Welcome to Wikipedia, Roadahead! I am NAHID, and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
NAH ID 07:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I can't find a the article cited to in the Sun Herald. The link you gave just goes to their main page. Can you provide a link to the main article? JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
.
The RfC you filed has been closed. You may read the conclusion there. Wizardman 14:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You just reverted as "vandalism" a user who blanked his own userpage. If you notice, it appears that his account had been compromised, and because of that he had been blocked.
Agreeably, he should have archived and not blanked, but it is his own userpage, and he is not a vandal for blanking it. -t BMW c- 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Please pay your kind attention to article Sikh Extremism written by User Talk: Satanoid alias His Biography alias User talk:90.192.59.43 (his previous IP) alias User Talk: 90.196.3.37 alias User Talk: 90.196.3.246. His past and new acts have been duly documented by several editors on User Talk: Master of Puppets in several sections. This respected user with extremist ediology was blocked several times.-- Singh6 ( talk) 08:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
He had tried getting permission from User Talk: Master of Puppets to create this article and instead he has received a warning with heading "Hi Again". He has come up with this account after getting numerous warnings to his three IPs, i.e. 90.196.3.37, 90.196.3.246 and 90.192.59.43.
Sikh Extremism means using an abusive word for an entire religion which is definitely a POV article. I strongly believe that this POV article should be deleted.-- Singh6 ( talk) 08:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Even Admin User talk:DJ Clayworth has called this article an Insult to Wikipedia.-- Singh6 ( talk) 09:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
But he changed his mind didnt he ?? Satanoid ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sikh extremism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikh extremism. Thank you. Singh6 ( talk) 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If fulfilled your request. Please remember that rollback should only be used for removing obvious and simple vandalism, or for reverting your own comments when there is no benefit in an enhanced edit summary. In other situations it is best to use another methos of removing edits. If rollback is misused it can be easily removed by any admin. If you need any help please ask me or see WP:RBK for more. I noted your fairly recent block for edit warring. Please DO NOT use the rollback tool in content disputes or it will be removed. Pedro : Chat 07:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't remove info from those quotes in the article. I suspect the quotes were lost earlier; perhaps removed by another editor. -- vi5in [talk]
Hi, I am very annoyed about the comments made by Satanoid about Guru Gobind Singh children, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Enzuru&diff=prev&oldid=254812699. What further action can be taken against Satanoid? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Whats wrong with Pidhu The Great ? He seems like a nice friendly jolly chap to me ??? Incidentally if you think he's a good stand up comedian as I'm sure you do, I'd be more than happy to welcome you in contributing some info on this great guy, thanks Satanoid ( talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you wiped out the whole article on Mahraz Darshan Das Jee and forgot to mention he was also assassinated by terrorists in 1987. I can dig out the murder of this man from News archives if you like, but at least let it have its place in history it rightly deserves and not be wiped out as his life was Satanoid ( talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Pidhu is supposed to be a comedian, I'm not. He also happens to be a follower of Guru Nanak like yourself, which explains his head apparel ?
Secondly I'm not a racist, I have to say I have noticed sikh extremists play the race card against white people accused of being racist during the Behzti affair when all they are arguing about is the freedom of speech or the democratic rights of civilians or even the issue of religious terrorism. These issues do exist, its no point brushing these things under the carpet.
On the subject of Darshan Das, the humanitarian peace campaigner who was assassinated by Sikh terrorists, again by deleting masses of information about him only accentuates your religious insecurities. Satanoid ( talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Finally don't threaten me. OK Satanoid ( talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
1. You keep repeating 'personal attacks' like admins are going to beleive it only to ignore your demands to get the article deleted. 2. I have been called an extremist by (how shall I describe them? Pro-Extremist perhaps ?) pot-kettle-black ! 3. Kindly stop vandalizing the article just because you wanted it deleted. 4. Give a straight answer to Enzuru & Vivin Satanoid ( talk) 06:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Wikipedia:CHERRY ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:CHERRY, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Wikipedia:CHERRY|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- IRP ☎ 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've recently saw that you believe Bhridnwalde is a sockpuppet of another user. If you believe this, then please perform a checkuser on both the suspected sockpuppet and original account to see if your suspicians are true. If they are, then report him to the admin. Deavenger ( talk) 15:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for your edits, and ask that you be a bit kinder in your application of them.
