User talk:Jujhar.pannu

O great God, grant me this boon, I should never waver from doing righteous deeds. I should never fear fighting the evil forces in the battle of life. Instead, let my self-confidence ensure my victory. In the heart of my heart, I should ever long, To sing thy praises like a Sikh. And when the hour of mortality of this body arrives, I should die fighting on the battle field with unbounded courage. (Swaiyya)

____

We, the devotees must tell our plight to the Lord, Without Him, the luxury of soft beds is agony The flask of drinks are like a cross, Pleasures of Palaces are like living among snakes if thou art away The goblet is poison and the cup a dagger. I would rather love this state with my beloved Lord, than live in the burning hell with strangers.

Babu Kunwar Singh

Maharaja Fateh Singh Bahadur

Raja Fateh Singh (1784-1837)

Nana Sahib

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Much as it pains me...

...I think the editor on the Operation Bluestar etc article is correct. We have to use Wikipedia standards regarding WP:COMMON in particular Common Name. We may wish to call the Sikhs Khalsa, but all WP:Reliable source describe them as Sikh Militants. Unfortunately we have to go along with that. JDiala, makes a good case. Remember the truth is the truth no matter how unpalatable it maybe. Thanks SH 08:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They clearly are baptized Sikhs so that makes them represent the Khalsa. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was every single one Baptised? Are you sure? Have you a reference that corroborates this? I can find several that refer to them as Sikh Militants. You have to get used to WP:COMMON . Thanks SH 18:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The baptized ones were in charge and I would say 80-90% were baptized, it was the Akal Takht so I dont know who else hangs around there rather than the Khalsa, Its not a big deal im not going to revert back or anything but if you want to pursue the argument further with me just for fun feel free to do so.. To keep things interesting I want to add that the Nihangs never were with Bhinderwale because they thought (their leaders decided) that Bhinderawale was doing good for the Sikhs but not the common people of India and Nihangs are there to serve the common people and keep them happy, just thought that was interesting. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is not a forum I feel compeled to answer this. As someone around at the time of this and having lost relatives subsequently in the Pogrums I used to follow Bhindranwala. One of the reasons I covereted to Sikhism was just that, But I no longer do! Why you ask, because Bhindranwala was put in his position by the Congress. He was funded by them, and then turned on them. He is not the Saint everyone thinks he is. Far from it. The blame for all the troubles lies with Indira Gandhi and her Congress Party political maschinations. Thanks SH 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Bhindrawale was put in his position as the leader of the Damdami Taksal by Kartar Singh Bhindranwale. People liked Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale because of his extensive lectures on Sikhi. He spent all of his time teaching and has a large audio library of kathas on various different banis' ie Jaap Sahib Japji Sahib, etc, Sikhs were treated horribly during the games in India and if it wasnt for Baba Jarnail Singh there is no way Sikhism would be how it is in its form today, Nirankaris and various other sects would have had the control of mainstream sikhi. There are a lot of lies about Bhniderwale but if you listen directly to his recordings you can tell what kind of Saint he was. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist nonsense. I was alive and in India at the time. It was all politics. I can see why you have a problem with WP:NPOV on Sikh related articles. The best sources of information are the BBC Radio 4 reports made at the time. Mark Tully has some very good reports. Thanks SH 17:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation ended. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Have a Problem With Grammar and English?

I've asked you this several times and you won't answer it. You made a complete hash of Spirituality in Sikhism, yet again. You made changes without discussing them. You've got to learn basic English skills before you you start editing here. You're standard of English in that article again turned it into a sort of joke article. Your terminoligy made no sense. The order of the subject made nosense. It did not even fit the definition of spirituality in the lede of the article. You really have to do better. Thanks SH 11:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name one grammar or english mistake. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of incorrect prose. Poor structure. Nonsensical sentences. Want me to carry on? Thanks SH 10:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of specific words on Operation Blue Star article

