User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2014

File:2014-02 Halle Street Art 77.jpg

Will you please add page numbers? Eg to "which were collected before 1000 BC in the Rigveda.{{sfn|Samuel|2010}}" I can't find Rigveda in Samuel. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apoplogies; I'll do my homework better. I was in a rush when making these edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I also used the following two sources, which seem reliable to me, but which are not accpetable as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Which means I'll have to dig further into the Vedic Period to find reliable sources, but this will take time. But alas, I've learned and found a lot already on the history of Hinduism and India, so I reckon I'll also find more on this. The sources:

• University of Oslo, The Vedic Age, 1500-500 BCE (course document for a University Class on Hinduism)
• NIOS (some sort of Open University from India), The Vedic Age (1500-600 BCE)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Vedic period#Sources for Vedic period

Thanks for all your help with this. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead of the Yoga page, there is way too much emphasis on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Indeed, the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali don't need to be mentioned at all. Please eliminate Yoga Sutras of Patanjali in lead. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Yoga#Edit Request on Patanjali

You think there should be following pages?

• Hindu views on Henotheism
• Hindu views on Pantheism

Like we got

• Hindu views on monotheism . Bladesmulti (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is, "No"; too specific. At second thought, it might be of interest to some. "Hindu views on monotheism" has been visited 1814 times in the last 30 days, so it might be of interest. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Navbox Zen. Since you had some involvement with the Navbox Zen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movement, but not removement. Rather: removal.CorinneSD (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Aryan Migration talk. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should clearly do about something, we shall remember once again, that Aryan theory is no more accepted by people, since about 1940s. And things like "fusion of aryan and dravidian culture" on lead may disagreements and edit war, like the current one we are having. One was previously by "yoondaue"(something). If you remember. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Aryan migration theory" is common scholarly understanding. And the "fusion" too. I think it's properly sourced. Yoonadue is a clear example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, would you look at the most recent edits to Surat? One editor added a date, first with AD, then changing it to CE. It is missing the word "in" before the year. I was going to add "in", but before I did so, I thought I'd ask you to be sure that the date is correct. Another editor just before that added a www website for "movers and packers in Surat". I thought that might be an attempt to add a website to a business so as to get a little free advertising, but I wasn't sure.CorinneSD (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've no idea if the date is correct, but it looks like a GFE to me. The "movers and packers" have been self-reverted already. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add Buddhism as one of the explicit roots of Hinduism. 2. Add this reference to the lead:

Inden, Ronald. "Ritual, Authority, And Cycle Time in Hindu Kingship." In JF Richards, ed., Kingship and Authority in South Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p.67, 55 "before the eighth century, the Buddha was accorded the position of universal deity and ceremonies by which a king attained to imperial status were elaborate donative ceremonies entailing gifts to Buddhist monks and the installation of a symbolic Buddha in a stupa....This pattern changed in the eighth century. The Buddha was replaced as the supreme, imperial deity by one of the Hindu gods (except under the Palas of eastern India, the Buddha's homeland)...Previously the Buddha had been accorded imperial-style worship (puja). Now as one of the Hindu gods replaced the Buddha at the imperial centre and pinnacle of the cosmo-political system, the image or symbol of the Hindu god comes to be housed in a monumental temple and given increasingly elaborate imperial-style puja worship."

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria. Thank you very much for this source! Most welcome. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• Gautama Buddha in Hinduism#Buddha as an avatara of Vishnu
• Quoted in John C. Holt (2013), The Buddhist Visnu: Religious Transformation, Politics, and Culture, p.12
• Also quoted in Ronald M. Davidson (2013), Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement, p.84

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No western academic book uses genetics to justify Aryan Migration. Please delete the entire section. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. S. Ahloowalia (2009), Invasion of the Genes. Genetic Heritage of India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No JJ. Point to a book like Kulke's which uses genetics to justify Aryan Migration. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For related subjects? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Share opinion, here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic Vedism Bladesmulti (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're sure? I noticed the message at your Talk page, but thought it best to stay out. I'll have a second look, though. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, some unwanted conflict, because you suggest that a person is "wp:stalking" that can be suspicious, never knew that before either way. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I refrained therefo from commenting, being a "Talk page stalker" already. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Some of the circumstances are untold here, I avoid ban as much as i can though, few times it's uncertain what next one is doing. Now right now we got only one issue, and that's with the aryan migration theory, if that IP guy can present some special proof like he has told before, it may help a lot.. Do you also think that Rahul Jain will never put a end to the 2500 years old debate? I pretty much think so.. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Criticism of Jainism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 09:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Rahul (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Very nice work on Slavic Vedism, in terms of citations and content. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm surprised, though; it may not exactly be what you expected. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Muhammad was written down at least 120 years later? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, my point behind telling this ^^ was to inform, that writing anything like.... "buddha was written down 400 years later" on the lead, is actually essential? If so, why you think so? It's probably other editor who wrote it, I think. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Buddhists, the time-gap between the Buddha and the codification of the sutras is a central part of its narrative and self-understanding. It reminds us that Buddhism soon split-up in various (at least 18!) schools. It's taken as a reminder that we don't exactly know what the Buddha taught (if he ever existed at all...), that we have to remain critical about this teaching, and that we have to understand it for ourselves, instead of simply accepting it. That's the ideal, of course; read Zen at War for some sobering reality. Anyway, I guess that's why (also based on my own "socialisation" as "a Buddhist"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, its funny that you are still feeding the IP. Already noted, that the 176... will have to bring sources then only argument can be kept alive. Also what this "rollback" actually do? It's interesting that calling others edit "vandalism" is personal attack and he did multiple times(yoondue). Bladesmulti (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a wise remark, about "feeding the IP". Thank you. BTW, are you suggesting a connection between 176 and Yoonadue? best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be. Only asking that what is this "rollback" anyway, and why he wanted it? Is there any benefit with rollback? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of Twinkle. It means you can undo a series of edits at once. Interested? ;)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why they do that? You tried to get a rollback? You got 0 ban, and over 18,000 edits?(amazing though) Bladesmulti (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful when some f**ks-up, and you just want to reverse a whole series of edits. I nearly used it yesterday for your edits on Gautama. But then I checked them, and noticed that I could agree with several. :) So I reverted the ones I didn't agree with one by one (till I rememembered the 3RR-rule). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do we rename the Shramana page as Sramana? Sramana is by far the most common spelling in academia. It also has the added benefit of not being confused with shamanism as what occurred on the talk page. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per "Move" (tab at the upper richt) and per WP:COMMONNAME. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it can't be moved; Śramaṇa already exists. Copy the whole page... That's work for an administrator. Go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I did that here. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me a bit with this article? There is something very wrong with it, and I have a little trouble explaining it properly to those who have written it. This document might be helpful if you do decide to give it a look. Thanks, --Rahul (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try to discuss this first at the Talk page. I took a look at the article, but it's beyond my comprehension. And I already spend a lot of time and (emotional) energy on other India-related articles, so, I'm sorry for you, but I won't intervene on this one. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should classify or dismiss Breaking India and Invading the Sacred as "indigenous understanding". Neither book is written from an indigenous perspective. And then you are linking both books to the concept of Sanatana Dharma, which is also not fair. Invading the Sacred has many non-indigenous contributors, and Breaking India has very little to do with Hinduism at all. If you want to make a section called "Critique of Modern Scholarship", that would make more sense. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Copied to Talk:Hinduism#Indigenous Understanding[reply]

Hi Joshua. User:Krishnamoorthy1952, a fellow Tamil Wikipedian contributor contacted me regarding him being blocked in English Wiki. He has acknowledged that User:Spkmoorthy1952 is his username as well. He is new to Wikipedia, and not very familiar with Wikipedia policies or standards. I don't think he created duplicate usernames to commit abuse. Thus, I ask you unblock one of his usernames so that he can contribute to the Wiki.

It is possible that some of his edits are not suitable or upto to standards with the English Wikipedia. If that is the case, please let him know, and I'll advise him as well. --Natkeeran (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, but I'm not an administrator, so I can't unblock. He can make an appeal though at his talkpage. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the account User:Spkmoorthy1952 is not being blocked. So I guess he can us that one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Natkeeran (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your kind words, and for your every contribution here, as I learned so much from them. :) Bladesmulti (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hinduism, with about one billion followers is the world's third largest religion, after Christianity and Islam."

It should be changed to "world's largest religion". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're sure? The Wiki-article on Christianity mentions 2.2 billion Christians. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Worlds largest religion, after christianity, islam", that's how. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the issue is heatedly debated, there was reason why it was simply kept that "may have drawn upon elements", Because there can be too much to attribute if we tried. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Copied to Talk:Hinduism#Vedic period[reply]

See http://books.google.com/books?id=PD-flQMc1ocC&q=temples+emerged#v=snippet&q=temples%20emerged&f=false

Source writes "the first hindu temples emerged - Durga temple, Aihole, Vishnu temple - Deogarh. But the author is only talking about the first temples of this period, not about the temples like Koneswaram Temple(6th century BCE or older), Amarnath(3rd Century BCE), etc. Also the author is incorrect, because Durga temple, Aihole wasn't built during Gupta Empire. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Hinduism#First temples

Check the recent edition to talk page. I just posted a few sources, that support 1750 BCE for Vedic period. Also, you should not write like.. "...............(note)...(note)...(note)", but its better if you write like "............................(note)(note)(note)" If you don't want to may i edit that part for you instead? Thanks Bladesmulti (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)`[reply]

I'll read the Talk Page. I use specific notes to make very clear what statement, or even word, comes from which source. Consequence of the ongoing doubts about my sources... So no, I'd appreciate it if you don't change that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read this [1], especially by page 57.. Has some interesting stuff. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Mehrgarh? Yes, Indian culture is way older than the Aryans. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Purana is 5th Century BCE(even 3000 BCE according to some), Padma Purana is 8th Century BCE. What you think? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got sources? And beware of the difference between one or two instances, and the whole of a certain trend or development. 8th century BCE sounds very unlikely... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Purana borrows from Padma Purana, Vedas, so they are obviously older than Bhavishya Purana. Padma Purana is composed in 800 BCE, but many of it's chapters come as recently as 17th Century. Bhavishya purana is assigned to 3000 BCE by some, such as Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince, [2] Although 500 BCE being more common[3], All puranas are 500 BCE, just some editions were made later on.[4]. But still, it's incorrect to write that they were written during the Gupta empire. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti, get real. The Puranas were composed after the start of the CE. Regarding the sources you give:

• Picknett & Prince: the title says it all: "The Masks of Christ: Behind the Lies and Cover-ups About the Life of Jesus"
• Davidson: he says he was "informed by Horace I. Poleman" - ...
• "... the tradition of the Puranas may go even byond 500 BCE" - that's not the same as being composed or written down

Using sources is more than collecting quotes and soundbites, as you should know by now. This looks like a better source:

• Roshen Dalal (2010), Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roshen is not reliable source really. If you want to have more opinions about when Puranas were written, you can read[5]. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti, you still clearly do not understand what we mean by reliable sources. You say Roshen, who wrote The Penguin Dictionary of Religion in India is not a reliable source, But Picknett and Prince who are obviously fringe writers are? And a book on chess is clearly not a reliable source for the Puranas. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, You are right that Roshen Dalal can be reliable, but he's only talking about padma purana though, and we are talking about all purana here, that are dated before 1 century AD. It includes some other purana as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for help at the relevant wikiprojects. I don't think I can help much. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think anymore argument is needed now. I will be looking at the other usage of the Dharmacakra instead, one sentence claim that buddhist nation uses that flag, but it will be much better if i can find that "where", "how", "why" they uses them. And some others, thanks again for joining. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! (where do you live, actually?) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

India, and yes it is morning here. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

India! I figured you're living in Europe! Well, in Holland it's 06:30 now, and cold and dark. No wonder we've been barbarians for such a long time... Too busy keeping warm. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I regret my absence for those few hours, but I do have a final quibble with the suggested article text. In the interest of good faith, I didn't edit/revert the article, but have presented my position on talk. I just wanted to bring your attention to it. Please take a look. We're very close, so I do hope we can align on this in this new spirit of collegiality courtesy of JJ. Thank you, Devanampriya (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua. I was wondering why you reverted my edit to 'Perennial Philosophy': https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perennial_philosophy&oldid=591137496&diff=prev

Could you give me some feedback so that I can redo that section and add it back in?

Thanks Ruffling (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it is (or was) now, it's un unsourced statement ("Sikhism has a strong tradition of perennial philosophy.") and two illustrations. That's WP:SYNTHESIS. But my main objection that all kinds of traditions are cery easily lumped together under the header of "perennial philosophy" (or Nondualism or Spirituality or Mysticism). That's a modern approach, which is not universally accepted. At least, any section on "Sikh perennialism" would start with "according to ... Sikhism containd perennial elements/can be considered as ...". Succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna have look at this. The Buddhist Wheel Symbol, by T.B. Karunaratne [6]

It's an old article but not an outdated one. the section on ″The Significance of the Wheel″ is interesting. Hope it'll be helpful to improve the article.

Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm going to read it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was attributed as "God Vishnu" from start. But later changed to "Hindu god of preservation", then "Vedic god of preservation".. Even though both terms are really not needed, he has his own page. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. As far as I remember, "Vedic god" was the term being used in the source - check, indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe there. But remember, there are evidences that he was worshiped pre-vedic times, and he has importance in just every single school/philosophy of Hindus, thus "hindu god" is wider term then. Whatever, it should be just "Lord Vishnu", or "God Vishnu". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. Best, Devanampriya (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? To enter an area with less controversy? Spirituality, mysticism; same range, I'm afraid... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, are you a SPA? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so, a SPA with a very broad range :) There are few editors, I guess, who are knowledgeable at both Buddhism and Hinduism (though I know more about Buddhism). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds about to be right. Anyways, if you would like to, just check Voltaire, and recent/last conversation on its talk page. Thanks! Bladesmulti (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? You want me to run into even more problems? ;) I'll take a look - but I don't promise I'll interfere. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a look, but it's notclear to me what's the problem. But I do think that Drmies is an experienced editor. Maybe you can give Itsmejudith some room to make his edits, and kindly comment on them at the Talk page? Let's assume good faith (that's my feeling here). By the way, I have to admit, that my troubles with you-know-who must look just as difficult to follow as this dispute looks to me. That's also a an attempt to put myself and my pre-occupations into perspective. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies has no dispute with me there, only other person, who keeps adding content from sources like "www.voltaire-integral.com"(half of them), after acclaiming to "derive from french wiki", i mean seriously? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I think you should try to point out your objections friendly, at the Talk page. I noticed though the insertion of large pieces of French; I hardly speak or read French myself, so I really don't understand what it's good for. But again, that's something you can explain at the talk page. I'm really sorry, I feel I should do more to try to help or negotiate, but this dharmacakra-dispute is wearing me off. I don't have the time or energy left to engage in this one. I'm really sorry, since I appreciate your comments and requests, and your open attitude, even when I revert you (which I did do, several times! "Big zero!" wasn't true! (And I still will, when it's necessary; standards are standards!)) Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are discussed on the Rajiv Malhotra yahoo group by an individual claiming to be Manipadmehum. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's something for ANI, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link to the group. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what's being discussed? I don't seem to have access to that page - or I don't know how it works. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to ask permission to join.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Can you copy-paste? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not working for me anymore. I might have got banned.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you made yourself popular? Seems to be a problem to some, when convictions are being questioned. Anyway, some time ago then, that I was being "discussed"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is working now. But I don't feel comfortable copying and pasting. Actually Rajiv Malhotra was agreeing with Wikipedia, in that people are not following proper Wikipedia procedures. So you should not prejudge. The discussion was from January 5th-9th. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your integrity (that's maybe not the best phrasing, but I'm not a native speaker). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. At least nobody is writing about you in Examiner.com! (yes, there's scurrilous/libelous article there about me, full of lies). The author gets paid by the hit so I wouldn't bother looking at it. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll avoid to look at Examiner.com what that is :) Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com is so unclear, what they are trying to tell. Anyways, the yahoo group, a person says that it should not be bought that you are a buddhist, and gives reason. Want me to copy paste here? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See note on my Talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered about Sanghao Caves from your template, just made a page about it, now since it is in Pakistan, we(anyone) wouldn't know much about it, it has definitely something to do with ancient indian subcontinent belief as well. But I wonder when we may know about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do know you aren't "another user", don't you? You are posting in the wrong place. If you are replying to someone else you can use @otheruser. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Dougweller, how long is this going to drag on?" No, that one was a message to you, as a plea to intervene. Shouldn't have done that? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive user User:Bladesmulti: "Cambridge Uni fabricates sources"

Assure you, I am no sock puppet of this user, never even heard the name. Ready for any SPI too. Plus, you may want to check my reply on that page. You will know better. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but let me first say: take care, be patient, and talk with other editors. And read some good books. You're really at the edge. And also, in case you're going to get banned, don't start a sockpuppet. Don't. Let it rest for a couple of years, grow older and wiser, develop yourself, and then, eventually, come back. And please, stay open-minded. Oh my, hear old daddy speaking.... Just take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshua, you can call me 74. Bladesmulti has agreed to accept a mentor, and will limit themselves to 5 edits per day, so that said mentor is no overwhelmed.  :-)   Are you interested in helping me try and train them? I'll do most of the talking, and you do most of the watchlisting, is the arrangement I had in mind, but I'm flexible. This is not WP:REQUIRED of you, certainly, but since you mentioned the idea, and seem like a nice fellow, I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.  :-)   Please reply on the AN/I page, if you think this is a workable proposal, or could be workable with some tweaks. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here, though; I don't know. I'll have to think about this. Give me one night (wow, that sounds thrilling, doesn't it?) Thanks for your confidence in me, any way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no prob. CorinneSD has offered to help a bit, and Bladesmulti has already made two of their five for today (we'll use UTC time), and I can handle their next three. Take your time, and appreciate you thinking it over. I won't lie, and tell you I expect this will be an easy training-job, it might take some effort. But 5 edits a day probably isn't so bad, with two or three co-mentors to wrangle the rodeo. Thanks for improving wikipedia, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the recent edit on talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever it is about title change, use Support from start. So that people won't need to read much. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've answered your concerns on ANI see this. I think he may be a sockpuppet of another user that's been banned from Wikipedia. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Don't know what more to say about this; it's sad (at least that's how I feel about it). I noticed that you're interested in Sikh-history? I remember some desperate responses from Sikh-history (the editor), on the same kind of issues. Reagarding myself, I just found out that there is still more to learn in respect to Wikipedia-behaviour: how to respond in such a way that disputes and clashes are avoided. But that's exactly what makes me sad: knowledge should "enlighten" people, not stir 'm up to even more fights. Ah well, best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate, at least once a day, keeps me happy! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about this practice? Hafspajen (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only know about chickens and guinea pigs. They keep pretty nice in line when the food is appearing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Zen in the Art of Archery, but using a blowgun, that is something new. Hafspajen (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'No, thanks, woede of angst Walging, afkeer, weerzin of aversie. Hafspajen (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears as the favourite pet of the Red Queen and serves as her champion for the Frabjous Day. When it comes to him confronting Alice, the Jabberwocky quotes "Ah, my old foe. We meet on the battlefield once again." When Alice states that they never met, the Jabberwocky quotes "Not you insignificant bearer. My ancient enemy, the Vorpal One." During the fight against the Jabberwocky, Alice manages to defeat it by using the Vorpal Sword to slice off the Jabberwocky's head causing the White Queen's side to win. The White Queen later uses the Jabberwocky's venom to make a potion that will get Alice home.

Hafspajen (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joshua Jonathan. I noticed two sets of edits to the article on Hinduism changing the spelling of quite a few words. I just wanted you to know that I left a note on that editor's Talk page User Talk:Hendrick 99 about the changes. Feel free to chime in. (While you're there, take a look at comments from other editors regarding changing spelling in other articles.)CorinneSD (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look right now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you wrote on Drmies's page. It should be obvious that even you agree, we have similar issue with about 3 or more editors, who are even worse than Yoonadaue, at this moment, when it comes to the same guidelines, issues, that you referred. You cannot make issue of what he is saying on talk page, maybe because everyone is free for expressing themselves on talk page, as long as they don't rage. But I really think that he is not going to create any sandbox, and the way he is "demanding", is going to waste time. Relax. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. This is why I supported you, and agreed to be your mentor: because sometimes you say wise words like "relax". Sometimes another person is needed to help you step back. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cute! My daughter likes the picture! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hafspajen (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are you? Long time. I have some articles here, Korran and Kudiramalai, that could use your research and writing skills, in the areas of Hinduism and Tamils etc. I highly doubt much of what is in these articles and what they are saying, and I am suspicious of the creator as all of his refs are to unlinked books. Previously I did some copy editing on an article written by the same editor and found that a lot of what is written is either not found in those books or are completely false. Can use your expertise in dealing with such articles here?--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thrust in my capabilities. I'll take a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a few titles; Google Books gives a little bit more info, but no examples. I could try some copy-editing, but it's totally impossible for me to check the info. I also tries a Google-search for "Pittan Korran": also no examples. It's a pity... And I noticed the two you had a "difference of opinion" on some maintenance-templates; makes me wonder if these are not cases of WP:LETITBE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we did, this editor left a trail of unsourced controversial articles, much of which were politically incorrect. The topics in question were dubious and and my efforts to fix them were always reverted. There seems to be duplicate information in all three articles, which I have removed. I will help you out with the copy editing later. In the mean time I have found some more articles...Kandarodai and Fort Fredrick. Thanks for your assistance--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your frustration. One of my managers once said "One idiot can ask more questions than ten persons can answer. The same seems to apply here: one person can make a series of edits in a short time, which consumes muuuuuuch time from others to clean up. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan:

“	O snail Climb Mount Fuji, But slowly, slowly!	”
— Kobayashi Issa

Sorry.... couldn't help it. Aren't we all snails... So many things to do. May be taking it slow might help. Nishadhi (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have replyed to your message on my talkpage. AcidSnow (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I need assistance. As you can see he has no desire to talk as he is now trying to get me banned off Wikipedia. What do I do besides defend myself? AcidSnow (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did edit , which should be reviewed (since I'm not sure if it was done appropriately).  ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me! You're really careful, that's good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Valentine's Day
	............................................................................................................................................................................ Hafspajen (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make my day! Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• -. Hafspajen (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at a few edits to St. Thomas Christians by an IP editor. I have no way to judge the correctness of these edits (including changes in languages and in a population figure). I just thought I'd ask you if you thought 9,900,000 was possible as a total world population of St. Thomas Christians.CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I've removed it; Wikipedia is not accepted as a source for Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks.CorinneSD (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was on basis of your own cogent arguments (that didn't by themselves get through, unfortunately) that I became inspired to try a new appoach; namely to bolster your own arguments with explicit, very thorough source discussion, and that seems to have benefited User:Bladesmultis thinking at last, gradually seeing the rather shaky foundations of initial claims. To me, that simply shows B is a bit of an enthusiast, a dedicated and honest Wikipedian, but rather smitten with the enthusiast's main fault: Once an idea is felt to be "cool", "great" or "fascinating", the critical eye shuts down, and must gradually be opened again by calm, polite (but "merciless") cooling of his ardour by presentation of solid counter-arguments, as well as pointing out how shaky the first "sources" really are.

