User talk:BalanceRestored: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:42, 4 August 2007

Archives

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

.


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #32

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.

If the words are from GOD, they will never be false, they can never be challenged

""When inner space and outer space resonate together in harmony then peacefulness, vitality, health, prosperity and dynamic, ecstatic creativity become the natural order and effortless experience" -Brahmarishi Mayan, circa 10,500 BC "

Sarveśāṃ cādhikāro vidyāyāṃ ca śreyah: kevalayā vidyāyā veti siddhaṃ

"It has been established that everyone has the right to the knowledge (of Brahman) and that the supreme goal is attained by that knowledge alone."

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)[reply]

I've replied regarding this issue at Carlossuarez46's talk page. [1]BalanceRestored 07:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are watching it. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 18:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Venue shopping and other issues

Please do not "venue shop". That is, if you do not receive a response that you seek at one place, do not continually raise the issue elsewhere on Wikipedia. Also, I would ask that you take more care in following the restrictions you agreed to upon your unblocking. It only provides ammunition to those that you are involved in content disputes with. If you cannot convince people on an article talk page, you can raise the issue at relevant WikiProjects. Do not repeat the issue in full at the WikiProject. Just state very simply what the issue is and for another set of eyes (such as "We disagree about the numbering of the Vedas at Vedas. Could someone have a look?"). If the disagreement still cannot be settled, please seek assistance through the dispute resolution process. Venue shopping and continuing to push the issue can be considered disruptive and edit warring. I am being lenient currently, because I believe discouraging negative behaviour and encouraging people towards finding agreement is most appropriate. However, if people do not stop breaking the rules (including you), I will impose blocks to prevent the offending behaviour. Thanks for understanding. If you have any questions, please ask. Vassyana 12:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the world was only for the strong. I did not know only people who where more in numbers did tell the truth. I wrote what was cited. I studied for the same. I am sure my ansistors got the Vedas right and also taught it right. Hinduism is not corrupt, there is nothing called as caste and color from what I know, Krishna was dark yet he is our LORD. GOD has already set examples. Some people are making Hinduism look stupid. If things are defaced, what you all are seeing, it is because of some. Anyway the roots are strong... Very very very very strong. Things will automatically get rectified. Bye friends there's something I read some days before and I am after it. I am not going to edit for a very long time and even if I get things I will keep it for myself and only teach it to the ones who deserve it. I am sure that will make you all feel happy.BalanceRestored 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, BR, Wikipedia is not for your teachings. But you have many many other possibilities to present them on the internet if you like. You can open your own blog any time, and write there whatever you want, for anyone to read. I am sure this will be the better solution for everyone. dab (𒁳) 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can surely make a blog but there won't be anyone to counter question me. :). That's only possible at wiki. Not everything I think is going to be right!!!!.. Anyway I've surely created a blog. http://balancerestored.blogspot.com/ I will surely write everything I understand here.BalanceRestored 08:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hello there BalanceRestored!

It seems that you wanted to be adopted. I can adopt you if you still wanted to be adopted. --H irohisat ^Talk 21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you're still interested. you can put {{adoptee|Hirohisat}} on your user page if you'd like to.--H irohisat ^Talk 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohisat, I've added the {{adoptee|Hirohisat}} as you said.

Anyways, let's get started. Your first task is to read the 5 pillars if you didn't do so yet. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will start reading that... I've glanced most of it. Still, I will get a look at every sections and have that in my mind.BalanceRestored 05:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've loved this one the most.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means

Why don't you query me with a issue and test if I am getting it (5 Pillars) right... I think I am now old enough to understand what is right and what is wrong. Again it is a matter of using the policies and living by it. BalanceRestored 05:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, How about "In what cases do WP:IAR apply?" --H irohisat ^Talk 05:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's real tough, wait I will think over that for next 2 hours. If I don't get it I will ask you about the same. BalanceRestored 05:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/Stemula is where it's being used.BalanceRestored 05:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the first sentence "The "snowball clause" is an interpretation of the Ignore all rules policy that stems from the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the desire that editors exercise common sense. The snowball clause states:" WP:SNOW BalanceRestored 06:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have got the right idea. One of the reasons Stemula was deleted was indeed IAR. In cases where most people vote against (or in favour of), it is assumed that it is the concensus. Rather than waiting until the discussion is closed, it is more effective and fast.--H irohisat ^Talk 06:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this. Most meaning almost everyone. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be back on tommorow. On the right-side top corner of my user page is where I have my status. If it says "Online", I will be on. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cool thing you have at your page. I will also use the same to show my online status. BalanceRestored 07:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your blog going. It was pretty interesting to read, since I was sort of interested in Hinduism mainly because I'm a buddhist. Anyhow, please leave comments on the 5 pillars below.