I must tell you that your style here is somewhat opaque and really rather insulting. I would encourage you to simply say what you mean instead of using potentially-insulting things like "PoV statement?". How does it help? Simply flagging it with [citation needed] is good, and simple. If an editor doesn't understand that you don't see a source for the statement, they aren't going to be helped by "PoV statement?", and since this is an emotional issue, a bit of extra kindness may (or may not) go a long way.
Also... I quickly and easily found a source for one... a simple Google showed me where it was listed.
In another spot, you killed a sentence that seems to be clearly supported by the source.
Please, please, focus on the content, rather than on the thoughts and intentions of the editors.
Please, rather than flagging so very many things in this article that you clearly care about, fix them? And I don't mean just kill them. If someone puts in an interpretation, please consider finding someone who has a different one, and including and citing that. If someone is misconstruing, please reword. Simply flagging something you are already quite familiar with will make other editors feel you are using us as your personal web-search/typing service. (that would be me)
Thank you again, and thank you in advance for your future work. sinneed ( talk) 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Is English your native language? 67.194.202.113 ( talk) 08:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it me, or do some of these people not have a clue as to who Dr Gopal Singh, and how weight, what he writes carries? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 17:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed the same, I also find the patronizing language like "if you don't like our rules", "we are not going to...." etc pretty strange as well. The "fringe" allegation by IP is also not valid, if it does the whole idea of Khalistan is fringe and should not exist on wikipedia (obviously not true). Just like Khalistan article exists and is notable, so are the council of Khalistan and their statements. The IP either does not have enough understanding of Sikh history and other issues related to Punjab or is refusing to use the understanding. Googling keywords and adding them to wikipedia is obviously detrimental to the quality of wikipedia and I find people doeing that on many article (sigh!). Whatever it may be, I feel s/he is trying the wrong key. I did not look into the details of IP and Satanoid being the same, they may or may not be the same, I don't have enough information yet. Regardless, none of Satanoid's argument make any sense and editor is involved in flaming; I suggest neglecting Satanoid's flaming comments. The IP claims s/he did not like that a good/contructive editor was driven away (most probably in regard to Enzuru, but failing to note its was Enzuru's personal decision), so there could be a personal touch as well (which may compromise neutrality). -- RoadAhead =Discuss= 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I shot the wrong person. I humbly apologize. Jonathan321 ( talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
Like I've stated before. Instead of searching the keywords and depending on those, one needs to look first - what are the proponents of Khalistan claiming, second - if these articles are giving the logic behind why they are calling the state theocratic, why the article/authors feel that the proponents are going to implement "theocracy". Once again, Khalistan is not a fact but a proposal and as such when refering to it in the lead, one needs to keep the claim by the proponents of Khalistan. Feel free to put in article body something like - "most of the authors perceive the proposed Khalistan as a theocratic state" (thats the author's problem not the proponents). I've said this before/above and let me reiterate it again - any criticism of the proponents of Khalistan and the idea of Khalistan should go into the article content ( and let me add, content of article Khalistan) not here.
I cannot reply to your comment without editing the entire page. Also, the indents are damaged, and your reply appears to me in a box. Please feel free to kill this if you can see what is wrong. I am no expert and I don't see it. :) sinneed ( talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"which may compromise neutrality" - Erm. With all due respect, neither of you is even APPROACHING neutrality. I think you honestly both think you are, but... I don't see it. sinneed ( talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The infamous Balbir Sodhi case after 9/11 would be a starting point? Thanks-- Sikh-history ( talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"?? already enough going on here. plz don't add more controvertial stuff"
Actually, that would pretty much mean no one could add content. :) This is ALL controversial. :)
I would encourage holding to the actual problem of the edit: Maybe something like "Because of the controversial nature of that addition, it would really need a source. Sorry."