Hi, I started discussion on the talk page regarding the use of specific words in the info box. I think we should discuss this case on the one place (talk page of article) rather than talk page(s) of individual editors. Hopefully, we will find solution via WP:Consensus. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jujhar.pannu. You have new messages at Vigyani's talk page.
Message added 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vigyani_talk^ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"See Also" rules

If you take a look at WP:ALSO (the part of the Manual of Style that talks about the See Also section), you'll see that we're not supposed to put any wikilink in that section that's already linked in the text. Since Sikhism in the very first sentence of the article, it can't also be put into See Also. I hope that explains the reasons why you're being reverted on Sikh. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the reply, I did update the page but in a more professional way now. I have noticed your edits on the Ranjit Singh page and I will in the near-late future also work on the Ranjit Singh page it as it needs a lot of layout formatting and I will follow the above and also use the Einstein page as a point of context to make it professionally, eg Biography super-section, Sikh rule super-section, etc. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guru Granth Sahib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian religions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Aryan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Damdami Taksal, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. We've been through this before. Stop adding poor grammar and English and over elaborate explanations. SH 11:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sorry there is no original research there, nor is there any grammar mistakes, and there are no elaborate definitions as they only fit the who what where and how (which is the minimum) so I have undid your reversion as you failed to provide a genuine reason. Thank you take care and enjoy ji. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jujhar.pannu, I see that you and Sikh-history have engaged in a little bit of edit warring on Sikhism for some vaguely stated reasons. I would ask that this stop. I have added explicit citations to address that concern. As a general principle stripping out content simply because you have a concern is inappropriate, especially if citations are provided. If you have a concern, please discuss it and, preferably, provide alternative wording.

I request that you restore my edits and engage in more productive editing.

Thanks.

-- MC

Re: DR

Hi, if you have a reason as to why his title should not be added and comes under WP:Honorifics then please add it to the discussion. I personally am not happy about adding him because I cannot see any ISBN reference, however, it was re-added for some reason. Please let me know if you have evidence. Thanks SH 13:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sikh History, In regards to adding the 'Dr.' in front of Dr. Harjinder Singh, I think it should just be Harjinder Singh as I believe Dr is a honorific as it appears in the honorifics article and honorific should not be used. In the wiki page it says "Other honorifics may denote the honored person’s occupation, for instance "Doctor", "Captain", "Coach", Officer, "Reverend..." Also on the WP:Honorifics it explicitly says . "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right , this come under WP:Credentials. Thanks for pointing that out. SH 19:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Painless Killing

You cannot add nonsensical terms like "painless killing" but you can add terms like "decapitation is deemed to be less painful of animal slaughter than other methods of killing". Thanks SH 19:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes, well let me get back to you on this one sometime later. Thanks Jujhar.pannu (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sahib Singh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ({{lang-pa|ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਸਿੰਘ}},{{lang-hi|प्रोफ़ेसर साहिब सिंघ}}), 16 February 1892 - 29 October 1977) was a renowned [[Sikh]] academic who made a tremendous contribution to [[Sikh]] literature. He was

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Puran Singh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Sikhi Di Atma (ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦੀ ਆਤਮਾ [Spirit and Psyche of Sikhi)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Sikhism, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop adding flannel and non-superfolous jibberish to articles. The lede is meant to be a summary. Not a rendition of War and Peace writen in Pidgeon English. SH 19:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Nihang, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SH 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop distorting all the pages add me as one of the dozens or so fair playing users who have a problem with you on wikipedia. You remove much more over petty excuses and in turn always write a ton of false information, eg in your last revert on the Sikhism page look at all the things you took down, the concepts you completely deleted: Guru Arjan, the fifth Sikh Guru compiled the first of two renditions of the Guru Granth Sahib - many people are confused about this concept and is a major event in Sikhism so it obviously needs to be in the lead, community, inclusiveness and oneness of all humankind - you got sharing but you completely missed these ones, The fact that Sikhism is a spiritual, social, and political system of beliefs rather than just a spiritual system - again another core concept of the religion. Based on you edit history its clear your just playing games. If you want to change something or have a actual problem with an article TELL the user the problem rather than making lame "grammar" threats which don't hold true in any angle. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a problem with WP:AGF as well as WP:Competance. See the WP:Manual of Style and WP:Lead. Your over bloated "lead"'s are not only poor grammatically but meander and make no sense. You are on your final warning. I suggest you take any issues with edits o the talk page rather than engaing in WP:Edit War. Take note of the following