It can be (very) annoying to meet an enthusiast with cogent, short, but sufficient arguments (like your initial ones) but that doesn't get through to him. But for Bladesmulti at least, his own basic honesty to search for truth wins out in the end, I think, if he is met with patient, explicit counter-arguments.Arildnordby (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Arildnorby's challenge for bringing related/similar stories, I feel like I have much more content and once again a lot to do. You can see, I never reverted your edit for a reason. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But I believe it would be better to have ONE page dedicated to the Ezourvedam, and another NEW page, dedicated on Ramatsariar. Reason? They occurred at different times, are not as such the "same" story. At the moment, your previous edits on Ezourvedam are, to some extent, better included on a Ramasariar page (although the pages should be interlinked).

On a LONGER time scale, the whole cultural idea (if not reality) of "Christianity developed from Ancient Hindu Tales" (where both the Ezourvedam and Ramatsariar tale would be imoportant moments in its history!) could be a really important and interesting article.

But right now, Bladesmulti, I think the principal focus should be on the Ezourvedam, how to make that article really good. The Rocher reference is the MAJOR source we should use here!Arildnordby (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my comment above, because other senior editor removed the part, that I wanted to remove/edit, citing it to be irrelevant, just like I had thought. Anyways, you can check Ezourvedam again. The page is alright! And yes, it deserved its own page too. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the PRESENT edition of the page is acceptable, but if you feel, say, that a specific section on the actual content in the Ezourvedam ought to be included, I think that would constute an improvement to the present article (but, I would say, use Rocher on content ref, or the Ezourvedam itself)Arildnordby (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, did you create that wonderful collection of pictures with captions illustrating Wiki types? I so enjoyed looking at it.CorinneSD (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen did. He's brilliant at those things. I already thought about copying it to a Wiki-essay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear it got deleted. Unfree pictures, FORRRBIDDEN ON TALK PAGES. Why on earth would that hurt anyone, I don't get it. It is just talk pages, right? But I am working on a new one. Thanks, CorinneSD , for your appreciation. Hafspajen (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity! Looking forward to the new version. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen is a pearl in the rough, a diamond in the sand, and a thorn in the side of the image-police.  :-)   The new version, CorinneSD, has arrived. More spectacular than ever, if I may say so. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JJ and Corinne, Bladesmulti does not want to work on Adimo/Ezourvedam, and it sounds like JJ is also tired of that topic.  :-)   Bladesmulti has suggested that we write a page on Hindu Creation Narratives... which might be okay... but has the downside that it is a very broad subject. Bladesmulti likes to rush from place to place, moving on before fully understanding what was in the past.

  One of the reasons I liked Adimo/Ezourvedam, is because it is a very narrow subject: there are not that many sources, so we can actually analyze every source. Compare this to Voltaire, which has almost an infinite number of sources. My worry is that Hindu Creation Narratives will never keep Bladesmulti in one place long enough to understand fully. I don't care if we pick Adimo, or something else, but I'd like to pick a small and contained topic. Bladesmulti was working on another subpage, User:Bladesmulti/Abel_Bergaigne which is an author from the late 1800s. Bergaigne already has a page on frWiki, which we can use to guide us. Or, please, if any co-mentor wants to suggest an alternative strategy, I am all ears. Kangaroo ears, or teddy bear ears, according to Hafspajen.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to continue on Hindu Creation Narratives, then the first objective for Blades is to find reliable sources. But, to be honest, I agree with 74: stick to a single, simple topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure B understand that working on material that need not itself become a new article, he can still, more importantly, hone his skills in order to be better prepared for article creation. Your choice, of course, but if you are to begin yeat a new topic (remember African religions is a potentially HUGE article!!), then you need to go through all the process of new sources that needs to be found and checked and "disputed". With "Adimo", you as ma entor team already have built up a certain competence and overview, and can more swiftly work on reflection upon already present sources with him. I wish you the best of luck!Arildnordby (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading it correctly, it can be done, and easily. There are a lot more popular stories to focus on. And indeed, highly notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like to concentrate on various subjects, though once I feel that I had enough from one, I would read about other subject.(my drafts/sandboxes are months old) For now, I can assure that my future articles will be mostly about publishing companies, there are many popular publishing companies, but they got no article here. It will be easier for rest, in terms of judging reliability. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti, that is a very good explanation of exactly how you work. You concentrate hard on one subject. Then, when you have had enough, you jump to another subject. That is a good way to work, sometimes. However, you need to fix some serious problems.

  There is only one way for you to save yourself, Bladesmulti. You must learn not to fight, which means, you must learn to understand what people say to you, and to understand what sources say. There is not "discussion" when only one side listens. Bladesmulti, you have to improve your grammar when you write, but more importantly, when you read. WP:ENC says that Wikipedia is a written compendium of knowledge, freely available. It is! That means, editors have to write grammatically (so Bladesmulti must learn grammar). Also, editors have to work together to create the compendium (so Bladesmulti must learn to not fight). Also, to know what knowledge is, editors must understand the sources (so Bladesmulti must work harder at deeply understanding what sources actually say and what they actually mean). Finally, the knowledge in wikipedia should be free as in freedom, which is covered by pillar three, see below. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The types!

• Original picture removed; Image:The Electric Mayhem.jpgThe Electric Mayhem is like the Wikipedia - We are all in the same basket
  Original picture removed; Image:The Electric Mayhem.jpgThe Electric Mayhem is like the Wikipedia - We are all in the same basket
• There are the electricalgirls. Can be timid and shy or posessive of articles (That is Not good, you should let others edit your articles).
  There are the electricalgirls. Can be timid and shy or posessive of articles (That is Not good, you should let others edit your articles).
• 
  Original picture removed; Image:Fozzierowlf.jpg Those are buddies. Buddies work together. ^[1]
• 
  Original picture removed; File:Animal (Muppet).jpg There is the frustrated type who shows his teeth
• 
  Original picture removed; File:Beaker (Muppet)-en.jpg There is the new begginer who does'n get a thing
• And there is the editor who doesn't Want to get it.
  And there is the editor who doesn't Want to get it.
• 
  There is the is the frustrated type who bites
• There is the editor who needs good faith
  There is the editor who needs good faith
• 
  Original picture removed; Dr. Bunsen Honeydew File:Dr. Bunsen Honeydew.jpg There is the Doctor with his PHDY, who knows everything and he will tell you all
• 
  Original picture removed; File:Fozzie Bear.jpg There is the nice guy who will do his best, like Jonathan
• 
  Then there are the Austalians who don't know how the rest of the world works
• Original picture removed; File:Gonzo 3C 200x300px.jpg There is the weird guy who will do weird things
  Original picture removed; File:Gonzo 3C 200x300px.jpg There is the weird guy who will do weird things
• 
  Original picture removed; File:MissPiggy.jpg And there is Mr Pig who tries to hit everybody in the head with most convincing arguments
• Original picture removed; File:Kermit the Frog.jpg There is Kermit the Frog who is doing his best, but others don't agree, like Bladesees
  Original picture removed; File:Kermit the Frog.jpg There is Kermit the Frog who is doing his best, but others don't agree, like Bladesees
• 
  Then there are the original editors they see everything upside down, and confuse everybody, like 74
• 
  And here is Doctor Dolittle.
• Original picture removed; Rowlf the Dog File:Rowlf the Dog.jpg There is the dog lover who edits mostly dog articles, ahem
  Original picture removed; Rowlf the Dog File:Rowlf the Dog.jpg There is the dog lover who edits mostly dog articles, ahem
• 
  Original picture removed; File:ScooterMuppet.jpg There is the young genius - as he thinks of himself, in reality a Nerd or a Geek (very hard to convince them about anything.)
• 
  There are the OLD wikipedians who knows best (and they usually do)
• 
  Original picture removed; File:Statler and Waldorf.jpg There is the OLD wikipedian who knows best (and they usually do)
• 
  The editor who has multiple a accounts
• 
  and there are the editors who allways get their way by printing WP:This and WP:That ( often not quite true but it sounds good.)
• 
  There are the editors who are draged to the ANI and spend a lot of time defending themselves somehow there.
• 
  There are the completely Angelic editors, polite and loving like Sagaciousphil‎ and Yngvadottir (if is not busy) - (Very rare)
• And there are the happy guys like Drmies who chat happily with everyone and loves everybody- also very rare.
  And there are the happy guys like Drmies who chat happily with everyone and loves everybody- also very rare.
• 
  And there are the picture cleaners who inconsiderately remove pictures and don't replace them with others, like XX
• And there are the editor who left or got banned by the banners
  And there are the editor who left or got banned by the banners
• 
  There is the orphan editor who is alone and nobody cares for him or her
• 
  Original picture removed; File:SamTheEagle.jpg And There Is The Eagle, who is ...a pompous as. They may know things or may not, but because they believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people, it really doesn't matter. They can be spotted at Christmas time. Although they have contact with a lot of editors, never get a Christmas greeting. Or a Happy New Year greating. One could mention probably names here but we leave this link Red.
• Everybody knows his or her part and all have a point, and all are here to contribute, with the exception of the totally really stupid guys. We call those vandals.
  Everybody knows his or her part and all have a point, and all are here to contribute, with the exception of the totally really stupid guys. We call those vandals.
• 
  Here we are

Donate them to you If you thought about copying it to a Wiki-essay. Hafspajen (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKITYPE Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pillar three

• And talking about my talk page, whoever removed those images by Hafspajen just wanted attention, it is a wild guess. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen's images were truly great. Unfortunately, they violated some copyright rules that must be kept with on Talk Pages, but not on Articles.Arildnordby (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, true. But why have such rules? Hafspajen (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So that they can be imposed, whenever they "like" to. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to WP:IMAGINE, Bladesmulti. The image-deletion-editor was protecting wikipedia, in good faith. Hafspajen was using images from TV. Those images are owned by Hollywood businesses. The images are trademarks and copyrighted. They are not encyclopedic images. Why not? Because of pillar three. Information on wikipedia should be for everyone. Kermit the frog is only for people with money, to pay Kermit's owners. Therefore, because editors of wikipedia care about freedom, other kinds of images are encouraged. Images that are GFDL and CC-BY-SA, special licenses that help freedom.

  WP:COPYVIO is especially important, because wikipedia has webservers in the USA. If we editors COPYVIO images, lawyers can shut off wikipedia's webservers. That would delete all of wikipedia from the internet. COPYVIO is very serious. It is for images, for text, for videos, everything. COPYVIO is one reason why grammar is important, Bladesmulti. You cannot copy sentences from sources. That is COPYVIO. You have to write your *own* sentences, that summarize the source. Then, you have to re-write your own sentences, to fix mistakes. Re-writing helps fix grammar. Re-writing helps fix incorrect statements. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I just wondered if a private person who is using that image on a private page on Wikipedia, who is not selling it, not doing anything at all but watching it, - how can this be harmful? Just common sense - why should that be wrong? Because those images were used in the articles, so what is the difference? I can go to the article and do my watching there - no? Same thing. Hafspajen (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because Wikipedia has been granted rights on its article space that it has not achieved, or even worked at, to gain on its user pages. There might, for example, be a subtle legal difference in who to sue for something published on article pages, versus who to sue for something published on talk pages.Arildnordby (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen, you are talking human morality. Arildnordby is correct, the legality of using pictures in mainspace is covered by a special legal loophole, fair use, which is a part of the copyright law which says that educational and publication-oriented sites can use unfree-imagefiles, with certain restrictions. Talkpages are for discussing user-behavior, planning articles to work on, and (to a limited extent) having fun making wikipedia. None of those activities are covered by the legal loophole, so there is no kermit, no van halen, and so on permitted in talkspace. The same goes for WP:AFC draft-submissions, which cannot have the company-logo, but once the article is in *mainspace* then the company logo can be uploaded, because mainspace is a special fair-use exception. Legals meet morals, and the result is a big mess.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since 74 due to his IP-status deprives him of the opportunity to be thanked directly for clarifying posts through the "thank" option, I find the need to thank you with a few more words on the critical, abstruse legalistic issues here. I agree in my heart with both Bladesmulti and Hafspajen, but Law is a typed of merciless rationality (but sometimes, irrationality) that rules us all. It is important that we all learn the actual rules Wikipedia is bound to follow.Arildnordby (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping track of all the discussions going on at various pages is already an accomplishment on its own here... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ehm, well- how about Wikipedia:Be bold? I edit much better when I have fun. Hafspajen (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Hafspajen, WP:IAR doesn't apply to office actions or legal issues. If you screw up and get wikipedia sued, all the servers can be taken offline. WP:NOTANARCHY, sorry.  :-)   Another copyright law you should be aware of: linking to youtube videos of the muppet show, which infringe the copyright of the gigantic hollywood studios which profit from reselling those trademarked characters, is illegal in some countries. Jimbo Wales had to step in personally, for exactly that sort of reason, see Richard_O'Dwyer. Do you know any people, Hafspajen, that post copyright infringing links to youtube, or scribd, or similar? Then give those naught people a stern talking-to, and explain that wikipedia is not just for fun. Freedom is terribly serious business! Youtube contributors routinely violate copyright, and google is politically powerful, thus able to avoid trouble (so far). But wikipedia does NOT have billions of dollars. We have to respect intellectual freedom, by creating content which is free as in freedom. Understand? No swiping allowed. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 74... I had read a while ago.[7] Really great advise! Useful, even outside wikipedia. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. p.s. Please read grammar lesson five, again. Then, rewrite your sentences (above), fix the problems, and paste the corrected/rewritten version (below). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not an anarchy? I thought it was. I just got my userpage semivanalized by so called wikilove- _{no wait a minute I hateyou.} stuff. And I am further hanged out on his userpage. and how came that the servers all all still working when people are postind their own works on Yarn bombing. Why are the servers not taken offline yet? Hafspajen (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only you know what that means... In Wikipedia:WikiFauna is described as having desirable traits of an editor who is sporadically highly active and, when sporadically highly active, are boldly and grand, but exhibits less desirable traits of being clumsy or overconfident... Hafspajen (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about removing it again; in some respects I keep coming back to the same topics and/or issues over and over again. Anyway, I like the description. Thanks for the link; I'll have a look. [User:Joshua Jonathan|Joshua Jonathan]] -Let's talk! 11:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I got your edits on Buddhism_and_Hinduism, if I had time, I would be thoroughly checking every source. There is some misrepresentation of sources. For example, let us take that "Caste" section, that I have edited.

• First source is alright.
• 2nd source, of Wendy O'Flaherty,'s book, p. 186 and 193 has nothing like "buddha" or "caste".
• 3rd source of Richard Gombrich is not available, but[8] makes it really hard to follow. Actually, Buddha tells in Sutta, that caste is not even a matter, and in the end of the day you have to follow dhamma, avoid bad things, he affirms that caste is not a shield.
• 4th source "Buddhism implicitly denied the validity of caste distinctions by offering ordination to all regardless of caste." But quite WP:DUE, because it was noted on first line.
• 5th source "Encyclopedia of Buddhism", about "Buddhism implicitly denied the validity of caste distinctions by offering ordination to all regardless of caste," unavailable, but there is one more source, that I have found. So it is fair.
• 6th source about Ashvaghosa is incorrect, and no evidence he opposed castes or varnas.
• "While the caste system constitutes an assumed background to the stories told in Buddhist scriptures, the sutras do not attempt to justify or explain the system, and the caste system was not generally propagated along with the Buddhist teachings." - Is sourced.
• "The early texts state that caste is not determined by karma.", source is not even talking about "caste" or "varna", in whole chapter.
• Last paragraph, "The notion of ritual purity also provided a conceptual foundation for the caste system, by identifying occupations and duties associated with impure or taboo objects as being themselves impure.", Though I cannot discover it on book itself, but the book discussed about the caste system among buddhists, it says "Buddhists assume their caste identity not only in their dealings with Hindus but also among themselves. Only members of the vajracarya and sakya-bhiksu castes, for instance, are allowed to live in temple compounds."

Though I have added a lot clearer content. "Avatar", was already mentioned in a subsection. So I am not slashing, but I had moved it. Page is not really written like essay, so the main tag can be misleading. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi blades. I'll have a more detailed look later. Mean while, let me say that I still don't like this sort of article. The topic is too broad. Which Hinduism and Buddhism do we compare? Also, notice what's missing: the origins of both Buddhism and Hinduism in the Vedic culture of northern India at around 500 BCE. And the dominance of Buddhism at royal courts for centuries; what does this tell us about the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism durring those centuries? It seems to me that Buddhism and Brahmanism/early Hinduism are closely related - the "Buddhist-Brahmanical Cultural Complex", as I called it before. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though article seems better to me. At least now. Obviously it needs a lot of improvement, there will be some undue, it is quiet like talking about Japan-India relations. There is nothing wrong with the lead, though it can be expanded. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some nice stuff to play with - Talk:Persecution of Hindus for you. I am needed on other fronts for the moment. Hafspajen (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great. Do I want to know this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khabboos... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just thougt migt be new interesting thing for you orientalists. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been there before... The two of them are likely going to clash hard. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the top source on this subject, along with "Indian Esoteric Buddhism" by Ronald Davidson.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're back! No sock of me . "Indian Esoteric Buddhism" is a great book; Einoo looks great too. Are you a scholar? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Joshua_Jonathan Sir, I am explaining about what is going on in the page Raju or Kshatriya Raju page.It is a page related to the caste of Kshatriya Varna.

Iam bringing it your notice because there is a very big problem in developing this article.If this article has to be developed,please provide freedom for other editors to develop this article by providing reliable sources.In this page an editor named "Sitush" is creating hurdles by deleting the sourced statements with reliable sources.The reasons he is providing is not considerable.Anyone can clearly understand by his reasons that he don't like to develop the article. I will explain you point by point: 1.)[When Gotras are provided from the following 2 references: (i)cite book| title=Tamil Nadu Part-2 Affiliated East-West Press [for] Anthropological Survey of India, 1997 |publisher=Kumar Suresh Singh, R. Thirumalai, S. Manoharan |year=1997 |isbn= |url=http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=XM78UpaOGIulrQei84CYAQ&id=P3LiAAAAMAAJ&dq=kshatriya+rajus&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kshatriya+rajus+gotras |page=774] (ii)</ref> Sir, in that page reference 1 which is "Parties,Elections etc." also clearly explains that Rajus are of Kshatriya Varna which is accepted by Britishers,Government of India and also State Government of India.That editor named "sitush" is wantedly removing that "Kshatriya" Varna because he don't want to mention it.Sitush removed Gotras in that page. Sir,K.S.Singh is a great Historian, he(K.S.Singh) wrote many books affiliated to Anthropological Survey of India and Oxford University Press.Iam providing sources from two of his books: (i)India's Communities (ii)Tamil nadu Part 2 and these are reliable sources as i have stated above. Sir,I am requesting you to verify this paragraph: {A number of communities claim the status of "Kshatriya Varna",but apart from "Rajput" they are very small.They are "Rajus"(Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu),"Raghuvamsi Kshatriya"(Karnataka),"Kshatriya"(Kerala),"Koteyar"(Tamil Nadu,Karnataka),"Dal Kshatriya"(Bihar),"Aguri"(West Bengal) and "Kshatriya"(Orissa and Assam)-in all eight communities which are widely accepted in the references of "India's Communities" by K.S.Singh,Vol-V.p.1853,1856-1858","http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=A0O8UtD5Bo6IiQejnIHQCg&id=1lZuAAAAMAAJ&dq=india%27s+communities&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aguri" This was the statement mentioned by K.S.Singh in his book.This statement of K.S.Singh is given as the Kshatriya Rajus asked their caste to be placed in Backward castes list in Tamil Nadu for the Backward Classes commission which can be seen in the following link "www.ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/Tamil%20Nadu/Tamilnadu-Vol2/7.pdf‎".}This is a reliable source and sitush has removed this from the page.

But,that Sitush is removing wantedly and he is not giving freedom for any other editors to develop the Rajus article.

Sir,Finally iam a requesting you as you are one of the senior editor in the wikipedia and i can beleive that You can provide justice for the common editors and also help to maintain the reputation of wikipedia by developing the article. And i am also requesting you to study the above references of K.S.Singh i have provided and discuss it with experts.If you feel those are reliable.Then i request you to develop the article by entering content from those books of K.S.Singh.

Thanking you sir,

Yours faithfully, An Editor. Special:Contributions/117.207.254.186 aka Special:Contributions/117.213.161.28 aka Special:Contributions/117.207.251.145 aka Special:Contributions/117.200.22.72 10:41, 27 February 2014‎

117, please create an account. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of thread: According to 117, Sitush is deleting sourced statements with reliable sources:

• Kshatriya Varna
• Sitush is removing Kshatriya Varna.
  • Please verify this paragraph:

"A number of communities claim the status of Kshatriya Varna, but apart from Rajput they are very small. They are Rajus (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu), Raghuvamsi Kshatriya (Karnataka), Kshatriya (Kerala), Koteyar (Tamil Nadu,Karnataka), Dal Kshatriya (Bihar), Aguri (West Bengal) and Kshatriya (Orissa and Assam)."

• • All eight communities are widely accepted in the references of K.S.Singh', "India's Communities", Vol-V., p.1853, 1856-1858 [9]

• Gotras (clan)
• Sitush removed Gotras (clan) in that page.
• Gotras are provided from the following 2 references:
  • Suresh Singh (1997), Tamil Nadu Part 2, Affiliated East-West Press [for] Anthropological Survey of India, p.774 [10]: Rajus are of Kshatriya Varna.
  • Singh [11]
• K.S.Singh is a great historian. These sources are reliable sources.

• Kshatriya Rajus as Backward caste
• The Kshatriya Rajus asked their caste to be placed in Backward castes list in Tamil Nadu for the Backward Classes commission which can be seen in [www.ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/Tamil%20Nadu/Tamilnadu-Vol2/7.pdf‎ this link]. This is a reliable source and sitush has removed this from the page.

