User talk:VedicScience

Welcome!

Hello, VedicScience, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload an image

Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy before adding a new image.

Instructions to upload image

Click on "Upload file" in "toolbox" on the left
You get "Wikipedia:Upload". Select "What kind of image is it?"
You get "Upload file" page
Browse and select the image in "Source filename"
"Destination filename" is the image name you wish to give
Fill up "Summary" and select an appropriate license. Read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for information on licenses.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monotheism

Welcome to Wikipedia! I saw some really good information that you were putting in the Monotheism article. I'd like to keep a lot of it in there, but I wasn't expert enough in Eastern religion to get it right by NPOV Wikipedia standards. Any chance we could work on some pieces of this and get as much in as we can? Thanks for your patience, and I do want to get as much of this into the article as possible by Wikipedia editing standards. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VedicScience (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reverted tons of changes I made last night in good faith as there were not only a lot of grammatical errors but also had the same information copy-pasted from another page. I will have to undo your revert and send me a talk if there's anything in particular that you have issues with. Hope this works for you!

Hi, the issues were the fact that they weren't by the NPOV standards articles are written in. We don't establish fact here, we merely report sources in an NPOV manner. I want a lot of the information you have in there, but in it's current format people will just edit over it. Reverting it and starting over was the only way to go. Right now very little of what you have will survive the scrutiny of experienced editors. It's unlikely to last the week. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear VedicScience, I also reverted your edits as they incorporated elements of bad style. It is expected that articles are written in an encyclopaedic style from a neutral point of view (e.g. 'dry monotheism'). There are also issues with original research. Perhaps you should use the article talk page to outline your thoughts to get a consensus with other editors, so that good points can be included in neutral language. Just reverting again won't get anywhere; I'll just lock the page or ask you to take a look at the three-revert rule. Articles are written here by consensus, and there is an emerging consensus against your edits. This means that you should try to work with others to develop the article rather than going at it alone. I hope this helps. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things you need to know:

There is a Wikipedia:Three-revert rule policy on wikipedia: "A contributor who reverts the same page, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain circumstances, may be blocked from editing." Please do not revert on Monotheism, you may be blocked for 24 hours.
Please do not attack personally any user, as you did on my talk "some freak goes and reverts back my changes overnight..". Attack the content posted, not the user.
I think that the content in Hinduism section is so good earlier, but text you added also violate some wikipedia policies:
- "For lack of understanding of monism or the depth of Brahmanism, there is a general tendency among Western scholars to proclaim that Hinduism is polytheistic, which is quite erroneous" who says so? I just can not generalize things, or state my opinion. My opinions do not count on wikipedia articles, give a scholar's view or a notable religious leader' view, backed by references - it definitely counts. Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. SEE Wikipedia:No original research.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do now:

Read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Go to Talk:Monotheism, and create a section on Hinduism where you cite the reasons why the older version was not proper.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approach me if you need any other help.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Discuss on the talk page of the article. Hinduism should have a part. Get admins involved for a final decision Juthani1 ^tcs 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate capitalisation

In various places you have changed common noun god to God (or goddess to Goddess, etc), or capitalised pronouns. Both contravene the MoS, which prescribes lower case for common nouns and pronouns. Ilkali (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rigvedic deities

Hello. I am not sure what to make of your edits. Some of them appear perfectly sane and helpful, and then suddenly you are capable of utterly unacceptable edits such as this one. Please don't do this, you appear to be able to know better. Try to separate bona fide discussion of Hinduism and Vedic texts from quantum quackery and Hindutva pseudoscience. --dab (𒁳) 10:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re this: I did "talk to you". Please avoid communicating via edit summary. Also, please stop adding quantum mysticist nonsense to Wikipedia, per WP:ENC. dab (𒁳) 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I take exception to this comment you made at User talk:Ism schism: "to go in and revert to BobAllah's posts which were cleverly ridiculing the soft polytheism of the Advaita sect of Hinduism." I wasn't cleverly ridiculing anything. I tagged the section as having no sources. It had no sources before your edits, and no sources after your edits. Much of the problem with the article would be resolved if people would cite their sources as required by Wikipedia verifiability policy. Thanks! Bob (QaBob) 02:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think you did a great job explaining the different views in Smartha, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism. Many westerners don't get those distinctions, thinking every Hindu believes in Trimurti, etc. The section still needs sources, but you did a good job of clarifying it. Bob (QaBob) 02:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

you've already been warned about the three-revert rule, which you have violated today. Please self-revert your recent edits, or I will report you to the three-revert rule noticeboard, and you may be blocked from editing for a time. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:VedicScience_reported_by_User:Akhilleus_.28Result:_.29. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Aditya, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Editabuselinks

