User talk:BalanceRestored
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 2006

This is your last warning.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Vedas for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not use talk pages to promote views or engage in debates. Again, please limit your posts to allow time for people to consider your statements and reply. Also, please leave decided topics alone, once it is clear what the consensus is on the issue. If you strongly disagree with the positions of others, please do not continue to argue the issue, but rather seek dispute resolution. If you continue with your current approach, you may be blocked to prevent the disruption and distraction. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana 07:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, what else I can say. I better shut my self. But, this is not right. I was only discussing Dab's comments. How do I decide when to raise a DR, and when not to I thought Dab was only questioning? How do I really decide if it is a normal comment or he is arguing?. Suddenly Dab types nonsense with out even finding facts, and all rush to help him. BalanceRestored 07:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- These people are desperately trying to keep me away from Veda. But, this is not research or getting to know facts. This is just bullying. I was presuming that Dab was counter questioning me, and there's nothing to be getting annoyed about that. I presented quotations from a very well known book. There were acquisitions that the source was false. I presented the details from the same. Leave it.. Now what do I do?BalanceRestored 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I had already left details at my mentor talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hirohisat. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hirohisat&diff=152862890&oldid=152862128 BalanceRestored 07:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- And DAB uses a very foul language, persistently, is that right? Did I not talk to you about that already?BalanceRestored 07:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, am I going too fast? But, I find everyone doing the same. I like to research Veda. I love that subject. So, I am only around it.BalanceRestored 07:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Again, VS, I don't really like to be complaining any where about anyone. We are all here finding facts, and understand what life is about. I am sure DAB too is a good person. Just that he loves to keep track of my findings. :)) BalanceRestored 08:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, Balance, I really understand you're into Vedas, but the point is, don't ever think of warning anyone, or otherwise assume good faith. Neither of you are making a mistake. It's just that both of you are trying to argue. If you still have doubts contact me. --Hirohisat Talk 08:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am sure DAB has did not read everything, he presumed that I wrote wrong keeping in mind what I did previously. He forgets that I could have probably corrected my methods. BalanceRestored 09:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying best to correct my earlier mistakes, lets see. The world did not change in a day. :)BalanceRestored 09:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- And DAB uses a very foul language, persistently, is that right? Did I not talk to you about that already?BalanceRestored 07:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I had already left details at my mentor talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hirohisat. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hirohisat&diff=152862890&oldid=152862128 BalanceRestored 07:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- These people are desperately trying to keep me away from Veda. But, this is not research or getting to know facts. This is just bullying. I was presuming that Dab was counter questioning me, and there's nothing to be getting annoyed about that. I presented quotations from a very well known book. There were acquisitions that the source was false. I presented the details from the same. Leave it.. Now what do I do?BalanceRestored 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Where exactly is this happening? --Hirohisat Talk 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you back?
↑ --Hirohisat Kiwi 05:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. If I quit, it is not wise. BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going though all the policies. BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Soapboxing at Talk:Vedas
Please don't resume spamming Talk:Vedas with irrelevant polemics or using it as a soapbox, (as you did here) for which you have been warned multiple times by multiple editors. If you have some relevant content to propose for the page and have a reliable reference for the purpose (and no, webpages for tirupati etc. do not qualify as you have been told before), you are welcome to do so, but be aware that on wikipedia references are judged based on their relevance and reliability (as per WP:RS) and not on the religion/nationality/race/ethnicity of their authors. Abecedare 06:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I presented a very clear view. I seem to voilate non below
- Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]
- Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
- Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
- Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability.BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I quoted a very plain view "No-India Seers?", I followed WP:BOLD and I think you need to WP:AGF. I understand you are surely taking things negatively. Cheers :))BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Balance, sorry to bother you, but as your ex-adopter, I would like to comment. One, Abecedare did not violate AGF. He is actually citing a very important policy of wikipedia, WP:NOT. Even though you believe (and I agree with you on that viewpoint) that there should be a Indian view. However, Wikipedia is not a place to express different viewpoints based on your opinion. Even though I myself would like to add on some Japanese viewpoints on WW2, I do not add it since it is a POV. Your comment that Abecedare cited was not constructive at all, and only, and merely critised Wikipedia. Bring alternatives, and discuss; not only critisize. Explain why you think there needs to be Indian citations (again, agree with your point). Please remember, western citations are not always wrong. You can put information that follows NPOV, whether western or not. What Abecedare is indirectly trying to say is to be constructive. WP:BOLD is meant for construtive edits. Your comment, although tagged as spam, could be thought as a constructive discussion if it contains alternatives and less criticisms that would benefit the wiki. Please remember that this is just my point of view of the event. You have your opinion, and this is merely a suggestion. --Hirohisat Kiwi 08:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I can understand User:Abecedare being appropriate about his quoting. I cut short my long spammy looking message. I need to learn to be use a bit easy to handle language. Thank you for your comments. BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism at Ganesha
If you repeat your vandalism and deletion of sourced content at Ganesha I will request an admin block or wider community sanctions against you. You have been warned umpteen times, so please desist. Abecedare 10:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I am collecting a list of books that clearly quotes that Ganesha's name is there is the Veda. The Orthodox communities have performed poojas like Panchayatana from the time of Adi Shankara. I think you need to practice more WP:AGF, Cheers. These text currently at Ganesha is against the common faith. I have seen you wanted to post article related to prostitution at Mumbai. Well, I too am WP:AGF. I've not re-reverted your change yet nor have violated WP:3RR or WP:Civil. What made you so eager to call my revert as Vandalism?.