Copied to Talk:Raju#Recent edits by Sitush. To be continued there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr.Joshua Jonathan for the efforts and also spending your valuable time in trying to analyse and develop this Rajus article and i wish you all the best for your future endeavours :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.208.138.14 (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raju, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sai Baba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my userpage [12]

Why you give importance to language sankrit in hindu religion.Every one know the real founder of hindu regilion was native dravidans and indian tribal people why you are hidding the truth. This is question put to Joshua Jonathan. 14:20, 27 February 2014 User:Madhanmohancoimbatore

Friend, have a look at Hinduism, and see how much I have done for giving a neutral overview of the history of Hinduism... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about the Saint Thomas Christians? If you don't, do you know an editor who does? The article recently came off a short period under protected status due to some edit warring, but two different editors have just made a few edits to the article. I don't know enough about the topic to judge the changes to content. However, there are also some additions that are not in Standard English. Before I work on that, I thought I'd ask if you or someone else could determine whether the changes to content are correct and an improvement to the article.CorinneSD (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ask here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, or at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. It's India-related; disputes are to be expected... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I know? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least not at the top, unless one removes the blades and stuff, I mean. Hafspajen (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. Thank you again for all you do! --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Joshua Jonathan, the anthropologer Minna Säävälä has clarity about it, she described Rajus caste as traditional rulers and warriors and are Kshatriya that means they are of Kshatriya Varna and you can see that in her book, she also describes Rajus caste as "Raju Kulam(Kshatriyas)" in one sentence in that book.Here Kulam,jati,caste are synonyms.Kshatriya is their varna.In Ancient India,there are only four varnas or castes.But in present India,there are thousands of castes because many castes originated in shudra varna as they have classified due to their profession.In present India,there are castes of Brahmins,Kshatriyas,Vaishyas,Upper Shudras,Shudras,Dalits & Tribals/Adivasis.You can find these in many books.In present India,there are different Brahmin,Kshatriya & Vaishya castes that means those are the castes which comes under those three varnas.And the castes of those varnas will classified according to their respective varnas and they are called as Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas.For example,Rajput & Rajus are Kshatriya Castes that means those are different castes but comes under Kshatriya Varna,that means they are called as Kshatriya Castes i.e. Kshatriyas.Also you can notice that gotras of Brahmins,Kshatriyas & Vaishyas are different from shudras.Also those three varnas are dvijas i.e. possess sacred thread and they also possess gotras named after rishis whether they are saptarishis(7 great sages) or other rishis(sages).Kshatriyas are divided into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.Rajus are also classified into Suryavanshi & Chandravanshi.But in Rajputs, Agnivanshi Lineage is also present.Many Indian & Foreign Anthropologers made analysis about all these.Minna Säävälä-She is one of the great anthropologers who had written many books and analysed the castes of India. -Shvrs (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Joshua Jonathan,I request you to please revise your edit because you have taken into consideration and given importance to the Indian author who wrote book in the favour of Dalit & bahujans.He stated that Rajus & Komatis claimed Kshatriya & Vaishya status.Even he did not provide any explanation or detailed reference and he simply said the statement that they claimed Kshatriya status because of author's idea to create them as they are not real Kshatriyas.You please analyse that Satyanarayana's Book.No other Historian & Anthropologer described Rajus in such manner as "locally dominant landed gentry claimed".But,unfortunately that unreliable source is taken into consideration. -Shvrs (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajus are described as Kshatriyas by the Government of India which you can see in the Overseas Development Institute reference in that page.Also Rajus are mentioned as kshatriyas in Governments castes list.Rajus are Kshatriyas accepted by Britishers,Historians,Anthropologers,Brahmins,Government of India & also people who know true history. -Shvrs (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally,what i mean to say is if you have time & interest,you please study & deeply analyse Rajus caste by referring to sources & books written by Indian & Foreign Anthropologers.I believe,then you will know the truth about Rajus. -Shvrs (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have mentioned as "Etymology & claims of Kshatriya status".It is not fair and it will also be an insult to the Kshatriya caste i.e Kshatriyas to say that they claim Kshatriya status.I have faith in you & i know you can develop the Rajus article.But, after all it is upto you & your wish.Please reply me if you can.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems accurate to me: it's a claim. From what I understand of it (which is very limited, not being an Indian), the Kshatriya-status seems to derive from previous employment as servants or soldiers at the service of royal rulers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have mistaken it very strongly.Rajus are noble Kshatriyas who were aristocrats and also higher caste of Kings,Rulers and warriors.Rajus are not soldiers or servants.And no book or Anthropologer and even no historian mentions Rajus as servants or soldiers.Anthropologers mentions them as Kshatriyas who were Kings & warriors.If you think in such way as you said i.e. 'soldiers or servants' your approach is very wrong.Rajus are Kings & Rulers in the past and people of Rajus caste who are close associates of Kings of Rajus caste or relatives to Kings of Rajus caste acted as warriors in order to protect or defend the King from enemies.Rajus caste consists both "rulers and warriors".Here,warrior doesn't mean a soldier or servant.Here,warriors include close associates or relatives of King who are also Royal Rajus but not Kings.Thats why,Minna Säävälä stated Rajus caste as "higher caste of traditional rulers & warriors;Kshatriya".But,please don't wrongly think about Rajus.I am telling all these because you are a westerner and also you may not have proper idea about castes of India & also Kshatriya Castes in India.Even,Britishers are also westerners,you can verify what they said about Rajus.They,even said what Minna Säävälä said about Rajus.These all can be found out when you analyse & study different sources of anthropologers about Rajus caste.I have given you some idea about Rajus caste who are Kshatriyas.I wish and request you to please patiently read and analyse the matter i have written in this page i.e. in this section from "About Rajus Article" once again.You could get some idea about Rajus.Whatever i had given are true facts but sources of anthropologers are needed to be found out by you to develop the article.I hope you can understand.If any article in wikipedia is wrong,people doesn't believe that article.It doesn't cause any harm.But,Wikipedia's reputation will be decreased.I wish you to modify and also justify the Rajus article and further develop the Rajus article on your analysis.Please reply me if you can.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the current version of Pandyan Dynasty and my edits there. Also I guess Early Pandyan Kingdom and my edits. Thanks. Ran into the first after an editor changed Kumari Kandam into a pov mess, and the 2nd from the first. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. The usual attempts at suggesting a longer "history" than recorded by sources, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same old same old. Gets tiresome. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see on your user page that you have an interest in psychology. You might be interested in reading the exchange on the talk page of Hypnosis regarding changes to the lead/lede. I have given up since the editor has not responded to my comments, but I tend to agree with Myrvin. The other editor has gone ahead and changed an Encylopedia Britannica definition and has, in the process, I believe, changed the meaning. I have no problem with the somewhat general words (such as "certain") in the EB definition for this subject which is not an easy one to define and which the article makes clear has been defined in more than one way. The details will come out later in the article. You might want to weigh in. CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne. I prefer Bhny's definition; it's more precise. I've pinged Lova Falk; she's a psychologist and experienced editor. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you have been listed as claiming on here on wikipedia as saying my guru Rudi was a nath sadhu....

this is completely false....

please change it..

i would like to know where you got this idea....

sincerely,

swami chetanananda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamichetanananda (talk • contribs) 06:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshua,

It seems that you inserted a table on the Nath Wikipedia page that lists the modern lineage holders of the Nath tradition. (I'm new to editing Wiki, so if it wasn't you, please redirect this comment to who did.)

The table lists "Rudi" at the very last, referencing a story written on the web by David Godman as proof of him being a lineage holder.

Joshua, Rudi was not a Nath. He was a Swami (Swami Rudrananda) in the Saraswati order, under the lineage of Bhagavan Nityananda of Ganeshpuri and Swami Muktananda. The story by David Godman is completely erroneous. Rudi never met the Maharaj. Its all fiction.

For us, in his lineage, his biography and the line of teaching is sacred information. Please remove Rudi's name from any Nath lineage tables on any of the pages related to Naths.

Also, if you would be willing to share email exchange with us, we would be interested to know how you came upon this information and how you were inclined to put Rudi's name on this list.

Monica O'Neal Research Assistant for Swami Chetanananda Rudrananda Ashram/The Movement Center Portland, OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamichetanananda (talk • contribs) 06:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is going to write an article on Shoemaker, it should not be you. Writing a WP:BLP on someoen with whom you are currently engaged in a content dispute is a jaw-droppingly bad idea. Please don't do that! Guy (Help!) 22:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? Please explain. I'd never before heard of him; he caught my attention because his assistent commented on "Rudi", where-after I tried to find out more. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you poked the sleeping dog there. Best let it lie, please. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thanks for intervering anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom for you...............................................................and me. Hafspajen (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Haha:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..........................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................ Hafspajen (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to double check. Do you really want to know "Which RFC?" ? And there were some other reasons also listed in my revert. Did you read that? -- SMS ^Talk 19:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC) -- SMS ^Talk 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:CHAU DANCE FROM WEST BENGAL INDIA COMMONWEALTH GAMES 2010 (11).jpg

Hi, Joshua. Please don't use Twinkle messages that aren't fully relevant.[13] You haven't removed the uncivil message. (For my part, I've copied it to the Clueless Complaint Generator.:-)) If you can't find a templated message that's just right, please handcraft one.

In other news, your message to Hafspajen had been removed, by I've restored it. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks - for both! I love my Swedish friends; they're great. Just a little bit different from the Dutch (we are noisy, actually), but very nice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua,

Thank you for your comments. I had to use that language - though not justifying it is that I am ok with his edits as long as they are in accordance with wiki terms. The edits went just beyond that based on what he thinks is right or wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldruff (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is the difference between Transpersonal and Revelation, and Enlightenment (spiritual) please need a quick answer. Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua: I apologize. Since Hafspajaen needed a "quick answer", I took this as a challenge and thought I could learn something as I tried to help him, so I read the three articles and tried to learn the differences. I wrote an answer, but meant to put it on my Talk page, not yours, but put it on yours by mistake, so removed it. I know you are much more knowledgeable about both psychology and religion than I am, and I did not want to be presumptuous. Please forgive my amateur answer if it is wrong. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorinneSD: Now I'm getting curious, Corinne: can we still read what you wrote?

@Hafspajen:

• Transpersonal: American term, popularised by Ken Wilber: development past the sense of a personal "I" (but his model is incorrect, I think)
• Revelation: Christian term; knowledge which is revealed by God or other cosmic "powers"
• Enlightenment (spiritual): catch-all term for "spiritual insight", "mystical experience", etc. Connected to "modern spirituality".

There are a lot of synonymous terms, and many terms have acquired a broad meaning in modern western thinking. Is this a helpful answer? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is you say, an American term, also coined by Stanislav Grof and this is the problem. And the problem is that when he did coined this expression, the word "transpersonal" was using drogs on his patients. Main problem = he uses drugs (LSD) to reach this "transpersonal" state. He argues that there is no diffence between a drug induced state where you have some kind of enlightment-like state, and the real enlightment achieved by years of praying, training or the Christian mysticism and so on. A quick-fix. I don't like this. I am trying to figure out what the diffence is ( except for the drugs, of course). It makes me feel weird. He argues that there is no difference between this drug induced state and other religious experience, ... like Aldous Huxley. Thanks, Corinne, great work, really. I start to notice some fundamental differences, but still my problem is

how can he know for sure. He is no saint, he just had some LSD experience ( he was also using drugs and uses them to treat patients in the field of psycology). How the heck can he say that knowledge which is revealed by God and chemically induced states are the same.

• Yes, he also argues that mysticians were using drugs, well - I am not aware of that one. Most mysticians were awake and just fine, not drugged, thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by JJ: "Enlightenment" is a western term for bodhi, kensho and prajna. They all denote (intuitive) understanding of the "emptiness" of the I/self. The term is related to "illumination"; see Richard M. Bucke and [14]. It is also related to "conversion" and "religious experience", as used by William James. But that's also where the meaning has shifted: from a "coginitive act" to a "mysterium tremendum et fascinans". Nevertheless, Stanislav Grof does have a point: shamanism, or for example the historical Vedic religion, do know drug-induced trance-states. I'm afraid that all those terms are not so neatly separated from each other. Though I would not recommand drugs to "gain" "enlightenment" - which, by the way, may be the start of the Buddhist path, and not the end! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well about the shamanism, but they are part of a long religious tradition, they know about the dangers, and do warn, learn and work their heck butt [change suggested by Bishonen] off, especially Tibetans, until they are considered fully learn. And this shortcut with LSD, I don't know. It is a bit of a pandoras youknowwhat. If something unpleasant is happening the Tibetans are learned to imediatelly stop the meditation, while a person taking drugs can't. And an apparition has never ever hurt anyone. Scared, maybe, but never hurt. Hafspajen (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Uh, Hafspajen, the Swedicism "work their heck off" may be a little confusing to anglophones. :-D I've offered a suggestion. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bishywise, now you start here too. Maybe I should send you a T_shirt or something. Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua -- Sorry I didn't get back to you right away. I see you found it on my Talk page and re-inserted it here. That's fine. I was just trying to find the key sentences in the three articles to help clarify the differences between the three terms as best I could in order to help Hafspagen, who said he needed an answer quickly. I can see from your comments above that you know much more about the topic than I do. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, debate is closed now, (no not on Wiki) but it did help clarifying things for me. Hafspajen (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Hafspajen, but what do you mean by "Eh, debate is closed now, (no not on Wiki)"? I don't understand either part of that. I didn't think the above discussion was a debate. I was just trying to be helpful, and the discussion doesn't sound like a debate. CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, today at five o'clock, at my university. I got this paper from a crazy woman who wrote about this subject, and I need arguments to oppose this. Thank you Corinne, very much for your help. Hafspajen (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishy, sorry to be naughty about this, now this was indeed a weird expression in English, the heck - . http://sv.glosbe.com/sv/en/slita%20h%C3%A4cken%20av%20sig. Hafspajen (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more remark: I suspect that "illumination" has been merged in our western understanding with "perfection" and something like "eternal happiness" via the Buddhist notion of "enlightenment" - enlightenment as in "insight", but also as in "perfect Buddhahood". That's not how it works; "insight" does not lead to a magical disappearance of all the "downsides" of human existence... But the idea is very tempting, of course: never being hurt anymore. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, well. Different ways and hopes... Hafspajen (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Joshua Jonathan,please see the Rajus article,the version created by you is the best version.See the reasons in talk page of Rajus and what sitush had done to Rajus page recently in history,he has edited & removed material according to his likes with fake reasons and he also even vandalised the satya sai baba sentence which was added by you.And also please encourage new editors if they provide reliable sources and also please say to sitush if he doesn't have any proper idea or knowledge about any new materials in this page,then ask him to discuss them with senior editors but he doesn't have any right to delete according to his wish as he is not the owner of wikipedia.After all he is an editor with limited knowledge.Iam reporting it you because you are also a senior editor and also tried to develop Rajus article.And also because,removing and deleting according to personal likes or dislikes is not the motto of wikipedia articles.You please protect the version created by you,which i have restored.Thank you. -Shvrs (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Shvrs, but you'll have to continue your argument with Situs at Talk:Raju. There simply are very little WP:RS on the Raju-caste... A simple advice: start your own website. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice.But,remember don't become a puppet in the hands of sitush and don't blindly believe what he says as that sitush is a deceiver who will mostly do offences regarding caste articles especially Kshatriya Castes.And finally "I know what to do".Thank you -Shvrs (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua,

You replaced the entire universe image I added to the series about advaita vedanta with two swans!

I don't begrudge you that! Saraswati will no doubt honour you in some way. :)

Anyway, due to that edit, I looked at your contributions and saw that you contribute to many mystical/spiritual/philosophical wikipages and I thought you might be able to help me. I just tried to submit a page about a student of Ramana Maharshi's, Robert Adams. However, the page was rejected because I only have sources from Robert Adams himself.

I believe he is a great teacher and worthy of his place on the great wikipedia. Please have a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Robert_Adams

There aren't really many other sources for Robert Adams, because he was fairly unknown. You can find information about him from renowned biographer David Godman on his blog and in various other places on the net, but not much is about.

http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.co.uk/

If you could have a look at the wikipage I created and see if there is anything I can do with regards to referencing that would increase the likelihood of its submission, that would be much appreciated.

All the best,

Merlyn User talk:MerlynDanielMali 25 march 2014

@MerlynDanielMali: HiMerlyn; I already had a look; I'll see what I can do. By the way, don't forget to sign messages with ~~~~; Wikipedia converts this automatically into your signature. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua, great thanks for the help! And for the following.

Here's some: [15] [16] Not very reliable, but it's something. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see if I can fit them in!

If you know anyone else who could also help and contribute that would be great. I got in touch with David Godman. He'll get back in touch with me if he finds some other reliable sources.

MerlynDanielMali (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he can't help ypu, nobody else can. Very good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua,

I've submitted the article again. 12 sources, 30 references from these sources. All completely genuine and researched. I hope it makes it through this time. Thanks for your help!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Robert_Adams

MerlynDanielMali (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua,

Do you know the code to put a bit more space under a paragraph. In the article for Robert Adams, I would like to add a bit of space after the later years section so that the heading 'Teachings' sits beneath, not beside, the photo of Sri Ramana Maharshi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Robert_Adams#Later_Years

Thanks in advance for any ideas.

MerlynDanielMali (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay as it is now; different screens, different sizes, different looks. I'll give some help with the lay-out, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well thanks for your help. I think it's all done now and good to go. I hope it gets accepted by the administrators! Best, MerlynDanielMali (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua,

I read up more about neo-advaita and then removed the category neo-advaita teachers at the bottom of the Robert Adams page, as I don't think Robert Adams qualifies as a neo-advaita teacher in the mould of Mooji or Andrew Cohen or any of the others. Although he is a Westerner, he had no known association with Pappaji, and if he did, it would have been in the 1940s. Like Ramana, he never claimed to be a guru nor have disciples, and he also always kept close to the ancient scriptures. I think if one were to ask David Godman([email protected]) or Alan Jacobs ([email protected]), the head of the Ramana Maharshi UK Foundation, they would both categorise Robert Adams as outside of neo-advaita. Cheers! MerlynDanielMali (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's interesting; he's pre-dating this neo-advaita boom. As far as I know, there have been more like him. I guess a lot has changed by the works of Paul Brunton. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joshua, something seems to be up with the hindu teacher info box. Check out Ramana's and Nisargadatta's pages. Philosophy has gone missing, and the word Advaita vedanta has been moved to the right. MerlynDanielMali (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay now. Seems to have fixed itself. MerlynDanielMali (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Indigenous Aryans and Out of India theory? These seem to be the same subject. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of India" seems to be a subset of "Indigenous Aryans"-theories, so I guess two separate articles is better. But you could propose a merger, of course; see how others respond. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to comment on Talk:Grigori Rasputin on some kind of controversy? the thing is that several references were removed followed by not so polite comments, like: What do you want to prove? Are you starting a new sect? Do you need members? and comments like The Guardian has a foolish article on Rasputin, I am sorry for them. that reference is It is blablabla, by a student. Students don't get their papers put up online without being checked by teachers... I had seven or so references and I am put up against one bestseller book, that did not mentioned Rasputin as Holy fool. Hafspajen (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have several arguments? I have not convinced him. He says there is no argument showing R. was a holy fool. He is Dutch, by the way. Hafspajen (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• [17]

Deserves an eternal tag for deletion without actual deletion! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were mistaken because of lack of knowledge there.You can see in the Srinivasulu pdf : forward castes table in the pdf file.There Kshatriya population is 1.2% there.You can find the populations in the table.you can find asentence in pdf :{in "Gudiada (Vizianagaram) on 15 July 1987, One dalit labourer killed in a dispute over a small patch of tankbed land by a mob of backward caste farmers led by a forward caste (Raju) Congress Party leader"}

There are forward castes list in table.There Rajus are mentioned as "Kshatriyas" and also reddi & kapu are equivalent castes they are grouped together but reddies & Kapus(both are of shudra varna) are two different castes in Government's caste list.I had already said clearly many times to you that Government of Andhra Pradesh & India mentions Rajus/Kshatriya Rajus as "Kshatriya" in caste list but not as "Rajus"."Rajus" or "Kshatriya Rajus" are terms used by people & caste members.Government mentions them only as "Kshatriya" in its records & castes list.This 1.2% you can also find in the other references at the starting.Please first know about the forward castes and their alternate names and how they are mentioned by Government of Andhra Pradesh and Government of India.So,you were mistaken there.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your God i.e Mr.Sitush that how Rajus or Kshatriya Rajus will be mentioned in Government's records & castes list.They will only be "Kshatriya" even he can't say no to the truth.Try to understand,please earn respect but don't lose it.Thank You -Shvrs (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdzPeMd5cR0 Hafspajen (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua, is there any particular reason my edit was reverted? My main purpose was to add a source which I believe you requested, so perhaps you disagreed with the other changes I made? I'm sure we can reach a compromise. Morinae (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons: you only provided a reference, not a source. And you removed sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the list of sources! Sorry!!! My apologies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But... have you also got a page-number? And a quote? I can't access the book. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the Japanese Chin is clouded in the mysticism of Far Eastern ancient rites.[citation needed] .. well never heard of it. Can you find any references? Otherwise we may chuck this. Hafspajen (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books gave me about 5,000 hits, so there must be some usable stuff there. But my interest in this dog is not very big, so I'm afraid I'll leave the work to you... Sorry, and/but succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Joshua, you are kidding me... Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidding you? No way! But alas: History of the Japanese Chin. What a nice copy-vio. Or did the "Japanese Chin Club of America" copy Wikipedia? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago a lot of people were complaining about Martinevans123. And here a whole section.. Hafspajen (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was the edit, adding al this. [18] Hafspajen (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonathan, Sitush wantedly removing history from Raju's wiki from last 3 r 4 years What I am saying is truth that Sitush wantedly doing this.

Raju are Surya Vamsha and Chandra Vamsha Kshatriya, there are lot of evidence that are included by many other authors with evidence, but sitush wantedly removing all the contents.

If you see raju wiki, you will understand. he didn't include the history of King Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju from Vijayanagar empire.

I don't know what I can discuss with, but i can say he wantedly doing this, cannot you do any thing.

can you take the evidences and add the raju history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.250.118.227 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; I'm investigating all the sorces that have previously been used: Wikipedia:Raju (Kshatriya) sources. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Bishonen | talk 06:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding! Bishonen | talk 08:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've forgotten what article it was but I amended one of your edits yesterday where you had cited a state government list of Other Backwards Classes or Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. I think you'd used the list for Bihar when the state was Haryana, or vice versa.

Anyway, just a heads-up that there is a more general problem with those lists. They are changed frequently and are mainly a political exercise but - and this is far worse - they are incredibly ambiguous, lacking in consistent spellings etc and not making it clear whether names are of castes or synonyms etc. At the national level, the NCBC has made well over 1000 changes and actually admits to the unreliability of its own lists, pointing out the issues regarding synonyms etc. All this is documented in some discussions somewhere and I really should try to dig them out and stick some links at User:Sitush/Common.

