User talk:Joshua Jonathan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:11, 28 January 2014

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshua Jonathan, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Devanampriya (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What else you are interested in..

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

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]

Grammar

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

Sanghao Caves

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]

Copied from Raj Malohtra.

[Rajiv: Lets discuss the following issue after peole have read Indra's Net because this book is centered on the issue of Vedanta-Yoga unity and a defense of Swami Vivekananda on this controversy.]

Hi Rajiv, I was trying to elaborate on Swami Vivekananda's contributions to yoga in Wikipedia, but I got the following response and my changes got reverted. The id that I use on Wiki is "Manipadmehum". Here is the link to my arguments with the editors of yoga -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoga

I have copied the sections below highlighting in bold and underlining those parts which are plan wrong to an average Hindu / Indian. But this is the line of thinking followed by western scholars in some prominent universities like White, University of california. There is also an embedded pdf in the section which explains the "thesis". It is also the first time I hear about Madame Blavatsky who seem to have influenced modern Hinduism and modern Buddhism. Vivekananda & Early Buddhist Texts Vivekananda is absolutely not a reliable source on Yoga. He was a Hindu nationalist, not a scholar. To insert a text like this has nothing to do with understanding the origins of Yoga, but with promoting Hindu-nationalism, and is plain WP:OR. See White (2011) p.20-21 for an assessment of Vivekananda: "Vivekananda’s rehabilitation of what he termed “rāja yoga” is exemplary, for its motives, its influences, and its content. A shrewd culture broker seeking a way to turn his countrymen away from practices he termed “kitchen religion,” Vivekananda seized upon the symbolic power of yoga as a genuinely Indian, yet non-sectarian, type of applied philosophy that could be wielded as a “unifying sign of the Indian nation . . . not only for national consumption but for consumption by the entire world” (Van der Veer 2001: 73–74). For Vivekananda, rāja yoga, or “classical yoga,” was the science of yoga taught in the Yoga Sūtra, a notion he took from none other than the Theosophist Madame Blavatsky, who had a strong Indian following in the late nineteenth century. Following his success in introducing rāja yoga to western audiences at the 1892 World Parliament of Religions at Chicago, Vivekananda remained in the United States for much of the next decade (he died in 1902), lecturing and writing on the YS. His quite idiosyncratic interpretations of this work were highly congenial to the religiosity of the period, which found expression in India mainly through the rationalist spirituality of Neo-Vedānta. So it was that Vivekananda defined rāja yoga as the supreme contemplative path to selfrealization, in which the self so realized was the supreme self, the absolute brahman or god-self within."

Replies

By Rohan Kanji

[Rajiv: I agree 100% with this post. But what have people done about it since the same issue of wicki was discussed her months ago? Nothing.

Some folks here resolved to gather and DO something. They put up a totally new entry on Rajiv Malhotra. It was deleted in a few days by the gatekeepers citing all sorts of reasons and lack of due process Our side lost stamina.

Because it seemed contrived and not natural from our side the wicki folks toughened their stance against me. Change is supposed to be done gradualy with each change backed by evidence cited in footnotes and links. Hence the half-ass effort by our folks has backfired.

So dont start something amateurish as its better to do nothing if you dont know what you are doing. This is not a game for inexperienced folks with passion/opinions but no competence.

This entity "Joshua Jonathan" is editing anything that touches Hinduism and Buddhism. �I think it is an organization of multiple people and not a single entity. �If it is a single person, he has a full-time job to do this. �Probably a well-funded entity considering how many man-hours it invests editing and enforcing its views. �This entity "Joshua Jonathan" likes anti-Hindu scholars like Martha Nussbaum. �I conjecture that it may �be related to receive patronage of U of Chicago or some other AAR member. �

Just go and take a look at Rajiv Malhotra wiki page and you will see that this entity inserted all kinds of text from references which are anti-RM and some are patently Indian Christian. �In fact, RM's wiki page is dominated by one highly spurious anti-RM reference. �No prizes for guessing - "Joshua Jonathan" is the most active editor of RM wiki page. �Compare that page to those of Wendy Doniger or Martha Nussbaum. �You can see the difference of night and day. �

This entity will out-win you by sheer expense of time. �Wikipedia has been turned into a joke by these characters. �

"Joshua Jonathan" claims to be a Buddhist but do not buy it. �It is on a mission to demolish anything labeled, or even remotely connected with the label, neo-Hinduism. Unless you are willing to spend considerable time waging an intellectual battle, forget it.

