User talk:Sikh-history/Archive 1

Premarital sex in Sikhism ?

Is this common practice ?

Secondy, can you kindly define your cause as to why you may or may not have a 'monopoly' on the history of sikhism since once notices your defunct site has zero visitors ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.194 (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is not a discussion board, but my personal page. If you need help to clean up articles I can help. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Diet

I've looked at that article, and it is clear that it needs a re-write. I've got my doubts about anyone with a name such as yours that reflects a purpose editing articles, but I'll assume good faith, and make some suggestions for improvement.

• First, the article needs to have most, if not all the quotes removed, and if kept anywhere, the works they appear in should be cited as references.

• Second, the organization of the article needs work. I suggest focusing less on the dissension between the various beliefs and working your way up to that once the basics are stabilized.

And this is probably not important, but all capitalizations in sections are not good.

FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Suggestions

Hi FrozenPurpleCube,

• The name Sikh-History comes from our site www.sikh-history.com. The site is recognised worldwide as a leading source for historical information. We are at the forefront in ensuring extremist factions eg people like User:Harisingh don't get to just express their pont of view and that other points of view are put foreward. People such as these are motivated by alliegance to a particular Sikh Saint who espouses a fanatical stance on Sikhism. Www.sikh-history.com, has no such point of view and does not espouse the view of any Sikh Saint. Our core principles of Truth, Justice and Equality motivate us.

• The suggestion you have made are great. We are very keen to work with you on this and Sikh articles in general. The ammendments initially came to this article because the person who created it made a false supposition that meat eaters did not use Sikh Texts to back up their point of view and only vegetarians did. I think the devil in the detail with anything is interpretation. We had aimed to make a balanced debate about the issue but alas that has come to problems.

• With regard to the quotations, it make be difficult to create a debate about the Sikh diet without quotations from Historical texts that show what the actual diet was.

• Another point is that our concern is with a chap called User:Harisingh who has a track record of writting biased articles with his opinion and calls them factual. We aim to keep his articles in check on Sikhism, and ensure that historical texts rather than hearsay is used to back up opinion.

What do you think?--Sikh-history 12:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

As a fellow Sikh, I first of all like to say hi. With regards to any disagreements you've been having with other Sikh wiki members don't feel bad- you should discuss things with other Sikh Wiki members. For Sikhs, it our ability to discuss things and our unity that has made us into such a great people & massively successful throughout history. King regards--Sikh 1 13:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sikh1, Nice of you to write. As you have gathered Sikh-history is a collection of people with similar goals. Our aims are to counter ignorance and extremism through posting historical fact. Unfortunately HariSingh is an extremist and fanatic that cannot be reasoned with. His work on sikhiwiki is an example of this and an attempt by our memebers to reason with him has resulted in nothing. His views are so fixed and extreme, I fear he is beyond any help. We have tried discussion with him, and his reply was to call our edits "Vandalism" for which he was proved wrong. We are open to criticism and dialogue, but not open to dictatorial impositions. Pease visit our site www.sikh-history.com. Best Wishes --Sikh-history 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Look first it is completely wrong to do personal attacks on Hari Singh, this is not befitting behaviour for a Sikh or a Wikipedian and it is not way you resolve things. In Sikhism the reason why we have been so successful as a people is the bonds that bind us together are stronger than any differences. This is what our ancestor Sikhs had in their mind and thats why they were so successful. Its through talking you resolve things- regards--Sikh 1 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sikh1. The first personal attack came from HariSingh when he accused our memebers of Vandalism, when cleaerly he knew it was not. Maybe you should speak to him before speaking to us. You are right personal attacks will not solve anything, but we are pointing out a fact in the behaviour we have obsereved so dfar in HariSingh. Thanks --Sikh-history 05:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If he did a person attack on you, that's no excuse to do one your self, rise above it and be better than that.--Sikh 1 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all i'm saying is we are Sikhs, we are all brothers & family - all children of Guru Gobind Singh and because of that we must treat each other with respect and honour - to honour our father's history (Guru Gobind Singh). We live in a time when Sikhs have many enemies, we don't want to make it worse by fighting each other- regards--Sikh 1 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WE understand what you are saying, but we do not think there can be compromise with religious fanatics such as HariSingh. We would go as far as to compare him to religious fanatics such as those that follow Al-Qaeeda. Just like Al-Qaeeda has tarnished the name of Islam, we feel people like HariSingh and their fanatical views will compromise the great religion of Sikhism. HariSingh has a very willy and cunning manner, which is very sweet to the face which covers an uncompromising interior. He is a proverbial school ground bully who wishes to push his POV wherever he goes. Our aim is to rebalance that and take on the bully (because invariably bully's are cowards). We suffered under the bullying of the Indian Governemnt in 1984, we suffered under the rioting that followed (many of us lost relatives), and now we are suffering from fanatics bulllying us within our own religion. I am sorry to sound negative, but you sound like a kind person. For the record we are not only concerned about the meat issue, as our front page describes. Best Wishes. --Sikh-history 12:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving talk comments

For the sake of clarity, I'm just gonna blockquote our convo on the IP page when you weren't logged in. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from IP page:
Please explain your rationale for full rewrite of the introduction paragraph on the talk page. Thank you! -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend - the History of Patiala is very clear. A History of Sikh Misals by Bhagat Singh (Patiala University), concisely and clearly outlines this. I thought I would add it. Is there a problem?

