User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Why

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm AliMughalaDa. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to :[[Indus Valley Civilisation]] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.

Hello,

Your recent edit to Indus Valley Civilisation was reverted because it [added unverified claims/did not meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view/vandalized content]. Wikipedia requires verifiable information from reliable published sources.

Please:

- Discuss controversial changes on the article talk page first.

- Avoid edit-warring (repeatedly re-adding reverted content).

Future disruptive edits may result in a block. Review:

• Neutrality policy
• Source guidelines

Thank you.

— AliMughalaDa (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|AliMughalaDa}} you don't even know how to post a retaliatory 'warning' - though the term "misplaced" is actually quite appropriate here, as you posted it at the top of my talk, without a header. Any way, you're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Goodbye, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::lun par char AliMughalaDa (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Calling names won't help you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::What? Teri ma de mou vich lol :) AliMughalaDa (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Whatever. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Tantani teri ma da phuda pharo mai? 🥳 AliMughalaDa (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Warning ko twist kar k apni toi vich le salya 👍 AliMughalaDa (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hi @Joshua Jonathan, I wanted to let you know that AliMughalaDa has used some inappropriate language above as well as in the section name. I just wanted to make you aware. Thanks, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 13:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::JJ, you may ask for rev-del (degrading or insulting material)! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No thanks; they're welcome to expose their incompetence. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Blocked. Pretty disgusting attacks. Previous blocks didn’t work, so indeffed. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Other users are allowed to edit to. 117.110.41.242 (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:TPS: see :Historical reliability of the Gospels and :Talk:Historical reliability of the Gospels. Block-evading IP. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Amusingly enough, I didn't remember that edit, but I recall back then I was reading and editing a lot about meditation. Metalune (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archived top}}

:Seleucid–Mauryan War

Mauryan victory {{Cite book | last=Thapar | first=Romila | title=Ancient India|pages=70 | language=en | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SKA6AAAAIAAJ | quote=Chandragupta soon conquered the whole of the Punjab. Some of the land in the extreme north was held by the Greek general Seleucus Nicator. Chandragupta fought a long campaign against him and finally defeated him in 303 B.C. He acquired the territory across the Indus in part of what is now modern Afghanistan. There was also a marriage alliance between the two families. In addition, Chandragupta had conquered parts of Central India, so that by the time his reign ended northern India was under the Mauryas. }}

This source is literally taken from Wikipedia and is from Romila Thapar who is considered to be reliable by Wikipedia.Mauryans were the dominant victors, maybe this can be worded differently. But even in the article it is stated that Mauryans overally got the better deal. Biriboy (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archived bottom}}

Thank you for removing my edit from Bhagavad Gita page. I just came across the article on ABP Live and added from there under a relevant section but was not sure if the source was reliable. Ajaz Ahmed ᵐᵘˡʰⁱᵈ 23:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhagavad_Gita&diff=1293691063&oldid=1293424781 diff] - and :Zen at War. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Needed your guidance for this - I saw that recently a new redirect was added for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhakt&redirect=no Bhakt] (redirecting to Bhakti and not Bhakta), which I nominated for redirect discussion for deletion, after which a user created another redirect [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mantr&redirect=no Mantr] - which I find even more confusing. Google books [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Mantr%2CMantra%2CBhakt%2CBhakta&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Ngram] e.g. shows barely any results for Mantr (used in relation to Mantra) and Bhakt (used in relation to Bhakti/devotion) terms and the terms seems nonstandard. And, I find the redirect discussion arguments related to disambiguous pages for Yog and Rag misleading, but wanted your thoughts on redirect for Bhakt / Mantr to see if I am missing something in my understanding here. Asteramellus (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Asteramellus the argumentation for bhakt seems to be correct; see [https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bhakt wictionary: "bhakt"]. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks - that helps. Do you think redirect to Bhakti would be meaningful given multiple meanings or should it be maybe a disambiguous page linking to I guess Bhakta and Bhakt (slang)?

::Also what do you think for Mantr? Asteramellus (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Asteramellus "Bhakti" might have a hatnote for "Bhakt (slang)." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Just wondering reasoning for that - because I feel they are totally different domain and seems undue to include on Bhakti page - I wonder why would someone come to Bhakti page by mistake? I feel the solution might be to have Bhakt (disambiguous) based on the wictionary link you gave. But I guess let me read more - also would help if you give thoughts on why possibly hatnote makes sense or might not make sense.

::::And sorry, any thoughts on Mantr term? Asteramellus (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Asteramellus disambiguation is also a possibility, as "bhakt (slur") seems to have become a major usage. Yet, the phrase is derived from bhakta, which is broader and older, and redirects to "bhakti"; therefor, an alternative is a hatnote there with 'For... see ..." As for "man5r," I guess the same linguistic logic applies. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJoshua_Jonathan%2FTools&diff=1296888577&oldid=1292878248] Polygnotus (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I see you are not as biased as I once thought you were. Maybe I was wrong about you. We disagree on many things, but I appreciate you being open to new ideas, even if they challenge your old beliefs. I also try to digest new ideas and research that challenge my beliefs. Regards. 2409:40C1:202C:1C22:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Cheers; see you around. Ever delved into Krishnamurti? What did he actually teach? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::To be honest, I barely have any idea about Krishnamurti. I guess he had some impact in the Western world. Whatever I got to know about him is through Wikipedia, after following your and others' edits. I don't care much about humans who are regarded as godmen in some way, maybe only Shankara, a little bit. But in general, I’m not interested, be it Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharshi, or even Vivekananda. 2409:40C1:35:4935:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Joshua Jonathan Even though the De Broglie Bohm theory is a type of realist dual aspect thinking where both wave and particle are seen as real, and Advaita Vedanta teaches nondualism or absolute oneness, I see some interesting similarities, which I thought I’d share with you (I really have limited options lol). Maybe it’s just my Advaitic Geetaic Shengtong Zen mind that tends to see unifying synthesis in everything, keeping Vedantic terms as the base.

::In Bohm’s view, reality is not what it seems. Behind the particles we observe is a deeper hidden order.

::In Advaita, the world we experience is called Vyavaharika, which means everyday or practical reality, while the highest truth is called Paramarthika Satya, which is Brahman, hidden behind Maya or illusion.

::Bohm’s hidden or implicate order gives rise to the outer, visible world.

::In Advaita, Maya creates the appearance of the world by projecting it onto the one nondual reality, which is Brahman.

::Bohmian mechanics allows something called nonlocal influence, which means everything in the universe is deeply connected.

::Advaita also says that all is one, and all the differences we see are only because of ignorance, called Avidya.

::The wavefunction in Bohm’s theory works like Maya. It guides what we see, but it does not change the real underlying reality. It creates the feeling of many things, but it is not the true substance.

::The quantum potential in Bohm’s idea can be compared to Ishvara, which is the personal form of Brahman who seems to guide the universe. But Ishvara is still based on the higher, formless Brahman, which is Nirguna Brahman.

::The actual particles that move in clear paths are like the Jivas, or individual souls. They appear separate, but they are all guided by the same one reality.

::While Bohmian mechanics remains within the scientific domain and Advaita within the metaphysical, their underlying vision of a hidden unity guiding apparent multiplicity suggests a deep structural resonance - one that perhaps points to the perennial intuition of oneness beneath form. 2409:40C1:C:4306:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)