Greetings, could you kindly explain why Saini people category has been emptied out? Did you perceive WP:SYN or some other violation? Thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pictore...please note that your speedy delete request for the Saini Soldiers category was declined by a third party edtior. Since I did not hear back from you I have reverted all of your good faith edits save the List of Notable Saini people article that you created. If you have difference of opinion , please contact me on my talk page and we can work together using WP:Consensus. Thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Barjinder Singh Hamdard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I do plan to go after all of the caste categories. I've heard from some that Jat is an ethnicity, so I think that is more of a CFD sort of option. Rajput too is a tad bit complicated, because they are also a huge royal clan (its very complicated because Hindi speaking North India does not have strong ethnic lines). Smaller, more clear cut categories like Kamboj, Iyer, etc are easier to sniff out.Pectoretalk22:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jat ethnicity? Thats all hubris. It is a caste like any other. There are two kinds of castes. Occupational caste and ethnic caste. Jat can be classified as both but it is a caste nonetheless in the Indian social system like Mudliyar, Baniya, Khatri, Kayast--History Sleuth (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)h, etc. If you need references , I can supply them. You can go and look it up on matrimonial sites if you wish as well. Take a look at the following reference and there tonnes of others:[reply]
"Yet the same growing awareness of caste can be observed among young Sikhs of the Jat caste, as well as among Hindus and Muslims. Deprecation on the basis of caste can go from the supposedly lower to the higher as easily as vice versa."
Source : Contesting culture: discourses of identity in multi-ethnic, London, By Gerd Baumann, pp152 Cambridge University Press, 1996
I hope you would go after all the groups uniformly and not selectively make the under represented groups target of your crusade. Thanks.
Bali Sacrifice is not obscure at all. It is practiced by millions of Hindu's and is also a part of the Kshatriya tradition of India. It is a part of the Sakta tradition as well (as well as some Shivite traditions). It is in no way obscure. I am reverting your reversion. Thanks--Sikh-History07:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on List of Kambojas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. peterl (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some time to look at this article? It's a crapfest, alternating between a hagiography and an attack page with neither of the two active editors (and their socks and off-wiki friends) having any care in life about any WP policy. I spent days trying to clean up and gave up, as did a couple of others I asked. Maybe you might have better luck? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of comprehension on your part is astounding. The most reliable source in the 5 you have shown me, terms the two different things. The others all term it Jhatka.Pectoretalk17:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Dear fellow editor, you stated none of my sources actually had Bali mentioned in them. You have just confirmed to me 5 of them have. Thank you for backing me up. Have a good day.--Sikh-History17:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pectore, I have recommened the article Bali (sacrifice) to be merged with Animal sacrifice. The reason is that there is already a general article on the theme to which Hindu and Sikh animal sacrifices can be added as sub topics. I think this new article needlessly duplicates a topic. What is next? Are we going to have separate articles for animal sacrifice in each tradition? There are thousands of creeds which practiced animals sacrifice with various theological inspirations. To dedicate a separate article for each is bit of an overkill, imho. Kindly weigh in with your opinions. Thanks.--History Sleuth
There are a number of errors in both your statement above, and the article that needed corrections. Yes I made a misspelling, since "s" and "d" are next to each other on a keyboard. Congratulations.
The edit is not Dbachmann's edit. The text I changed dates back to a string of edits you made in early august.
Administrators do not have special editing power, so I am not beholden to prostrate before him to approve my edits, though since he is knowledgeable about South Asian history and sociology, I do value his input.
Not all 3.5 million Balinese practice animal sacrifice. The number of Hindus in Bali does not merit inclusion in the article
Rajputs are Kshatriya.
Again do not litter my talk page with these inane "warnings". You'll notice that constructive users take the time to say what they need to in a reasoned manner.
Oh yes I forgot comments like "Bollocks" and "The lack of comprehension on your part is astounding", are very constructive. Best Wishes--Sikh-History17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making Filthy comments on co editors
Stop making POV comments on co editors. Its strictly aginst the wikipedia policy which i have referred there to add honorifics. Saint and Swami are allowed when th person will not be known if called without that prefix. but STOP INSTIGATING RELIGION BASED WAR in WIKIPEDIA. This is not the forum for people like YOU who make such comments. Wasifwasif (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