You can see some of the effects at Kashyap (caste), where the politicking is sourced to recent news stories and the list of related communities clearly demonstrates some issues. For example, there are several communities mentioned that seem to be just slightly different spellings of a root name but which are being treated as separate subcastes, and there are some likely synonyms in their (eg: Bhar and Rajbhar). All these issues make it nigh-on impossible to link many caste names unless we have academic sources that make the connections. And, alas, too many people think that the lists produced in Gyan-published books are academic sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredible that you try to investigate on this topic. Is there a system on Wikipedia to schedule all those caste-articles? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No system that I am aware of. There were around 1600 castes identified in 1901 but that figure had increased to > 4500 by the 1990s. The very concept is amorphous but trying to get that lot into some sort of order and keep out non-notable pseudo-castes, gotras claiming to be castes etc seems to be an impossible task. Well, impossible unless a couple of hundred committed contributors turn up. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indo-Aryan migration
File:Indo-European migrations v02.03.png

[19] 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,[20] 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 [21] 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]

[22] 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]

File:Schokohase für Ostern, Vollmilchschokolade, February 2010.jpg	The Joshua John-Àthan Pet Award
	Verý good. Verá niče. VerźY tasťȳ. Hafspajen (talk) 13:16, 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? [23] 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. [24]. 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 [25]. 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]

Thanks a lot Joshua for all that help with the name change. I hadn't actually expected it. Bodhadeepika means lamp of knowledge or knowledge lamp. I'm not a lamp of knowledge! ;) But it's the last two words of one of my favourite texts on advaita vedanta, namely Advaita Bodha Deepika (the lamp of non-dual knowledge). Check it out! I didn't realise it was in violation to have had two accounts at once. I disconnected my email and watchlist from MerlynDanielMali and then abandoned the account last night and will certainly only edit as Bodhadeepika from now on. Apologies wikipedia! Bodhadeepika (talk) 09:19, 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]

Please stop edit-warring, as you're doing now at Nagarjuna, Samkhya and Adi Shankara. One more revert, and I'll report you for edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good response, though it belongs at the talk page: User talk:Joshua Jonathan#India oneness on Nagarjuna page. See there for my response. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you reverted again after your response. Therefor I've reported you for edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind any geographical indication and historical information but it shouldn't be classified with pretension or presumption. In medieval times, when Nagarjuna was born, the name of his kingdom was Vidharbha, that lies in between modern day Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra [2] [3]. The geographical divisions like north and south didn't exist during time of Nagarjuna. Mystic term is given to him due to nonavailability of any term for either bodhisattva or any person who has reached nirvana. Please read more about Nagarjuna & his psyche from [8]. I understand your concern about India's sensitive articles, but the problem here is this that you're talking from only the books that are translated in English and I'm talking about direct experience of Nagarjuna's Treatise which is quite similar in nature to Mahakashyapa and Jiddu Krishnamurti in modern times. It's purely based upon Samkhya philosophy which says, pure knowing is enough, because truth is beyond karma or causation (cause and effect). Therefore, no technique could help. Only externally their languages are different because they have to depend on their peculiar education for communication and external expression. That differs form one person to other and it also differs in time. For example, Buddha and Mahavira both knew the truth, and were wandering in small Indian state called Bihar (Bihar name originated from their there sanskrit word "vihar" or prakrit & pali word "bihar which means travel in English), and they even stayed in same place in same village on one incident, but they didn't meet. Lots of people from outside thinks that they were egoistic, that's why they didn't meet, but there's nothing left to discuss amongst them, because both of them knew. However their expressions were quite different and still they knew the same truth. Nagarjuna, Krishnamurti, Mahakashyapa, Ashtavakra are the masters (master of oneself), who emphasized on pure knowing and that's why they cancelled all the arguments that requires one to do something for reaching nirvana. That's the original philosophy of samkhya. How different in articulation it might look form outside, but from inside, it is the same path. Entire Zen (sanskrit word dhyan) is based on the similar concept of direct knowing, that's why the only meditation they ascribe to is Zazen (aka no mind meditation). Finally I'm not very concerned with what you revert to in the changes. You have full freedom and I will not change it. But if you understand the 3 aspects of searching truth, I think this debate could conclude or at least could possibly move into some direction. India divided search into Satyam, Shivam and Sundaram. Satyam is the pure inquiry and is the original path of Samkhya and the Zen in modern age. Shivam is the path of knowing through determinaton (Sankalpa)and it requires lot of doing and is pure path of Yoga. All the mediation ascribed by Buddha and Mahavira and Patanjali belongs to this. Last is sundaram or knowing through beauty or devotion. All the religions that talk about bhakti (devotion) are part of Sundaram. Examples of bhakti are Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Meera, Nanak, Kabir, Rabiya, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna and many more. If we understand these 3 dimensions of search, then we can relate properly. Nice to know your views on the same (not thoughts, as thoughts have no value in world of inquiry, spirituality or religion).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyondname (talk • contribs) 09:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beyondname. Thanks for your long reply. I appreciate the effort you take in this, but I also have to point out that it reads like a personal opinion. Which is quite fine, but for Wikipedia, you need WP:RS.

As for my own views: I have a strong affinity with Zen, but also with people like Krishnamurti and Ramana Maharshi. And I'm a sceptic regarding "liberation, I'm afraid, though I still hope for it. This scepticism is paired with a strong conviction on the necessity of trying to stay in contact with others. Which means: "not knowing", "emptying" yourself, being aware of what's going on ("choiceless awareness"), and responding to the other.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

..............................well, a different one. Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: Now I notice! That's roti! I LOVE roti! (Which, by the way, is an Indo-European word: roti, rat, rad, wheel). Thanks!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me the reason of your reverted changes on Dharmic religion on various other pages? As per your change summary you have mentioned POV pushing and WP:COMMONNAME. I believe you must know the meaning of these terms before mentioning them anywhere. The term Indian religions is not at all common and no author mentions it. So if you know the meaning of COMMONNAME then you would understand that the word implies opposite to what it was used for. Second there is no POV as you might have missed one important thing in your bias that I gave references that justified the changes i.e. various authors has used the term Dharmic religion in contrary to this new term called Indian religions which is no where read. Third according to wiki policy of changes made with good faith, you should have resisted your temptation to express your bias. Fourth you better focus on Abrahimic religions and left these Indian topics to Indians as we Indians are more knowledgeable about our culture and faith. Don't use wikipedia as a platform to push your Abrahimic POV on others. So I'm reverting the changes and unlike you, I'm notifying you in advance and if you have any issue with this then you can definitely discuss this on talk pageHrihr (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by JJ: Thanks for your response. Regarding your arguments:
1. Commonname:

• WP:COMMONNAME - Count of usage:
  • Google Scholar gives 78 (seventy-eight) hits for "Dharmic religions", and 7.430 for "Indian religions". Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions".
  • Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions". When we exclude "Wikipedia, "Dharmic religions" gives 66, and "Indian religions" gives 236.000 - an amazing growth of numbers, which raises questions on this search-engine, but nevertheless, it's a ratio of 1:1208, or 1:3576.
  • Bing: Inidian Religions with 41,100,000 and Dharmic Religions with 121,000. Basically 340 to 1 in favor of Indian Religions.

• WP:COMMONNAMES - Previous concensus:

"When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced."

There has been previous concencus for the deletion of "Dharmic" pages and categories:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 2#Category:Dharmic_religions
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dharmic_religion
• Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 3#Dharmic Religions
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 10#Category:Dharmic writers
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30#Category:Eastern religions writers

The issue has also been extensiveley discussed at Talk:Indian religions, previously "Dharmic religions":

• Talk:Indian religions/Archive 4#Indian-based Religions are 'Dharmic Religions'
• Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#The term "Religion" applied to Dharmic Traditions is culturally insensitive and engenders an insidious cultural bias
• Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#Better cite sources for your unencyclopedic edits
• Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#The democracy of Truth
• Talk:Indian religions/Archive 3#Dharmic vs Indian religious tradition
• Talk:Indian religions/Archive 2#Dharmic traditions
• Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1#Basic Question
• Talk:Indian religions/Archive 1##merge

2. References: WP:RS:

"major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals"

Malhotra and Frawley are not reliable

3. Good faith: calling my edits an expression of my "bias" - fill this in yourself.

4. Nationality: Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on nationality. Your "advice" is the kind of behavior which is not toelrated here at Wikipedia.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort to give reference to all these links to prove your point. First I just added "also called Dharmic religions" to Dharmic religion page to make it more clear. Even from your response, it is quite clear that "Dharmic" religion is used by many people. I didn't move the page or rename the page. So I didn't understand your panic. Second as you have mentioned lot of links then you might have understood that these was no consensus in the favor of any name and both sides gave valid reasons and biggest thing that the word India itself is new but these Dharma religions are thousands of years old. Second the page was moved based on poll but I think that there is an insidious tendency for Wikipedians and Internet users in general to equate number of returns from an Internet search as signifying validity through raw numbers: Quality, not quantity, is true scholarship. Third I really didn't understand your logic describing the authors "Malhotra and Frawley" as unreliable but anonymous articles on internet as reliable! Fourth, if your edit was not biased then certainly it was ignorant. From the above you can understand how. Fifth, I mentioned nationality because I've seen and experienced that many western people having interest in Dharmic religions make bold statements which are based on very flimsy foundation. Even the western scholar like "Max Muller" made bold statements like "Aryan Invasion theory" without any valid ground. I believe that we do have better knowledge and understanding of our own traditions and faith whether or not you like it.

Well after all this I believe you shouldn't have a problem with atleast adding text "also called Dharmic religions" if not renaming the article. Hrihr (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Dharmic religons" is used by a minority with a political agenda, and not used by "many people". Which is also clear from your additional reference, namely "Questioning the secular state" by Westerlund. You omitted this political context. Malhotra and Frawley are not scholars, but political/religious activists, and fit into this political picture. You're perfectly free to believe that Indians have better knowledge of India and history and culture, but if you want to edit at Wikipedia, you'll have to rely on WP:RS, not your personal opinions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with several things JJ says here, such as the need to abide by Wikipedia policies and standards. However, I believe that some things he's said in this thread are oversimplifications. "Dharmic religions" is not pursued only by people with a political agenda. The concept has much cogency on its own merits and people use it for different reasons. JJ's blanket statement, which seems to imply it is used only by those with a political agenda, is a polarizing oversimplification of a type that he usually manages to avoid. (And with regard to political motives, It strikes me as absurd to imagine that every single person who uses the phrase "Indian religions" is free from political motives for using that phrase; neither name is exempt from those who use it for political motives, just as neither name lacks those who use it because they believe it to be more intellectually cogent).

   With regard to Malhotra and Frawley being scholars, neither has a long track record of publication in scholarly journals. Therefore by themselves neither establishes a source as reliable. Sources can also be deemed reliable (WP:RS) if the publisher has a reputation for fact-checking. Some of Malhotra's recent books were published by HarperCollins, which need not be regarded as any less reliable than other mass-market publishers such as Penguin and Random House. However, a mass market press is not the same as an academic press, where higher standards of fact-checking would be expected (even if alas it does not always occur in the real world). A few of Malhotra's writings appear in scholarly journals, however (e.g., International Journal of Hindu Studies). So it is wrong to completely dichotomize and separate him from scholars with established track records. Frankly, I regard a number of the things he has written as of higher scholarly quality than that of many authors who meet WP criteria for reliable sources. I have already told JJ that I believe that academic Hindu studies has suffered from a great deal of poor scholarship in recent decades, and in some ways the field has run aground. I believe that in the long run, many of Malhotra's perspectives will prevail. However, at the moment, Wikipedia is still constrained by its guidelines with regard to reliable soures - and Malhotra has neither a long track record of publication in recognized scholarly outlets, nor have most of his publications been by academic publishers. Of course, Malhotra is certainly a reliable source on his own perspectives, which are increasingly notable as his critiques become increasingly influential. Remember that whether or not a source is realiable is context-dependent

   Personally, I believe that JJ will render the best service to Wikipedia readers if he uses the inevitable latitude in applying WP guidelines to steer coverage away from the poor contemporary scholarship of Hinduism, and towards a more valid and less biased account. Though how much latitude is available within Wikipedia guidelines is an interesting question. Computer science has long known the principle of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Wikipedia is set up in a way that it is vulnerable to being misled by scholarly fields that have run aground: When a scholarly field has run aground - and who would claim such a thing could never happen? -- Wikipedia seems constrained to spew out some garbage, unfortunately, in as much as Wikipedia editors conscientiously follow its WP:RS guidelines. --Presearch (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we still disagree on some basic points, like the current state of scholarship on Hinduism, Malhotra's works, and Wiki-policies; nevertheless, I appreciate your response. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a short night's sleep, and thinking over your response, here's a lomger response from me:

• The term "Dharmic religions" is not WP:COMMONNAME; that's "Indian religions". Malhotra, Frawley, and Elst are notable users of this term, and we both know their positions.
• Malhotra c.s. is not only not WP:RS because they are not academic scholars, nor published by academic journals; they are also not RS because their work is polemical and apologetical, one-sided, and using poor arguments.

Thanks. I do think all of your claims here can be seriously disputed - either in their substance (e.g., "poor arguments") or in their connotations (e.g., one person's "polemical" may be another person's "forcefully argued"), or in both. However, I suspect that neither of us presently wishes to use time/energy to argue this in the abstract, and that my differing perspective will not surprise you. But I thought it worthwhile to clarify my views. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS Malhotra's work that I know best is Indra's Net, and, to a much lesser extent, Being Different. It is not impossible that some relevant features of his work have changed over time, such as his articulation of his evidence and arguments. And if you haven't read Indra's Net (e.g., given your silence here) then to some degree we may be talking about different Malhotras - possibly explaining part of our disagreement, though I suspect not all of it. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with your classification of contemporary scholarship as "run aground", on the contrary; it's critical of its own premises, but also of the premises of Indian, religious authors. That's good.

Yes, I was almost certain that you were not in agreement that it has run aground, so your response does not surprise me. But as you might expect, I do not regard the scholarship as sufficiently critical of its own premises. I think Malhotra's work is a desperately needed corrective, and believe that many more such correctives are likely needed, and will be coming, sooner or later.

   Let me also add that two wrongs don't make a right (as I'm sure you agree). There are sporadic attempts by unsophisticated Wikipedia contributors who seek to correct, unfortunately often unskillfully, some of the wrong notions of the flawed modern Hindu scholarship. If I had the time/energy/resources, I might try to augment their efforts with more skillful corrections, when available (as I hope you do whenever you see opportunities and recognize it as a notable perspective). But there also seems to be a strong and steady stream of new Wikipedians who confuse traditional legends with reliable sources (for example in terms of dates), and others who seem to push particular caste or linguistic identities, or a variety of other special issues. I myself have put much energy into ensuring that Radhakrishnan's name is not mis-spelled on his WP page (due to competing ethnic claims over him). While I mourn the poor state of many facets of modern western Hindu scholarship (and the unfortunate but very real implications for GIGO), I salute the efforts of you and others to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. And I appreciate your persistent and steady courtesy and good intentions. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards, and thanks again for your extensive response, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, i agree if we include the instances for every saint who went into samadhi, the page will become endless. But i have specifically shortlisted only the instances from the recent history and that too related to the very prominent saints (i dont see more that 5-7 such instances in the recent history even if someone else adds to the article). The main idea before adding these instances is that there is hardly any information available on the physical aspect of samadhi even this article talks only in terms of consciousness. Moreover there are a lot of myths related to samadhi that can only be dispelled by quoting some real examples like samadhi can be while talking (e.g. Lahiri Mahasaya), it can be while standing, moving (e.g. ramkrishna & chaitanya), biological processes may switch off & the body may require extensive care (e.g. ramkrishna). I do not feel adding real life incidents to a concept will count to WP:UNDUE; i have also tried my best to maintain a neutral point of view by quoting the original text as far as possible. Kindly discuss the same on the article's talk page before removing it so that others can also share their opinion. UnusualExplorer (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explorer. Thanks for your comment here. I'll go the talkpage, but first response here: it looks like you've got a specific understanding of samadhi. I don't know where to place it in the spectrum, but I think that this should be made clear in the article. You're aware of WP:BRD? I'll explain at the talk page. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I took a closer look at the page; it's weird that it's about samadhi in Hinduism, but uses a definition from a Buddhist dictionary. This article needs better than that! but i'm not going to spend time on improving it, so I'll leave it here. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, thanks for referring me the WP:BRD. I was not aware of this earlier. Have added a text in the article stating that only the unique instances related to Samadhi are listed below in order to through some light on the physical aspects of Samadhi. I ll also start a discussion for the same on the talk page.UnusualExplorer (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know this book "Mysterious samadhi" by Surath Chandra Chakravarti? It might be of interest to you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i ll definitely go through it. UnusualExplorer (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is surprising to see you getting heated up for almost no reason. Second thing is that nothing is going to happen about it. Best can be done is, the issue can be brought to WP:DRN, or RfC it usually takes about 14 days.

If you agree, all you have to do is edit out your warnings, I will obviously do the same, thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gavin Flood's book also says that according to Puranas, Upanishad, Narayana is the Supreme God, [26], Page 120-121, although he uses terms like "absolute and highest deity", "supreme deity", same meaning. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Flood says that in the Mahabaratha Narayana is the supreme deity. he also says that Narayana became absorbed within the Vishnu-cults. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he do, so Mahabharata, Upanishad, 'some puranas' and Vedas. 4 scriptures recognize him as Supreme Deity. What can be done about it? It can be attributed in better way if you want, but I am sure that the information is itself notable to add. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is, you'll still have to find a reliable source which makes this comparison. Otherwise it's still OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we agree that Gavin flood is a reliable source? I am sure that these 2 are also reliable source.[27], [28] Also this one,[29] who's access you don't have. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will look tomorrow. Where did the other Admin tell you to contact him? I couldn't find the post. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tirinti`s pattern of editing reminds me of Septate. JimRenge (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find it back neither. Anyway, I've contacted Q several times on Krizpo. Regarding Septate: Krizpo is more of a "stealth"-editor: changing percentages, no comments, disappearing again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua Jonathan,

As suggested by Bishonen, I would formally like to request you to review the article on Bengali Kayastha. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Joshua Jonathon, could you review Tej Ram Sharma's reference in Dutta article too? It is only one paragraph. BTW, most probably some editors will alert me about "COI" in this article, as it is my surname, but I try my best to edit neutrally. Tito☸Dutta 02:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some pieces of info, and reshuffled Sharma. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshua Jonathan, copyright violation was a serious lapse on my part (and I have considered it as a serious offense), but the statements were reliably sourced. Your statement "The office of Kayastha was instituted before the Gupta period (c.320 to 550 CE), the Kayastha ranking as shudras." is incorrect. During the Gupta period, the Kayasthas represented an administrative role, and not a caste, therefore there's no question of ranking. There's a lot of scope for constructive improvements and hope we can work on the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joshua Jonathan, requesting you to rectify the same in the article on Dutta. Ekdalian (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your copyediting works in Indian caste related articles, you get this barnstar. Tito☸Dutta 05:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highly appreciated, since it's a tough area to edit. Thank you very much! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are welcome. Do you have some more information on Dutta, so that we can expand article. Are you following the results? All major related articles are semi-protected at Wikipedia, so not many disruptive edits still, but there should be conflicts and disruption soon in other articles. Tito☸Dutta 05:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean of the elections? I thought of it this morning. Hope that wisdom prevails... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ya, that is the event of the hour. "Wisdom"?? We need to update hundreds of articles today. Something special is happening, both for BJP and Left. Times Now just said, this election result is going to be turning point of Indian politics. This article should go Indian general election, 2014 to ITN, only if we can copyedit it. It should go. Tito☸Dutta 05:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of months ago, some editor wrote something like "In five months the Indian Government will form a team of specialists, and correct the info at Wikipedia". It feels like returning to the Cold War: "keep on rocking in the free world". I'd never thought, when I was younger, that I would turn up here, defending the freedom of thought and reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha ha! Ya! If only indian Government had paid us. . . . Something significant has happened just now. Supreme Court of India has issued some order on the the black money related case. What a day to announce it. You'll not get it in any news article, it is showing in live TV (link above) Tito☸Dutta 05:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "Rajus claim kshatriya status" is defendable; the statement "Rajus claim kshatriya status" is not defendable. What? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I write that? Hmmm... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing like hedging your bets ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is better, isn't it? [30] Hafspajen (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look the page of Ambedkar? A user removed the Table (List of Books) from the page. Theredpenofdoom is a user who is constantly reverting the changes made by other users. Metta

Can you please look the page of B.R. Ambedkar? A user removed the Table (List of Books) from the page. Theredpenofdoom is a user who is constantly reverting the changes made by other users. Metta 123.239.118.255 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list of books is still there, but not as a table. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, is Apostle Paul really there according to ... [31]? But nothing I know about. Hafspajen (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you believe, I guess... As far as I can see, religions are made by humans, so there's a lot we can believe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, you missed all the fun. Just look at the edit history... Paul the Apostle see : Revision historyHafspajen (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed. I slept well tonight. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is worse. I could not ignore a slow edit war on [Buddhist chant] and realized that one editor is systematically adding Ambedkar related pictures/Captions to seemingly unrelated articles like seat, gesture, gate etc. JimRenge (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look; succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JJ, sorry to answer you late on this, i didn't see your remark on my signature in the first place. Well, I don't know what to say: on my computer it looks fine... Best, - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 15:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a browser-problem. My signature doesn't work at Explorer (I'm using Firefox). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua brother ... Accesstoinsight isn't a primary source. Its the only website which gives the Buddhist scriptures. I advise you to read the copyright claim here. I saw from your profile page that your interest is in Buddhism. So don't you know the edits I did was correct? I advise you to kindly recheck my edits ...and atleast rvert the edit which I did on God in Buddhism and Buddha in Hinduism;

And many of my edits were not in violation. Other references were also from this website and you call a primary source? Please recheck your claim and give a response. Stalkford (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stalkford. The problem here is not the copyright; the problem here is the addition of large quotes from the Buddhist sources to make a statement about what Buddhism is supposed to stand for. That's WP:OR. If yo want to make a point, you'll have to find reliable secondary sources. And yes, accesstoinsight is used by many as a reference. Nevertheless, it's also a primary source, since it is written by buddhist "believers".

Regarding your re-reverts: I've pointed out the problems with your edits now in several edit-summaries, and at your talk page. I've also pointed you to the relevant policies. I'm going to have a look now at your re-reverts; if I re-re-revert them, I urgently advice you to discuss your edits, per WP:BRD, instead of re-re-re-reverting; I'm not that patient anymore with this kind of editing; I'm not going to waste too much time on educating you on policies which you can also read and apply yourself. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB: see also WP:OSE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you give the opinion of the Buddhists on that article. Its first of all necessary. or otherwise it will go wrong message to the people that Buddha is a God. Also give atleast a sentence that Buddha himself rejected that he was not any god. you can quote from dona sutta and other buddhist monks Even Dalai lama says " Buddha is just the teacher, you are your own master." If you continue doing like this. It won't be healthy. I beg and request from you. Stalkford (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gautama Buddha in Hinduism and God in Buddhism. The sources were not primary at all. Infact many other articles are taken from what you call a a primary source. Stalkford (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Stalkford "forgot" to inform you. JimRenge (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you you want to move the "Abuse of warning-templates [69] diff" from the "Diffs of the user's reverts:" section to "comments". JimRenge (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous issues I have with this page. Firstly, there are a couple of discrepancies on the page - it has 2 different dates for Satyananda starting the International Yoga Fellowship (1956 and 1963) - this organisation does nothing that I am aware of, so why is it there anyway - Secondly is the Bihar School of Yoga - was it 1963 or 1964 when it started? Thirdly, most of the statements on the page are sourced from Satyananda's own books about himself and there is no-one alive to prove or disprove them. Members of his Ashram support his statements and continually re-publish them. Reports of several members of Sivananda's Divine Life Society who knew Satyananda there (not published) say other things. The material on sexual assault can be divided into 2. That of Swami Akhandananda in Australia went through the courts so there will be records. Allegations against Sw Satyananda and others remains statements by individuals that has not been before courts or been published. What should be left in and what removed? Sanatan Saraswati 203.171.95.168 (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we discuss this at the Swami Satyananda talk page, okay? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For watching my back. Funny couple of days. The guy who took me to ANI is a pain - new editor with 64 edits who thinks he knows it all (unless he's a sock, which is possible and ironic if he is). The IP just seems to be another denier. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'r welcome, of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namaskaram ,hi Joshua how are you?i hope you are fine as like ever.:).could you participate with the below talk page Discussion called [Tenali Ramakrishna. As i noticed ,Tenali Ramakrishna title which is not opt for that article. Discussion open.Please participate .Thank you.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 18:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua, with regards to the Advaita-vedanta template, although neo-Advaita partly came out of Papaji's teachings, he himself is of Ramana's time, and I don't believe should be grouped (in this instance) with with Gangaji and co. Just like Raphael wouldn't be grouped with the pre-raphaelite movement. Raphael may have had an influence on their philosophy and this should of course be duly noted in places, but he himself was nonetheless a renaissance painter and should therefore be grouped with Da Vinci, Botticelli and co. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't think I agree here, but that's my personal opinion (or preference). Poonja seems to have been a great stimulans in the spread of neo-Advaita, giving all those people the idea that they were fully enlightened etc. So I'd prefer to group him under "neo-Advaita". But again, that's my opinion, though based on some literature, namely Schwarz. But Schwarz is definitely not a secondary source, so we're all together here among us, believers. And yes, the term "neo-Advaita" has degrinatory undertones. No "smooth" solution here, I'm afraid. "Pop-Advaita" could also be used, but that's even more insulting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's elegant! Placing him under neo-Vedanta. Good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! :) Also, good stuff working on the Satyananda article. His was the first book that really got me hooked. 'Sure Ways To Self-Realization'. I was never big into the Bihar School of Yoga, but I visited his ashram in 2003 in Bihar, and I liked him. He was there. He had a nice energy. 86.31.77.127 (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to log in! 86.31.77.127 is Bodhadeepika Bodhadeepika (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get very few of those! I think you may be rather more deserving one than I am given your sustained efforts. Paul B (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. I'm aware of my itchy responses; your behavior reminds me to stay civil. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adorable Joshua, Your recents edits have been reverted by me. I want to inform you something about him.

