Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:52, 7 July 2007

Archives

/Archives/2007/June

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #219

Follow the GOD's word unchanged. It is not right to change that. GOD knows why he wrote things. Have faith in him.

Patience is the companion of wisdom.

Voting

I just found a link to this page http://meta.wikimedia.org/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. Miranda 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Please do not add your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Vishwabrahmin. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages'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 {{helpme}} 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/search/?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)

5 Vedas

This is with regards to the following revert edits done at Veda http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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/search/?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.

I am looking for help! Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse. Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Misplaced Pages's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Misplaced Pages-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry. Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

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)

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 {{unblock|your reason for requesting an unblock here}} on your talk page. Vassyana 08:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedians looking for help