User talk:Rekhaa Kale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Warning

Please don't try and advertise on Wikipedia. This is spamming and will result in a block if it continues. The section you have introduced is not notable, and not referenced from reliable sources, so it is inadmissable to this encyclopedia. Jefffire 12:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:User page the advertising has been removed from your user page. Fan-1967 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what do I do?

Moved here from Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Is there a remedy when the pages about new things added for the benefit of humanity by me are repeatedly removed by the editors?

Right now I added an article on Kriya Reiki. It is asking for authenticity.

When I had put the authenticiy details earlier, it was removed saying that it is advertising.

Do you feel that mentioning the details of the person who discovered any method for the benefit of humanity to establish the authenticity of that method is the advertising of the person who discovered it? Please comment.

Rekhaa Kale 11:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia. I moved the comments above to here, from Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Most pages at Wikipedia (that one included) are not intended for discussion. For discussion about a particular page, every article or page has an associated "talk page". Just click the "discussion" tab at the top your web browser window. That is probably the best way to go about addressing the disagreement you are asking about. For the article in question, go to the talk page, and begin a new discussion there.
I'm not in a position to comment on Reiki, or even healing in general, so I cannot help there. However, I can point you to a few Wikipedia guidelines that may help you understand what others are generally looking for: All articles must maintain a neutral point of view; they cannot advance or favor any particular position. Objectivity is the name of the game here. All information must also be attributable to reliable, published sources. Information you've come up with on your own is generally not acceptable here. If you are a provider of services relating to a topic, or an enthusiastic support of same, there may be concern that you have a conflict of interest.
Again, I'm not commenting on whatever objections others may have with your contributions; I haven't even read any of them. I'm just trying to give you some general pointers.
I hope this helps. Again, welcome. Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read the page again, but the question raised by me is not whether this is an authentic healing method, but rather if there are enough independent sources to write an ecylcopaedic article about. Such an article cannot be written on your first hand knowledge alone.--Tikiwont 09:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In simple words, someone like me should be able to write the articles on the basis of existing sources. This encyclopedia is intended as summary of already documentd knowledge, not as a channel for transmitting and sharing personal knwoledge, however valuable that may be. So it is possible that the current AfD discussions result in the deletion of your articles. As you continue to heal, teach and publish (maybe also create a better website than the current one), someone else might sooner or later write articles here. Your edits here will still be welcome, but would need to adhere to the rules. Tikiwont 09:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should the newcomers do?

Moved here from Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Is there a remedy when the pages about new things added for the benefit of humanity by the newcomers are repeatedly removed by the editors?

When these newcomers put the authenticity details, it is removed saying that it is advertising. Do the editors not know the difference between advertising and mentioning about the authenticity of articles?

Do these editors feel that mentioning the details of a person who discovered any method for the benefit of humanity to establish the authenticity of that method is the advertising of the person who discovered it? In that case mentioning that Einstein developed the theory of relativity will be an advertising of Einstein and saying that Newton discovered the theory of gravity will be an advertising of Newton!

Let the Editors be a bit more responsible. Or else there has to be some way by which the sditors communicate with new users other than user talk that is hardly friendly with new users.

Rekhaa Kale 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Please stop adding your discussion questions to the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers page. That page describes what the current guidelines are. It is not for asking questions about the guideline, or any other discussion. Changes to guidelines need to be discussed first, and discussion should not happen on the project page.
Discussion should happen on talk pages. If you want to ask questions about the "Please do not bite the newcomers" guideline, you can use the talk page for that guideline. The talk page would be: Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers.
The discussion tab
The discussion tab
For any page (be it a Wikipedia guideline page, an article, etc.), you can reach the discussion page by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top
To read more about how to use talk pages, and how to ask questions, you can read these Wikipedia project information pages:
If you have further questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page: User talk:DragonHawk. Regards, —DragonHawk (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why your edits might be removed

Hello again. This is in response to your question about "why my articles are repeatedly deleted mercilessly?". I do not know why people are objecting to your contributions. I have nothing to do with that. Indeed, I have not even seen what you have been doing, outside of the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers page and my own talk page.

You can look at the page history (see Help:Page history for how) to find out who has removed your changes. You can then contact those people on their user talk pages.

You can also read the following topics, for the general guidelines:

Hope this helps! —DragonHawk (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past life

  • Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. JuJube 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JuJube 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Today you deleted the addition to Past life page

I must confess I am somewhat confused as to what you are referring to. I have made no edits to the past life page itself (see history but I did make a reversion on Reincarnation, the page that it redirects to. However, as this diff shows, this reversion was just removing simple vandalism. I would very much appreciate it if you could be more specific about your concerns about my actions and I assure you I am acting with the best of intentions. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template removal

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed maintenance notices from Meditation methods, even though required changes haven't been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Strangnet 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few requests

Please do not accuse others of vandalising Wikipedia, when they are merely attempting to make it better. You should familiarise yourself with the concept of vandalism as it is applied here before using it again. Thank you. (If you feel that you have been unfairly accused of vandalism yourself, it does not excuse making the same accusation towards others.)

To address the specific point being made: you should note that "Pastlife" is not a good title for an article, as it isn't an idiomatic English word. "Past life" is a phrase consisting of two words. Hence it was inappropriate to create an article called "Pastlife", regardless of content; however, it is possible that somebody could search for that misspelling, and so it might be useful to have "Pastlife" as a redirect. Since no article called "Past life" exists, the most relevant place to redirect "Pastlife" is to "Reincarnation".

I'm sure you are right about "past life" not being a synonym of "reincarnation". (I know nothing of the subject.) However, there is a reason why the articles you have created are removed; they read very much like original research. Please familiarise yourself with the original research guidelines. Phrases such as "This is not true." must be verified by citing independent sources (that is just one example which I picked just now from the Past life healing article.) By all means create an article about past life, but start by making sure you understand the guidelines for writing articles. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a place to argue for a particular opinion or school of thought; articles must be written from a neutral point of view. If they are not, they will be heavily rewritten, or simply deleted. --Bonadea 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kriya Reiki and Vishitao Reiki

Hi, I know next to nothing about the Indian rituals but I think the articles can be improved to satisfy Wiki standards. I have removed the Prod notices and send to an WP:AfD, so the people who know the subject could argue if we need the article or not. It would be very helpful if you can rewrite the article WP:NPOV maner: some people believe in this ritual, some are not. Lets be factual.

Kiya Reiki is an induist ritual that started (...) They believe... The ritual consists of ... etc.

I would help myself if knew better the subject. BTW I am the owner of the User:AlexNewArtBot who does some maintenance job on the new articles. It is just a dumb piece of software, do not expect much of it Alex Bakharev 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Aura healing

An editor has nominated Aura healing, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aura healing and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)