First Law minister of India - Dr.Ambedkar . (Is Indian Lawyer a better name?) It should be Jurist. Father of Indian Constitution (Largest Indian Democracy) - Dr. Ambedkar . (Is this line to be removed?) Philosopher - He wrote several books on Buddhism such as Buddha or Karl Marx, Buddha and his Dhamma etc., Riddles in Hinduism etc. (Words were removed)

Barack Obama praised him when he came to India. Noble Prize Winner Amartya Sen calls him his father in Economics. (Economist) The Table concering his writings and speeches were removed without any proper justification. Please dont revert those changes. Why am I in trouble as you mentioned? Your's sincerely. Sid Siddheart (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way . Wow..You are a Buddhist...I am very happy to know that but please edit Dr.Ambedkar page care fully.. you are removing his tables of writings. My salutation for you by the way.  :) Siddheart (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siddheart. Thanks for your salutation; I aprreciate that. And my salutation back to you too. I understand that dr. Ambedkar is important for the Buddhists in India. I've seen some of the social clashes going on in India also happening here at Wikipedia. My sympathies are with the Dalits. Nevertheless, if there is a concensus to avoid a long list in the lead, than that should be respected. Also, I think he doesn't need it. True greatness is self-sufficient, even if others attack it. Let the man and his deeds speak for themself. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added a section in the talk pages defending my changes to the lead. All my changes are referenced and I hope after consideration you may change your mind, or at least we can have a healthy discussion on the talk page about improvements. Thanks! 22:45, 2 June 2014‎ user:Bhny

I'll have a look; thnaks for the message. Don't get me wrong on these issues; definitions are highly appreciated, but this is humanities, not maths or physics. And these topics attract a lot of syncretistic enthusiasts, who think that spirituality, mysticism, nondualism etc. all boil down to "union with the Divine", and that all religions have the same "mystical" "essence". It's this kind of enthusiastic syncreticism which I'm countering at those articles. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshua -- I just wondered if you would take a look at the latest edit to Fire temple. An editor removed a picture with no explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone it. No idea why it was removed. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hello Joshua -- I am very new to Wikipedia. I am learning. It is interesting. Thanks for your help. TraceyWonder (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You're welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

;) Welcome!! TraceyWonder (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigeryx is alone rejecting for months that both Krishna, Balarama are considered as 8th avatar and Krishna/Buddha are also considered as 9th avatar.

So I had reverted back to your version. Redtigeryx hasn't provided a single reason to remove it from list, other than reverting. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must think of better idea, because like I have written above that's he's alone adding one name while ignoring other. Though I agreed with the version you had. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pfoooh, I'll have to read the talk page carefully... Later. Just take care, and be carefull, okay? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just have a watch on the talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the current version looks good, but I think the general list should precede regional variations. Any suggestions for organisation? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to me to swap the sections. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove all descriptions, they are not needed. If they are needed, description about all 24 avatars should be added, but we can make a table instead, table like;-

[According to vayu purana] | According to Matsya purana | According to
1. ----------------------------------- | 1.
2. ------------------------------------ | 2.
3.------------------------------------ | 3.

Any suggestion? Bladesmulti (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your reversion of my edits to "Indra's net". I repeat what I have written previously: The number of "citation needed" warning markers is an unnecessary distraction to the reader. I cannot be expected to receive criticism from an "editor" who writes (on this talk page) "You'r [sic] welcome", "Poonja seems to have been a great stimulans [sic]", "I aprreciate [sic]", "than [sic] that should be respected", and "thnaks [sic] for the message". Writtenright (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your reversion of my edits to "Indra's net". I hold fast to my previous position that the number of "citation needed" warning markers is unnecessary and a great distraction to the reader.

I cannot be expected to take seriously criticism from an "editor" who can post (on this talk page) such things as "You'r [sic] welcome", "Poonja seems to have been a great stimulans [sic]", "I aprreciate [sic]", "than [sic] that should be respected", and "thnaks [sic] for the message".

Well, no "thnaks" for your "hlep" (or is it "help"?) with your "edting" on the "Idnra's nte" page.Writtenright (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you jump to criticize an editor for spelling errors, consider that there are many non-native speakers of English who edit on Wikipedia. Many of them, like Joshua, are very knowledgeable in several fields and we are lucky to have them as editors. Joshua has always been open to correction of his English (see his User page), and, compared to many other non-native speakers of English who edit on Wikipedia, Joshua's syntax approaches native fluency. His spelling is his weakest point. Also, on talk pages, many editors, including native speakers of English, feel they don't have to be as punctilious about spelling as they do when they edit actual articles, and no one criticizes them for misspelled words. Why not take Joshua's edits and contributions seriously, and either make any necessary spelling (or other) corrections with an edit summary or leave him a note on his talk page so that he can correct them? If you take the time to look at his many contributions to quite a number of articles and to discussions on talk pages, you will be impressed. CorinneSD (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Corinne. The spelling-mistakes are not spelling-mustakes, but typing-mistakes. They are absolutely irrelevant to the content of my edits; what you're doing here, Writtenright, is an ad hominem-attack, and not the way we're expected to collaborate here. Your behavior is very unpleasant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Joshua. I should have realized that many, if not all, of the errors were typing mistakes. The errors do not correspond at all with the near-native level of your prose. CorinneSD (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. You're completely right that for talk pages other standards are being used. I really appreciate your response. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that he actually posted two comments; the first one broke a thread. It also says: "I cannot be expected to receive criticism". Says it all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JimRenge (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That proverb may have been credited to Arabic language, but you can find same proverbs in almost every other language. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are dogs everywhere. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like none in arabia.. Look it up. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serious? Well, than Arabia must be a happy place to live, with no one barking at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Causal body (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rupa

Three Bodies Doctrine (Vedanta) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rupa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For taking the time to review all the claims on the talkpage of Koenraad Elst. Calypsomusic (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already wanted to give you that earlier, but better late than never. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'm happy that you appreaciate my efforts, even if I'm also critical of your edits. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it translate: Devadatta kills (or incites) the elephant? I need it for an image caption. Nice language JimRenge (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Close to English, German, Danish and Norse: "Goda fert!" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JimRenge (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ground of Being (Dzogchen) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

(1997). "āśraya". http://glossary.buddhistdoor.com/en/word/15491/asraya. Accessed 13 May 2011)</ref>}}{{refn|group=note|The nomenclature for the title of this Wikipedia article "Ground of Being" the article title naming conventions policy of Wikipedia which prefers English where possible.}}) is the fundamental, primordial state<ref name="rigpawiki-ground">[http://www.rigpawiki.org/index. of this ''Ground of Being'' is called ''[[rigpa]]''{{refn|group=note|Wylie: rig pa; [[IAST]]: vidyā),<ref>Dudjom Rinpoche and Jikdrel Yeshe Dorje (1991). ''The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: its Terms</ref>}} which is "natural",{{refn|group=note|Wylie: lhan skyes; [[IAST]]: [[sahaja]]),<ref>Kvaerne, Per (1975). "On the Concept of Sahaja in Indian Buddhist Tantric Literature". First April 9, 2010), p.162</ref>}} "effortless"{{refn|group=note|Wylie: lhun grub; [[IAST]]: anābhoga)<ref>Karmay, Samten Gyaltsen (2007). ''The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and identify that they draw the sense of 'resonance' from the work of [[Erich Jantsch|Jantsch]] 1975)<ref>Jantsch, Erich (1975). ''Design for Evolution''. New York: Brazillier, pp.42 f.</ref> and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad... I cleaned-up the page; I'll leave the brackets for Eastern, when we run out of eggs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes, since you are mixing up different topics like sutra and Dzogchen, zen and Dzogchen etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see hatha yoga page. I did a full rewrite from scratch.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I do wonder if the lead of Dzogchen couldn't be shorter? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are like me. You are a minimalist who wants to stick with the best sources. Fair enough.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you sourcing with other wiki's? You know that is not proper right?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Best I could find (yet). The problem with those articles is that they were created, sand stuffed with nonsense, with a notorious user who's been blocked indef. I removed a lot, and tried to find better info. But I also found written sources, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Ground of Being (Dzogchen).VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's drastic! I've undone it, though; too drastic. How about "rainbow body", at Rigpa? Looks like WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its OR.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a correction: "at the time of death". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should rename ground of being to simply "ground". Ground of being is a term I think originating with Herbert Guenther. However the Tibetan is a simple word "gzhi" and it simply translates to "ground". For example Sam van Schaik, a top academic, simply uses ground in his book "Approaching the Great Perfection."VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. Take a look at the history of the page, and see user B9 etc. A lot of articles he worked on have been tagged since 2010. For example: Mindstream, Ösel (yoga), Five Pure Lights, Gankyil. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the three wisdoms: please be so kind not to undo a lot of work, whilst it's one section you disagree with. This is the third day I'm working now on this, and it's quite frustrating to see a lot of dedicated work disappear with the touch of a button. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved "Ground of Being (Dzogchen)" to "Ground (Dzogchen)". And this translation is beautiful: "Knowing (rigpa) is the knowing of the original wakefulness that is personal experience." Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use an academic book for your sourcing, such as "Approaching the Great Perfection" (preview) by Sam van Schaik. It talks about a lot of topics including the ground.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've downloaded the first chapter, and will read it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See rigpa talk.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ground talk.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're really to the point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schaik's book is 2004. Google shows 2013, but its wrong. I don't know how to change your sfn. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really simple: in the sources-list at the bottom of the page. It's a great system; you can easily transport sources to other pages, and keep an overview on the sources you've used. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is this? Hafspajen (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its New Age material. New Agers channel various spirits which talk through them.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuk. Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafs, open up. So many interesting spirits waiting to connect to you, and you just reject them. Bad, bad karma... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's not on earth, of course; it's from a celestial sphere. Theosophists are great at those things (if "they" are "things", of course). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathan, you have no idea what a martyr I am off all kind of different not so nice weird spirits. No thanks, I keep to the big ones, God and that stuff. Anyone has a dead-sure method of getting rid of them, just tell me. I would be delighted. Have visionary gifts but don't know what to do with it, just dumped down on me some day . Hafspajen (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Love thy neigbour", Jesus said. Buddha too, by the way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not my neibours, they are dead and crazy. Hafspajen (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has lots of spare time, maybe you could seek out training to become qualified as a medium for the Nechung Oracle. 😊 -- Presearch (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, sounds fine, and I would do that, yes, but I am in Sweden and he is in... Daramsala. Hafspajen (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allah (or the angel Gabriel) and Yahweh are merely spirits as well.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not in the same way. You are thinking here in the wrong way. The little spirits and God, they are very different. And Allah and Yahweh is the same thing, just different names. And Gabriel is not Allah. Hafspajen (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're turning this talkpage into a Stairway to Heaven? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? what is Stairway to Heaven? Hafspajen (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The band? or the pub? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what YOU meant with it, when you mentioned it. Hafspajen (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you guys chatting here at this talk page! Great! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are becaming a DrMies. Well, OK, I make my first oracle pronunciation for you, Presearch: that Karmapa controversy is no controversy. It is balancing up the situation of the big Panchen Lama's disappearance, you know. Panchen Lama is dead, for sure. Now we have two Karmapas, and it is a way to preserve knowledge. How am I doing? Hafspajen (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good for Drmies' internet-speed ;) How about the future of Tibetan Buddhism, and its populairy in the west? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some trouble to find Dalai. Hafspajen (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I was searching for this tiny little subsection that I once ran into at the article Nirvana a long time ago somewhere last year. The subsection is called Samsara is Nirvana[32], and it was obviously removed for the total lack of sources. As I was googling up that very subsection, however, it seemed that there were quite many sources to support the things presented at that subsection (I haven' taken a closer look though). Therefore, I was wondering if you were interested in looking for some actual source material related to that section with me? :P Cheers mate! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the essentials of Mahayana, isn't it? See also Two truths doctrine. Yeah, I'll give it a try too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay L. Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, p.331 (and the whole of chapter XXV of the mulamadhyamakakarika). But see also Shannon Bell & Peter Kulchyski, Subversive Itinerary: The Thought of Gad Horowitz, p.263. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! :D Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also See also Katsuhiro Yoshizawa, The Religious Art of Zen Master Hakuin, pp.41-45, "Constant practice of the Four Universal Vows". Very interesting! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Joshua Jonatan, I haven't been quite productive with this matter lately :) I just found the books via Google Scholar and I'll try to take a look at them during this weekend!

Garfield, J.L. 1995. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika

Bell, S. & Kulchyski P. 2013. Subversive Itinerary: The Thought of Gad Horowitz

Yoshizawa, K. 2008. The Religious Art of Zen Master Hakuin

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give your opinion on Talk:Mindfulness#Merger proposal? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshua . I just made the changes because I THOUGHT that the Article was missing something because you removed the names of Universities from the sentence. Sorry for that.

Can you please make this Edit yourself about His Holiness Dalai Lama on Dr.Ambedkar. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/dalai-lama-ambedkar-spread-awareness-on-buddhism-in-india/article1472413.ece

I saw this Picture of His Holiness on Dalai Lama's website,. http://www.dalailama.com/gallery/album/0/310

Tibetan Buddhists carry the portrait of Ambedkar. http://www.reachladakh.com/mass-essay-writing-competition-on-123rd-birthday-of-dr-br/2344.html

I hope you can make a contribution. Atleast something can be added. Thanks. Siddheart (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siddheart.I'm sorry for you that you're blocked again,but serious, what's the relevance of this quote? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His Holiness Dalai Lama quoted Dr.Ambedkar that he spread awareness about Dr.Ambedkar.I gave the various sources also. It seems you don't want to edit because you also reverted it. I came here seeking help from you as a friend but you never help and instead you reverted it. If you think there is no relevance about this Dalai Lama quote on Dr.Ambedkar then I congratulate you. Thanks. Have a nice day. May all beings be well and happy. 101.58.180.92 (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply sampling some primary sources doesn't make intelligible information. Why is this quote relevant? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joshua brother, Teach me something If I don't know. I came here as a friend. The first link is from a Newspaper Article. 2nd Link is from Dalai Lama's own website. Third Link is about Tibetan Buddhists who carry the portrait of Dr.Ambedkar on his birthday. Now from where else I can have a source? I was talking about first link. And if its a primary source (which I think is not) then why can't we add it? It has a relevance to Dr. Ambedkar's page. I am a big fan of His Holiness because I like when he laughs . It seems like that Laughing Buddha is in-front of me. Will you please help me? Your's Siddheart 115.185.80.137 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted from The Hindu which is a newspaper and is not a primary source. Will you please add it brother? 115.185.80.137 (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siddheart, you're realyy running into trouble; you're blocked at this moment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joshua brother, This quote is relevant because it is quoted by His Holiness Dalai Lama on Dr.B.R. Ambedkar. That's why it is relevant. Can you edit it? If you can't edit it then will you please allow me to edit because when I edit it you revert it. I am asking this seriously and the quote is from a Newspaper The Hindu and why can't it be edited. Why I am in trouble ? You always say it.I am just giving an Information. User:Joshua Jonathan Thanks User:Siddheart 115.249.44.252 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why is a quote by the DL relevant? This newspaper only gives two quotes, without providing a context. Why is Ambedkar relevant to the Tibetans? Maybe this book may be helpful: Lella Karunyakara, Modernisation of Buddhism: Contributions of Ambedkar and Dalai Lama XIV. Regarding the problems you're runnin ginto: you're blocked at the moment, aren't you? So editing here is WP:BLOCKEVASION. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't knew that it is like that. I was just answering to you. I didn't say Ambedkar is Important to Tibetan Buddhists. Well Still you are my friend. Happy editing. Thanks. 115.249.44.252 (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, Wikipedia 'turiya' is not accurate. Please note turiya is not synonymous with samadhi. Thank you, sir. My e-mail is [email protected] if u need clarification. Svenakira1 17:28, 21 June 2014

Which page are you referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you organize the page into sutric Buddha Nature (for example the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras) and tantric Buddha Nature (for example Mahamudra)? There are 2 Buddha Natures.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. You may be right, I don't know. Have you got a few sources or links, so I can read more? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Buddha-nature#Buddha Nature page; to be continued there

Hi! I noticed that the Three pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau is being used as a source at Buddha-nature. I was wondering, how reliable account about Hakuun Yasutani's life the book really is, taking into consideration that Philip Kapleau never received a Dharma transmission and wasn't later even acknowledged by the Sanbo Kyodan school? For example it is said that (Sharf, Robert H. (1995-C), "Sanbokyodan. Zen and the Way of the New Religions", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1995 22/3-4)[33]:

Nevertheless, the dangers of defection and schism were not unknown, for just three years prior to Yasutani’s retirement his American disciple, Philip Kapleau, led his own af³liate group to secede from the Sanbõkyõdan. Kapleau’s training was, by Sanbõkyõdan standards, quite rigorous. As mentioned above, he spent almost three years (1953–1956) in the Hosshin-ji sõdõ under Harada prior to his training under Yasutani. He remained with Yasutani for about ten years, serving as translator in dokusan for Yasutani’s foreign students. He returned to America in 1965 and established a Zen Center in Rochester, New York, that was one of the first of its kind in America. Kapleau quickly set about adapting Yasutani’s Zen to the American scene: students wore Western dress and used English chants in the zendõ, they were given Western-sounding Buddhist names at ordinations, and they modified ceremonies and rituals to “accord with our Western traditions” (KAPLEAU 1979, p. 269). Apparently Kapleau took the Zen rhetoric he had been taught quite literally: he considered the outward forms of Zen mere upãya, to be modified in accord with the needs and abilities of his students. As long as he remained true to the experiential essence of Zen, the outward “cultural forms” were of little consequence. Yasutani, however, objected strongly to some of the reforms, notably to the use of an English translation of the Heart Sðtra in the zendõ. These and other factors led to a serious falling-out, and in 1967 Kapleau formally ended his relationship with Yasutani."

The assertions get even more severe, as we can see from here:

David Scates, an ex-student of the Rochester Zen Center, wrote to Yamada asking about Kapleau’s credentials. Yamada’s reply, dated 16 January 1986, included a blunt public statement to the effect that Kapleau never finished his kõans and never received inka. This was accompanied by a long letter to Scates that detailed Kapleau’s inadequacies and lack of training, and even hinted that Kapleau may be guilty of fraud (Yamada suggests that Kapleau might be proffering a precept or kenshõ certificate as a document of transmission; since Kapleau’s Western students know no Japanese, they supposedly would not know the difference)e

The most critical blow against Kapleau, however, can be found here (Lachs, Stuart (2006 / 2008), "The Zen Master in America: Dressing the Donkey with Bells and Scarves", Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Washington D.C., Nov. 18, 2006 / The International Association of Buddhist Studies Congress, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, June 24, 2008)[34]:

In 1997 Ji’un Kubota roshi, Yamada’s successor as head of the Sanbokyodan sect, answered an enquiry from a Polish Zen group asking about Kapleau’s credentials. He replied that Kapleau did not finish his training, claiming that Kapleau’s fame for the Three Pillars of Zen was undeserved because he [Kubota] and Yamada roshi had translated “all” of the work in the book. He added that Kapleau “was not able to read Japanese” and only made their translation “more understandable” to native English readers. He remarked that Kapleau was arrogant and proud and that he treated Yasutani “abusively and impolitely.” He then proclaimed, “He [Kapleau] is no more a Zen man. His teaching is no more Buddhist Zen but only his own philosophy.”

.

What do you think? =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Buddha-nature#Philip Kapleau as a source; to be continued there

Sorry, I restored the wrong version. Do you think 101.57.90.252 is a SP of Siddheart? JimRenge (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Both located in Delhi. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siddheart's been socking. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, thanks. It's a pity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon tea ... for you. Have a cake too, Chocolate Pecan Tarts on baking sheet. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of us who were active on the India page aren't very active now, some of the same talk page posts and content requests are getting restarted. You may want to look at the archives. Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Realhistorybuff/Archive. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this our friend, going IP, traveling around? Looks like it is editing much the very same topics like him... (and - Is this true?) Hafspajen (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; other kind of argumentation. He may have a point, regarding the copying of a source. By the way, your edit-summary, "Na na", may not be very convincing to some of pur fellow editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. Can you check out if it is a copy-thing. In that case it needs to be rewritten. My first rection was that someone tries to blow up this holy-fool thing about Rasputin again. And if it IS copyvio, one can simply reword it, write it in a different way. -You had good sources, didn't you? - and I know only one person who is targeting Rasputin like this, with this foxterrier-like stubborness. Did it again, that one. Hafspajen (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Ha, LOOK at this... Hafspajen (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to show that GF, see - Talk:Foolishness for Christ, now we start everything here instead, as IP. Only hope vacation will soon end. Hafspajen (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When did ever an IP cared for copyvio? Hafspajen (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has a broader range of articles than your "friend". I checked the source; they're close indeed. So, off you go: paraphrase! And relax; time for some Buddhist meditation: don't go with the flow (of your emotions), but remember to be lead by reason, and good faith in your fellow editors. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrased, Master. Hafspajen (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, feel better? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a little tired of deffending Rasp from materialists and sensation-hunters... Hafspajen (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, maybe your friend is retired and studies Rasputin for his hobby. Better than collecting stamps, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. HE SHOULD collect stamps! That would make life easyer for all. Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this innovative test of my sense of humour. JimRenge (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"test of sense of humour"? Hmm, you put it friendly. It's over the line, I guess. I've put his talkpage on my watchlist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hide. JimRenge (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at Dorje Shugden Controversy and Dorje Shugden?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, don't do this me... Is it as bad as Nichiren? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Nichiren Wikipedia page. But since you are arguably the top Buddhist editor, its your duty to take a look. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a look; where's the hedge clippers? This controversy is also being battled over (is that correct English?) here at Wikipedia, isn't it? Those templates at top are fine there; warning-signs that it's a hopeless topic. By the way: the Nichiren-page is dominated by sectarians. Awful to edit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also please take a look at hatha yoga.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that one already. It concerns a lot of text, and the removal and re-insertion of a lot of info with just one edit, from both sides. If you want to pusrsue there, you should take it to the talk-page, in pieces. See Talk:Kensho#Restoration#2 for example. Mallinson is a good source, though. Start with re-inserting your info - not all at once, but in steps; that makes it easier to dicuss. Next you can "clean" the article. In both cases concentrate on WP:RS and WP:OR. I've re-inserted some, and removed quite a lot. We'll see what Yoonadue will do; he's not so good at working with good sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mallinson is an Oxford scholar who studied under top experts.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the Saiva flowchart that I saw floating around on a couple of pages. Please see it here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Two points: sources, and Wiki-charts. See also Vedanta#Schools of Vedanta and Template:Subschools of Vedanta. Could you take a look at [35] and Talk:Mindfulness (psychology)#Merged? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current Vedic page is full of historical errors such as the inclusion of the Aryan Invasion theory, which was propagated by the British to divide and conquer India by causing strife between the various castes (where there was little to none). Similar theories have been used such as the Hutu-Tutsi origin, and have led to genocide in Rwanda. Please understand that teaching false theories such as this leads to ignorance in academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JiggerJones (talk • contribs) 01:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're WP:POV-pushing. You can supplement the present info with "alternative" views, if there are WP:RS, but you cannot remove info based on WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they in the article anyway? Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He was the 14th and last child of Ramji Maloji Sakpal and Bhimabai." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was going to revert, but you beat me Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joshua, I thought you might be interested in this. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Sitush is indeed critical on this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am astounded to see no mention of Maratha Empire in the History section of India. I, as a student of History, consider it to be a distortion of history.It was mainly the Marathas who destroyed the Mughals and the most influential power in the subcontinent before the Britishers properly established themselves in the early 19th century was the Marathas.There should be at least 2-3 lines on the Maratha Empire in the history section between the Mughals and the EIC. I am adding just one common line there. Please see it and if needed make some additions. Even, History of India page makes it clear but I do not know what happened to India page. I waited in the talk page there for 60 hours but there was no reply. Thank You.Ghatus (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Copied to Talk:India#Maratha Empire[reply]