I removed your note about User:Dougweller from there and from everywhere else. Don't forum shop and keep all discussions in one place. WP:ANI is the right place to go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:YellowMonkey is perhaps indeed what reads on the label. Blocked me out for reporting admin User:Dougweller's recent abuses. This further shows that most Wiki admins are not qualified for the job. I didn't know that Wikipedia was this bad. You are going to lose a lot of good faith editors for sure if you let the bulls run haywire (especially bogus ones) without any checks and balances. VedicScience (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be unblocked, you can add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. For the most part, regardless of what Dougweller has done, repeatedly making the same complaint in a half dozen places, none of which are appropriate, are not the way to get positive praise. If you want something useful to happen, ask for an unblock, see if someone else agrees, and then act more like an adult when explaining the issue. Acting like you have is not productive nor helpful to your cause. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about taking myself seriously like some pompous dictator as you can see, hence the name. I've studied quantum field theory as well. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Vedic -- I've been looking at your edits, and it looks as if you are attempting good faith edits, but trying to force feed them against consensus. Here's the rub: Wikipedia is a process. It's not good enough for one editor to know something. The articles have to survive a consensus. Imagine if one editor could just override everyone else: one day another single editor will override you. Does it happen? Sure -- but it's not SUPPOSED to. I've entered information in the past that was not widely available. Other people could get it, but it was tough to do so, and so the information had to be greatly truncated. And that's fine. Wikipedia is supposed to be a launch pad for further reading. We introduce information that anyone else could easily get. That's our job, and the process is designed along those lines. Even rock solid "right" information that isn't widely available will not survive other editors. Trying to shoe-horn it in anyway will only get admin blocks. Trying to mass market complaints about Admins will only get further blocks.

Wikipedia only works as a team. Even if you can force information in there, if it is esoteric and not highly available it will be gone in a week, a month, or a year. You can't sit there and watch articles for year after year to make sure your special information survives. But what you CAN do is to look at the other editors here as assistants for you. We all assist each other, to keep each other from wasting our time putting in information that will only disappear after a while. The first reverts you got from myself and Gareth (and others) were meant to help you avoid wasting your own time researching and researching information that will only disappear. That doesn't do you any good, and it doesn't do Wikipedia any good.

You need to change your perspective from "can I force this IN" to "will this STAY in without me?" The first is more exciting, but the second is more satisfying in the long run. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch dubious admin Dougweller

Dear Stifle, I see that many responsible ones here also seem to have turned a blind eye to admin Dougweller's recent misgivings. Apparently, someone else also ran into his disruptive editing. He really needs to work on NPOV. He continues to dabble in with his own POV on the Henotheism page after the recent Adityas debacle. Let me remind here that “civility” is best understood as rational commentary. So he should really go debate on the Talk:Henotheism instead of engaging in edit reversals pushing his own POV, without paying attention to references added by others (in this case ADvaitaFan) for verifiability. Why not talk to him about “civility” and "wikiquette"? It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating his original position ad nauseam through rvs in the face of questionable verifiability of rvs – is not civil, but merely tendentious. In his case, clear abuse of admin privileges! Be well. VedicScience (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

