User talk:Joshua Jonathan

You are entitlet to you point of view but you should argue not just revert

You start reverting without arguments, to say it is "not constructive" is insulting. Do not behave as an AUTHORITY, since we are equal. Also the "please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines" is impolite. There is chapter in 'Article Talk' you can express you view, and according to you writings you are not familiar, n fact, what is constructive and grounded. I provided you modern resources there. Counting is simple and different than can be made over 20 decades before done in favourable History2007 book. I proposed erasing conflicting old numbers 15-18 and do not introduce any. Since you conspire with History2007 I will report you both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.176.24 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about sources, not arguments per WP:V. IP needs to read WP:V. End of story. History2007 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sayadaw U Tejaniya

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the proper way to contact you but I wanted to respond to some of your comments on my proposed article which I found a bit curious and ask for some clarification.

JJ - Hi Iguana0000. Thanks for responding. I'll try to answer your questions.

"and there is indeed very little information besides his own website. " "You're only using his own website now as a reference." I cited five sources, two _full articles_ in two prominent english-language journals about meditation and one in the leading Polish newsweekly. For some reason the latest note by 'Bonkers The Clown' seems to have undone my citations, I'm not sure why that is or what can be done to undo it.

JJ - I see your point diff. But it seems that most "disappearances" are replacements by links to the same articles at Tejaniya's website. One source seems to be disappeared ^[1] Only Tricycle seems to be really acceptabel - and that's an interview, not a secondary source...

"No matter how much his teachings may be valued by his students, the question for Wikipedi is "Who cares (besides his students)?" His students number in the tens of thousands on five continents, not counting the heads of monasteries in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Burma who see themselves as his disciples and claim his lineage. May I ask what the operative standard is by which 'who cares' should be judged?

JJ - The operative standard is notability WP:N. Is he being mentioned by reliable newspapers etc? I believe right away that he's got tens of thousands of students, but Wiki-policy asks for mention in newspapers etc.

"Newspaper articles, or mentioning in scientific studies, would help" I understand this is all well intentioned but I'm not clear by what you mean by 'scientific studies'. Regarding newspaper articles, those are likely to be not in English but rather in Burmese, Korean or Vietnamese.

JJ - Maybe you should try to find Burmese, Korean or Vietnamese sources, and give translations. Are there Wiki-pages on him in these languages? Aks for help there too. "Scientific studies" are articles in scientific journals which mention him.

I should mention that I reviewed other articles on living Sayadaws and Ajahns (Thai equivalent) and found that most have no references or citations whatsoever. The most that any article has is 2. Thus I'm struggling a bit with the opacity regarding what standard it is I'm trying to meet.

JJ - I'm afraid you may be right here. But the problem is, you are the one to convince others. Take a look at Talk:Neo-Advaita what "fun" I had to convince some other editors on a new article I'd written.

Iguana0000 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JJ - Succes! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at Oddbodz's talk page.
Message added 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Oddbodz (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki POV

Oops! You're right, sorry! I'll do that right away. Pikolas (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi. Re your question in this edit summary, check out Template:Uw-tpv1 (and Template:Uw-tpv2 and so on). Rivertorch (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O

Hi, the formal channel for third opinion is WP:3O, for if you ask a specific user, they may say you picked a like-minded user. And you can also post on the project talk page, e.g. WikiProject Religion. If you post on WP:3O someone will answer. History2007 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi Joshua, I responded to your comment on my own talk page. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at CorrectKnowledge's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at Ninly's talk page.
Message added 6 February 2013. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some stroopwafels for you!

Just a little encouragement in case you need something really, really sweet... Lova Falk talk 14:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ajativada

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME 'EDITING' MY WIKIPAGE AS YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT READ IT THROUGH OR UNDERSTAND OR FULLY GRASP THE CONCEPT ONLY 1 IN 10,MILLION DO...TONY O'CLERY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ajativada is not advaita as it is above advaita para advaita..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know john le kay put you up to 'editing' ajativada that is why i exposed it on my facebook and elsewhere..................................Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC) So you can sit around all day stroking your own egos....if you do not understand the concept you cannot edit it....even if it on behalf of a friend of yours that wants to attack the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shankara (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) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new barnstar!

		The Purple Barnstar
		For staying true to yourself and to Wikipedia in spite of recurrent harrassment. Lova Falk talk 06:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate the offer, but I had to wean myself off compulsive wikipedia editing last year. It messes with my peace of mind after a point! This short burst of editing is a relapse, something I've been wanting to do for a long time for this article. Hopefully will control my urge to edit articles (and stay awake until 4 am) in the future. Cheers!108.214.13.148 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Fabjański, Marcin (2009). "Nirvana: Access Code". Polityka. 13 (3): 73–75.

[1] Fabjański, Marcin (2009). "Nirvana: Access Code". Polityka. 13 (3): 73–75.

[1]