User talk:BalanceRestored/Archives/2007/July

Voting
I just found a link to this page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/en#Voters

am i eligible? Again how do I know my exact edit count?

I like this one: []. It looks like you aren't eligible though... Sancho 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

helpme The MiszaBot I've added is not showing my old notes... how can I get those back?BalanceRestored 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your archive is located at User_talk:BalanceRestored/Archives/2007/June.  Mi r a n da   06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Please do not add your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Vishwabrahmin. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Abecedare 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your Guidance.. I will take care. I will try to provide references for the same. :)BalanceRestored 05:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi BR, I can see that your intentions are good, but you seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding and following wikipedia policies and guidelines even after other editors have pointed the relevant pagelinks to you. At the same time I am sure that it must be frustrating for you to have a large fraction of your edits repeatedly reverted. So I would highly recommend that you enter a mentorship program on wikipedia so that you have access to the advice of a neutral, experienced editor on a semi-regular basis. Such an arrangement may work better than using the  resource, which you have used in the past.
 * If you are interested you can look up the instructions for signing up at this page. I emphasize that this arrangement would be completely voluntary and is not a requirement for you. Cheers. Abecedare 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * THanks for the info.. I am checking the details for the same. BalanceRestored 07:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind my edits getting reverted. I am happy that some of the edits are maintained. Never mind. I am sure we will have healthy discussions only. I have full confidence with you and all the other wikipedia editors. BalanceRestored 07:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that even if you don't mind having your edits reverted, repeatedly making edits that need to be reverted is considered disruptive and sooner rather than later will lead to you being blocked from editing on wikipedia. Currently you are getting the benefit of doubt because of your inexperience here, but it is in your own interest to modify your editing pattern. Abecedare 07:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the info. :) Can I know the exact count of Edits those where wrong and got reverted and where invalid for the last 30 days. From what you say it looks like I did lot of invalid edits. I will be exited to know my mistakes BalanceRestored 07:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Veda of the Black Yajus School: Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita\ *       * Translated by Arthur Berriedale Keith * Published 1914 * The Harvard university press * Original from Harvard University * Digitized Feb 2, 2007 Is this book a valid reference?BalanceRestored 07:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note for helpers: You may be interested in checking out the discussion here for background, before answering the above question. FYI Yajur Veda is a Hindu scripture and the editor intends to cite it as word "of the Creator Himself". He has already been adviced to look over WP:PSTS. Abecedare 07:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the truth. Should that not be quoted? How come it crosses any boundry? I am not clear BalanceRestored 07:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You just said the reference provide is invalid. I am only querying about that... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vishwabrahmin&diff=prev&oldid=142610107

BalanceRestored 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Not being familiar with the subject area, I think the explanation linked here by Abecedare  seems to be good and provides links to relevant policies. Even sources published by reputable sources can be used in inappropriate ways. Yes, that book is probably a valid reference, but that doesn't give you a non-conditional license to use it in any way you see fit. Cheers!  Henrik 08:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That book Yajur Veda I mentioned is written around 3460 B.C.E. and is the root of Hinduism. Again, the Vishwabrahmins do not mention anything, things are written this way. So, should that be mentioned or not? So, if things are quoted that way what am I suppose to do? If that is not correct then I will change the text accordingly. BalanceRestored 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Block
You are being blocked for 24 hours, under the conditions you agreed to when I unblocked. Please keep to your revert parole. If you find a situation difficult, please try to stay cool and polite. If discussing the issue does not seem to resolve the disagreement, please seek out one of the dispute resolution options. If you have any questions or concerns, please ask. If you feel this block is incorrect, please put on your talk page. Vassyana 08:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * THanks Vassyana, I don't mind being Blocked for 24 hours. I am sure you did the right. I am not going to challenge the block. BalanceRestored 08:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you kindly take your important time and help me with this edit. I did quote all the citations. I did try to be as friendly as possible with AB... I did smile and did all that I can. But it did not look like AB wanted to. He is just ignoring the facts. I think experienced editors like AB should be guiding. Instead of guiding me and explaining, he was challenging the books presence that is clearly visible http://books.google.com/books?id=oeMvAAAAIAAJ&q=%22five+vedas%22&dq=%22five+vedas%22&pgis=1. He did not try to research facts. I am sorry not to keep up to you. I am sure I will try better..

