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)
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
VedicScience ( talk) 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
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!
Things you need to know:
Things to do now:
Approach me if you need any other help.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Discuss on the talk page of the article. Hinduism should have a part. Get admins involved for a final decision Juthani1 t c s 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
.
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)
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)
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
VedicScience ( talk) 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
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!
Things you need to know:
Things to do now:
Approach me if you need any other help.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Discuss on the talk page of the article. Hinduism should have a part. Get admins involved for a final decision Juthani1 t c s 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
.
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)