1. "spiritual, social, and political" - summarised in Spiritual and Temporal (which is political/social) or "Sikhism considers spiritual life and secular life to be intertwined"
2. The writing of the grant is dealth with the main body.
3. "community, inclusiveness and oneness of all humankind" - summarised "in order to demonstrate the need to share and have equality between all people" and further by "Guru Nanak inspired people to earn an honest living without exploitation and also the need for meditation on God's name"

Thanks SH 10:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Sikhism, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. I suggest you read the above and familiarise yourself with the concept of lede. You obviously still have WP:COMPETENCE issues. SH 10:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Nihang, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your refrences still do not pass the WP:Verifiable test. SH 10:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific reason for reverting as I explained on the talk page of Sikhism also on the Nihang page those sources are WP:Verifiable as they are from an ISBN books.Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of quoting refrences out of context and "google refrencing". I tried to check those references and there was no reference to what you were asserting, hence why they are not WP:Verifiable, or WP:Reliable. Like I said, it's a question of WP:Competence with you. Thanks SH 21:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sikhism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SH 21:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nihang

Hello, I'm Sikh-history. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Nihang. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The bbc source is verifiable. Please stop censoring articles. SH 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://tinypic.com/r/2rotcnb/5, the Nihang origin from Baba Fateh Singh is clearly mentioned.. and Punjab University is also an accredited university so it too is WP:Reliable Jujhar.pannu (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nippet. I cannot see the context in which it was written. It may well say "Some Nihangs accept Sahibzada ......as the founder of Nihangs, but this has been disproved". That, is the problem with "google referencing". SH 11:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't it clearly says what is exactly being implied. The sentence in the article says: "Nihangs are believed to have originated from Sahibzada Fateh Singh" and the citation says "Some Nihang Singhs accept their origin as being from Baba Fateh Singh". The are explicitly saying the same thing.

Secondly the Punjab University is also an accredited university so it too is WP:Reliable Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Nihang. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. SH 07:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Punjabi language. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for adding unsourced content with a misleading edit summary. Thomas.W ^talk to me 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the other changes, which were re-ordering based on population and removing the link brackets of Pakistan the second time and also removal of a floating non linked reference in the "Writing systems" sub section. I will look into adding a reference for the South Africa and Malaysia, though I thought it was appropriate to add them because they showed higher significance in terms of Punjabi Speakers than Australia which was mentioned in the list. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Sikhism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SH 10:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sikhism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sangat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sikhism

Because of your past WP:Disruptive behaviour and issues with WP:OR and WP:Balance as well as WP:Competence, I would be grateful if you could discuss your ideas and edits at the WP:Sikhism talk page so that we can get WP:Consensus. We are just about making this joke article into something encyclopeadic, and you are again ,making it into an unreadable mess. Thanks SH 14:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm Sikh-history. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sikhism without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! SH 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Sikhism. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SH 11:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Sikhism, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please discuss any removal on the talk page SH 11:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jujhar.pannu. I am Diannaa and I am an adminitrator on this wiki. Some portions of this post were construed as a personal attack by User:Sikh-history as being a personal attack. In the future, please focus your talk page discussions strictly on the content and do not make posts that speculate on other people's motives or religious affiliation. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Nihang, you may be blocked from editing. SH 21:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sikhism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. You cannot removed valid refrences. See the talk page. This issue has been discussed previously. SH 17:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits....

