That there is also a "laundry list" (the term says it all) is irrelevant; the discussion is here about Ambedkar. To me, Ambedkar's caste-background is irrelevant; I'm too European, I'm afraid, and I really don't understand this caste-system. But from the little bit I've read about Ambedkar, I think he must have been a brilliant man, fighting for a very good case. So, if you want to serve him, and your communitu: get informed about Wiki-policies, use the best sources you can find, and avoid heated discussions. You know, my grandfather was a farm-laborer, who only had primary education. He didn't care; he kewn who he was and what he wanted, and he was independent (but knew very well he loved and neede his wife, my grandmother). He cared for his children. My father, his son, was one of the first working class kids in the Netherlands to go to University with a study grant. He earned his master's degree, and after that het earned his PhD. I guess that, to Indian standards, I would still be a lower caste person. Screw it! Do your best, and be a noble person! Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the skies of heaven, your grandfather would be smiling, whenever he will know that his grandson respects him so much. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My salution to your elders.

I just request you and I hope you will accept it.

I will try to seek consensus. Infact I am working on it. Astronautabhinavstar (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Whenever I see a new editor in some heated discussion, I noticed many times you personally asking them to cool down. Your sincere efforts in participating civilly in discussions is something others can get inspired by. Thank you for this and your valuable contributions. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This one is really appreciated. It touches on an essential ideal of how I want to be. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I saw several examples, where your kindness towards POV-pushing editors, obviously violating WIKIPEDIA policies, transcended my limited horizon. JimRenge (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wipikipedia Project Buddhism; list of particiants, I saw that you are interested in Zen. Could you possibly contribute something to Zen liturgy (liturgies)? I know there is a liturgy in Zen, but I I did not succeed in identifying reliable sources. I also tried to find some sources providing general information on Buddhist liturgy, but this seems to be a blind spot in English publications- Best regards JimRenge (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a though one! Chanting sutras, that's part of it. Borup might be a good source: * Borup, Jørn (2008), Japanese Rinzai Zen Buddhism: Myōshinji, a Living Religion, Brill And Gombrich: * Gombrich, Richard F. (1996), Theravada Buddhism. A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, London and New York: Routledge. Otherwise, I know close to nothing about this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JimRenge (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I found forgeten vandalism on this article. Some vandal with username Feezo removed category, links to other articles and he deleted part of article with informations about new series. I cannot edit this page because it protected.--Lisa Shertoon :-P (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal? You're sure? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My answer (i cannot now edit Administration noticeboard):::Vandal is everybody, who do unconstructive edits and this edits are definitely unconstructive (removing category, delete parts of text ...) Vejvancicky it not did not detect. Please remedy it and warning this user (Feezo), who this unconstructive edits saved--Lisa Shertoon :-P (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to talk with him? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add warning to his talpage, (i already reverted personal attack from Toma646 from his talkpage) but what with this his edits on article Maya the Bee?--Lisa Shertoon :-P (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from the AN discussion, which is of course semi'd because of another pesky editor. These edits aren't vandalism, or even close to nonconstructive/disruptive. There's nothing wrong with reverting sockpuppet edits. 206.117.89.4 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)[reply]

Surprising that a IP could produce that huge amount of references. I have checked that it was the same editor who has been blocked. But what I am not getting is, if his sources don't support his information, why he keeps pushing them? I haven't checked even a single reference, but I can believe on you here.

I really wish that the editor is alright, and he don't feel hurt by any of you. But incidents like this one really saddens me sometimes, what we can do. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he really tried to find everything he could about the Rajus. His approach is an "insiders-perspective": he's trying to prove something he already believes. Unfortunately, other editors don't share his belief, and have a critical approach. And as you can see, they're getting fed-up with this whole affair. And this one eidotr surely will feel hurt. So, your kind response here may help him, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed an edit to Fire temple in which an editor changed "most" to "some" and added a statement that appears to be unsourced. What is the right thing to do here? CorinneSD (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should start a thread on the talk page there; the previous information was also unsourced, and I have no idea if it is correct or not. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recently found out that following text from his page is deleted. "Jurist, politician, philosopher, anthropologist, historian and economist" and instead is currently replaced by "Indian lawyer, politician and academic" A kind request to restore the original text as it suits best for Dr.Ambedkar. There are various references to prove each of these diverse qualities of his. He solely wrote the Constitution of India and was a Minister of Law. He had sound knowledge of History and anthropology. The Nobel prize winner Economist Mr.Amartyasen mentions Dr.Ambedkar as his Father in Economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1prashant (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Shiva, Vishnu etc. are acknowledged in Buddhism, although as worldy deities. Saraswati is considered a full Buddha. Should all these Hindu deity pages be edited to reflect this? VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive issues indeed. I guess only when backed-up with good sources, and when the context is given: the interplay between Hinduism and Buddhism, as developing traditions within a wider social-economic context. I gave such information at the Shiva-page; it was removed one time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The monthly Pet Award for Jonathan.
	A loving nice Pet Hafspajen (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly?!? Man, what a good care, in these times of crisis and shortages! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua, thanks again for your help with Robert Adams. Just to say, I've changed my username from User:MerlynDanielMali to User:Bodhadeepika, and will edit under that name henceforth. Also, I recently discovered that Robert Adams' Four Principles of Self-Realization are very similar to the Buddhist Lankavatara sutra, which may be of interest given your interest in Buddhism. All the best! Bodhadeepika (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! Bodhadeepika; what does it mean? I've added links to your old and new account, and a help-request to close/move your old account. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit summary: "India had always been known as one India, never southern and northern or eastern india", have a look at Middle kingdoms of India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with dictionary Joshua is this that it points back to each other. Similar is the problem with wikipedia citations. I experience India as I live in it. Here in this moment, not in medieval times, it's one India. How can he had been born even in southern India. Mention the kingdom in which he was born. That wasn't known as south India. It was called by that kingdom name.

I don't know how to discuss via email. Is there any method. Is this method correct?, coz I don't know how to reply back 10:24, 8 May 2014‎ User:Beyondname

Good response, though it's a pity you reverted again after' this message. Don't revert, discuss at the talk pages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]