And I really do mean the "Sorry." People often work very hard to put in edits, only to have me kill them just because they aren't sourced and are either dubious, or about a living person and controversial, or in an already-contentious article. This is intensely frustrating. I was VERY UPSET with the 1st editor who reversed out one of my edits. Nay, I was *ENRAGED*. I agree with you, though, it needed to go. It also seemed to be just inflammatory...I don't see how it ties in. But with a source, we could at least tell what in the world the editor was talking about. Maybe.
sinneed (
talk)
23:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Template:Cherry-picking has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Aervanath
lives
in
the Orphanage
01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm an administrator who volunteers at the copyright problems board. My edits to that article were prompted by your report, automatically logged here, which came current for closure today. If I have missed duplication of text in addressing the copyright concerns in that article, I would greatly appreciate it you would point out specifically what remains that is pasted from that external site so that the material can be excised or revised. I removed everything I saw, and it would really be very helpful if you could point out the specific sentences that concern you. Not only would it be far more convenient to excise any infringement right now rather than to allow this to run through the copyright problems queue again, but it is legally problematic for us to continue publishing information that violates external copyright. I've watchlisted your page in case you choose to respond. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I hear you each saying you think one or more of the others is misbehaving. ALL 3 are misbehaving. Stop doing these huge editwar-type reverts. If you don't care enough to give edit summaries, and if you don't care enough to make the individual changes, then perhaps a break from editing this article would be good for you. Please:
All 3 of you are better than this makes you appear. sinneed ( talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you help me expand this-- Sikh-history ( talk) 09:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you have perhaps received answers to your questions regarding this article, but just to confirm, the article was nominated for deletion by Closedmouth, and I deleted it on the basis that the article did not demonstrate any encyclopaedic notability. There may indeed be significant notability attached to the gentleman in question, but this has to be contained within the article. I am happy to restore the article as and when you are ready to expand it; let me know. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 21:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you make of this fellows edits and reverts?-- Sikh-history ( talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
January 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help, and sorry I didn't catch them all. It is just almost impossible to completely edit one's own work...thus editors have jobs. :)
However, "1,50,000" is not a number in standard international notation. At least many readers will not know what it means. Is it "1,050,000", "150,000" or something else?
If you hammer out any other new and interesting articles you would like another set of eyes on, please let me know. I find your writing interesting, have learned a lot from it, and I hope I have helped in some small way. :) All the best. sinneed ( talk) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why this article, Vegetarianism in Sikhism is about meat consumption ? Langar is by far a non-meat function ? I was shocked to see that the Akhand Kirtani Jatha has been so badly edited, I felt it needed correcting. You could start an article meat consumption in Sikhism or perhaps make a list of those Gurdwaras that do serve meat, because I've never heard of any. If you can answer these questions, that would be nice starting point, thanks Khalsaburg ( talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to use these links (below). If you don't find anyone of them {including the Sikhiwiki you found} objectionable without reason, so kindly provide reason(s) as to why these additional links may or may not suffice, thanks again Khalsaburg ( talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-institutions/the-sikh-institutions-langar-and-pangat.html
http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/institutions/langar/
http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart18.htm
http://www.baisakhifestival.com/langar.html
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Guru_ka_Langar
I would remind you again that Sikh Langar is not or never has been a meat feast Khalsaburg ( talk) 23:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
And can you tell me categorically that none of the above links have been previously or are currently being used as references surrounding Sikhism ?
