User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2012

Thank You for Excellent Work on Buddhist Articles
Hello Joshua. I just wanted to thank you for your really fair-minded and balanced work on the Buddha-nature and Mahaparinirvana-Sutra articles. It is refreshing to encounter a Wiki editor who does not immediately delete the more affirmative understanding of the Buddha-nature or Self. Over a year ago, there was one 'editor' in particular who was rabidly and almost psychopathologically opposed to this kind of information getting onto the pages of Wikipedia, and s/he would delete almost everything of that kind, or so reduce it that the chief ideas were lost. I myself find lots of things on Wiki Buddhism which I personally disagree with, but if they are referenced and / or have been up on Wiki for a very long time (without dissent from other editors), I would be very reluctant to change them radically, still less delete them - without consultation with other editors. You seem to be of the same mind: in other words, you are a fair and equitable Wikipedian editor! Thanks for that, Joshua. I, for one, very much appreciate all your splendid work. Warm wishes to you from Suddha (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I really appreciate this encouragement. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with what Suddha has said, it makes a big difference when you get editors who are flexible and adaptable and don't go round deleting other people's edits without any prior warning or discussion. That creates much bad feeling and even discourages people from editing anything! So it is very beneficial to have kind and open editors who encourage others rather than make them feel bad about what they are doing, and who welcome discussion and compromise. Thanks Joshua, you have done and are doing a great job just as Suddha says! your work is much appreciated. best regards Peter morrell 10:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Peter, nice to hear of you! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha,ha - Peter, I think you and I should form a 'Joshua Jonathan Appreciation Society'! Seriously, though, I do agree with what you write about how discouraging it can be to have one's work callously deleted from Wikipedia, without discussion. Sometimes in the past, I would spend literally hours (plus money, purchasing books) to add Buddhist information to Wiki - only to have an obnoxious and intolerant editor named 'Mitsube' either delete my work entirely or so quibble with every detail that editing became an utterly unenjoyable exercise. With editors like Joshua (and yourself) on Wiki, however, things have taken a huge and welcome step forward! Warm wishes to you both - Suddha (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Response on my Talk Page
Hey Joshua. I responded to your message here. Thanks! DJLayton4 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism_and_Christianity
Hi, thanks for comment - I think at this point the next question would be "how much distinct/discrete sourceable content is there really beyond Elaine Pagels justifying more than a paragraph on Buddhism and Christianity? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More then I had ever expected... No, seriously: not much. But I guess the value of the article is more in the possible influence. There must have been influences on both sides; at least there were Greek influences on Buddhist art. As it is now, each one can draw his or her's own conclusions. Mine is, that if there were influences, one is hard-pressed to substantiate those influences. Well, no result is also some kind of a result.
 * About Gnosticism: personally I think that if there is one branch of Christian (in a broad sense) thinking where Buddhist influences are descerneable, it's here. One of the Gnostic stories pictures the ascencion to Heaven, in which ten gates have to be passes. At each gate a sin, or bad attitude, has to be left behind. Sounds very Buddhist to me. But that's my impression, and I have no "proof" whatsoever, so no reason to mention this in the article.
 * Personally, I would even prefer to split up the article in at least two separate articles: similarities, and influences. How about the opposite of merging: mention only the bare essentials in the Buddhism-Christianity article, and keeping the separate article intact? this way, the main article is also shortened. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that "possible" influence falls into WP:OR, which can't be the basis for a WP:FORK. All we can really say is that Conze made some comparisons with gnosis not gnostics and Pagels appealed to Hindu scholars to look for connections and nothing was forthcoming. Most of Gnosticism is there in Classical Greek and Jewish precedents - which are the two textual streams the Gnostics quote. Beyond this we're heading into WP:Fringe with sources like Arthur Lillie. If there was a single tangible accepted WP:RS connection between any Gnostic text and any Buddhist event/person/place/text then maybe, but as it stands all we have is Conze giving a paper in 1966. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Greek influences on Buddhist art would be due to Greece having attempted to invade India, not India invading Greece. We'd need a source to suggest that the Greeks brought back any specific influence. It's possible yes. But requires a source. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a substantial part of the article can be considered "fringe theories". Ans a lot more probably will be added to it in time... To be honest, I've never read the complete text of the article - both articles - too much nonsense. Maybe you're right, and "Buddhism and Gnosticism" should be merged. Why not just to do it - and edit the text right-away back to standards? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sunyata edits
You can't separate out the material like you did on sunyata. If you want to do something please merge the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras content from the Sunyata page into the main Tathāgatagarbha Sutras article. Then we can merely link to that article. Gooolog (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I put some of your content back in. Gooolog (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Equal sign in url's
What is about? = is normally allowed in url's at Wikipedia as far as I know. Can you give an example where it fails and %3D fixes it? = can cause problems in unnamed parameters but I think that's an unrelated issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * HiPrimeHunter. The following url appears as a full url in the reflist, beside the assigned title/name, due to the = sign:
 * I've tried to fix it, by using %3D, but it doesn't work:
 * Using = doesn't work either:
 * Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Using = doesn't work either:
 * Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Using = doesn't work either:
 * Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Problem solved: the url was split over two sentences... See Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