1.Wikipedia is a encyclopedia

Yes encyclopedia, is a book that contains all information about a subject, all I mean all. Hitler was a Good as well as a Bad man. BalanceRestored is a good as well as a bad person. So, every information about a subject needs to be mentioned. This is what I think is an encyclopedia. Again, I understand it not a place to present personal views. Personal views should be presented in a separate book authored by BalanceRestored. But, it should be a place where all the controversially discussed topics should also be mentioned!!!! isn't it.?? We will go one by one, if you do not. I am living in India I am free to talk and discuss everything, isnt it? From what I noticed, Wikipedia does not seem to follow democracy.BalanceRestored 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you got to the point of democracy. Actually, wikipedia isn't a democracy. Many users objected to that before , but the official wikipedia answer to that is "private property (wikipedia) is not covered by the United States constitution." Take a look here. I agree with you that controversal topics should all be stated if it can be properly cited. Wikipedia has a policy "Verifability over truth". We are to put things that can be verified, so it's not always the whole truth. That kind of get's us against our nature to say the truth, but since we're trying to build a reliable encyclopedia, we unfortunatly have to sacrifice that part. I'm sorry that I was busy today that I couldn't help at ANI. --H irohisat ^Talk 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean wikipedia does not follow a logic and arrives at the right (Truth) and this happens with everyones concent, am I right? I wrote something logical at talk veda. That "veda" means "knowledge" and there cannot be only 4 divisions to knowledge. Now if there are other who are hard and fast at only 4 divisions to knowledge how do we go about?BalanceRestored 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact goes like this, Vyasa wrote four different subtypes of knowledge that he understood, now that does not make the entire knowledge on the earth only 4, am I correct? what if there seems lot of knowledge left out of the main 1st level branch?BalanceRestored 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Vyasa took many many births to write the 4 divisions, he could be taking many more births to write many classifications. Why do we stop at a time that is 5000 BC.???? He could be taking a birth even tomorrow and write a newer classification? BalanceRestored 07:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you something clear. I am having a logic in my mind and I write at wikipedia around that logic. I know that is selfish, but I do try and find articles around my logic and go round and research for the same. After I intercept the research article around the topic I've found I quote them. I think everyone at wikipedia is doing the same. I like to be clear and straight about this. What I do is it right? I don't like to tell you liesBalanceRestored 10:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know too much about Hinduism, but I can say that if Vyasa is missing some parts, be bold and add more content if nessesary. If you believe it is right from a neutral point of view, it usually won't get deleted. --H irohisat ^Talk 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.Neutral Point of view

It's written A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Now this is a very tough thing to tackle. I do have problem with the Veda, If I write there is 1 Veda and 4 subdivisions which is universally accepted and true I am not being let to write the same. People want 4 Vedas out there as thats been a 5000 year old debate that exists between the Vishvakarmas and the other Pandit sect. That's spreading the wrong Hinduism.

No.1 The term Veda in Sanskrit means "knowledge".
Some people want to divide the term knowledge into only 4 section and be only upto the same.
Vishvakarmas for the last 5000 years have been telling that we respect the 4 divisions as well as the complete knowledge "OM or Pranava Veda" as that becomes an error-free preposition.
I've shown all the documentation that I could. I quoted reference from the Bhagwata Purana. That said that all the knowledge in contained inside "OM (which is a veda)". So, we follow the four divisions plus the 5th the complete knowledge to make the issue 100%.
Still a community of editors are lobbying against me, and keep the chapter about Veda with Big Loopholes. They stubbed the main Veda (Pranava Veda) it self as they never heard about the same.
I will be more blunt, Some people have even tried to destroy evidences about the Pranava Veda. There are chapters about the same at Skanda Purana that's kept at Madras Oriental Manuscripts Library, but it is been destroyed at certain places. People have become evil to this extent.

Now, this is all the issue about. It is not easy to edit at Veda. I sometime keep thinking of letting the blunders be as it is, I know the truth, I will keep the same with me. Why go and share that with people who don't want the same. Let the future learn the wrong Veda. Why should I keep trying so much. Hinduism is perfect, where ever you see logical blunders you will also see things manipulated about the same to give undue advantage to certain class. We Vishwakarmas who have probably tried to keep on on on on on with this are almost destroyed. There's hardly 1-2 families now around my personal circle I know are still following the Brahmin culture. The only thing left, all the families wear the sacred thread and take it off the next day at certain festivals. Best of luck to you all who want to write what you want. But, remember GOD is seeing everything. For people knowing to read Hindi [2]

Yes, I agree with the idea that god is seeing everything. My parents said that from when I was little. However, we shouldn't bring up that in discussions other than this. Also, when dealing with those discussions, stay civil. Usually hot headed users are often lightly taken and is not respected as much. For more on that, take a look here --H irohisat ^Talk 07:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3.Wikipedia is a free content

The text I reproduce will be used and modified by anyone and anywhere. There will be no issues for copy pasting text from wikipedia, this is in short what I understand by free content.BalanceRestored 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4.Wikipedia has a code of conduct

Your comment here

5.Wikipedia does not have firm rules

I've read about the knocking of the rules if the logic is clearly apparent.BalanceRestored 08:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're totally right. We're building a encyclopedia, so rules that get in the way can be done with that reason if nessesary.

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 ::Yes, I agree with the idea that god is seeing everything. My parents said that from when I was little. However, we shouldn't bring up that in discussions other than this. Also, when dealing with those discussions, stay civil. Usually hot headed users are often lightly taken and is not respected as much. For more on that, take a look [[WP:CIV|here]] --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]][[User:Hirohisat|<font color="blue" face="Times new roman" size="3">irohisat</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Hirohisat|<font color="orange" face="Times new roman">Talk</font>]]</sup> 07:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 :3.'''[[WP:C|Wikipedia is a free content]]'''
+::The text I reproduce will be used and modified by anyone and anywhere. There will be no issues for copy pasting text from wikipedia, this is in short what I understand by free content.[[User:BalanceRestored|BalanceRestored]] 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-::Your comment here
 :4.'''[[WP:EQ|Wikipedia has a code of conduct]]'''
 ::'''Your comment here