User talk:Joshua Jonathan

For convenience: <small>{{mdf|1=[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan]]|2=reason, ~~~~}}</small>

"The avalanche was down, the hillside swept bare behind it; the last echoes died on the white slopes; the new mount glittered and lay still in the silent valley." Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited

Archives: Talk, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, list

en:User:Joshua Jonathan/Buddha/message

Mindfulness resources

Hi Jonathan. One person answered on mindfulness that I cannot ask the lay people resources query. I saw you have written a lot on that page. Would you be able to answer it on your talk space or my talk space? APluralism (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Reversion is non-constructive

The reversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71Ceremony) is not constructive. As Indian Subcontinent refers to physiographic region ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent ) while South Asia is more geopolitical (quoting the article). The edit removed the consensus that does NOT exist in WP:IN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_6#India,_Indian_subcontinent,_South_Asia On contrary, South Asia, as can be seen, refers to Geopolitical division of that part of the world while Indian Subcontinent is physiographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71Ceremony (talk • contribs)

I gave you a warning diff for your removal diff of a warning-message at the top of Talk:sanskrit, which was highly disruptive. The noticeboard-thread you're referring to is from 2006. See WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Atomism

recently a user added a statement on atomism article which states that

Kanada catagorizes atoms into four categories, viz., simple, binary, tertiary and quaternary atoms. The problem is that we don't know whether the source given is legimate or not and this statement looks much similar to modern atomic theory ideas suggesting it may be a NPOV sentence Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

Since you cited them in your WP:NORN responses, you're clearly already familiar with WP:ASPERSIONS, and presumably WP:CIVIL. You should then also be aware that comments like "you... and your pal" are WP:BATTLEGROUND, accusations of WP:DONTGETIT are aspersions as there's no consensus being ignored, accusations of those who disagree with you of being editors who push a biased narrative on Indian history and religion, and are uncomfortable with a presentation of scholarly information are aspersions, and characterizing another's arguments as Misleaing sophistry is clearly uncivil and borderline a personal attack. I understand that we disagree on the content, and my "what part of [this quote from SYNTH] is unclear to you?" didn't help matters, but we're all on the same team of trying to make the encyclopedia better. There's no need to personalize things further. For my part, I apologize for my snippy tone; it was uncalled for and did nothing to bring us closer to consensus, only set up a battleground. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: agreed; I wasn't sure about my tone either. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you; if I say something where the tone is grating, please let me know. Clearly I've got some feelings about the dispute as well, and if they bleed into my writing, I'm doing something wrong, and I'd appreciate you calling me out on it. After all, I'm not helping us get to an agreement if I'm just being rude! EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

You were snippy indeed; more than forgiven. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck@Joshua Jonathan Thank you both for understanding that we disagree on the content....but we're all on the same team of trying to make the encyclopedia better. I agree that the tone is not helping, and it just seems ever since the talk discussion started - seems Swirlymarigold did this revert (where clearly, Ambade source is not talking about the other 108 feet statue), which Joshua reverted. And then, to say them on talk See the note; up to you to explain why you think it's undue. See also WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The statues are not about the historical Shankara; they are about politics and legendary tales" and then and later on ..have magically disappeared from your mind - felt to me like not helping the discussion. Thinking more about this whole discussion, I think it would have helped if we actually followed the WP:ONUS policy and discussed the content issues based on relevant policies, mainly then synth and npov issues - instead of restoring and changing the content without much agreement on talk, even after couple of suggestions not to edit the section while we are discussing it - again, just my view here. Asteramellus (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft on Khas Migration into Nepal

Hello Joshua,

Hope you are well,

I was wondering if you interested in a Wikipedia article I am creating. The article is called ‘Khas migration into Nepal’. If you want to check out the article here it is:

Draft:Khas Migration into Nepal Nish Aryal (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)