-
 * Unfortunately, I've got no suggestions for 'Buddhism and spiders'... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Though, some Google-search:
 * The Spider's Thread
 * The Myth of the Spider
 * Spiders and karma
 * Indra's net
 * Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ~Thanks again, I'll check out the links. ~∑ ric F undefined Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC).


 * ... Now all I need is a proper place to link Interpenetration. ←That is a disambiguation - This→ Interpenetration (Buddhism) goes to Buddhist philosophy

Regarding the Jeff Shore Addition To Shinge Roshis Page
Hello, I was wondering if you could provide the cited documents in regard to the lineage of the Eido line that you keep posting and I keep removing. Once you provide adequate proof of this...I would be inclined to stop editing it. But until then, it is fraudulent and I will be deleting it every time I see it. Thanks Chimon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion to be continued at Talk:Sherry Chayat (Third opinions are welcome)

Editing dispute at Sherry Chayat
Hello Joshua. Please see Talk:Sherry Chayat, where your name recent edit has been mentioned. I have considered the possibility that the cited emails are not legit. Anything negative about Eido Shimano should come from a reliable source, such as a book, newspaper or magazine with a named publisher and a reputation for fact checking. The website at www.shimanoarchive.com is anonymous and even the name of the owner of the domain is hidden. It should not be used as a source of biographical information about Sherry Chayat or Eido Shimano, per WP:Biographies of living persons. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you aren't the person who first added this. The reference to the emails was recently added to the Sherry Chayat article by an anonymous editor. You merely restored the IP's material. EdJohnston (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for interfering. If The Shimano Archive is not accepted as a source, then it may take a while to add this info. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychology
Hello Jonathan. The Unconscious is not the monopoly of Freudians. It is common to all psychodynamic psychology. However, it was the Yogacarins who invented the concept of the unconscious not Dr Freud. Keep the chutzpah up old man. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As usually, you don't provide sources. To the list of WP:42, WP:IAC, and WP:OR, you can also add WP:CIV. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Zen lineage charts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! DanS76 (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Re: Indra's net
When tagging unsourced material in an entire section, it is best practice to place a single maintenance-section tag at the beginning. Generally, there is no need to use multple tags in the same section. It is not yet clear if the IP who added the content is engaging in scholarly research supported by actual sources or original research, although I suspect the latter. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism
Sorry for my mistake. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Better try than stay safe. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Losang Samten Biography
Thank you!

I got a bit carried away on the Mandala page, only intending (at first) to add the name of one of my teachers (Losang Samten) in the section called "Notable Artists". By the time I'd gotten turned around, completely inside out and backwards, trying to pin down some increasingly nitpicky details as to the origins of Namgyal Monastery, the history of the Phags-pa script, the various incarnation lineages of the early Dalai Lamas and more Mongol Khans than anyone with any sense would ever shake a stick at, I had long since lost my view of the forest -- only, not so much for the sight of the trees, as for the hypothetical calculation of how many toothpick barens might be crafted for making xylographic prints at home if the entire forest were quite simply clear-cut and transformed, wholesale, into toothpicks! This analogy for describing my state of mind is, in fact, very slightly overstated for the purposes of facetiously making clear to you my state of mind in putting together and posting what I did, but just to be completely clear (because I know facetiousness sometimes does not work out so well with strings of written text): my gratitude to you is no less absolutely sincere for that fact.

