User talk:BalanceRestored

.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #130

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."

Adoption

Hello there BalanceRestored!

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

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

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. --Hirohisat ^Talk 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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:SNOWBalanceRestored 06:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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.--Hirohisat ^Talk 06:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this. Most meaning almost everyone. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. --Hirohisat ^Talk 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Hirohisat ^Talk 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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 [1]

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 --Hirohisat ^Talk 07:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

That's basically it. --Hirohisat ^Talk 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

4.Wikipedia has a code of conduct

It says "Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia."

I've some principles for myself.

• Never underestimate anyone.
• Never speak a word ill about anyone.
• Never hurt anyone.
• If I hurt anyone unknowingly do apologize for the same.
• If some one is trying to hurt me, try to defend myself as strongly as possible and forgive the person who tried to hurt. The goal of a wise person should be only to change a bad human to good.

I think the code of conduct is the same here. I do understand that I am talking to everyone around the world when I am at wikipedia. I do read many religions texts and am trying to find what GOD has said at different parts of the world. I do love each and every creation of GOD, and who knows, when and where GOD may appear in front of me and advice me. So, better respect the smallest of advice from every person and analyze the same.BalanceRestored 06:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You understand this one well. --Hirohisat ^Talk 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

Excuse me for interjecting, but Wikipedia does have certain policies that must be followed by all contributors. Examples of non-negotiable policies include WP:V and WP:OR. The inappropriate citation of WP:IAR rarely results in any resolution of conflict, and in most cases escalates it, since ultimately these fundamental content policies must be complied with. I hope that some additional discussion on the need to comply with policies rather than ignoring them will take place. Buddhipriya 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. As Buddhipriya said, we try to not ignore the rules as much as possible. WP:V and WP:OR is are un-negotiable, as Buddhipriya mentioned. --Hirohisat ^Talk 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Buddhipriya, I also appologize for the initial mistakes I did make, with out knowing the actual principles of editing at wikipedia. BalanceRestored 06:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:Dab