I await your response(s) Khalsaburg ( talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
All relevant links on Google regarding the AGGS (SGGS) view on vegetarianism are clear, and don't seem to fit wit your POV. (subjective not objective)
You haven't answered my question(s)
Why are these links not acceptable?
You haven't answered if they have been used (previously or currently) as references on other Sikh Wikipedia articles? Thanks Khalsaburg ( talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you thinking what I am thinking? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 13:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you kindly provide evidence that Sikhiwiki is 'not reliable' as per any direct referece in Wikipedia. NB I don't want any POV, just reference(s). Thanks Khalsaburg ( talk) 10:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask if you are anti AKJ ? Khalsaburg ( talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
well done -- Sikh-history ( talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Fellow Editor, I have tried to enagage and get Khalsaburg to discuss various Sikh articles, but he seems fixated on pushing forward a POV which goes against the Sikh Rehat Marayada. He has copy and pasted unreferenced work from Sikhiwiki and also other articles, by an anonymoue T Singh. I am getting tired of reverting his POV. Do you want to take further steps? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 09:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You said.
"Your argument is baseless; feel free to remove the above links if you find them being used unreliably"
I have replaced them with these links:
http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-institutions/the-sikh-institutions-langar-and-pangat.html
http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/institutions/langar/
http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart18.htm
http://www.baisakhifestival.com/langar.html
Kindly explain why these links are NOT acceptable ? Giving clear reasons
Also, can you state if these links have been used previously or currently regarding any Sikh articles ?
Thanks Khalsaburg ( talk) 12:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to develop this article on Jandu Littranwala. I was wondering whether you had any input or links and references I could use. Also, I am trying to develop an article on the Acoustic maestro Mandippal Jandu (Harbans Jandu's, Grand Nephew). Any Input would be welcome. Thanks -- Sikh-history ( talk) 09:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Am I getting paranoid?-- Sikh-history ( talk) 08:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you this fellow from Sikhiwiki who ran circles around HariSingh? I followed the debate he and Incredible had for some time, and it was "Incredible" to follow. For my money Incredible won hands down, and really checked HariSingh's ego into place. Regards -- Sikh-history ( talk) 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a word Persection...do you ? Then why do we have a page called Persection of Muslims ? Of course it redirects to Persecution of Muslims but why it needs to be so...? Kindly reply on my talk page ...thanks Jon Ascton ( talk) 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if these are of interest to you, but I have edited both heavily.
I see you had edited the RS article before, and I suspect it needs some of the same edits applied again. These need sourcing help, a much more knowledgeable person to fact-check/fix them.
I moved a great deal of content out of the AKJ article into the RS one. I fear I cannot fact-check the articles due to lack of knowledge... my intent is to help with wording and structure. I hope I have done so. sinneed ( talk) 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this user the same as this user? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have a chance, please drop by and give your opinion at discussion of removal of neutrality flag at Sikh extremism. I have some concerns, but the article is receiving attention from only a few authors. I am considering an RfC... as unproductive as those have proven for me so far. Even 1 more interested editor might make it worthwhile. In any event, I am uncertain the flag is still needed, though many of my edits another editor states are "extremist POV", and I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment. - sinneed ( talk) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have opened an wp:RFC about a dispute at Labh Singh. I wonder if you might have both time and interest to comment. No problem if not, life is far to short to worry about such things. Hope you are well, and thanks for dropping by the Sikh extremism discussion. - sinneed ( talk) 04:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the discussion? Thanks-- Sikh-history ( talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Please help build this section. Thanks -- Sikh-history ( talk) 06:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering? GHALOOGHAARAA ( talk) 08:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, a friend of mine has set up a wiki like site, but appear to be having problems with codes. Have you any idea, how to help? Thanks -- Sikh-History 08:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sikh-showing-burned-property-burning-1984-delhi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sikh-property-burning-1984-delhi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sikhs camp shadara 1984 prashant 070411 outlook india.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:41, 14 December 2009 (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)
13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Welcome to Wikipedia, Roadahead! I am NAHID, and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{ helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
NAH ID 07:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I can't find a the article cited to in the Sun Herald. The link you gave just goes to their main page. Can you provide a link to the main article? JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
.