I did, in fact, get up to check one date mentioned -- not even on the Mandala page, but on a *related* page (which I somehow just *knew* wasn't right) -- and by the time I finally clicked the "Save Page" button for the Mandala page, nearly two days had passed, and what I finally managed to write out absolutely, positively did not belong where I wound up posting it. And the date I'd gotten up to check? I still haven't gotten around to editing that other page where I saw it -- though very probably, I should, and sooner rather than later.

At any rate: by the time I finally got around to posting my "little edit" (long since gone completely haywire), someone else -- possibly you? I honestly have no idea -- had already edited the Mandala page, thereby completely removing what I considered the likely outdated piece of personal self-promotion which had previously comprised the entirety of the aforementioned section, and which had (at least) served to annoy me enough to bother attempting my first Wikipedia edit in several years' time. (I wouldn't have dared to remove it myself; but I *did* feel the fellow I knew should at least be mentioned, along with at least some of his actual qualifications, given that the person who had been mentioned previously in that section was.) Somehow or other I wound up posting what I did where I thought it maybe-sort-of-kind-of-probably-almost-more-or-less belonged, and probably some of it does (though very certainly a great deal less that what all I did post where I posted it); and maybe -- *just* maybe -- I will get around to going back and putting it in, somehow, someday. Then again, maybe it doesn't, and maybe I won't. Only time will tell, for sure. And I have got a lot to learn. But there is no denying that somehow what I did just did not feel right -- it was entirely too much of the wrong kind of thing in the wrong place, and worst of all, it even made it look (structurally speaking) like all these other schools of Buddhism in completely different countries had somehow come from this one guy and blah blah blah blah -- but by that time, I honestly had no idea what to do and just kinda figured "OK, Wikipedia editors: have fun!" My brain was fried. And what I wound up posting was (largely because of where I'd posted it) in fact a *worse* example of *exactly* the sake kind of error I'd gone in, not to correct, so much as to counterbalance, in the first place!

THANK YOU for taking my work seriously enough not to simply delete it. :^) :^)

THANK YOU furthermore for taking the time and putting in the effort to move it to where it really *does* belong. For whatever it's worth, I do have some sources to cite, but haven't quite figured out how all of those things around here work just yet, and am reluctant to make corned beef hash out of footnotes and references precisely because I understand why they are important. I shall try to restrain my enthusiasm at least to the degree that I will use a lighter touch in editing pages around these parts until such time as I am fully confident as to my skills regarding the actual workings of this place.

THANK YOU for leaving a comment on my talk page showing me how this sort of thing is *properly* done! I hope this comment to your talk page isn't out of place.

THANK YOU for considerably improving what I wrote -- not just stylistically -- though that as well -- but most importantly, with other links the exact likes of which I would have been more than glad to provide if I had not been so completely overwhelmed while writing it.

I am sincerely sorry to have made that extra work for you, but very much appreciate your taking the time in effect to *show* me *how* I should have done what I actually did. I am delighted to make your acquaintance and consider your actions an emanation out of skillful means to help me in attempting to traverse the labyrinthian ocean of Wikipedia upon whose waves I have already been far more unkindly tossed.



Since offering a mandala to ones' teachers is considered auspicious in the Tibetan tradition, and because you have taken the time and made the effort already to improve upon my work asking nothing whatsoever in return, I have no doubt that this will be accepted in the spirit in which it's offered.

Xeltifon (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate the mandala; thank you! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your editing history
The section on Padmasambhava you removed was actually up for a few years and the translator of that, Erik publisher of Rangjung, was very happy about it. Your editing history is mainly bitter and negative. Secondly you have messed with things you don't understand and since you're not an expert on Tibetan Buddhism which is the ultimate intent of Shakyamuni & completely alien to your middle class passe fad of westernized Japonisme. I would advise not meddling further in areas you don't understand.


 * See diff for my reply. Discussion to be continued at Talk:Padmasambhava (when technical problems have been solved). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The1973onez: I replied to your friend you involved on his talk page and pointed out your editing of Tibetan Buddhist contents you have embarked upon is in ignorance and furthermore in bias and has to be constantly monitored. Thank you and best wishes. See details here: User:The1973onez (UTC)