- I've offered explanation for my changes at the Talk:Ganesha page. You have warned me before you explained and you are yet to give any explanations?BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The section the names of Ganesha is from Veda has WP:NOPOV problems. There are lot of views against it. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- BR, you are now experienced enough on wikipedia to know why it is unacceptable to delete long-standing, well written content with unimpeachable references without discussion, based on purported claims of having "1000s of sources." Abecedare 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
You are blocked for 31 hours. Many people have taken much time and patience to explain sourcing, balanced presentation, consensus and other aspects of Wikipedia culture and rules to you. I believe you are trying to contribute in good faith, but your editing practices are often disruptive and tiresome for many editors. Please take this time to reconsider your actions and behaviour. I believe you could be a wonderful contributor, but you need to respect consensus and follow the rules. Vassyana 10:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I do assume good faith WP:AGF. I offered an explanation at the talk page before I edited a content keeping in mind WP:BOLD. I won't challenge your block as always but it will be great if you offer me a better explanation "often disruptive and tiresome for many editors". Was my current action INVALID? I did not re-revert. I did what everyone else here is doing!!! Just that after learning, I am sure everyone starts fresh with a new ID, and I have sustained with the same. I've the GUTS to take comments and even to practice the right. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I tried everything inline with the policy, didn't I?BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article itself is well sourced mentioning the detailed information from Yajur Veda. I pushed the section up. The article it self is clearly mentioning that the Deity Ganesha is taken from Yajur Veda.
- Also I was re-editing few sections back. Should I've been not given time to edit completely? AB reverted my edit before I completed editing entirely. BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- (cur) (last) 10:00, 14 September 2007 BalanceRestored (Talk | contribs) (70,080 bytes) (→Vedic and epic literature - kindly create a seperate article for these Ganesha allegory, Hindu allegory) (undo)
- (cur) (last) 10:03, 14 September 2007 Abecedare (Talk | contribs) (74,710 bytes) (revert vandalism by User:BalanceRestored) (undo)
- I have a habit of editing in parts. You can check my editing style from my Contributions. I do not know if there was a policy even for that. I needed to comment on every section of edit with reasons. I think I needed to be given more time before reverting.BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- This reason from AB, is very very wrong, Finally and worst of all, he simply deleted two well written (copyedited by two editors from WP:LOCE!) and extensively referenced passages from the article itself with edit summary "kindly create a seperate article for these Ganesha allegory, Hindu allegory". I dare say he does not understand the meaning of the word allegory which makes no sense in this context, but is repeating it only because User:Dbachman used it in a discussion with him a day back. I was half way editing and adjusting things, before I found the article already reverted. I will next time practice quoting "- still editing" suffix at the comments. I hope it clears this problem too.
- Also I was re-editing few sections back. Should I've been not given time to edit completely? AB reverted my edit before I completed editing entirely. BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article itself is well sourced mentioning the detailed information from Yajur Veda. I pushed the section up. The article it self is clearly mentioning that the Deity Ganesha is taken from Yajur Veda.
- I tried everything inline with the policy, didn't I?BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
About Ganesha edit
1. The current section starts with "Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Vedas."
2. But this next section which was already well sourced was contradicting facts!!!
3. The section which clearly said that and was referred by AB to refer, only after reading I considered deleting the stuff. Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) [1] and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1),[2] appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification.[3]
these lines clearly explains that Lord Ganesha is found in the Vedas. The section was controvertial. BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
See this next line "Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions."[4]. How can one arrive at inferences at a consideration and write such lines "Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Vedas.". The section was wrong, I corrected the same.
SO, I edited the invalid part. Now, what did I do wrong. It was 100% clear that the section is wrongly addressing facts. Did I do anything wrong?
You are right about "Many people have taken much time and patience to explain sourcing, balanced presentation, consensus and other aspects of Wikipedia culture and rules to you.". But, I thought it was but obvious, I needed to explain you what happened. I still WP:AGF, and consider that you had good reasons to block me. I will find my own mistakes here.
To end it for the day, Editors kindly have a look at the article for everything. I think everything should be well justified. I don't find any pleasure in disturbing people.