 Hello BalanceRestored/Archives/2007, BalanceRestored 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

BalanceRestored 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Message to AB
Honestly AB did you guide me? Did I try to be unfriendly with you? Did I not try my best to give you all the explanation. Were the citations I presented false? BalanceRestored 09:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Good bye for 24 hrs
Thanks for your worthy time given. I know you all try very hard.. Cya.. Will meet you all on Monday.BalanceRestored 09:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cya AB.. I have no hard feelings for you tooBalanceRestored 09:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

5 Vedas
This is with regards to the following revert edits done at Veda http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedas&diff=next&oldid=142873351

I have given clear citations about the vedas being 5 in number. But it looks like User:Abecedare is taking things personal and is quoting the following http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedas&diff=142952063&oldid=142861250

I would like mediation from experts about this issue. Looks like User:Abecedare want to falsify the details given on his/her own accord. User:Abecedare is stating that the book published with all the citations about the vedas being 5 in number by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute is all false. The book


 * Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona
 * By Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
 * Published 1928
 * The Institute Original from the University of California

is published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute where all the ancient Vedas are preserved. The book clearly cites references from all the ancient epics that the vedas are 5 in number. User:Abecedare is stating that the book published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute founded in 1917 is all false.

Should I revert back User:Abecedare's edit and also give him a warning regarding the false explanation? BalanceRestored 04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As an explanation he is not citing proper references and writing the following

''BalanceRestored, please consult the many highly regarded books published on the Vedas (see for example this list of references), and don't base your edits to this well-developed article based on two line snippets on google books. ''

he has not mentioned any where about the vedas being 5 or 4 but is vaguely asking to refer the references. While I had given proper explanation about the vedas being 5 in number and had taken all the pain in the world to find the exact narrations. I have taken pains to read the books and give the page number with the exact explanation. While it seems clearly from the edit that User:Abecedare has surely not read the books.

helpme

I've posted a complaint against the user User:Abecedare as the user was not finishing the discussions at talk pages and was persistantly reverting cited edit. I do not know if my complaint edits where appropriate. Kindly guide me with the same. Also I do not know if I can restore the cited edits. There are narrations from 2 citations 1 from Gov Of India, 2 Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, the editor is giving vague explanations, and is reverting edits before giving proper explanations. BalanceRestored 06:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Post on WP:ANI.  Mi r a n da   12:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Collecting citations in the mean time
"Seer of the Fifth Veda: Krsna Dvipayana Vyasa in the Mahabharat" The text says "The Mahabharata, in any case, does not say that each pupil learned one Veda from Vyasa, but that each pupil learned all five vedas"BalanceRestored 17:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC) The text says "The Arthashastra says that there are 5 vedas" The text says "Vyasas repeated references to Vedic texts in his description of his own composition emphasize the epic's claim to be another Veda, the fifth Veda"
 * By Bruce M. Sullivan
 * Page 8, Page 88, Page 7
 * ISBN 8120816765

Bhagvat Purana Pranav Veda
"Eka eva pura vedah pranavah sarva-vangmayah" In bhagwat purana it is clearly telling about the Pranava Veda. When Bhagwan Talk to Uddhava.BalanceRestored 03:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseless excuse for a revert
A user just reverted text at Veda giving a baseless excuse, the user did not read which books were being referred and with out significant study reverted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedas&diff=143442252&oldid=143312792. The reverted text was referring the book ""Seer of the Fifth Veda: Krsna Dvipayana Vyasa in the Mahabharat" while the editor has explained about a book that's not being referred kindly have a look at the actual book that was referred http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vedas&diff=143308794&oldid=143307699 and look at the editors explanation. I need to give the user a warning to be careful about the edits and to make edits only after a proper research.

What are the steps to give a warning
helpme if you mean warning a user on bad edits, see WP:WARN, very useful.Blacksmith2talk 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pranava Veda
A template has been added to the article Pranava Veda, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

This page really needs to be amplified, and given at least one reference. please also check that the material is not arlready in WP under some other form of the name. DGG (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DGG (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pranava Veda
http://www.vastuved.com/mayan-memorial.html

Details are too long so I've created a seperate page for the same.

[]