Okay, about Dab. I suggest you should not do anything about it. He's not assuming bad faith or anything, it's that you two are having a argument over the classification. Stay calm, and discuss, not a argue. That will lead to a more better understanding of the policies, and the problem you're having. I hope that didn't offend you. Happy editing! --Hirohisat ^Talk 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NO, go ahead. I am not assuming bad faith etc about DAB, now there are list of discussions where the discussion went for a toss, when other editors did not have sufficient answers to my queries they simply misguided the discussions. Again, is it a principle to answer diplomatically when it is very apparent that the other editors are clearly biased. I don't like talking lies I am this way. And I don't think I need to change, because I do not mind to say sorry if I went wrong. I think this is a open world isnt it, talking diplomatically will many time suppress the truth and make the mistakes open. Also there is an occasion when DAB clearly talked about "I Know the drills", so what drill does DAB talk about?, why do you need such drills when you are talking the truth?BalanceRestored 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=145501586 "I know the drills"BalanceRestored 05:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I never quoted ill about any castes, or religion. I strictly said things otherwise and have so far tried to respect every one on the earth. BalanceRestored 05:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am 100% sure that there isn't a line in the Vedas that talks about Caste and Religion. It is ment for humanity. If the base of Hinduism is Vedas, Gita, Ramayana, take my word, the LORD has always said against the Castes and Differentiating people on the basis of birth. But, still some on the name of Religion, poison things. BalanceRestored 05:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple occasions where the LORD has clearly given examples that people are perpetrating the wrong examples of Brahmanism. But still, people want to persist against the teachings, and want to persist on what they want to do. But, doing them on the name of religion is what creates the problem.BalanceRestored 05:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as I said before, stay civil. This is the point: Wikipedia is not a place for you to argue against what other wikipedians have said, unless it's a obvious personal attack or vandalism. This is getting to be a dispute, and that doesn't sound peaceful. Dab is not trying to rip up wikipedia, as I said before. Some of his wording could be incorrect or misleading, but stay civil. Calm down, and don't get mad even if other editors mistook your answers. Tell them what you really meant, and if they still don't get it, forget about it. We really don't want to get it in to a hot discussion. Hope you don't get offended by this. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you to not say words like LORD or GOD on wikipedia so often. I know a user who continuesly did that, and got himself in a very hot dispute, and eventually blocked temporarily. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am having a smiling face even now, But the truth is truth, India has a bad history of wrong teachings man. What I've written is cited, I love my LORD and don't have a problem taking his name unless I am talking about what he has cited 100%. Hey, die if you have to die. We all are here to die one day. But, I would like to die trying good things. 100's die in an accident everyday, but we do remember some who died a great death. I don't know where I will be in after my death, but again if at all there is a life after the death I do not have to regret about the same. Don't worry about blocks my friend. No one can block me for taking the GODs name for sure. If there such a rule, I would like to be blocked a million times :)BalanceRestored 06:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Look my friends, I really don't know if there is a 5th veda or not, I've never seen the same. But, certainly I've seen citations about the same. Now, I too like to do not believe about the 5 Veda or the complete Veda, But trying to close doors for every conversations is like people want to see the world the way they want to see it. That's bad. That's not research. BalanceRestored 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot get a true result out of a experiment unless you keep all the doors and windows of your brains open. BalanceRestored 06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In a debate, you cannot have 100% of the discussions towards your side. There are fine results out of every debate. What if I too start seeing the world from your side of the plane??? How would truth come out if there are any???BalanceRestored 06:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've a habit of going against the flow, well I know I could go wrong about a debate too. I do accept my mistakes friends don't worry. I will surely not agree to a conversation if the debate is closed fruitlessly. I am not offended by any one. I hope everyone else too takes me the same way and not try any stupid drills.BalanceRestored 06:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. You've seem to have understand what I meant. You can go on with the 5th Veda discussion, but remain civil. If it doesn't seem to have a end, forget about it. It's not worth fighting too long. Well, it doesn't mean that I don't like hinduism. It's that this is just a online encyclopedia. Nothing so hard, and too serious. You can talk about the 5th veda anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to be on wikipedia. I hope you understand what I mean. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Certainly I can have a encyclopedia of my own. The source code is freely available. But, my friend, this is something else. Wiki is a open place, not allowing to quote what I believe in, is also like putting a stamp on my face and telling me, I am believing in false. So, how does that justify me? So, what I am being taught is it all lie?BalanceRestored 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There could be 80 lakh people in India who believe in 4 Vedas. But there are 40 lakh people in India who say that, the Veda is only 1. What you see are only divisions of Veda. Is wikipedia about ignoring 40 lakh people who are less in strength, even if things are cited?BalanceRestored 06:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is wiki a place where we exercise strength?BalanceRestored 06:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, put both 4 Vedas and 1 veda. Just say that some people think this, and others think another way. Also, wiki is actually not a place to put what you believe in. That will be WP:SOAP. Do that in your blog, and we'll have no problems with it. Also, what did you mean by "exercise strength"? --Hirohisat ^Talk 07:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

At wikipedia is the following true?

• I've seen at places we accept articles by Votes. What to do if a group of editors with similar views vote against the facts and lobby around what they want? Then at such cases the fact is dumped and wrong belief wins. So this is what I mean by exercising strength. See Totalitarianism dictatorship

