User talk:Joshua Jonathan

March 2024[edit]

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

Points to note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring[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.

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

[1]