This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 10 March 2014 (Collapsed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Our pet.

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

• 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)

Recent edits to Hinduism

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)

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

On yoonadaue

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)

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)

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

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

Some articles

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@Joshua Jonathan:

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)

Stalking

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

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 Misplaced Pages. What do I do besides defend myself? AcidSnow (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Zhongfeng Mingben

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)

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

Talkback

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

.

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

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

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

St. Thomas Christians

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)

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

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

You deserve a thanks yourself!!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re: History of Hinduism

Wiki types on Blades' page

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

The types!

• Original picture removed; Image:The Electric Mayhem.jpgThe Electric Mayhem is like the Misplaced Pages - We are all in the same basket Original picture removed; Image:The Electric Mayhem.jpgThe Electric Mayhem is like the Misplaced Pages - 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.
• Original picture removed; File:Animal (Muppet).jpg There is the frustrated type who shows his teeth
• Original picture removed; File:Beaker (Muppet).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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

• I just wondered if a private person who is using that image on a private page on Misplaced Pages, 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)

Presumably because Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages is bound to follow.Arildnordby (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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)

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

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)

• Misplaced Pages 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)

what that means

Only you know what that means... In Misplaced Pages: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)

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. ] -Let's talk! 11:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism and Buddhism

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 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)

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)

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)

Comments requested

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Buddhism and Hinduism page

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)

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)

Provide justice for Rajus or Kshatriya Rajus Article

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 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)

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

• 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 Anthropological Survey of India, p.774 : Rajus are of Kshatriya Varna.
  • Singh
• 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 . 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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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)

Origins of Hinduism

Copied from my userpage

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)

Saint Thomas Christians

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)

I think you should ask here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, or at Misplaced Pages 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)

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

No place on Bladesmulti's page

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

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

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

You have been nominated for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

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)

About Rajus Article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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,Misplaced Pages'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)

Could you take a look at

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)

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)

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

Hypnosis

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)

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)

Rudi

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)

Nath

Hello Joshua,

It seems that you inserted a table on the Nath Misplaced Pages 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)

What were you thinking?

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)

? 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)

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

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

1. Fozzie Bear and Rowlf the Dog perform "English Country Garden"