Is there any thing to counter such things at wiki?BalanceRestored 07:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I asking for too much :))BalanceRestored 07:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm your adopter anyways. Feel free to ask anytime. Well, wikipedia is not a democracy. I'll get to the point of voting after you finish commenting on the 4th pillar of wikipedia. About the lobbying, if it's becoming a clear, obvious problem, go toWP:M or WP:ANI, and try to get it resoluted there. If it's a problem that can't be solved there, as a last resort go to WP:AC and file a arbitration. However, since you're a adoptee at the moment, consult me first before reporting to WP:M, WP:ANI, and WP:AC. --Hirohisat ^Talk 08:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There's the most important question, Where should I stop and ask you? Where am I free to do things on my own? If I ask you at every step, I am sure I am troubling you. I would like to make life easier for you and learn things from you giving the least of trouble.BalanceRestored 08:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks a lot, I know in Buddhism, one is taught tolerance the most. N, that's why I do respect you people for the same.BalanceRestored 08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no ask me anytime. One way, a way I always have done, is that before we're confident enough to not make trouble, watch and review every singe edit we make, and see if it's misleading, disrespectful, or otherwise or not. That usually won't get you in trouble =). --Hirohisat ^Talk 08:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way I'm going to sleep now. Good night! --Hirohisat ^Talk 08:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you give him a warning now, he'll be sure to mistake it. After you had all the conflict with him, and you give him a warning, some people might take it as that you're giving the warning to him because you're biased against him. I would rather tell him what he said to you (such as the ones you listed on my talk page), and see what he meant by that. If he apologizes, that should be the end of that.--Hirohisat ^Talk 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally is giving a warning necessary, if editors uses such languages to lighten or disparage edits from other editors. Again, using such wordings allowed?BalanceRestored 05:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is hard to understand. We try to not have people use words, but creating a conflict with that will make things tougher. Rather than giving him a warning, try ask him what he meant by those words. If he still doesn't give a satisfying answer, ask him for clarification. The main thing is keep calm and civil. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally, a kid overdoes a problem as the kid does not understand what being said. The guide (parent, teacher, experienced editors at wikipedia) needs to explain certain things multiple times. Some kids can be real bad.. :). Or, again may editors you are too specific in explaining things to newcomers that they hardly make a meaning out of the problem. Like, I was told by DAB, refer muller.. I understood that Muller has written good books on Hinduism, but again he forgets to understand that I am not from the background he belongs to. There will be millions of such editors. So, at such occasions the editors need to be specfic. Again, after finding the editor from a non background but still insisting to understand the topic, becomes the duty of the experienced editors to explain the topic. The same is happening with DAB and me. But, talking all those words to me are improper. If I start talking on the subject I am well verse with and treat DAB with the same narrations, it's me who will be at the bad end. BalanceRestored 06:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it is irritating to explain things all again, but isn't it DAB's duty as he has edited many things without citations???. Again Muller written so many books, which one is DAB actually talking about, how do I get to the same? Also, not all editors will have access to the book with DAB has read. Why not write a little in details and avoid being questioned?? BalanceRestored 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is the hard part of verifying. Usually, if it's a book, it has a ISBN. That should get the book out on one of the search engines. We really don't know if they actually took it from the book, but we have to believe in them. Also, Dab is a pretty experienced editor. He has been editing from a year ago and has over 45000 edits. It is unfortunate that some of our writing is unsourced, though. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've written the following at Talk:Vedas

I think it is important for editors to kindly quote the complete narrations the current Western, Indian authors have drawn inference from as new and inexperienced editors like me these do not make any sense. Many of us do not have access to the books. Veda is again, the root of Hinduism and it is understood that we may take certain things personally.

When quoting about veda I think the following 2 things are important.

1. The brief as-it-is wordings from the current authors.
2. This should accompany details about how the authors arrived to the conclusions. This is mainly by referring the Orignal Sanskrit/Brahmi/Tamil/Or Any other IMP indian language texts.

Currently the citations are such that they cannot be understood. These are already explained at WP:V and WP:OR "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.".

Let me know if I am going right, next I am going to start plucking each and every line that's not clear for me and ask to quote details for the same. BalanceRestored 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are going the right way. Wait for comments on the talk page and engage in discussion. Gotta go sleep now. Good night! --Hirohisat ^Talk 07:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't worry, I will go real slow. Thanks. Have real sweet dreams. BalanceRestored 08:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This DAB my great friend at Veda is persistantly writing "confirmative statements" at Veda. I've giving him a huge text of explanations. Still he fails to understand that he cannot write confirmative statements on the basis of theories. Still he insists on the same. BalanceRestored 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about you say "I don't have the book right now"? --Hirohisat ^Talk 17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Adoption Assignment #2

Okay, since you finished your 1st assignment pretty sucessfully, here's the second assignment...We will be doing vandal fighting!

I want you to go to the following page User:BalanceRestored/monobook.js. Add the script below.