 * I have no information on Mayan. Indeed, when I first encountered it, I thought it was a misplaced reference to the Maya Indians of Mesoamerica. — Joe Kress 05:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War?
Do you mean that they are removing cited articles by redirecting them? That's what they've done at both articles you showed me, but it's correct. All it means is that there already is an article that covers the topic (at least in a section), so it is redirected there. That way, when someone types in or links Pranava Veda, they will be automatically redirected to Aum, because it is the same&mdash;at least partially&mdash;topic. Same with "Veda", it redirects to Vedas, presumably because it is more often used pluraly. I would suggest editing the articles to which the pages you had created were redirected; if there's anything else that should be in there, go ahead and add it: be BOLD. I hope that helps, but feel free to leave me another message if you're still have more questions, or if that wasn't what you meant in the first place. Good luck! · AndonicO Talk 09:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if Pranava Veda is redirected to Aum, could you not add a section about Pranava Veda in that article? I think that would be the best thing to do. Since you say you've been banned, you should discuss it on the talk page of that article. By the way, why can you only edit once per article? Did WP:ARBCOM say that? · AndonicO Talk 10:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe try getting some citations over the internet, so that they can read them. Try google. · AndonicO Talk 10:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The sarcasm really wasn't necessary, I'm just trying to help. Anyway, the citations are fine, but maybe you should find another two or three (unless you have them already). Then, create a user subpage, and write the article (or section, if you're planning to add it to Aum) there. After you think it's finished, move it to mainspace. Try not to make it a stub, and make sure you say why the Pravade Veda is important/notable. · AndonicO Talk 10:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help, that's what I'm here for. Good luck! · AndonicO Talk 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

More Information About Brahmarishi Mayan
Copy Pasted Material Found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BalanceRestored/Brahmarishi_Mayan

See the talk page on Mamuni Mayan. VJha 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete sourced content
This is your only warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Deletion of sourced content, as you did on Vedas is not permitted. Raise concerns about sourced content on the talk page for articles. Buddhipriya 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did make a complain about those article being a slur, I did not continue removing the same. I registered a WIKI:ANI for the same didn't I?BalanceRestored 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As the warning says, please do not delete sourced material in the future. Doing so is a form of vandalism.  If you do not agree with article content, please discuss it in a collaborative manner on the talk page for the article involved. Buddhipriya 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your update. I will surely keep that in mind. I now understand that I should not be deleting with out concluding the debate. Happy editing :)BalanceRestored 05:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your email
You wrote: ''Isn't Tirupati one of the schools for Vedas in India? The website content is peer monitored, which you can find at the footnote of the website itself. Is there a very solid reason for you quoting that the content could be wrong.'' Please see academic journal and peer review for an explanation of the terms; or consult a librarian/professor at your local university (I don't know where you are located and so can't guess what resources you have access to). I am writing this personally to you so you don't get in a controversy. I don't know what you are referring to, and would in fact prefer if we communicate through wikipedia talk pages where other editors can perhaps help answer your questions better than I can. Cheers. Abecedare 08:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please
I understand you have some clear views on some topics. However, Wikipedia is not a place for debate. We only report what can be verified in reliable sources. If the majority of sources support a claim or a particular use of word, that is what should be represented as the dominant view in an article. If there are sources that contradict that claim or term, the article can (and should) include information about this alternate view, as long as reliable sources are referenced for the claim. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 14:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Seeking a mentor may be of assistance to you.
 * How does this work... ?? I don't mind it... It will be always be great if some experienced person edits for me. BalanceRestored 07:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a request to get adopted.BalanceRestored 09:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
I would be happy to adopt you, but I want to make sure you understand what it entails...you mentioned helping you to write your articles. It sounds like what you're looking for is collaboration. Adoption is more of a coaching relationship, where I would guide you in your writing...I wouldn't be helping you do the writing. The point is to help you better learn and use the many policies and guidelines here in order to make your articles really great. For new articles you are interested in writing, I'd suggest that they be written in a sandbox, then we can discuss them and you can polish them until their ready for launch. For edits of other articles, you can either make them and I'll review them for you, or you can propose them on your sandbox, that way when you actually make them, you'll be sure that you're on solid ground. If that's the kind of think you're looking for, let me know.  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! The first thing to do is to create a sandbox space under your user page. You'll be able to use that for the work, and we can continue this conversation on the sandbox's talk page. So, first question: do you know how to create a subpage? If not, I'll walk you through it. (Oh, by the way...am I correct in assuming that you're in India? Tell me a bit about yourself!) AK Radecki Speaketh  05:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is very wise to have a you, someone who has so much of credible experience editing at wikipedia, to guide me through all the brainteasing edits those are required. If you can help me through it will be very great of you.BalanceRestored 05:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * About me I am a pure Vegetarian who love every little organism in the world. I do not love humans as much I love the animals, it is because humans are very selfish when it comes to every little intrusion caused by everything other than humans. They tend to kill everything that intrudes, they love to kill when they have millions of alternates. This tendency of human race to me is very similar to a uncontrolled viral growth that finishes of everything for no good reason. On the other hand all the other beings in the world respect humans for the power we have, our brain. Elephants, Tigers (This carnivorous animal only kills if it is hungry or is threatened. Never thinks ill about other animals, never checks the animal's race for sure. Never kills if it's stomach is full. Never kills animals for fun) bow down to us for something that we have with us that's our brain and the ability we have with us to think.
 * So with the great power "the brain" we have we have created everything we have with us. I want to bring forth to the world everything that is always right, even if the right is going to prove myself wrong. I want to show everyone in the world that every human is born equal and there's nothing called race and color. I want to show the world that GOD is one. I want to show to the world that GOD never teaches wrong, it is we who interpret it wrong for our own selfish reasons. This is what I normally think. I am trying to study all the religions texts that humans often refer to and tell that it is written or narrate by GOD. I am trying to analyze if it is really written or narrated by GOD. Again if the text is written by GOD they cannot be scientifically proven wrong at all. Only humans make blunders. GOD according to every religion is something that is 100% perfect, if GOD has said something it cannot be ever wrong. If something that is proved wrong it cannot be from GOD.BalanceRestored 06:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In short I am trying to study truth and want to write the same at wikipedia. If I learn the truth I want to share the same to everyone. I understand that wiki is not a place where I can represent my views, but from what I figure out till now, is that wise people have already interpreted the truth and they have left them around the world. My GOAL is to collect these bits and represent them. This because as per our Hindu religion everything that we can see and feel is made by Brahma, Every Human is the creation of the same (If you give birth to 10 children will you differentiate them? I am sure your answer will be NO, So one who says GOD will differentiate GOD's children I am sure are in fact one who do not believe in GOD, they are evils, they are trying to suggest that GOD is corrupt.). When all the Hindus agree to the same where does the question of race arise from? But still there are people who really insist that there is a so called race and GOD has created everyone differently to be treated differently, I am sure that GOD will never do the same. Still I am here to find out the same. BalanceRestored 06:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well this is about me. It will be a pleasure knowing about you too. I am too small a person in front of you. I will be very proud having you to guide me. BalanceRestored 09:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sri_Potuluri_Veera_Brahmendra_Swami

