User talk:Moabalan

Response to questions
Well, I understand your concerns, and I see that you're new to Wikipedia. However, I do have a few reasons as to why I deleted it.

While it may not have been an advertisement, the way it's written and presented could certainly be interpreted as such. Also, a big, long, exhaustive description of a book is not the best way to integrate the information into the article. It doesn't add much in the way of encyclopedic value. If you can figure out a way to incorporate that into the main article, then I believe the information would be alright. Just don't give a straight description of the book. At the same time, however, I'm not sure that extensive hiking information is appropriate to Wikipedia. It's generally not what's considered appropriate to be placed in an encyclopedia; it's more tourist information. I did decide to re-insert the name of the book into the references, but the exhaustive description of the book is not needed and doesn't add much in the way of encyclopedic value to the article.

''One of the most useful things an article can do is to tell me where I can go to get better, longer treatment of the subject. Does Wikipedia have any specific policy on commenting on the content and value of the references we give? The bias appears to be against it, or is it just that people tend not to do it? Thanks.''

Sorry about my interpretation skills here, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Can you clarify?

Also, I don't know how the text didn't end up correctly. It has something to do with indentations, but I don't know how it ends up that way. I fixed it by removing the indents.

And P.S., you can sign your name on comments with four tildes. bob rulz 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Mahavatar Babaji
Re: "so we must rely on lore" is not an encyclopedic addition. "SRF Website, "Babaji," page 1" is not a reference. Hence reverted. Materialscientist (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist, If we lack scientific evidence, lack historical evidence, lack photos, and the only sources are stories circulating among believers, what are these stories if not "lore." Stated another way, why is it "unencyclopedic" to point out that available information about Babaji comes from oral tradition and first-person unverifiable account, some of which have now been written down in detail? What is oral tradition and unverifiable account if not lore?Moabalan (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)