User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Edit warring[edit]

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

Points to note:

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

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

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

Truce![edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

editing pages related to hinduism[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question[edit]

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

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

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

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

References

^ Robertson (2012), p. 424.

Per your last post[edit]

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

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

Why Did Remove Updates?!?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit War[edit]

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

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

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

[1]