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]]

importScript('User:Lupin/popups.js');

This one's a real wonderful tool. BalanceRestored 08:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Save the page and then delete your cache. Now when you highlight an internal link it will popup. This makes vandal fighting easier. Then I want you to read WP:WARN, WP:REVERT, WP:VAND & WP:CANVAS.

Afterwards, follow these directions.

1. Click the "Recent changes."
2. This will provide you with a list of recent edits to wikipedia. To update the list click the "go" button at the top of the page.
3. I want you to hold your mouse over the "(diff)" button next to an edit. This will show you what changed. Applying what you learned at WP:VAND, I want you to identify vandalism.
4. If you identify vandalism click the "(hist)" button beside the change that is vandalism.
5. You will be brought to a list of the edits to the article that was vandalised.
6. Now I want you to move over the date of the last edit that was not vandalism. A little popup of the previous version of the article will appear.
7. While still on the popup click the "rv" button. That will revert the vandalism to the last legit version.
8. Now go back to the history of the page, by clicking the history button at the top of the page.
9. Then click the user talk of the vandal, as shown on WP:WARN.

--Hirohisat ^Talk 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here it goes too many outward (external) links here Dahab.. they are ADs-to-click infact and not genuine informations. So, looks like vandals around. BalanceRestored 07:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted that edit, and warned the user also. Kindly have a look. ALso there are other links that too need to be corrected. BalanceRestored 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. Try revert at least 5 times a day. Keep discussing, article editing, and vandal revert for the next few days. --Hirohisat ^Talk 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response

I've responded on my talk page, in case it's not in your watchlist. Cheers! Vassyana 07:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Help

Hi BalanceRestored,

Um....so I'm around I guess. --Hirohisat ^Talk 08:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well there was an error at Vedas, the citations and article content appeared different. I tried to correct the same. But, it was reverted. So, I just posted the query at Wikipedia:Reference desk/LanguageBalanceRestored 08:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe it can still be used. Orthodox Indian theologian does match with Orthodox Hindu interpertation, for me. The reason is that they're both orthodox, and my understanding is that most indians are Hindus? --Hirohisat ^Talk 01:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dating the Vedas

I have posted answers to your questions on Talk:Rgdeva so that others should also read them. You rephrased one question after I posted my answers. The answer about this question about recensions will be posted later on Talk:Rgveda . I do not wish to argue with DAB because he has a dogmatic and authoritarian mindset. If you find my answers unconvincing, please let me know. I have also referred to my own research, but whatever I have stated there is based upon facts and sources and I have not even mentioned the findings of my own research. I have no intention to fight for recognition of truth. Satyameva Jayate has been wrongly translated as Let Truth prevail. But Truth does not need the permission of false people to prevail upon them, head to toe. Sincerely, -Vinay Jha 10:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Can thoughtful lengthy discussions about a topic take place at wiki talk pages

{{helpme}} An editor DAB keeps doing the following http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rigveda&diff=next&oldid=150571235, is he doing the correct?BalanceRestored 10:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes in most cases he is. It is only being removed as talk pages are not like 'forums' where you can express your opinion. It is for professional discussion about the article only. — E ^talk_bots 10:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On a talk page of any article, no question should be addressed to any individual by name, and if possible individuals should not be named anywhere in your message, otherwise even professional discussion about the article will be deemed to be private gossip. -Vinay Jha 20:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Co-Adoption

Hey there BalanceRestored. Hirohisat is going to be out of town for awhile so he asked my to co-adopt you feel free to add {{adoptee|The Random Editor}}. I will be in touch soon. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's nice that you have co-adopted me.BalanceRestored 11:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please instantly see on Talk:Rgveda  : Dating the Rgveda : Suggestions -Vinay Jha 21:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind informing up to where Hirohisat, my former pupil, has taught you. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've completed step 1, understanding the basics. I am now trying to complete the step 2, that is, finding out Vandals using Recentchanges. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hirohisat/Adoption. BalanceRestored 07:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back here sooner than I expected. Any trouble while I was gone? --Hirohisat ^Talk 07:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)