The RfC you filed has been closed. You may read the conclusion there. Wizardman 14:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You just reverted as "vandalism" a user who blanked his own userpage. If you notice, it appears that his account had been compromised, and because of that he had been blocked.
Agreeably, he should have archived and not blanked, but it is his own userpage, and he is not a vandal for blanking it. -t BMW c- 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Please pay your kind attention to article Sikh Extremism written by User Talk: Satanoid alias His Biography alias User talk:90.192.59.43 (his previous IP) alias User Talk: 90.196.3.37 alias User Talk: 90.196.3.246. His past and new acts have been duly documented by several editors on User Talk: Master of Puppets in several sections. This respected user with extremist ediology was blocked several times.-- Singh6 ( talk) 08:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
He had tried getting permission from User Talk: Master of Puppets to create this article and instead he has received a warning with heading "Hi Again". He has come up with this account after getting numerous warnings to his three IPs, i.e. 90.196.3.37, 90.196.3.246 and 90.192.59.43.
Sikh Extremism means using an abusive word for an entire religion which is definitely a POV article. I strongly believe that this POV article should be deleted.-- Singh6 ( talk) 08:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Even Admin User talk:DJ Clayworth has called this article an Insult to Wikipedia.-- Singh6 ( talk) 09:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
But he changed his mind didnt he ?? Satanoid ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sikh extremism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikh extremism. Thank you. Singh6 ( talk) 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If fulfilled your request. Please remember that rollback should only be used for removing obvious and simple vandalism, or for reverting your own comments when there is no benefit in an enhanced edit summary. In other situations it is best to use another methos of removing edits. If rollback is misused it can be easily removed by any admin. If you need any help please ask me or see WP:RBK for more. I noted your fairly recent block for edit warring. Please DO NOT use the rollback tool in content disputes or it will be removed. Pedro : Chat 07:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't remove info from those quotes in the article. I suspect the quotes were lost earlier; perhaps removed by another editor. -- vi5in [talk]
Hi, I am very annoyed about the comments made by Satanoid about Guru Gobind Singh children, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Enzuru&diff=prev&oldid=254812699. What further action can be taken against Satanoid? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Whats wrong with Pidhu The Great ? He seems like a nice friendly jolly chap to me ??? Incidentally if you think he's a good stand up comedian as I'm sure you do, I'd be more than happy to welcome you in contributing some info on this great guy, thanks Satanoid ( talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you wiped out the whole article on Mahraz Darshan Das Jee and forgot to mention he was also assassinated by terrorists in 1987. I can dig out the murder of this man from News archives if you like, but at least let it have its place in history it rightly deserves and not be wiped out as his life was Satanoid ( talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Pidhu is supposed to be a comedian, I'm not. He also happens to be a follower of Guru Nanak like yourself, which explains his head apparel ?
Secondly I'm not a racist, I have to say I have noticed sikh extremists play the race card against white people accused of being racist during the Behzti affair when all they are arguing about is the freedom of speech or the democratic rights of civilians or even the issue of religious terrorism. These issues do exist, its no point brushing these things under the carpet.
On the subject of Darshan Das, the humanitarian peace campaigner who was assassinated by Sikh terrorists, again by deleting masses of information about him only accentuates your religious insecurities. Satanoid ( talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Finally don't threaten me. OK Satanoid ( talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
1. You keep repeating 'personal attacks' like admins are going to beleive it only to ignore your demands to get the article deleted. 2. I have been called an extremist by (how shall I describe them? Pro-Extremist perhaps ?) pot-kettle-black ! 3. Kindly stop vandalizing the article just because you wanted it deleted. 4. Give a straight answer to Enzuru & Vivin Satanoid ( talk) 06:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Wikipedia:CHERRY ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:CHERRY, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Wikipedia:CHERRY|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- IRP ☎ 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've recently saw that you believe Bhridnwalde is a sockpuppet of another user. If you believe this, then please perform a checkuser on both the suspected sockpuppet and original account to see if your suspicians are true. If they are, then report him to the admin. Deavenger ( talk) 15:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for your edits, and ask that you be a bit kinder in your application of them.