If you have a problem with another user, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I do not intervene in user disputes. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VS, I have not used any Admin powers in relation to you, so please stop suggesting I have. Instead of this vendetta, try discussing the article on its talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Stifle. Follow dispute resolution. This is not helping your case. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both (Ricky and Stifle) for trying to help out. Last week, I did follow up through dispute resolution (Talk:Aditya) and then arb. All my edits were in good faith. And yet, surprisingly, YellowMonkey blocked me for 3 days instead of explaining Wikipedia policies and admin responsibilities to Doug Weller. Someone needs to tell YellowMonkey that blocking good contributors means kicking them out right when they need support, and keeping poor editors. Was this the original plan of the people who started Wikipedia? THINK. Silly bananas like YellowMonkey should not even be on arb. Dispute resolution has come to mean "admin's way or highway". Also check out the current status of so-called "dispute resolution" -> Talk:Henotheism#Brahman, and see for yourself. Admin Doug Weller also has this newly invented theory of absolute "consensus". No verifiability required - right on Doug Weller - "I have looked at the talk page, it is clear there is no consensus for this edit" (from his recent edit comment on the Henotheism rv). Admin of "consensus" or "verifiability"? Wikipedia should be a bit more careful before giving out admin privs to dubious guys like Doug and even more careful about arb guys and monitoring. This place has become a sad joke! VedicScience (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading this. First of all, publishing the same argument in multiple locations is not helpful. Make your point and wait on other people to respond. Second, Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee is not the appropriate place. Go through the order. Skipping immediately to arbitration is going to be ignored, especially since you got the wrong place. Try getting a third opinion first. Third, do you really think more people will pay attention when you title everything "Dougweller - admin or vandal?" If you want to be taken seriously, act like it. Frankly, I have half a mind to block you for your incivility to User:YellowMonkey. Act like an reasonable adult and people will pay attention. One more screeching wall of complaining and you will be blocked and this page protected. Most people would have long ago blocked you. I'm just in a good mood. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky, Appreciate your nice description on how the Wikipedia bureaucracy works. Understood. That said, as an admin you should also know that a good faith editor wouldn't suddenly come up with "Dougweller - admin or vandal?" unless there is a serious issue. It is common sense. Now if you are just a part of the bureaucracy that doesn't want to take it seriously like User:YellowMonkey believes in punishing good faith editors instead of talking to newbie admins for improvements in conduct, then Jimbo needs to worry about revamping the current useless bureaucracy which clearly isn't working given that more and more POV content gets poured into Wikipedia everyday. The people who started Wikipedia were really smart. Maybe they got tired and hired kids still playing with monkey beanies. To point that out clearly is not incivility, of course if you yourself are an adult as you claim to be. "One more screeching wall of complaining and you will be blocked" is called Nazism is plain English. Take care. VedicScience (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your response to being told what to do is to ignore it and just insult everyone more, you are not going to get anywhere. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Henotheism_and_User:VedicScience about your conduct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky, Appreciate your advise. Point taken. Please take note here that the preliminary qual for any admin is he or she can't be bullheaded child. Now, whether it's a consensus of 2 or 20 stubborn subgeniuses (without reference materials on the subject matter) breathing down people's necks trying really hard to push POV, instead of working out a neutral and minor 3-liner NPOV change (adequate references provided), anyone should have basic rights to at least express themselves and protest with civility. How does trying to work it out with a cool head, while also speaking up firmly against extremely difficult people become equivalent to insulting everyone or even misconduct? I'll leave it up to you to discuss with other important people on Wikipedia that the current style adminhood needs to improve (useless blocks and/or threats just to go with the flow without even checking edit histories or refs in content). With the current system, you are going to end up with the mess of anything-goes clueless bandit operators all over instead of retaining good faith editors over the long run. BTW, just go through Talk:Henotheism in its entirety. You will get an exact picture of what's going on. VedicScience (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VedicScience for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anywho from my neighborhood or county or state or country who copies my style or even says as "Be well" or "Take care" - they are all going to get blocked as my sock-puppets!!! Whoa, this Wikipedia bureaucracy is a joke and should be dissolved ASAP. VedicScience (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/ADvaitaFan

Hi YellowMonkey, this user is editing similar pages and with a similar tone to User:VedicScience. Could you check whether VS is sockpuppeting and therefore evading his/her block. Thanks Gizza^Discuss ^© 07:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the technical it is certainly possible. VS only edits from a home account, and ADF edits from an office computer. However, the locations of the home and office are only about 20-50km away from each other in teh same metro zone so that's quite plausible for a developed country with a good transport system. He seems very up to speed with all the policies and the like, and if he talks with the same idosyncrasies as well....YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuous incivility towards others. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

I have told you the procedures to properly discuss your concerns. There is a current discussion about your editing. You have instead chosen to ignore my advice and just continue to attack those who simply disagree with you. I think I'm being much more lenient here than most would be, so I would highly suggest that you take great care if you request to be unblocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON/Hare Krishna Slanted editing

- - Christ does not at all mean Krishna. It comes from the greek word for the second baptism of holy oil....Chrism. Attaining the second "Chrismic" oil baptism, one then attains "Christ-hood". You are VERY much influenced by the Hare Krishnas sect beliefs and books, only the HK believe this "Christ means Krishna" thing. You need to study Christianity and Christian Gnosticism to know that Christ, Christos and etc. means Chrism. Wikipedia has been heavily influence by ISKCON/Hare Krishna on the Hindu articles. Your editing on the Sankhya philosophy article is heavily influenced and slanted towards ISKCON/Hare Krishna sect beliefs.*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.86.87 (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]