User talk:Joshua Jonathan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:20, 3 April 2024

en:User:Joshua Jonathan/Buddha/message

"Tantras" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tantras has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 7 § Tantras until a consensus is reached. JIP | Talk 19:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plz follow NPOV at article Ram Mandir

Hello, I'm BlackOrchidd. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackOrchidd: the term "controversial" is an understatement; NPOV requires the mention of it. Wikipedia is not a free hosting-site for religious PR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: you reverted my edit at Balak Ram murti (idol) of the Ram Mandir, not Ram Mandir; need some help with editing? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandragupta Muarya

Hy, Can I Know the Reason why u Reverted my Edit? It is stated in the Source, Chandragupta Muarya Later Converted to Jainism DeepstoneV (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeepstoneV: I think that my edit-summary was quite clear: "Hinduism" didn't exist t that time. That an author calls him a "Hindu Brahmanical king" is an error on the side of the author. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism & Jainism Are two Different things & Jainism Religion existed DeepstoneV (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category bombing IP

Also bombing Witchcraft, Asian witchcraft, European witchcraft, Neopagan witchcraft, Witchcraft in North America, etc. Perhaps you could watchlist? Some of the categories added might be appropriate, but IP editor should open a discussion on the talk page and only categories for which there is a consensus should be added! Skyerise (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adi Shankara. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. PastaMonk 18:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, ever heard of "Don't template the regulars"? Getting annoyed when you don't have sufficient arguments to get it your way? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: diff. A retaliatory action in response to the warning you received. Which you first posted at the talkpage of Adi Shankara diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He forgot to post one on your talk page. Just trying to be helpful 😁😁 PastaMonk 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't forget. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer:Sarcasm is lost on some people. You need a minimum IQ to get it 😁

@Joshua Jonathan: re : "you don't have sufficient arguments to get it your way". I don't care about getting my way any more. I quit editing Wikipedia more than 10 years ago due to to the Orc invasion. Sometimes I see something in a page that can be improved I try to help. Most of the time there is some Orc reverting all edits without rhyme or reason. I try to reason with him. Most of the time in true Orc fashion he does not get it. Then I say to to him. Have it your way. I quit. PastaMonk 20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never have I ever ... started into the week facing personal attacks. I can't drink, so I'll count — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to ping me on my own userpage... Regarding the term "orc," see the warning at your talkpage diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and call the admins 😁 Do you think most people give a rat's ass about being able to edit Wikipedia ?? They don't care even if they I can't "view" Wikipedia. If they can't see Wikipedia they will view Britannica or some other site. Grow up dude 😁 BTW, I reverted your edits to my talk page. I extend a cordial invitation to start another edit war on my talk page 😁😁😁PastaMonk 21:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Forgive my ignorance, but what is "orc"? -- Kautilya3 (talk)

(talk page stalker) Orc --RegentsPark (comment) 22:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark and Kautilya3: the term is also used by the Ukrainians for their eastern neighbors; as the two of you will understand, I find the term thrrefor deeply insulting, given the brutal nature of the war there, the slaughter of civilians, the rapes, etc. But this is probably lost on our fellow editor... See also this comment.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you are offended by the term. It was not aimed specifically at you, I used it as a general term to describe Wikipedia regulars (with millions of edits under their belt) who spend their time bullying newcomers and occasional editors. I kinda lost it when DaxServer pasted an edit war message on my talk page for doing just one revert. The page history shows that you have been reverting almost everyone's edits and you were on the verge of violating 3RR rule on 24Mar2024. In the end you agreed that the page about a person should have a top level biography section. That's what I been trying to tell you since the beginning 😁. All of this could have been avoided. Yes ? PastaMonk 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: I'm getting pretty tired of this editor; could you take a look at this diff weird request they posted on their own talkpage? It's unsubstantiated, and feels like hounding. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Historical reliability of the Gospels. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This warning goes to both users involved and it not a comment on who is right Jeppiz (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 :::{{yo|RegentsPark}} I'm getting pretty tired of this editor; could you take a look at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APastafarianMonk&diff=1215614704&oldid=1215613614 diff] weird request they posted ''on their own'' talkpage? It's unsubstantiated, and feels like hounding. Regards, [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 04:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
+== Edit warring  ==
+[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[WP:Edit warring|edit war]]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on [[:Historical reliability of the Gospels]]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#In talk pages|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[WP:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
+Points to note:
+# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
+# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
+If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[WP:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to [[WP:Requests for page protection|request temporary page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.''' This warning goes to both users involved and it not a comment on who is right<!-- Template:uw-ew --> [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)