Hello fellow editor, thanks for leaving a "false warning" on my page, I have deleted it. You will note I have found some of your edits quite amusing up until now, and put them down to WP:Competence. You could have easily been blocked despite your block evade tactics up until now, but my hope was you may learn some basic editing skills and become and asset to wikipedia. Instead you have chosen to persist with WP:OR and delete references that don't fit with "Fundementalist" Sikhism. If you persist with such a route I will take action and have you blocked. This is my final warning to you. Get with the programme. Learn some basic English, and stop making Wikipedia look like a grad paper from somebody from jove institutions like Lovely Professional University. Thanks SH 17:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report about Sikh-history (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. Please don't abuse warning templates as it's taken very seriously SH 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sikh-history. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Nihang that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SH 18:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Understanding or Lack of Understanding of English

I have noticed again your lack of understanding of English as it is your second language is hampering your editing abilities. Here is a basic lesson. On article Sikhism you have stated that "fighting oppression" is different from "restorative justice", however you are wrong . Restorative Justice can take the form of fighting oppressors, or restoring someones rights or another methid. In otherwords "fighting oppressors" is just one of many subsets of "restorative Justice". Please try and improve your English so that your WP:Competence improves. Googling references is not enough. Understanding context and meaning is more. Thanks SH 18:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jujhar.pannu. I am Diannaa and I am an adminitrator on this wiki. I noticed that most of your edit summaries and talk page posts characterise other people's edits as vandalism or disruption, even when it's just ordinary editing or when you are involved in a content dispute. For example, in this post when another editor asked for verification of sources. In the future, please focus your talk page discussions strictly on the content. Please consider improving your behaviour towards your fellow editors, or you could be blocked from editing. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to talk about the content but user would either change topic or say some complete nonsense as I will illustrate: when I told him to remove the topic sentence "Sikhism regards "Justice" and "Restorative Justice" as trumping any codes of moral order and it is the duty of the Khalsa to preserve this" because there is no reference to support this bold statement in terms of the trumping any codes of moral order part he replied "Present both or its WP:POV." He also uses numerous personal attacks for example he would call me a fundamentalist or mention some lovely institute nonsense further more he would say I have grammar issues and competence issues as perhaps a sly way to avoid talking about content. He has reported to numerous administrators mentioning this lack of writing skills and all of them disagreed with him. In fact the administrator Dbachmann replied "Nothing I would describe as "pidgeon" English, or that couldn't be fixed by minor copyediting here or there. Are you sure this isn't actually about content?"1 So it is not me who it is making it hard to talk about content. Please as an administrator I advice you to look at this with a fair view point if that's not too much to ask. Sincerely Jujhar.pannu (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact you do not understand "Restorative Justice" is the same as "fighting any means of oppression" are one and the same thing aptly demonstrates my point on WP:Competence. Also I suggest you try and read references fully before deleting them. Thanks SH 08:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've refered this and other issues to WP:Dispute Resolution. So before you start deleting and reverting, please try and engage. Thanks SH 09:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Sikh-history, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is my final warning on this matter, if you persist on adding false warnings on my talk page you will end up blocked. SH 08:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

regarding user "Sikh History "

sat sri akaal

User "Sikh History " blocked from editing .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpartaap11 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Punjab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at Talk:Op Blue Star

Hi. I noticed that you wish to discuss the appropriate name to be used in the infobox for the side represented by Bhinderanwale. Since the last comment in that discussion was more then half an year back. Could you post your comment under a separate section and start the new discussion properly.--Vigyani_talk^ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only 3 subsequent topics posted below it I do not feel there is need to move it especially since it is directly linked with the thread it is currently part of. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jujhar.pannu. You have new messages at Talk:Sikh.
Message added 03:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

at the bottom of the page Vigyani_talk^ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jujhar.pannu. You have new messages at Talk:Sikh.
Message added 13:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vigyani_talk^ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism Pantheism or Monotheism

Hi, could you help me. I have been looking at the Sikhism artyicle and some people add that Sikhism is a Monotheistic religion and others Pantheistic? Which is correct? I have taken out Pantheistic for now as from what I have read it is Monotheistic? I am keen to get consensus . Please help. Thanks DeludedFan (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: No edit war and WP:BRD