The sentence you copied over from History of India is a copyvio from EB. Unfortunately the History of India article seems to have a lot of these, we will need to clean that up. You might want to rephrase this one. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff

I'll take a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing can be difficult, can't it? Nevertheless, the sentence being used in History of India was paraphrased: "federacy" was changed into "empire" ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dzogchen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s and 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

the first master of the Buddhist Dzogchen lineage in our world was [[Garab Dorje]]{{refn|(Wylie: ''dga' rab rdo rje'', Sanskrit *''prahevajra''}} from [[Uddiyana]].{{refn|group=note|Wylie:. ''o rgyan''}<ref>[http://www.amnyitrulchung.org/lineage/masters/Garab- [[Milarepa]]{{refn|group=note|Wylie: ''mi la ras pa''}} and most notably by the Third [[Karmapa]], [[Rangjung Dorje.{{refn|group=note|Wylie:. ''rang byung rdo rje''}} {{quote|[...] the essence and base of self-arisen wisdom is the allbase, that primordial open wisdom is itself open awareness (''[[rigpa]]''), inalienably one with unbounded wholeness."ref>Klein and Wangyal, 2006, p.109</ref> [[rainbow body]]{{refn|group=note|Wylie: 'ja' lus, pronounced Jalü}} at the moment of death,{{sfn|>Dalai Lama|2004|p=204}} when all the fixation and grasping has been exhausted.{{sfn|Chökyi Nyima

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mindstream may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{quote|Indian Buddhists see the 'evolution' of mind i[n] terms of the continuity of individual mind-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, could you please look at the latest edits at the Celibacy. They messed up the lead, so they can't stay where they are now, but if it is useful, we can move them to the appropiate sections. Hafspajen (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. I've reverted. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Padmasambhava is 99% fictional and Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche is 100% fictional. See Sam van Schaik's "Tibet: A History", Ronald Davidson's "Tibetan Renaissance" and David Germano's "Funerary Transformation of the Great Perfection". Basically, you are filling the articles with very late mythologies, not actual history. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Eh, you're referring to the Dzogchen-article, I guess? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mindfulness

added a link pointing to Unitarian Church

Mindfulness (psychology)

added a link pointing to Relax

Wisdom in Buddhism

added a link pointing to Karuna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how are you?i hope your fine.Again user Redtigerxyz started his journey to destroy all my edits.almost more than 10 pages of my edits correpted by single day itself.I am helpless.Please if you have time kindly look on that.thank you!Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 19:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're heading for trouble. Cool down, take a break for a couple of days, and use the talkpages. Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joshua Jonathan, for your comments. I know you are always fair, so I have tried to make the heading of that particular subsection a little more balanced. As you are aware, there has been a debate raging for centuries as to whether Buddha Nature is essence or potential - or both. I think you will agree that in view of this contention it is best to cover both aspects and reflect that in the subsection heading. Thanks again for your input. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've even provided a reference for your correction :) - though personally I think it's a "herecy" - but that's my persoanl opinion, of course. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan. Thanks! As I have said earlier, let us try now to move forward in a way that sees both sides in this debate over Atman(Buddhism) and Buddha Nature reasonably satisfied. I am sure that between us we can arrive at some sort of compromise! Best wishes to you, Suddha (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, as always. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for 3 Atman articles: Atman (Buddhism), Ātman (Jainism) and Atman (Hinduism). If you look at Sanskrit dictionaries, there is just 1 entry for words, not 3 different entries. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Neoadvaitins accuse each other of being Neoadvaitins, while denying that they themselves are Neoadvaitins. And then they set up websites proclaiming that they are the real Advaitins, while everyone else are Neoadvaitins. Most of this article is made of such non-RS sources for example Dennis Waite and James Swartz. Dennis Waite, James Swartz etc. have no qualifications and are not RS. I would urge you to clean the article of this junk.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very controversial topic. When I created the page, several attempts were made (done? undertaken?) to delete it, by outraged Hindus and Ramana Maharshi-devotees. Next it was nearly hijacked by devotees who wanted to brand "the wrong kind of neo-Advaitins" as, well, very wrong people. Pffffff..... I think you're right: a lot of them are accusing each other. What interests me, though, is "its" popularity, and its attitudes toward further practice. Or, more broadly: what tot do after "enlightenment" c.q. insight into anatta (or however you want to call it). Insight alone does not suffice, I think. By the way, you're an Exclusionist, I think. Though maybe you don't like "thing-ness"-labels. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should simply follow WP:RS. This stuff does not do that.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's especially the criticism-section which uses a lot of websites. That's where the disputes are reflected...

Off topic, but to address what you frequently elude to. In Mahamudra, one receives initiation. Then one recognizes the fourth time and the conceptualizing mind. Once one definitely recognizes, one simply can relax in the knowledge.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if I disagree with a scholar, I can just edit and revise their translation?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first thought: no. You'll have to use WP:RS, as usually - though I suspect your scholarly background is more than sufficient. But have a look at this, page 2: "...the sadly unreliable, though pioneering, attempt by Dr. Kosho Yamamoto (1973-75)". If you realize that, throughout several Wiki-articles, the "info" on the doctrinal statements of the MPNS is based on the apparently personal interpretations by one editor of the English translation of Yamamoto's translation - well... not so well. I'm sorry, though, for this editor, and I'd like to ask you to reckon with the personal commitment of this editor. He's really a nice guy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that Tony Page revised Yamamoto's translation. And that Tony Page has no Buddhist qualifications. We should not be using Tony Page's translation. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did. And that's bothering me too; he's got a 'faith-based' and quite literal interpretation of "Buddha-nature", and seems to be unaware of the need of hermeneutics and contextualisation. I'm afraid you're correct here... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should use scholarly sources.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra#Tony Page's translation

@user:Joshua Jonatan, don't you think we have the same problem with using Philip Kapleau as a source, like discussed here[36]? He is not a Buddhist scholar nor a linguist, and he is even discredited by the current of Sanbokyodan. What do you think? =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this before. I don't think it's "the same problem". Kapleau spent years in training, and is, though not a recognized dharme-heir of Yasutani, a respected teacher of his own. What's more, The Three Pillars is mainly the work of Yasutani, so if you want to doubt Kapleau, you'll have to doubt Yasutani. And the reference being used is to Kapleau referencing to Harada roshi.

Also, the remark "he is even discredited by the current of Sanbokyodan". Does that mean he knows nothing about Buddhism? Or does it mean that the Sanbo Kyodan has got a problem with him? And if so, what's the value of that?

Oh, and an importance difference: Kapleau has been published by a "real" publisher, and his "Three Pillars" is a landmark in the western reception of Zen [37], as is Kapleau himself [38]. There is criticism, though, on the emphasis on kensho, but this reflects Yasutani's emphasis on kensho.

So, no, I don't think that that's "the same problem". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua Jonatan! After taking a deeper look into the issue, it seems that Kapleau can be used as a source after all, but not for any of those reasons that you or I provided earlier =) See, The Three Pillars of Zen was first published in 1965. By that time, Kapleau was still studying under Yasutani Roshi, and it seems that he approved the book at that time. It wasn't until 1967 when there formed a rift between Kapleau and Yasutani, and Kapleau formally ended their relationship. Well, the book was already published before that in acceptance of Yasutani. Cheers! ;) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, do you mind taking a look at Talk:Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra#Discussion continues? If not a scholar, it seems that Tony Page guy has quite a lot credentials after all... :O Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me remind about talkpage of Dr.Ambedkar. It is not good for someone to define Ambedkar in usually 3 words. There should be atleast 4 words. There are not 6 words which can be called a Laundry list but rather 4 words. Will you shake a hand on this? Akhil Bharathan (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. And please discuss this at Talk:B.R. Ambedkar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I wasn't intended to make a personal attack on you. If I did I apologize for that. May peace be upon you. Akhil Bharathan (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. I've gathered some impressions from Wikipedia about the "social conventions" in India; they seem to be quite different from those here in Holland, with a lot of social inequality. My sympathies are, actually, with the Dalits; but I think you won't do a service to Ambedkar, or the Dalits, by "inflating" his image. He was a great man; and real greatness speaks for itself. That some people in India think Dalits are "unworthy people" (yech! what an awful term!) is painful; yet, to my opinion, every people is worthfull. I know, it's easy to say so when you live in a rich, equal and "protected" country; but I sincerely wish you all the best. Remember what the Buddha taught: don't be ruled by the passions; be a master of your self. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Joshua for your condolences. I like well-wishers like you. Many Dalits are killed brutally, raped and tortured just because they belonged to the lowest category of caste system. It happened with my own family too. Buddha was the onewho was against caste system and fought against it. Read Assalyana sutta, Aggana Sutta, Vasala Sutta etc to know about Buddha's view on caste system. In Dhammachakkapavvataana sutta (turning of wheel) Buddha said to not to indulge oneself in extreme sensual pleasures OR self mortification(just like some jains do). So you are right my friend. His Holliness Dalai Lama said " You are your own master, Buddha's duty is just to show you the way". Recently Dalai L ama was also in headlinesdue to some followers of Dorje Shudjen. I am again sorry If I hurted you whether intentionally or unintentionally. I saw your recent contributions and I guess you are a Vajrayana Buddhist. With Karuna, Metta and Mudita. Akhil Bharathan (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chán, actually. Combining sunyata and compassion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?? Akhil Bharathan (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He meant you combine sunyata and karuna and get chán. Hafspajen (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dorje Shugden issue is completely manufactured by the British group New Kadampa Tradition. This same group has been controlling Wikipedia since 2007.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User:VictoriaGrayson actually I don't know about that But I saw some violence done to some followers of Dorje Shudjen in a youtube video when Dalai Lama banned it. I saw the banners of Dorje Shudjen protesting against Dalai Lama when Dalai Lama said that its a worship of a spirit. I hope that the dispute is settled now. Akhil Bharathan (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The protestors are western/Caucasian members of the British New Kadampa cult. There is also an eastern Shugden cult funded by China. They murdered a lama in the 1990s'.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I actually saw this video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIjCDKKvcuI. Akhil Bharathan (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the New Kadampa cult. What don't you understand? Many of those same people edit Wikipedia here. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you say. I like His Holiness Dalai lama for his behavior friend. He is a great soul on earth. Akhil Bharathan (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the new New Kadampa is a great soul. You people stop fighting because everyhing has a meaning. The world is not the same any more. Tibetans live in exile. Some Tibetans are not born in Tibet any more. Everything that is to grow and protect tradition it is good, the New Kadampa cult .. is good. (I am not practicing it - don't be in error o that). Until someone is taking the tradition further ... it is good. Don't make the same mistake like the Cristians. There is a meaning with this, but his Holiness can't see this yet. He will, maybe in next life. Hafspajen (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New Kadampa cult is a bunch of westerners who have an extremely poor understanding of Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholics think, the Protestans have a poor understanding of Christanity. Still, I have felt God both in Catholic and Protestant churches. You think now as a human. God may have other plans. God can see more and know more than any of us, I am just telling you. Just follow the one rule - love. Don't hate someone you don't understand, don't judge. Hafspajen (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I do understand the New Kadampa Tradition. I am well appraised of the whole situation. They have no understanding of Buddhism outside Kelsang Gyatso's personal views.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I know. But it will change. One only have to fear the deliberate evil, with many faces. Hafspajen (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Buddha-nature

added a link pointing to Kleshas

Tathāgatagarbha sūtras

added a link pointing to Kleshas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I thought you might be interested in this view on icchantikas by Stephen Hodge: "It is at this phase of textual development that the icchantikas make their appearance, a term first used to denote the many this-worldly monks leading settled lives. It was then extended and worsened in its connotations to include all those who have destroyed any chance of liberation in themselves. It is interesting to see development of historical conceptions between different religions - even such distant as Buddhism and Christianity. For example the development of the concept of Hell in Christianity compared to the Buddhist view of icchantikas - from the salvific point of view of course. :P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Karashima, Seishi (2007). Who were the Icchantikas?, pp. 74-78 for alternative interpretations in the MPNS context. JimRenge (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed some issues on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page, mostly raised by CFynn, including the previous deletion of academic material and the need to summarize the academic views on the subject.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your intro is the New Kadampa version of the controversy, not the academic one. See the comments of CFynn. Indeed the intro with all the protests was written by the guy who organizes the protests. And I am not a follower of the Dalai Lama since I strongly dislike Gelug teaching. As you know I called the Dalai Lama's books junk. So I am not advocating my intro as a result of partiality. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the talkpage. By the way, I added stuff to the intro, based on a source. I simply try to understand this "controversy". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bernis reference is not reliable. It is never cited by subsequent academic work, since it was rejected from publication. Also all those web articles are synthesized into original research. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vic, I'd turned all those notes into proper notes, and added a sources-list, which helps to make it clear how many sources are web-sources. How come that's all disappeared? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think its just missing a groupnote section. See warning at bottom.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No... You re-inserted "old" text, without the notes-tag. Pity. I'll work it through again... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between your Sources section and Further Reading and References?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are used in the text; "Further reading" is a list of recommended further reading. How reliable is Kelsang Gyatso? I've got several books from him. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Throw them out. If you want interesting Tibetan Buddhist books, I have many titles to recommend.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like "burn them"? No, that's a painful remark, not even a joke. What a mess. What are the best books you recommend? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What type of books are you interested in? Are you interested in mystical autobiographies of modern tertons? Are you interested in philosophical aspects? Or are you interested in practices?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A general overview. I understand close to nothing of tantra and all those deities, and its relation to madhyamaka. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would read "Establishing Appearances as Divine". Only with Sapan is there the belief that sutric madhyamaka and tantra share the same view.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is Bultrini's "The Dalai Lama and the King Demon" a reliable source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to CFynn and other neutral editors in the archives, yes it is reliable. Specifically this comment of CFynn.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bultrini is a very widely respected and experienced Italian investigative journalist who writes for one of the most respected newspapers in Italy, La Republica. He is best known for his investigations into Italian organized crime including the Mafia. Although written in a narrative (reportage)style, everything in his book The Dalai Lama and the King Demon is thoroughly researched and well referenced - so it should be quite easy to verify. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan
Sometimes different people have different views about what is "the truth" about a controversial subject like this (particularly if they are in any way connected with the subject) and so will try to edit an article so that it more reflects what they view as the "truth" or the "real facts". In doing so they will often claim that they are simply trying to make the article "more balanced" or "neutral" - which they usually sincerely believe they are. However Wikipedia is not about getting to "the truth" (See: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth[]). Generally Wikipedia articles should reflect the balance of current academic opinion on a subject - whether that academic opinion coincides what you or I, or religious believers, consider to be the truth or not. We may not agree with what respected academics like Thurman or very experienced and professional investigative reporters like Bultrini say - but they are widely acknowledged in their respective fields so Wikipedia counts them as very good sources. If other, equally good, sources disagree with their opinion then of course those sources should be used in the article as well. Cheers. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I'm familiair with the use of sources; see User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources. I'm not familiair with the topic, and preferred to stay out of it. Yet, in respect of the good cooperation with VictoriaGrayson, I responded to his appeal to collaborate in the improvement of this article. It's barbed-wired and mined, isn't it?... By the way, my affiliation is with Zen-Buddhism, and free-thinkers like Toni Packer and Ton Lathouwers, so I'm not a party in this conflict. How's life in Bhutan? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yes the topic of the article is a real minefield - and whatever you do, sympathisers of of the Dalai Lama or the NKT/Shugden will inevitably change it to bring it more in to line with their particular version of the Truth. (I wonder if a 17th Century Tibetan deity or spirit can even said to exist outside the minds of people who believe in that sort of thing). I'm sure Zen must have its own controversies - but this particular Buddhist controversy is really over the top. To me the weirdest thing of all is that educated western Buddhists should get so wrapped up in an affair about a medieval Tibetan spirit. Cheers. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Merzel is a favourite for Zennies. Ha! I'm also editing at India and Hinduism-related pages; I've been quarreling there with Brahmins, Tamils, Dalits and a communist, so Dalai Lama and NKT-adepts are welcome too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be a sport and join us at Bodu Bala Sena  :). JimRenge (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts to start a page on "Buddhist controversies", or Buddhist scandals". Wikipedia-policies prohibit, of course, but it might make a nice disclaimer: "Beware of Buddhism! It may harm your physical and emotional health!" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan - Please respect the {{In use}} template when the message is displayed for a whole article or for a section. Next time, whenever you ate actively editing an article I suggest you use it to avoid edit conflicts. Meanwhile please hold back from this article while the message is displayed. You can make whatever changes you want to once that message is gone. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I've responded at the talkpage there. I find your attitude "I put it there first" a little bit disappointing; nevertheless, it's for the improvement of the article, isn't it? So, go ahead. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my attitude - but I took time off work today to do this. I also had my 64th birthday yesterday, so please just look me kindly as a grumpy old man. Anyway thank you for letting me finish. Chris Fynn (talk)

Congratulations! And apologies accepted, of course; this kind of articles makes one itchy, doesn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No time to do more just now - so I've removed the In use template and replaced it with Under constriction. To keep things simple I think wherever we can just use {{sfn}} references to the listed "Main Sources". Also, to keep things consistent, where needed can we just use Cite templates instead of mixing Cite and Citation templates. Will leave the Notes as is until I finish with the References. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{sfn}} is a great template; I really love it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - and since This article gets messed around with so much I think better to avoid named references as these are easily broken if the first in a named series gets deleted. Thanks for your patience. Cheers Chris Fynn (talk)

Editing style (selecting, arranging and commenting quotes from religious texts without providing secondary RS which provide context, critical analysis and multiple points of view) and content of this edit reminds me of another user. I fear he might be a reincarnation looking for trouble. Some time ago I read on top of the talk page of davidwr (January 22, 2014): "People are more important than Wikipedia.". I agree with this insight and try hard to avoid hurting users, whose edits or behaviour appear to be disruptive. I hope he will spare us the discussion at the drama board. JimRenge (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who've you got on your mind? The content sounded familiair to me too; might be a re-insertion of deleted text. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to name an editor, because I have realized that there are only a few hints/details. Enjoy your holidays! JimRenge (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's wise :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Within "Note 1" it shows a reference with page number. But "Note 3" doesn't.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the other Dorje Shugden page.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Kadampas reverting both Shugden pages.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	(talk page stalker) Keep up the good work that you are doing! Oh, and enjoy your holidays! =) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - for the Barnstar, and for the good holiday-wishes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dzogchen is not merely practiced by Nyingma and Bon
• Nine vehicles is specific to Nyingma and Bon classifications, not Tibetan Buddhism in general. And ultimately has nothing to do with Dzogchen.
• The main practice of trekcho does not start with zhine.
• Numerous popular authors instead of good solid references

etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua Jonathan

I see you were one of the last people to edit the Eight Consciousnesses article. I have added a list of some useful sources to the talk page of that article - if anyone wants to improve it (might be a bit of a relief from Shugden). In view of other articles you have been editing recently, this one in particular might interest you: A Comparison of Alaya-vijñāna in Yogacara and Dzogchen.

I think Ālayavijñāna should probably have its own separate article as it is one of the key concepts in Buddhist thought.

- Chris Fynn (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice one, thanks! I love the really good books on Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review my recent edits to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. Thanks. Chris Fynn (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me if Vic undid your edits, or removed other stuff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Vic has subsequently removed a quite a lot of other stuff. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up Yellow Book section.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see the Barnett quote in the NKT/WSS section. Its completely unintelligible. Can I fix the various errors you introduced into the article?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can. But just take care not to go back to another version; when you do so, you also remove and/or change a lot of minor edits. Just take one point at a time, and give a edit-summary, so every-one can follow your thoughts about the topics, and respond to them specifically. And yes, the NKT/WSS section needs further reworking. As fa as I've gone, I've re-ordered the article, and come as far as the Yellow Book. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kjangdom/Audrey37 (same person and director of the ISC) deleted half the article. Please work off this revision, where I use your expanded intro.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vic. Already close to giving up on this mess? I was, but now I'm back on it. Groet, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would bring stability. You are free to oppose, but I don't think its in the best interest.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a derogatory content by self styled editor Sitush I already tried contacting your volunteers but they refused to help. Sitush May be a hard working genius in your eyes but it does not give him full right to assault anyone please ask him to stop that. Please find the issues below which I discussed with your team

Insulting /Derogatry content on JAT people page P PC to info-en-v 3 days agoDetails Sir/Madam,

I would like to bring to your notice the derogatry content on Jat people page which is clearly aimed at insulting the community.

In the introduction: the intoduction starts with term 'non elite' and 'backward caste' so as to give readers as impression of a lower community. The Jats won majority of medals for India in recent olympics, commonwealth games and they are present in every sphere of life- from doctors, engineers, sports( Sushil kumar, virender sehwagvijender singh, saina nehwal). Acting(Ranbir hooda. mallika sherawat, dharmender), Politics, building( DLF) , Army(including present army chief)so why the negative aspects are highlighted?

In the Varna status only based on fiction of Uma Bharti it is written: Uma Chakravarti reports that the varna status of the Jats improved over time, with the Jats starting in the untouchable/chandala varna during the eighth century, changing to shudra status by the 11th century, which is offensive , without evidence.

Whenever I tried to edit the page by highlighting achievements of Jats in sports, army , positive social customs they have been deleted.

It is a clear assault on the community by other caste hindus who think that the best way to exert superiority of there caste is to highlight negative aspects of Jats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveen3333 (talk • contribs)

Hi praveen3333. As far as I know Sitush, he does not intend to denigrate people; on the contrary. What he does do is to counter puffery, such as presuming a higher caste-status by adding all sorts of irrelevant "info". Regarding "non-elite": this is about social and politcal status, not about sports. Given the social discrimination in India, I'd personally take pride in this term "non-elite". By the way, my grandparents belonged to the working-class, while my father earned a PhD. Where does this put me in the Indian system? Don't let the inequalities of the Indian system dictate your worth as a human being; you're as worthfull as any other person, whatever the "elite" may think about this. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today another user sent me a link to a discussion about whether overpopulation in India that was archived. If I were to start a discussion that provided sources and participate every now and then (I'm busy with other stuff) would you contribute to it? Regards--Taeyebaar (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Rather not; it's a delicate topic. But I'm curious about the sources, so I'll take a look now at your talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you wish to contribute to it on and off it's here. I'm going through some sources but am thin on time--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua,

I do not understand why you have reverted my recent edit and at the same time accused me of 'edit-warring'. You have also accused me of POV pushing, but I am merely including some pro-Shugden statements using, in my opinion, reliable sources. It is clear that the article gives far too much weight to the anti-Shugden view at the moment, which is something I am trying to address, and would encourage other editors to do the same. I do not accuse people of POV-pushing when they include anti-Shugden statements, and I would suggest you refrain from this unecessary name-calling - "POV-pushing", "edit-warring". It seems a little inflammatory and over the top.