I must tell you that your style here is somewhat opaque and really rather insulting. I would encourage you to simply say what you mean instead of using potentially-insulting things like "PoV statement?". How does it help? Simply flagging it with [citation needed] is good, and simple. If an editor doesn't understand that you don't see a source for the statement, they aren't going to be helped by "PoV statement?", and since this is an emotional issue, a bit of extra kindness may (or may not) go a long way.
Also... I quickly and easily found a source for one... a simple Google showed me where it was listed.
In another spot, you killed a sentence that seems to be clearly supported by the source.
Please, please, focus on the content, rather than on the thoughts and intentions of the editors.
Please, rather than flagging so very many things in this article that you clearly care about, fix them? And I don't mean just kill them. If someone puts in an interpretation, please consider finding someone who has a different one, and including and citing that. If someone is misconstruing, please reword. Simply flagging something you are already quite familiar with will make other editors feel you are using us as your personal web-search/typing service. (that would be me)
Thank you again, and thank you in advance for your future work. sinneed ( talk) 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Is English your native language? 67.194.202.113 ( talk) 08:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it me, or do some of these people not have a clue as to who Dr Gopal Singh, and how weight, what he writes carries? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 17:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed the same, I also find the patronizing language like "if you don't like our rules", "we are not going to...." etc pretty strange as well. The "fringe" allegation by IP is also not valid, if it does the whole idea of Khalistan is fringe and should not exist on wikipedia (obviously not true). Just like Khalistan article exists and is notable, so are the council of Khalistan and their statements. The IP either does not have enough understanding of Sikh history and other issues related to Punjab or is refusing to use the understanding. Googling keywords and adding them to wikipedia is obviously detrimental to the quality of wikipedia and I find people doeing that on many article (sigh!). Whatever it may be, I feel s/he is trying the wrong key. I did not look into the details of IP and Satanoid being the same, they may or may not be the same, I don't have enough information yet. Regardless, none of Satanoid's argument make any sense and editor is involved in flaming; I suggest neglecting Satanoid's flaming comments. The IP claims s/he did not like that a good/contructive editor was driven away (most probably in regard to Enzuru, but failing to note its was Enzuru's personal decision), so there could be a personal touch as well (which may compromise neutrality). -- RoadAhead =Discuss= 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I shot the wrong person. I humbly apologize. Jonathan321 ( talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
Like I've stated before. Instead of searching the keywords and depending on those, one needs to look first - what are the proponents of Khalistan claiming, second - if these articles are giving the logic behind why they are calling the state theocratic, why the article/authors feel that the proponents are going to implement "theocracy". Once again, Khalistan is not a fact but a proposal and as such when refering to it in the lead, one needs to keep the claim by the proponents of Khalistan. Feel free to put in article body something like - "most of the authors perceive the proposed Khalistan as a theocratic state" (thats the author's problem not the proponents). I've said this before/above and let me reiterate it again - any criticism of the proponents of Khalistan and the idea of Khalistan should go into the article content ( and let me add, content of article Khalistan) not here.
I cannot reply to your comment without editing the entire page. Also, the indents are damaged, and your reply appears to me in a box. Please feel free to kill this if you can see what is wrong. I am no expert and I don't see it. :) sinneed ( talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"which may compromise neutrality" - Erm. With all due respect, neither of you is even APPROACHING neutrality. I think you honestly both think you are, but... I don't see it. sinneed ( talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The infamous Balbir Sodhi case after 9/11 would be a starting point? Thanks-- Sikh-history ( talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"?? already enough going on here. plz don't add more controvertial stuff"
Actually, that would pretty much mean no one could add content. :) This is ALL controversial. :)
I would encourage holding to the actual problem of the edit: Maybe something like "Because of the controversial nature of that addition, it would really need a source. Sorry."