@Jujhar.pannu: Since you are posting all those warnings, it is obvious you know the WP:BRD and WP:3RR guidelines. I have posted my comments and reliable sources on Talk:Bhakti movement. Instead of edit warring, I request you to engage in constructive discussion on the article's talk page, get consensus and then revise the article to the consensus version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am easily persuaded and very reasonable. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: No threats, no violation of WP:TPNO

@Jujhar.pannu: Please note that threats on talk page violate WP:TPNO. If you have reason to seek admin action, just take it to ANI/DRN. I will join you there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polite warnings of subsequently distorting references are not personal threats and do not violate WP:TPNO Jujhar.pannu (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is required

In this comment on Talk:Bhakti movement, you deny removing the content "While Sikhism was influenced by Bhakti movement, and incorporated hymns from the Bhakti poet saints, it was not simply an extension of the Bhakti movement. Sikhism, for instance, disagreed with some of the views of Bhakti saints Kabir and Ravidas." from the article. Anyone familiar with editing Wikipedia can read the relevant diff and see that you are not telling the truth. Either you are unable to remember your edits and cannot read a diff or you are deliberately dissimulating. I'm going to ask you now to strike that untrue comment from the talk page and answer the question why you deleted the sourced content. If you fail to do so, I will seek other opinions on whether you are displaying the competence to be editing in what is a controversial area; and if need be, I'll seek a topic ban on you from these articles. I hope you'll take this warning seriously, and take steps to amend your behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

March 2016: final warning

Juhar.pannu, I see that your account is not a sock of Js82, according to checkuser.[1]. However, from your mysterious claims to know what Js82's blocked sock Kigman fs thinks (your "his concern about the quotes being represented inaccurately"[2] is made up out of whole cloth, as he had not voiced any such concern), something is clearly going on. First you reverted the big removal made by Kigman fs.[3] OK so far. But then you quickly went on to re-remove half of the text again in three edits.[4] Your response on the talkpage to urgent requests for explanation of these deletions is inadequate to put it mildly. You start by denying you made the deletions,[5] but we can read the History. Do you perhaps know Kigman fs in real life? If you disrupt the article further, without a very good explanation, I will either block you or topic ban you from editing it, depending on the situation and the quality of your explanations. See the discretionary sanctions alert just above. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

PS. I've read your warnings on Ms Sarah Welch's page. I've no idea what you think posting random templates like that is going to achieve, other than make you look randomly hostile. Don't do it again, it's ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I feel I may be of help, since it was me who raised concern for quotes to be represented accurately. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhakti_movement&diff=709499303&oldid=709493908 and the latest ongoing topic too. Likely Mr. Pannu was agreeing with it but confused the people. Revkh (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Revkh: Once again, welcome to wikipedia, given you are just a few days old account. I am amazed how quickly you have discovered wikipedia's edit history and "diff-posting" skills. That is a good sign that you learn fast. But, you should let @Jujhar.pannu (or other editors) explain their own edits and behavior, rather than second guess. The various sections @Jujhar.pannu has repeatedly deleted is not related to the diff link you provided. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jujhar.pannu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jujhar.pannu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jujhar.pannu. 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)[reply]

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Guru Arjan. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert and warning

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Abecedare (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to your past and recent disruption you are real close to to a topic-ban/block. So I'd strongly urge you to discuss content issues on the article talkpages; invite outside opinion through RSN, NPOVN etc; use the DRN process (in that order!), instead of edit-warring or using WP:ANI for content disputes. Abecedare (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Guru Arjan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  regentspark (comment) 18:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. regentspark (comment) 19:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Dhanna Singh a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Dhanna Singh. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 14:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jujhar.pannu. 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)[reply]

Nice work

I just wanted to show appreciation to you for adding in IPA transcriptions onto various Sikhism-related Wikipedia article. Keep up the good work. ThethPunjabi (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]