Moabalan

Response to questions

Well, I understand your concerns, and I see that you're new to Wikipedia. However, I do have a few reasons as to why I deleted it.

While it may not have been an advertisement, the way it's written and presented could certainly be interpreted as such. Also, a big, long, exhaustive description of a book is not the best way to integrate the information into the article. It doesn't add much in the way of encyclopedic value. If you can figure out a way to incorporate that into the main article, then I believe the information would be alright. Just don't give a straight description of the book. At the same time, however, I'm not sure that extensive hiking information is appropriate to Wikipedia. It's generally not what's considered appropriate to be placed in an encyclopedia; it's more tourist information. I did decide to re-insert the name of the book into the references, but the exhaustive description of the book is not needed and doesn't add much in the way of encyclopedic value to the article.

One of the most useful things an article can do is to tell me where I can go to get better, longer treatment of the subject. Does Wikipedia have any specific policy on commenting on the content and value of the references we give? The bias appears to be against it, or is it just that people tend not to do it? Thanks.

Sorry about my interpretation skills here, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Can you clarify?

Also, I don't know how the text didn't end up correctly. It has something to do with indentations, but I don't know how it ends up that way. I fixed it by removing the indents.

And P.S., you can sign your name on comments with four tildes. bob rulz 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

==References==Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bob Rulz,

    You say you didn't know what I was asking when I asked, "Does Wikipedia have a policy about commenting on the value of references?"
    I'm not sure how else to say it.  I have written short comments on what is contained in some references, yet you "regular editors" tend to revert them.Moabalan (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)  

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Mahavatar Babaji

Re: [1] "so we must rely on lore" is not an encyclopedic addition.
"SRF Website, "Babaji," page 1" is not a reference. Hence reverted. Materialscientist (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist,

   If we lack scientific evidence, lack historical evidence, lack photos, and the only sources are stories circulating among believers, what are these stories if not "lore."  Stated another way, why is it "unencyclopedic" to point out that available information about Babaji comes from oral tradition and first-person unverifiable account, some of which have now been written down in detail?  What is oral tradition and unverifiable account if not lore?Moabalan (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Moabalan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Moabalan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)