User talk:Joshua Jonathan

editing pages related to hinduism

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

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

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?!?

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 eloquent 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 them ourselves. Or WP:SPAM: we don't use Amazon-links to our own writings, also not when they are from 2010, nearly fifteen years ago (nice irony). 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]

I can clean up how I cite things, but having you as someone you thinks Integral is bs is terrible policy for overseeing the page. I at least know the facts, and what has happened from 2000 to 2024. So I will take another stab soon at updating the page with tighter citations and then you have to think hard about whether you should play gatekeeper as opposed to literally a PhD and a world's expert such as myself. Mforman30 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Citing all the books is a hefty project, but yes of course I know many of them. I will put it in as many as seems feasible. Mforman30 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and then you have to think hard about whether you should play gatekeeper as opposed to literally a PhD and a world's expert such as myself. - you need applause, yearning for validation? It sounds like you're showcasing that IT doesn't work: talking about ego-transcendence, stuck in self-aggrandising. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: did you know that Danish is not Dutch? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

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]