And I really do mean the "Sorry." People often work very hard to put in edits, only to have me kill them just because they aren't sourced and are either dubious, or about a living person and controversial, or in an already-contentious article. This is intensely frustrating. I was VERY UPSET with the 1st editor who reversed out one of my edits. Nay, I was *ENRAGED*. I agree with you, though, it needed to go. It also seemed to be just inflammatory...I don't see how it ties in. But with a source, we could at least tell what in the world the editor was talking about. Maybe.
sinneed (
talk)
23:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Template:Cherry-picking has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
Aervanath
lives
in
the Orphanage
01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm an administrator who volunteers at the copyright problems board. My edits to that article were prompted by your report, automatically logged here, which came current for closure today. If I have missed duplication of text in addressing the copyright concerns in that article, I would greatly appreciate it you would point out specifically what remains that is pasted from that external site so that the material can be excised or revised. I removed everything I saw, and it would really be very helpful if you could point out the specific sentences that concern you. Not only would it be far more convenient to excise any infringement right now rather than to allow this to run through the copyright problems queue again, but it is legally problematic for us to continue publishing information that violates external copyright. I've watchlisted your page in case you choose to respond. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I hear you each saying you think one or more of the others is misbehaving. ALL 3 are misbehaving. Stop doing these huge editwar-type reverts. If you don't care enough to give edit summaries, and if you don't care enough to make the individual changes, then perhaps a break from editing this article would be good for you. Please:
All 3 of you are better than this makes you appear. sinneed ( talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you help me expand this-- Sikh-history ( talk) 09:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you have perhaps received answers to your questions regarding this article, but just to confirm, the article was nominated for deletion by Closedmouth, and I deleted it on the basis that the article did not demonstrate any encyclopaedic notability. There may indeed be significant notability attached to the gentleman in question, but this has to be contained within the article. I am happy to restore the article as and when you are ready to expand it; let me know. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 21:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What do you make of this fellows edits and reverts?-- Sikh-history ( talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
January 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help, and sorry I didn't catch them all. It is just almost impossible to completely edit one's own work...thus editors have jobs. :)
However, "1,50,000" is not a number in standard international notation. At least many readers will not know what it means. Is it "1,050,000", "150,000" or something else?
If you hammer out any other new and interesting articles you would like another set of eyes on, please let me know. I find your writing interesting, have learned a lot from it, and I hope I have helped in some small way. :) All the best. sinneed ( talk) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why this article, Vegetarianism in Sikhism is about meat consumption ? Langar is by far a non-meat function ? I was shocked to see that the Akhand Kirtani Jatha has been so badly edited, I felt it needed correcting. You could start an article meat consumption in Sikhism or perhaps make a list of those Gurdwaras that do serve meat, because I've never heard of any. If you can answer these questions, that would be nice starting point, thanks Khalsaburg ( talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to use these links (below). If you don't find anyone of them {including the Sikhiwiki you found} objectionable without reason, so kindly provide reason(s) as to why these additional links may or may not suffice, thanks again Khalsaburg ( talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-institutions/the-sikh-institutions-langar-and-pangat.html
http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/institutions/langar/
http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart18.htm
http://www.baisakhifestival.com/langar.html
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Guru_ka_Langar
I would remind you again that Sikh Langar is not or never has been a meat feast Khalsaburg ( talk) 23:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
And can you tell me categorically that none of the above links have been previously or are currently being used as references surrounding Sikhism ?
I await your response(s) Khalsaburg ( talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
All relevant links on Google regarding the AGGS (SGGS) view on vegetarianism are clear, and don't seem to fit wit your POV. (subjective not objective)
You haven't answered my question(s)
Why are these links not acceptable?
