![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yo, somebody is deliberately vandalising this article. Please see "Aditya Batchus" which I edited. "Batchu" means a kid in Indian language.
Regards
Aditya is the common spelling. Also IAST of Aditya is provided for pronunciation needs.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has "issues" regarding the content or has any kind of content dispute, please use this Talk page as a good faith measure to improve this article in a NPOV manner. Stay cool. Do not go around hitting the undo link without going through the links and research materials at the bottom of the page. There is no point is saying "it doesn't look like a reliable resource", or some other arbitrary reason, because this page is no different than any other page on Wikipedia in providing links to references. If there is a particular section or sentence that you are disputing, please state it right here. The section and sentence that is bothering you and also the justification of addition or removal of content citing reliable sources of information. Please understand that Wikipedia is a world encylopedia and not meant for harassment of contributors or insisting on your own viewpoints without expertise on the subject matter. I appreciate that you respect the sanctity of content on Wikipedia. Do not mindlessly engage in undoing the hard work of others without doing due diligence yourself. VedicScience ( talk) 04:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to remind all concerned that Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. And that includes unpublished facts, your own particular ideas or concepts, or the type of content you would like to have, your own ideas or arguments, or your own speculations; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance your particluar position. The content I've posted is clean, and can be verified as non-OR, and I've also provided links to already published facts.
Please understand that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that refer directly to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
Continuously hitting the undo link (intentionally restoring an ancient version of the page, even while someone is editing an article) and then quickly reporting a 3RR is not a sign of being a good citizen of Wikipedia. That is harassment of genuine contributors. If you have any particular issues with the content, post them right here. Let's work together. VedicScience ( talk) 04:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Among others that have done the "undo" thing before, the following section was deleted by User_talk:Akhilleus and User_talk:Moreschi yesterday. User_talk:Stifle locked the page, and User_talk:Dougweller also supported a viewpoint of concealment and suppression of "published facts" complaining it to be OR with a newly invented term "self-published". It is also apparent that User_talk:Dbachmann (from Zurich) personally likes the Aryan invasion theory, instead of letting people know about published research on Vedas by eminent scientists. Suppression of facts is not what Wikipedia was built for. Undo addicts as well as admins should understand this first by principle.
I can understand that people who follow other religions have the right to have their personal ideologies. But not at the cost of suppression of published religious facts of others. One should not assume the right to persecution of religious minorities. It is as serious an offense it can be. You should educate yourself on the perils of Jihad and Nazism before deciding to push your personal views on others through Wikipedia, or suppressing published facts that relate to other religions. Here's the content in dispute:
Note: If there are any statements in the above content that you'd like to dispute, please do so right here on this Talk page and cite your reasons along with published sources. Content disputes can be resolved through dialog instead of wild edit reverts that I have been attacked with. VedicScience ( talk) 20:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aditya (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yo, somebody is deliberately vandalising this article. Please see "Aditya Batchus" which I edited. "Batchu" means a kid in Indian language.
Regards
Aditya is the common spelling. Also IAST of Aditya is provided for pronunciation needs.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has "issues" regarding the content or has any kind of content dispute, please use this Talk page as a good faith measure to improve this article in a NPOV manner. Stay cool. Do not go around hitting the undo link without going through the links and research materials at the bottom of the page. There is no point is saying "it doesn't look like a reliable resource", or some other arbitrary reason, because this page is no different than any other page on Wikipedia in providing links to references. If there is a particular section or sentence that you are disputing, please state it right here. The section and sentence that is bothering you and also the justification of addition or removal of content citing reliable sources of information. Please understand that Wikipedia is a world encylopedia and not meant for harassment of contributors or insisting on your own viewpoints without expertise on the subject matter. I appreciate that you respect the sanctity of content on Wikipedia. Do not mindlessly engage in undoing the hard work of others without doing due diligence yourself. VedicScience ( talk) 04:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to remind all concerned that Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. And that includes unpublished facts, your own particular ideas or concepts, or the type of content you would like to have, your own ideas or arguments, or your own speculations; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance your particluar position. The content I've posted is clean, and can be verified as non-OR, and I've also provided links to already published facts.
Please understand that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that refer directly to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
Continuously hitting the undo link (intentionally restoring an ancient version of the page, even while someone is editing an article) and then quickly reporting a 3RR is not a sign of being a good citizen of Wikipedia. That is harassment of genuine contributors. If you have any particular issues with the content, post them right here. Let's work together. VedicScience ( talk) 04:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Among others that have done the "undo" thing before, the following section was deleted by User_talk:Akhilleus and User_talk:Moreschi yesterday. User_talk:Stifle locked the page, and User_talk:Dougweller also supported a viewpoint of concealment and suppression of "published facts" complaining it to be OR with a newly invented term "self-published". It is also apparent that User_talk:Dbachmann (from Zurich) personally likes the Aryan invasion theory, instead of letting people know about published research on Vedas by eminent scientists. Suppression of facts is not what Wikipedia was built for. Undo addicts as well as admins should understand this first by principle.
I can understand that people who follow other religions have the right to have their personal ideologies. But not at the cost of suppression of published religious facts of others. One should not assume the right to persecution of religious minorities. It is as serious an offense it can be. You should educate yourself on the perils of Jihad and Nazism before deciding to push your personal views on others through Wikipedia, or suppressing published facts that relate to other religions. Here's the content in dispute:
Note: If there are any statements in the above content that you'd like to dispute, please do so right here on this Talk page and cite your reasons along with published sources. Content disputes can be resolved through dialog instead of wild edit reverts that I have been attacked with. VedicScience ( talk) 20:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aditya (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)