This article was deleted by a vandal, how to restore the same?BalanceRestored 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted by an administrator, User: Carlossuarez46, because the text was copyrighted and its presence on Wikipedia was a copyright violation. Removing help tag.

The Rhymesmith 05:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited the text personally without copy pasting, I am sure about the same. Some one else has copypasted the text. So, the copy pasted text could have been deleted, instead of deleting the entire article.

How can I restore the article back. Is there a way?BalanceRestored 05:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm rewriting the articleBalanceRestored 06:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You can not restore the article yourself, but there are ways to have it restored by others. First, talk to the adminsitrator, who deleted the article. Tell him, why he made a mistake. If he does not want to help you, you may use a Deletion review. There the deletion will be controlled by other administrators. --Thw1309 06:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Too late I've already restored the article, Now what?BalanceRestored 06:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would leave a short message on the talkpage of the article, explaining the situation of the copyright and explain this to User: Carlossuarez46, the administrator, who deleted the article, on his own talkpage, to avoid the danger of another deletion. You should especially ask him, which copyright you should have violated.--Thw1309 06:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not me who has written the copy written thing. I just saw the google cache, someone else has edited the entire article. Even my text was removed. I've left a note at User: Carlossuarez46's talk page. I've copy pasted the retrived google cache at my talk page for reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BalanceRestored/Google_Cache_Shri_Brahmendra_Swami.BalanceRestored 06:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in BR, but I think you are fine. The copyrighted text was added by User:59.92.146.199 and was taken from. I don't think you need to worry about that with the current version of the article, but you should make sure that you add citations from multiple reliable sources to establish notability of the subject as per WP:BIO. Cheers. Abecedare 07:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Important You should delete the content you copied from the google cache immediately, since that is a copyvio! Abecedare 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the text.BalanceRestored 07:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. For future reference, you should never cut-n-paste lengthy text from a generic website or book onto any page on wikipedia, be it an article, an article talk page, user page or subpage since that will in general violate copyright laws. It is better to simply provide links to content or short quotes (say, a sentence or two). Happy editing. Abecedare 07:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be careful, I will copy paste them at my computer for archiving and referencing. I checked the law you are right about the same.BalanceRestored 07:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Swami
A deletion for copyvio is always and obviously without prejudice to re-creation of non-copyvio article. It's not a notability issue which has a connotation that if someone's article doesn't show notability, it's likely a re-creation won't either. Carlossuarez46 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied regarding this issue at Carlossuarez46's talk page. BalanceRestored 07:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you are watching it. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 18:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Vedas
Please don't edit war or revert war over Vedas. Try resolving the issue on the talk page. If an agreement cannot be reached, please seek assistance to settle the conflict. Thanks! Vassyana 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)