Anyway, just the record, I am keen to improve this article, and I think the edits I made did improve it. It is in no-one's interst that the article is so heavily anti-Shugden at the moment. I think we need to work together to improve this article. You seem like a sane person and I would be happy to work with you and other editors in a constructive way.

All the best, Audrey37 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Audrey. I agree with you that the article is leaning over to anti-dorje Shugden. yet, the sources you've been using are not reliable. See Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy#Reverts by Audrey37. I think you should try Kay's book for information on Gyalto's points of view; Kay is not that negative, actually. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll check out Kay, and take it from there. All the best. Audrey37 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP unreliable sources must be removed immediately from biographies of living persons. Can you please rewrite this section at the 14th Dalai Lama page? The current section contains the Bernis PDF, which must be removed immediately. CFynn and I also discussed the Bernis PDF here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw your attention to History of India Page (Before 1947). The opening phrase of the introductory line of the page was changed from “history of India” to “history of the Indian sub-continent” yesterday. I undid it to the previous form. But, it was changed by a user again. I do not intend to go into an edit war with him. Hence, I am informing you to look into the matter.

This is a classic or typical case of confusing “India”, a cultural and geographical entity ( Sindu>Hindu>Indus>India) with the modern nation-state of “Republic of India” which came in being into 1947. Before 1947, “India” was a term used to denote a cultural and geographical entity like “Arabia”. The concept of “Indian Sub-continent” is as modern as the concept of the nation state of “Republic of India”. Both of the terms did not exist 2000 years or 5000 years ago. Past can not be judged by present realities.

Again, a clarification is given on the top of the page that this is not about the “Republic of India”, but on “India” before 1947. One can notice the same sort of misconception regarding the birth place of Lord Buddha without realizing that both “Republic of India” and “Republic of Nepal” did not exist 2500 years ago. Hence, Buddhism is called an "Indian Religion", not a "Nepalese Religion".

BTW, One can not give the reason of "Redirection" as an excuse to change history.Clarification is already given on the top of the page for the purpose.

I hope I have made you understand my point. Please look into it. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed the clarification, after a previous discussion on this topic. I'll have a look - though it's probably already corrected. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a look; actually I think it's an improvement; it makes it clear right away that the article is not only about the state of India, but also about what is now Pakistan etc. Sorry... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into the matter. But, is there now any need for clarification on the top of the page as the introductory sentence starts now with the phrase "history of the Indian sub-continent" instead of "history of India"? Isn't it needless repetition? Shouldn't then the clarification be removed as the matter is already cleared below??? Since clarification is already made now,I have moved the History of Pakistan and History of Bangladesh link to the "See Also" section.History of RoI was already moved. Ghatus (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking aboutVictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, correct me if I'm wrong. This is what I've understood so far. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Western Shugden Society page. Look at the deletion of RS, original research and the falsification of the following references:

1. A self-published book "Buddha's Not Smiling" written by a random guy

2. Misrepresenting reference - Martin Mills says "suppression of the Shugden sectarian movement". Not practice.

3. Misrespresenting reference - Man, Monk, Mystic actually quotes the Dalai Lama as saying "However, everyone is completely free to say....we have religious freedom....we will not change our tradition of propitiating Dolgyal". pg. 194.

4. A 1996 newspaper article that is referenced by Helen Waterhouse in 2001.

5. Shugdenist made translations of the Dalai Lama's Tibetan speech.

6. etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even access the WSS-site! It's blocked by Web of Trust! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the Wikipedia article Western Shugden Society goddamnit.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it! And take a little bit distance. Why does this topic make you so angry? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No anger. I was joking around. Can't tell through text.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 Buddha Natures. When you say Buddha Nature you are probably referring to sutric Buddha Nature of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtras. When I say Buddha Nature I generally refer to tantric Buddha Nature of Mahamudra etc., which is merely the nature of mind.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah... thanks!! What's the etc, and what's the difference with tathagatagarbha? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutric Buddha Nature of Tathāgatagarbha Sūtras is some kind of Buddha element which only 10th level bodhisattvas can see. Tantric Buddha Nature of Mahamudra is just the nature of mind, which can be demonstrated to anyone. (etc. refers to Dzogchen and Lamdre.)VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. That's something I understand. "Nature of mind" does have an intuitive appeal to me; "Buddha-element" does not, because of the "thing-ness" of the idea. It's funny, since this basic stance on the "no-thing-ness" of "things", "mind", "I", was what attracted me to Buddhism, and appears to be such a fundamental theme in buddhist history (these lines do not exactly convey what I mean to say, due to me not being a native-speaker...) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ooooh! Are Tathāgatagarbha Sūtras considered sutric? :O I thought that they would be regarded as tantric due to their rather unorthodox conceptions on the "Self" and the "permament and eternal essence of reality". :F Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I recommend to read the complete [Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra] as an example (it`s short and entertaining). JimRenge (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayaguru-Shishya:Buddhist tantra (Vajrayana) is stuff like Kalachakra Tantra, Cakrasamvara Tantra, Hevajra Tantra etc. with associated commentaries. Also includes dohas and terma.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thanks for your answers JimRenge and VictoriaGrayson! Of course, of course... I must have confused Buddhist sutras and tantras with the Hindu conception of Vedas (orthodox) and Sutras (unorthodox), where tantras would have a low degree of conformity to the vedic values =P ...[39] Cheers mates! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rediscovered (what an irony, speeking of "terma") that I've got a (photo)copy of "Self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness". I's an interesting text; for the text itself, but also for the criticism of Evants-Wentz Theosophical interpretation. The text fits with "Nature of mind". The additional comments include an explanation of the nine yana's distinguished by the Nyingma. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I agree with the approriateness of including living people in this category. People are not controversies. If they are involved, they'll be mentioned in the articles about the dispute. Yworo (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct. Previous, an article about Buddhist controversies has been deleted, for the same reason, as far as I remember. I came across this category, and applied it to those persons to see if it "works". I prefer to know what's wrong with "my" belief, instead of "white-washing" the shortcomings. So, remove the names? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong or may not be, but When did Buddha or Buddhism promote the concept of God? Buddha left the question on God extremely vague and refused to accept a Supreme Creator. In early Buddhism there was no concept of God before they got split in two main branches much later. At the time of Ashoka, there was no GOD in Buddhism, forget about having "Gods". Later, some Devas and Supernatural Beings came, but that's a different issue. BTW, I would like to have your response on this. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, "promote the concept of God". That's something different. Well, according to Buddhist cosmology, people may be reborn as gods... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The highest stage of Buddhism is "Moksha/ Nirvana" or "Emancipation". After "Moksha", no one can re-born.Even the stories of Jataka ( The "alleged" reincarnations of Lord Buddha) are highly contested and go against the teachings of Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha denounced ignorance and superstitions, hence the stories of mythology or cosmology or "may be born" have no place in Buddhism, surely not at the time of Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE. BTW, loved talking to you. With best wishes,Ghatus (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

God in Buddhism is one of the most mispresented concept of Buddhism. God in Buddhism#Early Buddhism provides some good idea about the god of Buddhism. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is about edits, re-edits and reversals in Yoga article. You seem to have strong opinion regarding pre-Buddhist Nikayas sources about origins of yoga. Your description “speculative” seems to be a biased approach that labels material evidence to fit that label. ‘Speculative’ is rather a theoretical realm, where people argue about semantics and such, but here we’re talking about something that you can see and possibly touch. So, what is speculative here? You need to explain that before arbitrarily removing some description. Also, I might point out there’s growing number of commentators who indeed support the view that Pashupati seals testify to yoga’s origins. It’s not a certainty but a possibility that needs to be mention for the sake of completeness. Thanks. Pradeepwb. (Pradeepwb) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepwb (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to read this article that outlines the views and opinions regarding this subject: "3 Ways to View the Ancient History of Yoga" Bjonnes, Ramesh. "3 Ways to View the Ancient History of Yoga". Elephan Journal. Retrieved Sep 2, 2014. (Pradeepwb 17:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC))

Copied to Talk:Yoga#Pashupati seal. To be continued there.

On their respective pages, I would define Hinduism and Buddhism as Dharmas, not religions.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I guess, but incomprehensible for most westerners, and fuel for the supporters of the term "Dharmic religions". "Wisdom" is the word I'd like to use to summarize Buddhism. Concrete, practical, down-to-earth wisdom: how to live with yourself and behave toward others? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you would still consider Bladesmulti to be your mentee, but if you do, I would really appreciate it if you weighed in here. Blades has been insisting that a journal published by the university of Florence is "an SPS with an anti-agenda." [40]. The discussion was awful enough without him, but he was invited there two days ago, and proceeded to delete the source that the entire discussion was based off of. If you cannot be bothered with him anymore, or if you do not have the time, I understand. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk page stalker Fyi, the discussion is spread in Immediately preceding section too. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Van. I already noted that he's very active again. I also wondered indeed if still want to mentor him, or that I'll just let him run this time... But I'll have a look - of course. Thanks for informing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, you had posted this on India noticeboard before. 3 people agrees with my version, and 1 person(a sockmaster) agrees with your version. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Buddhism in Vietnam? Pretty informative, although it may require some templates and more information about current situation. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Probbably only Thich Nath Hanh followers who edit there; nice guys ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an entry for a book on Hinduism which was removed with comment "Removed non-scholarly work".

1. The book is written by a Shankaracharya of Kanchi. That's like a book on Buddhism being written by the Dalai Lama or on Christianity by the Pope.
2. Going through the list of other scholars I found mostly Western names. Do "scholars" have to have Western names to qualify as authorities on the subject? If so what is the section in which non-Western works are allowed?

Thanks, Gurudutt (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guruduttmallapur, please read Wikipedia:PRIMARY, people who you have named are very close to the subject, they cannot be used as source for these subjects. If you are exhaustedly discussing this subject on some article, then they can be used. But it is rare. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blades. You're right, it's a primary source. What's more, it was placed at the sources-section, while it was not being used as a source. You might consider adding it to the "Further reading"-section - but this would immediately being objected as WP:UNDUE, or WP:ADVERTISEMENT: why this specific author, while there thousands of books on Hinduism from an indigenous point of view? The organisation might fit, though, at the Advaita Vedanta page at the "External links" section.

I'm reading this part, though, "The unity of religions"; it betrays a thorough neo-Vedanta point of view:

"All religions have one common ideal, worship of the Lord, and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion."

Personally I think that not devotion, but "love thy neighbour" might be a common element. And even that may be problematic for many "believers", when their neighbour does not adhere to the same faith. Anyway, good reason for us to be tolerant, isn't it? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if all religions are equal, why then the following statement?

"If it is claimed that the common people accept a religion for its concepts, they must be able to speak about them and tell us how these doctrines are superior to those of other religions."[41]

I guess Advaita Vedanta is the superior religion, despite the equalness off all religions? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have included the book entry in 'Further Reading' section and not as a citation or reference used in the article. The idea is to give wikipedia users access to a good primary source. Is there a location to store good primary sources on wikipedia?

Reg. your observations since my first message : Reading passages piecemeal from the online source may give different interpretations than the one intended. Gurudutt (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. regarding "piecemeal": I doubt it. I probably have a better knowledge of the history and context of neo-Vedanta than you have, and I think I'm more aware of the intentions than you are. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you mean you had, instead have. Sorry, I misunderstood. And you're right; I saw the {{refend}}-tag, and took it as the end of the sources-section. Weird. Nevertheless, why it this one book? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

# BTW, the term Neo-Vedanta is itself under some scrutiny as a pejorative Euro-Centric term. Removing contributions based on assuming the book is such from small passages is surely not inline with fairness and NPOV.

# Is there anything wrong with this particular book? I've read it among others and came to know a lot about Hinduism's vast expanse. It is also written by an authority on the subject and published by a well known publisher. Gurudutt (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simple question is: why this book, and why not one of the thousands of other books? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is because it's a superb book on Hinduism. Anyone can add more if they so like. Gurudutt (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could of course those thousands of books, but the page might become a little bit crowded. So, if the norm is "reliable secondary sources", then which source says this is a superbe book? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only adding one book (as a primary source in whichever page/section is appropriate). How many entries others add is upto them :-) Are you looking for a (western) "scholarly" acknowledgement of the book being superb? The fact that it is written by a highly-respected Shankaracharya is not going to cut much ice with Western wikipedia editors I suppose. :-) If so then best to rename the Hinduism page to "Western Scholars' Authorized view of Hinduism" instead. :-) Gurudutt (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guruduttmallapur If you are having trouble, then you have to look carefully what type of references we have used. You have to confirm that how reliable the publisher of the book is. Use Google books or JSTOR for finding references, not some particular websites because it becomes hard. We have used many Indian scholars on Hinduism article(s), they include Bhaskar, Gupta sen, Bhattacharya, Singh, and many others. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BladesmultiThis book is a published book with a free online version made by the author's organization. The publisher Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan is reputed in India. Shouldn't the editor run a simple google-check on the item being deleted? What more can I say? If it doesn't fit into pre-conceived notions of 'right-fit' I really can't help it. I've just decided to stop wasting time on this endless discussion and moved the book link to the wiki page of the author instead. Since they DO belong there I hope I don't have to get permission for that too.

User:Joshua Jonathan It's a raaather ironic that 'Hinduism' page belongs to Western scholar's world-view. So much for NPOV and all the oft-quoted TLAs. Wikipedia seems to be guarded from 'the natives' by 'colonialists/orientalists/western-world-view-police'. Too bad. Maybe wikipedia needs some competition from regional wikis to get out of smug Euro-Centric mode. Gurudutt (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is western. it's rooted in the Enlightenment: stimulate people to think for themselves, provide them with real information, instead of mythologies. If that's western, well, than I really prefer the western "bias" over Indian nationalism. Nevertheless, I think it's an interesting book, because it gives an insight to the way of thinking of at least this denomination. So, ad it to the Advaita Vedanta under "external links". But for the Hinduism-page, there's so much to read, that we really have to be selective. And that means: high-quality academic lublications. and yes, those tend to be a lot more critical than most primary sources. Compare it to Christianity: if the Pope says Jesus arose from death, why should we take that as a historical fact? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshua JonathanHmmm... A clear case of "My bias is better than yours"?!! :-D Sorry, Wikipedia only has more AngloAmericans as it's editors currently. But for how long? Every day China, India are getting increasingly connected. So just a matter of time before your contention that "Wikipedia is Western" crumbles. Either way your "Pope example" is seriously flawed in this context. I'm not asking you to convert, just to revert your deletion of a book entry to what an "Indian Pope" has to say about Hinduism :-) Or would you rather do "enlightened censorship" for that point of view, because you personally don't agree with it?!! Please refer the "Anglo-American focus" section of NPOV FAQ. Gurudutt (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Guruduttmallapur: I have objected to books written by the Dalai Lama and other modern lamas. So your analogy up above doesn't make sense.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Q came to me from ABISY page but is generic. Is Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu not 'published' sources. IMHO, They are available on web too just like other publications. The [web #] super-scripts looks like a distraction. I haven't observed it on other articles also, is there alternative ways? Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are alternative ways. {{sfn}} is just a simple way to have a source in a source-list, and refer to it throughout the article with a short tag. We might as well convert the web-sources to {{sfn}}. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. One more help, I think I did not understand you clearly -- if all the references are changed to sfn format then the super-script will become simple [#] instead of [web #] -- is that what you mean? Do you mind if I make all the citations in this format on that page -- absolutely not changing a byte of content. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Barnstar of Diplomacy for your help in resolving disputes on Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana. Thank you. AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I'm really happy that my interference is appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help there, especially in reinstating the text that our over-zealous friend blanked. In any case, I suspect that this particular question got a little drowned on the talk, so I'm asking it here again; is there a reason you removed the reference to OIT, after drawing attention to it yourself? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Van, the source is still there, as far as I can see, under the "Web-sources". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that was phrased poorly. What I mean is the mention of the organisation's belief in OIT. Berti makes a bigger deal of their belief in OIT than the text currently implies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean "Out of India"! I was looking, and thought I'd misunderstood, and that you meant "Times of India". It's mentioned in a footnoted. oes it really matter? Two looks at their website, and you what we're dealing with. Actually, Berti-2008 provides, in some respect, a more favorable impression than their own website. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So that was the misunderstanding! I guess I should have been more specific. Yes, the "Out of India Theory" is what I meant. The current text portrays OIT as one of many projects they have undertaken, whereas Berti makes it out to be a part of their core ideology, IMO. There's also a minor issue (or what should be a minor issue) that Kautilya brought up; that the phrase "rewrite history from a national perspective" is, apart from being unattributed, bad english; it should either be "ABISY says its objective is etc.," or "objective is to rewrite history from a Hindu nationalist perspective." Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to step back. I will not edit the ABISY article nor continue in this discussion. I happened to notice this a while back and thought I should provide my opinion. Instead I just want to make a concluding note. It is a dispassionate note, there is no intention to re-live old content dispute, but mention of them is unavoidable and is made carefully. This was the very first edit for which Van reported me to ANI, and has been discussed over few weeks with multiple editor in multiple sections on that talk page (including this section). Van mentioned on India noticeboard too. IMHO it is attributed and it is not bad English and it is neutral and follows similar style as UNICEF, AIDA International, ActionAid. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 20:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not place people, especially living people, in this category. A person is not a controversy. They may be controversial, but we don't call this out by placing them in a category for controversies. If the controversy is notable, then an article should be written on the controversy. But we don't place people in such categories. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; you noticed before. I agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJ, what is the way forward if I believe some editor(s) is consistently trying to be unfriendly (you can substitute a stronger adjective) on talk pages... follows my edits consistently, repeatedly gets into edit war and the argument is let the new disputed content stay and let us discuss (refuse to follow BRD every single time). What are my options? I seriously dislike ANI and 'complaining', I want to stay limited to content discussion. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I'll have to think it over, and have a look at your edits. But keep in mind that India-related articles tend to be a battlefield, partly because Indian and western editors have a different understanding of India, its culture, and its religion. Threeo general advices: keep calm, don't be provoked, take a break if ncessay; always use the best seconday sources, such as books published by universities, and articles form scientific journals; and explain at the talkpages what your rationale is for your edits, and maybe also why they are important to you. I'll come back to this late, I promise; right now I'll have to give attention to my family again. Take care, stay calm, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: No hurry, nothing pressing, I am not going in ANI, nor intending to but I do see where things might end up if they continue to remain unaddressed. And would you mind if I delete your suggestion on my talk page and instead respond to you in email? Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. Let me know when you've sent mail; I don't use that mail-account regularly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

appear to have been rev-deleted, but not completely; you can still see them looking through the history (which I did because your talk is on my watchlist). Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind! They were not personally, and actually I had a good laugh! But thanks for noticing; very alert and kind of you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I took a look. Brilliant! So, talk-page-stalkers, have fun! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, friend. You're right, in retrospect they're more funny than anything else, but I noticed the revdel before I read them. Have a good day, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--AmritasyaPutra^T 04:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJ, could you take a look at this talk page discussion, I have given the exact diff I am talking about and expressed my concernt explicity with the policy I am referring to directly linked there. I think I have made my objection clear, could you comment wethere I have not been sufficiently clear and should add any other detail(s): Talk page link. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

diff I did not understand this edit JJ and the accompanying edit summary. What should I do if such comments of "I want you to be examined by an admin" keep coming on article talk pages? --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on "biting back", repeating again what he's done wrong. it won't work. Try to understand what's annoying him, take a break, and leave some room for friendly thought. Just take a break once and a while. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can promise that I will mention my remarks only once. The problem I foresee is that he will simply revert to his version. I am deliberately keeping distance too but I cannot say the same about him(related discussion link). I have backed out of two articles already. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JJ I am withdrawing from Lajja Ram Tomar too, third article, same editor(s)... in the ANI I stepped back first as a good will. I believe, it has not been reciprocated. The tone never changed, not for a single edit. I don't wish to keep up with the continued abuse. I know it is impossible for me to get anything across, literally -- two together can easily game 3RR. I would gladly accept your or any other editor (not necessarily admin) to mentor me or monitor my edits. I quite liked reading Blades's archive. :-) Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A mentorship is a good idea, but it's also a lot of work. But it's praisable that you ask for it. How about this: when needed, you ask me for advice, and I'll see what I can do. I'll also keep an eye once and a while on your edits. Is that okay? I'll give feedback on content, interaction with other users, and Wiki-policies. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds perfect! Thank you! :-) --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Zen? Well I have depression. In my country Zen considers a Mafia.

Hi Kalakannija. Please be so kind not to insert the Nibbedhika sutra-quote all over the place. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC) who cares?Kalakannija (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity for the reputation of Zen. Nevertheless, being friendly does not depend on a specific religion. I hope you can overcome your depression. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're not a counselor; do not advice people living with depression. Your friend request has declined. And also reputation of Zen has been declining specially in countries like Japan & Korea.Kalakannija (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which Korea? You cannot be sure about Japan because Japan does not keep official statistics on religious affiliation. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Slum Korea? Pardon me I don't know.Kalakannija (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Jonathan! I know that you are fond of the {{sfn}} tags for sources, but is it that you can't include a URL with those? Honestly, I have no idea how to use those ones. xP I'd like to add two Google books sources to Mindfulness#Buddhism. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Citation | last = (etc) | url =}} Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, now I get the idea of that whole {{sfn}} thing! The full sources are gathered at a separate Sources-section, and the {{sfn]] tags merely refer to those ones! LOL! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never too old to learn, are you? ;) The source-list should start with {{refbegin}}, and end with {{refend}}Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan/Archive_2014#Primary_source.3F There was one more link, where JimRinge had also said that we cannot use this website as a source. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Caught with my own words... Very good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t remember having said that we cannot use this website as a source. Access to insight hosts many translations of Theravada sutras (by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Bodhi) which may probably be used as primary sources. WP:OR says: ... "reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I have seen several Theravada related articles that do not seem to comply with this policy. JimRenge (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I remember that these sources were interpreted at the Anatman article, and that those interpretations were questioned. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably heard of this fracas already, but does this seem like a reliable source to you? The language screems POV at me, even from just the blurb. Possibly barely acceptable for a statement about an event, certainly nothing else. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, not a reliable publisher, that means it is not a reliable source. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tell that to your friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did, didn't I? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb is enough; the cover and intro is enough to stop reading. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhh, that's what I thought. @AmritasyaPutra:, is this good enough for you? I'd rather you removed it yourself. The content has another source, so that wouldn't be affected. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed on the article talk page. Context matters, this is the statement: In Aug, 2008 MRM organised a "paigam-e-Aman yatra" (journey for message of peace) from the Red Fort. You deleted the content along with reference twice([42], [43]) and later demanded multiple sources at the article talk page so I had provided two more references. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat; the content is not under discussion, the current version I have no issues with. The source is a terrible one, and should be removed; because you added and re-added it yourself, I would rather you removed it yourself, as multiple editors agree with me in saying it is unreliable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend re-re-re-deleted it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 00:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you added it again, hitting four reverts at the very least in the process. Are you asking for another block or what? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, step back, both of you. I'll have a longer look later today, and I'll read the mail(s). Please be so kind, both of you, to hold back for a while. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, if you have a chance, I would be interested in your opinion on this discussion on the the Karma talk page: Talk:Karma#Problem_with_recent_section_reordering

Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje108. I'll have a look later today. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the heading says. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modern Indian religions writers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, I am only concerned about India Bhishek (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very clear and concise statement! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be from the oldest article of Glowalkar which was rejected and disowned officially in press by RSS but few keep using it selectively. I would have all earlier prints too (I have access to physical libraries that hols old books, if you want I can scan and send, I have worked in digitisation). :-) --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind. It's complicated stuff, and there's probably a lot going on "at the ground" with many shades of grey between black and white. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it is useless to spend all day fighting on that page about some non-controversial content. But you can see it all over wikipedia. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Hey dude, get a life!' ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the clarification that I put in [44], sourced from Jaffrelot, none less. I was hoping that some RSS person might give me a barnstar for it some day, but I am not holding my breath! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good example of neutrality. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted, reintroducing "Swami". You should be aware that this has previously discussed here in regards the move which corrected the article title. Please reconsider. An edit war would not be productive. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog No consensus to change "swami", in fact a new page move may better decide. How come page moves are establishing consensus for content? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Vivekananda#Swami. To be continued there.