You haven't answered if they have been used (previously or currently) as references on other Sikh Wikipedia articles? Thanks Khalsaburg ( talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you thinking what I am thinking? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 13:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you kindly provide evidence that Sikhiwiki is 'not reliable' as per any direct referece in Wikipedia. NB I don't want any POV, just reference(s). Thanks Khalsaburg ( talk) 10:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask if you are anti AKJ ? Khalsaburg ( talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
well done -- Sikh-history ( talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Fellow Editor, I have tried to enagage and get Khalsaburg to discuss various Sikh articles, but he seems fixated on pushing forward a POV which goes against the Sikh Rehat Marayada. He has copy and pasted unreferenced work from Sikhiwiki and also other articles, by an anonymoue T Singh. I am getting tired of reverting his POV. Do you want to take further steps? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 09:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You said.
"Your argument is baseless; feel free to remove the above links if you find them being used unreliably"
I have replaced them with these links:
http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-institutions/the-sikh-institutions-langar-and-pangat.html
http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/institutions/langar/
http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart18.htm
http://www.baisakhifestival.com/langar.html
Kindly explain why these links are NOT acceptable ? Giving clear reasons
Also, can you state if these links have been used previously or currently regarding any Sikh articles ?
Thanks Khalsaburg ( talk) 12:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to develop this article on Jandu Littranwala. I was wondering whether you had any input or links and references I could use. Also, I am trying to develop an article on the Acoustic maestro Mandippal Jandu (Harbans Jandu's, Grand Nephew). Any Input would be welcome. Thanks -- Sikh-history ( talk) 09:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Am I getting paranoid?-- Sikh-history ( talk) 08:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you this fellow from Sikhiwiki who ran circles around HariSingh? I followed the debate he and Incredible had for some time, and it was "Incredible" to follow. For my money Incredible won hands down, and really checked HariSingh's ego into place. Regards -- Sikh-history ( talk) 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a word Persection...do you ? Then why do we have a page called Persection of Muslims ? Of course it redirects to Persecution of Muslims but why it needs to be so...? Kindly reply on my talk page ...thanks Jon Ascton ( talk) 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if these are of interest to you, but I have edited both heavily.
I see you had edited the RS article before, and I suspect it needs some of the same edits applied again. These need sourcing help, a much more knowledgeable person to fact-check/fix them.
I moved a great deal of content out of the AKJ article into the RS one. I fear I cannot fact-check the articles due to lack of knowledge... my intent is to help with wording and structure. I hope I have done so. sinneed ( talk) 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this user the same as this user? -- Sikh-history ( talk) 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have a chance, please drop by and give your opinion at discussion of removal of neutrality flag at Sikh extremism. I have some concerns, but the article is receiving attention from only a few authors. I am considering an RfC... as unproductive as those have proven for me so far. Even 1 more interested editor might make it worthwhile. In any event, I am uncertain the flag is still needed, though many of my edits another editor states are "extremist POV", and I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment. - sinneed ( talk) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have opened an wp:RFC about a dispute at Labh Singh. I wonder if you might have both time and interest to comment. No problem if not, life is far to short to worry about such things. Hope you are well, and thanks for dropping by the Sikh extremism discussion. - sinneed ( talk) 04:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the discussion? Thanks-- Sikh-history ( talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Please help build this section. Thanks -- Sikh-history ( talk) 06:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering? GHALOOGHAARAA ( talk) 08:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, a friend of mine has set up a wiki like site, but appear to be having problems with codes. Have you any idea, how to help? Thanks -- Sikh-History 08:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sikh-showing-burned-property-burning-1984-delhi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sikh-property-burning-1984-delhi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sikhs camp shadara 1984 prashant 070411 outlook india.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:41, 14 December 2009 (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)
13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.