By Samkhyalover

Well, I have to agree that Vivekananda was not a professionally trained scholar.

Rajiv: Based on whatever your criteria of "professional training" means, nor am I or you

professionaly trained". Nor was Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobindo, or any of our great acharyas. Nor Buddha, etc... Only Wendy Doniger, Witzel, Hawley, and their large lineages would be considered by you as "professionally trained". You have in effect bought into the coloniation of what makes a competent Hindu thinker. You assume that western style system accredition is what makes one trained. Therefore, all yogis in history are in effect rejected by you as none of them from Patanjali on had certification by western style institutions.

Bladesmulti (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Man, I'm really impressed by your courage - courage for possibly attracting the reactions of people who may be distracted by my actions, but also the courage to expose yourself to views that may challenge the worldview you have inherited. And no, I'm not "an organization of multiple people", I'm just a single person with an intense drive to understand this one insight that 'the "I" does not exist.' I do have an academic training (three times, actually), but that hardly makes me more professional than anybody else. I feel flattered that Rajiv (Malhotra) thinks I'm an organisation. Thanks. The best piece of advice I can give "his" people: read those damn books which you hate, so we can discuss them on a par. I'm even very willing to explain what I read in them, what understanding they give me. And a second "piece of advice": cherish the tradition, but seek out what's relevant for today, and what's not. Your worth and self-esteem is not in what "the" tradition says, but what you do with this tradition, and how it can help you to be a fully human being - one who can tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty, and stay close with another human being, especially when they are suffering. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that comment about you being an organization of multiple people is not from Rajiv Malhotra, but Rohan Kanji. The formatting here is a bit off. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oaky, thanks. Revealing anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

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]

January 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Dharmacakra. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring# User:Devanampriya reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Both blocked)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joshua Jonathan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If this is the price of reporting Devanampriya, than that's fair; after all, I've been reverting too, and I was the one who brought up the edit-warring. Yet, there are some nuances I think I have to mention. From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Devanampriya reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Both blocked) - Bbb23: "Joshua's last revert occurred on January 23 at 16:03. That means that any reverts that occurred after January 22 at 16:03 count. I believe there are five of those, making the total six." I disagree. two edits were self-reverts, which is allowed: WP:3RRN: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: 1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")."

17:27, 22 January 2014 - removal of Storl by Joshua Jonathan diff - self-revert of 14:37, 21 January 2014 diff in response to Devanampriya
19:43, 22 January 2014 - this was not a revert, but the addition of an inline nuancing note to Yan by Joshua Jonathan diff
17:03, 23 January 2014 - self-revert by Joshua Jonathan diff of edit at 09:16, 22 January 2014 diff, in response to Bladesmulti .
So counting back from 07:05, 23 January 2014, I count three reverts, one of them being the re-insertion of a maintenance-tag:
- 17:29, 22 January 2014 - re-insertion of {{dubious}}-tag diff
- 19:43, 22 January 2014 - change of "according to" into "mentions that" diff - ah, that one counts too, doesn't it?
- 20:59, 22 January 2014 - removal of Yan diff
- 07:05, 23 January 2014 - removal of Yan diff

So, that makes four - if re-inserting a maintenance templates counts as a revert. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR:

"editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion"

That's exactly what I did. Those tags were removed, and I re-inserted them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yep, you were edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Okay, thanks for responding. I'll take better care in the future. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Incident Noticeboard.

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]

Dharmachakra again

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]

Messages on ANI

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]

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 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. [[User:Bladesmulti|Bladesmulti]] ([[User talk:Bladesmulti|talk]]) 09:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 :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. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 09:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
+:: Hello Joshua, you can [[jersey number | 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.  :-)  &nbsp; 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.  :-)  &nbsp;  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.  [[Special:Contributions/74.192.84.101|74.192.84.101]] ([[User talk:74.192.84.101|talk]]) 20:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 == Dharmachakra again ==