Not really incorrect. Searching about way of life, there's higher generalization about Buddhism. You can add way of life, anywhere on first paragraph and probably last line? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm fully aware I don't have sources, though; it was kind of bold. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "regardless of class, sect.." Britannica usually takes their content from other books just like wikipedia and this time they had taken it from Wendy Donninger,[45] Fowler's Fowler and 2 others had considered Doniger to be unreliable source for Hinduism. I was absent then(2 months or bigger break). There is a Upnishadic and Gita doctrine, that regardless of race, gender, geographic location and also religion, some duties are to be followed by everyone.[46]-[47](cites a reliable source) But currently, I am not too sure how it can be added. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doniger is the redactor of that book, and to state that she's unreliable... Well, that's quite something. Have you got a link tot he discussion? Anyway, I think it's okay to remove it. The point is clear, isn't it?

Funny think, I find the term "dharma" appealing myself. it's how it feels for me: this "duty" to work and live for the greater good, not just my personal petty life. It's what Buddhism says to me, but it's also to be found in Christianity, and, amnog others I guess, Gandhi's "satya gradia". No labels; no confinement to just one "religion". It's down on earth, here, where we life, together. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindus: An Alternative History is the actual book, and here's the discussion: Talk:Wendy_Doniger/Archive_5#Reviews of The Hindus

Agree with the last too. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the link. But that's about a specific book, isn't it? Not about Wendy Doniger in general. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		I am truly feeling honored to give you this barnstar. Thanks for "everything" you have done to improve WikiProject India
		this WikiAward was given to Joshua Jonathan by Tito☸Dutta on 03:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks for this Barnstar. I'm really moved that my contributions are being appreciated, not just for the good of India and the need to live together with so many different groups, but also given the resistance those contributions have also met. Thank you, very much! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That editor has a long history of copyvio problems, and one of his sources, [48], is a forum full of copyvio - added by "arun.vr". Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources, and noticed the "frivolous" make-up. But I hadn't noticed "arun.vr". Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, I am dumbfounded by your recent edits to the Four Noble Truths. Don't you think it is appropriate to discuss changes of this magnitude on the talk page before making these types of edit? Needless to say, I don't agree with your changes. Dorje108 (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I've discussed my objections over and over before. Translating "samudaya" as "arising" has been sourced; additional info on the conceptual background is also sourced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed (more importantly welcome)? I had read it five or six years back... a book with the same title... and the pali text with translation... I may be able to provide an opinion... if sought. "samuday" is a sanskrit word too and going by the origins of pali (I am assuming that is coming from a pali text) it is probably the same what it means in sanskrit (that sanskrit meaning I can be confident about). --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, I was not referring to your point about Samudaya. This is a pretty minor point. You are changing the structure of the whole article and rewriting much of it. All without bothering to discuss your intentions. I do not understand your behavior. Dorje108 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may try leaving me a message on your/my talk page or mentor page, before blanking content on my user page. The words were not full username nor linked. You also know it is not for nothing and this has a source. It is not in sarcasm if you presumed so, it is sincere even if you do not believe and no speculation is needed either because it is not a discussion. It is a strong message. Do you think backing out of three articles is not a good gesture? You yourself congratulated me for the neutral and dispassionate way I put my argument recently and also left it to them, I took the first step back each time. Is five out of five ani by the same people while they follow me from article to article a coincidence? You saw how "also known as" edit war happened by them. You also noted that the recent edit was also two sided and it is unfair to put entire blame on one person. How fair is it that I continuously defend old referenced content itself which shall stand deleted while at the same time I must bring argument against new content that shall remain in the article? No answer is expected. I need to resist back to the wiki-hounding that I perceive, I am not asking for any confirmation. I mean what I have written, there is no hidden thing and this is not a matter of discussion here, let it rest here. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it matter read this section Talk:M._S._Golwalkar#Discussion_on_two_snippets_of_content_attributed_to_The_Hindu_and_TOI and judge for yourself if they are justified in reverting it eight times. They will never hit 3rr. I do not think I have tried to gain your favors ever instead I have placed myself under greatest scrutiny by you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This table inserted (given below) is erroneous. We talked about it on my talk page. Sources are taken from those authors who are neither Historians nor experts on India History nor written on the periodization of Indian Histoy.All eminent Historians on Indian history like R. Thapar, R.C.Majumder, Eaton etc never gave such periodization. Such pharses like “Ascetic reformism”, “Late-Classical Hinduism”, “Islamic rule and "Sects of Hinduism", “Modern Hinduism” as periods of Indian History are bogus. Show me one such example given by ANY historian on Indian history in ANY historical work/research/book as the name of those as historial periods. You are trying to pass some phrases of Hinduism as The History of India. NO historian has done such periodization of Indian History. It is totally a fanciful creation.

The other table is detailed. Hence it was entered. Name it what you want-Time table of south Asia or Indian Sub-Continent. It does not matter. But, do not replace it with a bogus one.Ghatus (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then participate in the discussion on the other template. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not intend to hurt you. I said nothing personal against you. I just criticized the table, not you. I am a university student and History is my subject. I do not know your age. I just use the language I use with my fellow friends. My only target was the Table, which was really void of any sense of History.The other table is workable, though not perfect. Regards,Ghatus (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right, Ghatus. I know your intention are good. I'm probably twice your age, and I work with a lot of people, so I'm "trained" in avoiding "offensive" language. But it's allright. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be controversial.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed within half an hour... I've re-inserted your line, at another place in the lead. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Talk:India page. Since you are the last person to make a change there, am writing to you. Are you an admin? I request involvement of other wiki editors and admin to resolve points mentioned here. Can you help please? How do I go about it? Does this require going to dispute resolution? Please guide.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

I've answered at the talkpage. Keep calm, don't forget to breathe ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please clarify this. Is it disallowed to mention verbatim what both OED and EB mention within ref tags as in this. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

I think it's nonsense, and I'm looking forward to the policy which says so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, Looking at this diff, I know that it apppears that additional citations to EB and OED are being added. But that is not the case: what is happening is that existing citations to those same refeernces (using the {{sfn}} tag used throughout the article) are being duplicated (using the inconsistent and incomplete {{cite}} template). Placinng this on your page, because the discussion on Talk:India is such a lengthy mess, and because the misunderstanding seems to be raising tempers between you and I, which is unwarranted (and, personally disheartening to me) given our long history of cooperative editing. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the clarification! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abe, Am not sure I understand what you mean when you say it "appears" that way. I simply quoted within ref tags what the sources mention. Which is pretty clear in the example you mention reg this diff. If there is a technical issue with the citation style, feel free to correct it. However, either the source must be mentioned verbatim within ref tags; or the sentences in the article must be reworded. I request you and Joshua to take a look at the issues raised in the talk page. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

Stop, no further discussion here! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not OED Abecedare (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it can be checked by others! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy is changing this article from traditional to modern - I don't understand why. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_drugs&curid=2550591&diff=631680540&oldid=631680225 What do you think. Hafspajen (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs and religion... I've just reorderder Talk:Ego death chronologically; might be symptomatic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's the same guy... Ego death wa slaready protected because of his edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He looks dead. - edit notice. - well, now he went blanking the whole buddist section plus two more. 17:23, 30 October 2014‎ HafspajenHafspajen (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry button get stucked when I tried to sign. Now he is makig le trouble at talk, but I won't respond because it is no point in discussing further - I responded once and - what did that lead to? So - but maybe it would be a thing for ANI. Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May be next step. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you mean they use drugs? Because you added a ref on it. But I mean the whole stuff it is about constiousness - at least in Tibetan Buddism. (have you noticed by the way that gost have a gray colour)? Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan, in one of those debates we had on some page you said, "Dharma is a beautiful word." On my user page, I had written that Valmiki had recast Dharma in terms of rational debate. A good example of such debate, one that I was introduced to when I was 12 or 13, is this one between Rama and Vali. Would you like to give it a read, and then we can talk about it? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kautilya3. It would be too much now to talk about it, but I'll have a look at your userpage. I like the word because of the connotation of "the way things ought to be", in the sense of "the universe has meaning and purpose". For me, that purpose is in working for the good of others. Like Gandhi, I guess. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm scrolling through this webpage; I'll have to give it a closer read. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What a nice surprise! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Tulku edit war.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! How are you doing mate? Anyway, I'd like to ask you if you happen to know what's the conduct with including hanzi names in Tibetan Buddhist articles? This is something I've ran into quite much lately. For example here in the Dorje Pakmo article, should we include the Hanzi names as well or not? Personally, I'd fancy keeping them but some other editors think the opposite. I was hoping that you could give as a more experienced editor a second opinion on that one! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting them into a note? Have a look at my latest edits to Enightenment in Buddhism; surprising insights. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"K.R. Norman concluded that the earliest version of the sutta did not contain the word "noble", but was added later."[37]

Is this Norman, cited in Batchelor? JimRenge (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though not only by Batchelor. See also Anderson. I'll add an extra reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At second thought, I'll also add (or replace with) Norman himself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The heading "The middle way: dhyana" is confusing: I know there are many interpretations of the middle way but this reads like The middle way = dhyana. (?) This corresponding section does only mention dhyana. JimRenge (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit? Hafspajen (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a nonsense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so. Hafspajen (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a nonsense. Hafspajen (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, your going to have to prove and disprove here, I have correct answers that are true, when I think, I, as a precious consciousness, only have 5 senses and that's it, what makes them happen is either mechanics or choice if we have choice, understanding which you can also test yourself is just you seeing vision and the sense of this vision sense being seeing a object prominant or another ex. is you feel pleasure or feel a scared pain in body or feel pain or feel cold or you feel disgust when hand is in dirt, or see digust/attract when viewing the vision of gender faces. It's just senses, and how you get them, that's all we us consciousnesses are! K I'm waiting to hear back! And yes, I heard sound of all these words in my head plus attached vision of everything. 20:38, 22 November 2014‎ Immortal Discoveries

WP:No original research - I think is an answer. Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"" - hm, Wiki-art by coincidence. Aren't stalkers supposed to be invisible? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, (in Portuguese) is no good. Second choice. Hafspajen (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of undoing all of Immortal Discoveries' edits to Immortality with an edit summary saying "Reverting edits by Immortal Discoveries that are unclear, ungrammatical and unsourced", but it didn't work. Then I saw your edit. I tried again, trying to undo everything back to A's edits, but without success. I see you undid the last edit, but I think all the edits should be undone, not just the last one. Do you want to try? CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC) You are a rollbacker. I you rollback, all edits are undone. Hafspajen (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I didn't look at JJ's edit carefully enough. It took care of removing both paragraphs. (Sorry, JJ. Ignore my comment. You took care of it.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality I am talking about the undesirability of immortality.

Objective: Being either delete it all & add the truth OR only add the truth. If you must, then find references supporting the truth answer.

Reason: 1)You would not be in hell with hellish torment of your 5 senses. 2) You would not be in a built heaven with bored senses such as seeing vision and hearing and feeling being boring, you would have great feeling and tasting and seeing of vision and hearing of long-quality incredible techno power music and palaces and a girl and best quality never ending games and best food such as fries and would always be great senses and so CANNOT be bad boring senses, great senses forever, they stay great cause that's what a consciousness can keep getting is great senses, and the things of the most attractive girl and best games and keep eating food are so incredible it goes further the greatness of high quality senses or great fun forever! 3) Even though totally unneccesary, you can erase memory anyhow and have great senses forever. 4) The greatest things for our senses arrrrre-the meaning, it says: the meaning doesn't grow and grow and that it doesn't grow with living forever and infact de-grows, wrong, there isn't such thing! you have great senses of eating fries as much as want over and over and still are awesome senses and the best never ending games to see how far can get & your most attractive partner you see and see as object-of-vision and the most most attractive face for you of vision and 5 great senses together that will be incredible you get forever, it's funner! 17:42, 24 November 2014‎ ForeverDoctor User talk:ForeverDoctor

@Kudpung: I guess this is User:Immortal Discoveries again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian took care of this one. Hafspajen had pinged me but we were at the park, feeding the duckies; surely Favonian has done that before. If this keeps up an SPI might be helpful in case NA1000 is the last admin standing, though their terrible writing, which hurts three of my senses instantly, is a fine enough signature. Still, "you have great senses of eating fries" is, I believe, a heart-felt compliment. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and merge Out of India theory and Indigenous Aryans.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invitation? ;) It was your proposal, wasn't it? Or is this carefulness from your side, to avoid strong responses in case of enthusiastic clean-up? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy in real life. You must do the merge.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As always, conscise and to the point :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Samadhi

added links pointing to Dhyāna, Sama and Samskaras

Dhyana in Hinduism

added a link pointing to Samskaras

Nirvikalpa

added a link pointing to Samskaras

Rāja yoga

added a link pointing to Samskaras

Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

added a link pointing to Samskaras

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two warnings for one disruptive edit. Shall I remove my softer version? JimRenge (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. I hadn't seen yours. You, me, and Blades were almost cross-editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for grammar check & correcting merit (Buddhism). I left you a massage on talk page merit (Buddhism) please consider correcting it (If you wish to do so).S.B.M. ^Summon 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider to change the reason for requesting a cleanup at Dukkha from "Over-reliance on primary sources" to Over-reliance on sectarian sources. Texts from buddhist teachers may be either primary or secondary (due to content and context) but they are clearly not independent sources (WP:3PARTY). JimRenge (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth. Hafspajen (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about the question if exorcism can be called "psudoscience", if it is no science at all, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Never heard of it - that exorcism should be classified as science. Hafspajen (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the exorcists don't claim that exorcism is science, it's not pseudoscience. JimRenge (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti was on the case too. Hafspajen (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had reverted[49] this change[50] and started discussion. Although Steeletrap continued to edit war and misinterpret sources. I had posted on other related boards,[51]-[52] and it was sorted out in a few minutes. There are a number of scientists who have considered exorcism as a forefather of psychiatry, that's why it is not surprising if someone has raised objection. Any concept that was mostly developed before science cannot be considered a pseudoscience. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very sensible.... Hafspajen (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The proto-science / pseudoscience debate is the most interesting. We have similar issues at articles, such as traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture where the both have been labelled as "pseudoscience" even they pre-date modern science by some thousand year. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your links could be more specific. JimRenge (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Sweden. We have acupuncturist doctors that use regularly acupunctur treatments and have the same right as the other doctors. payed by the state. Hafspajen (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a great link! Hafspajen (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know (no you didn't, I'm sure) that Early life of L. Ron Hubbard is on the list of Buddhism-related Good Articles? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much good Karma does it. Hafspajen (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha :D been permanently thinking the same over the course of the last few days. spent so much time reading through all the discussions...and when i see what you've been doing..WOW! regarding our discussion: I don't think we will solve this soon. I am glad that we are having a conversation and i think this conversation is very important because it concerns nearly all of the articles on Buddhism. I think in the long run we will have to establish some guidelines or a basic structure template about which sections should be included, which perspectives reported, and which weight assigned to each of them repectively...or are there already? I remember having quite similar discussions many years ago... ok...but NOT NOW...first: eat! then: work! ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS? Or, in this specific case, WP:QUOTE, "Recommended use of quotations":

"In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example:

• When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".
• When using a unique phrase or term created by a given author. For example Oscar Wilde's witticism "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable".^[1]"

(I suggest we keep this to idle chatter between the two of us; any serious discussion can be piled to the existing stack.) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have you got a publication for me on the weirdness of Tsongkhapas Madhyamaka? I'd like to know more. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cabezón's Freedom from Extremes, Thakchoe's The Two Truths Debate and Brunnholzl's Center of the Sunlit Sky[53].VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Joshua Jonathan! As I was just glancing through the edits of the past few days, I noticed at the WikiProject:Buddhism that the discussion has been taken to a number of venues. Seriously, I do not have the time to go through all the venues, but please do free to quote me on whether instance you feel like it.

I'll try to have a look later, but I am always ready to respond any questions whenever necessary. Anyway, my respond delay might be even up to 3-4 days delay, so thats just for public information. Cheers! =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't have it on your watchlist, see Talk:Faith in Buddhism. Nice comment by Chris Fynn on sutra quoting OR. JimRenge (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have it on my watchlist. Do I want to know this?... (too late; I already clicked) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, yes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in the details of the content dispute, but it looks like it can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard. The Buddhist virtues of compassion, mutual respect, moderation, and respect for truth should help avoid the conduct issues that too often derail resolution of content issues. (I'm not a Buddhist, but Christians know that Buddhism has good ethical teachings too.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Did you notice that I linked the angel at top of my talkpage to your talkpage? ;) All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linked? How? Hafspajen (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Angle! "What's the measurement of Holiness?" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. Hafspajen (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olalalaala! Hafspajen (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Joshua Jonathan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, Tito☸Dutta 13:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

There is no generation and perfection phase in Dzogchen. This is in basic books such as "A Guide to the Words of My Perfect Teacher". Possibly you are confused by the fact that terma cycles like Longchen Nyingthig are not just Dzogchen. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More! I depend on those sources; if there are better sources,then please tell me which sources. And if Longchen Nyingthig is not Dzogchen, then what is Dzogchen? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try Tibetan Renaissance by Ronald Davidson. Particularly chapter 6.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! While working on the details, I'm finding more sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Hi there! I want to thank you for your recent edits on the Nirvana article. Thanks to you, I think the article is in a much better place, with better organization and lots of new information. I was thinking of doing the same over the holidays, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the article has been greatly modified since the last time I checked. Manoguru (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm glad it's being appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though, I guess you mean Nirvana (Buddhism)? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O yes, I meant the Nirvana in Buddhism article. You did a better job than I could have done anyway. :-) Manoguru (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yhanks. I'm really happy that the efforts are appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Christmas Greetings, Joshua! Please do accept mine - not late, but... - now on the actual Christmas day! Hah! I tried to find you some cool Santa with reindeer image, but it seems Wikimedia Commons is whole empty of such luxury xF Anyway, Merry Christmas to you too! Cheers!

Ps. Santa is from Finland, not from any freaking North Pole. Lol! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie! Santa Claus is actually Saint Nicholas, a greek who lived in what's now Turkey, but is said to come from Spain. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... So you are a skeptic, huh? Well, I won't comment about the history, but assuming that Santa is a man of real rationale - which he sure is - the most optimal place for him to operate around the world, according to a Swedish consulting firm, would be Kyrgyzstan.[54] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JJ -- Season's greetings to you! I was just looking at the latest edit to Ananda Coomaraswamy. In spite of the edit summary, it looks like some sourced information has been deleted from the article. Can you take a look at it? Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne. Have you got a specific diff for me? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never placed a diff in a comment since I don't know how. Can you tell me how to do that? CorinneSD (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You click at "View history". It gives a chronological list of all edits. You can select the changes between two (or more) edits by marking the circles at the beginning of the respective line. Next you click "compare selected revisions". It gives a page which shows the differences. IThis page has an unique address, which you can copy from the address-window. For example, the difference between you two latest edits gives:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ananda_Coomaraswamy&diff=639686060&oldid=637809590

By placing this in brackets, you create a neat link:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ananda_Coomaraswamy&diff=639686060&oldid=637809590 diff]

Which gives

• diff.

Succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Joshua. I had gotten as far as copying the address from the bar at the top of the page (the http, etc.) and even pasting here, but then in preview I saw the entire address, not just the little blue thing. Until you told me, I didn't realize I had to put that address in a pair of single square brackets. I'm going to try it now: [55] CorinneSD (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indians are proud of their origins; it's a very sensitive topic. I've reverted the edit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read THIS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! History is fascinating, isn't it, once you get passed the mythology? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try this paper.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew of the existence of this paper; good to have a link/ Thanks. At least some scholarly discussion; that's good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that semde is not tantra?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I write that?Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the Space and Instruction series were transformed by tantric influences, which implies the Mind series isn't tantra.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already thought that you meant that. I've tried to nuanced it; I'll try to clarify it further. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion, Medicine and the Human Embryo in Tibet" has a lot about Dzogchen.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? ....Can you find sources? Find sources: Mohammad Ejuddin ... or Bladesmulti or any talk page stalker Hafspajen (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“The shifting terrain of the tantric bodies of Buddhas and Buddhists from an Atiyoga perspective”. (2007) by Germano talks about Menngagde being derived from Kalachakra.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Buswell and Lopez listed in the Sources section.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joshua, I deleted some parts in the article Hinduism, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&action=history, especially the "theory of iranian migration" to India, Author 468sm cites sources which are mostly books, thus opinions that Iranians and Europeans migrated to India. I had cited, the archaeology department link, harvard studies, a university study and other indian researches and newspapers. Idea of migration is a personal opinion, as of now it is imposed very strongly, perhaps it would help if you edited the text to fairly display both the sides. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pydisc (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by 468SM were all reverted. You removed a great lot of reliable sources, and replaced them by typical unreliable stuff to promote a nationalistic point of view. You may believe whatever you like, but India is a melting pot of cultures. So what? Your country has a great and rich history, and its complexity only adds value to this greatness. Be proud of these origins, and enjoy the fact that you and me share the Indo-European source. Did you celebrate the winter-solistice? We did; I love it. thanks to our forefathers at the Ukrainian steppes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also remembering that Europe and Asia had been much vandalized throughout the 1st - 20th century CE. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We" Europeans are very good at vandalizing ourselves; concentration-camps were an European invention... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the books of Gavin Flood and Anthony, there's much to write about Mithra-texts and their relevance with the same theories, Pydisc has talked about. I hope you have also read about it, when we are going to expand that particular section of Hinduism? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... please refrsh my mind; could you be more precise? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this section you have "Germano 2005, p. 2548". But elsewhere you have "Germano 2004, p. 2547." etc.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 08:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2005. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone home? Hafspajen (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anything like that ever happened to you ? Our Lady of the Sign ... no, haven't heard of it, will check. Hafspajen (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, yes, I did knew about it, but I didn't knew that it was called Our Lady of the Sign. Hafspajen (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[56][reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Much love to you, JJ. Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I'm not sure if I'm a good help for your position (what's in a name...) on Malasana. Anyway, I've been typing Sanskrit for the first time in my life. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your mentee bladesmulti has started using extraordinary means to destroy the Malasana page. I am at risk of over reverting, but he has removed almost all practical information from the page using a secondary user name User:TheRedPenOfDoom to avoid being reported. But it is pretty clearly the same user with similar editing history. He also deleted the account after making the edits. This is bordering on ban worthy. I'm afraid to revert changes. Help please if you can, either convincing him to stop massive undiscussed changes to the page, or reverting it for me so I can avoid warring with him. And thanks for all your work on wikipedia! Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes were discussed, and it is funny that this time someone is claiming that TheRedPenOfDoom and I are one person. You don't have to be afraid anymore because your Wikipedia:HOAX has been removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax? Is the TheRedPenOfDoom a hoax? Or the practical information? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What extraordinary means ? He is mine too, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]