Please add your rationale to Talk:Patiala so we can go from there. Thanks! -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done --Sikh-history 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately...

Per our policies, accounts used by multiple people are not allowed. -Amark moo! 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one using it now, because it was seen as dodgy before. I sometimes edit from work, so if you need any help I am at your service. Thanks--Sikh-history 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. -Amark moo! 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what can I do about these constant abusive attacks by some fanatical "Sikhs" on this site? --Sikh-history 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your report, and that's pretty much what you do with the kind of attacks you're getting. It should be acted upon within a day. -Amark moo! 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks my friend. My concern is that there are people coming on this site on various topics such as Jat History, Sikh History and are posting inaccurate and even discredited sources to back up their articles. This worries me as readers will get the wrong impression, and from a Neutral Point of View, it does not do service to wikipedia and what it stands for. --Sikh-history 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

come speak to me on my talk page

lets sort this out in a normal way, if you don't want to that ok as well because I can carry on until the end of time--Sikh 1 10:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

carry on till the end of time?, So you are are admitting you are spamming the site?

Please reconcile the Sikh Code of Conduct which states meat eating is not banned in Sikhism with the view that Meat eating is strictly banned in Sikhism. Then lets move on. Regards --Sikh-history 10:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sikh 1

I've blocked this user for 24 hours to put a stop to Sikh 1's constant warnings, ANI reports, and so on. I do want to take a momemt to warn you, as well (in the interests of evenness) about two things. First of all, on Wikipedia edit disputes are supposed to be solved via civil discussion, and we should assume good faith on behalf of other contributors. Therefore, it is inappropriate to call someone else's edits "vandalism" if they are likely acting in good faith: true vandalism is obviously done in bad faith, and a content disagreement is very different. Second, you are doing the right thing in your dispute: finding sources to back up your claims. Sikh 1 should be doing the same thing, but bear in mind that sources are not always accurate or neutral, so disucssion may still be needed. Anyway, that's a minor point. Mangojuice^talk 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. I guess I got annoyed as I spent hours going through books to find verifiable source for the Prohibitions in Sikhism article, only to have Sikh 1 constantly delete them

• Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi
• Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar
• A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi
• Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar
• A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England
• Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi

I take on board your warning, but I am only begining to realise the procedures in wiki. Please be patient with me as I am a novice to Wiki and please guide and steer me in the correct direction. I look forward to some constructive input from yourself and me. Many Thanks --Sikh-history 10:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors

I'm a bit confused after looking at your user page. How many editors make up the user Sikh-history? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it was swveral, but it was pointed out that several people usingh the same account was dodgy, so therefore it is only one. The site www.sikh-history.com does have several contributors. So issues are debated on www.sikh-history.com, and then one person adds results of that debate here at wiki with citations. I feel this ensure's that sources for wiki are looked at from many different view points. Is there a problem? If there is I will endeavour to correct my friend. --Sikh-history 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it would probably be a good idea to change the way User:Sikh-history is written as it gives the impression of several people. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will get on it straight away.--Sikh-history 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets talk

First of all you are Sikh so you are my brother so I have to talk to you. Ok agree we need to talk. I am a vegatarian Sikh. Ok put on the meat section that there are two different views and respect must be given to both sides.--Sikh 1 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a vegetarian too.As Sikhs we should really obey the Rehit Marayada. What we should put is that there are various Vegetarian Sikh groups who disagree with the Rehat Maryada on Meat Eating and therfore advocate a vegetarian lifestyle. Regards --Sikh-history 14:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all reply on my talk page when replying. Secondly Rehit Marayada does not say eating meat allowable--Sikh 1 14:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if we cannot agree on a simple fact like the Rehit Maryada then there is no point discussing. It is written in black and white. I suggest mediation. Regards --Sikh-history 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I and many totally don't agree with your interpretation it is completely non-Sikh and alien. Only a non-sikh mind would say things like this. What you are saying is completely against what it says in the Shri Guru Granth Sahib. Final when replying reply on my talk page as I will only reply to questions and request on my talk page--Sikh 1 14:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less of the abuse please. I am a Sikh and not an Alien. You are mistaken if you think the issue about meat is an issue at all in Sikhism. It does not matter what your interpretation is, wikipedia is only concerned with the facts. To push your point of view is against the policy of wikipedia. The Rehit Marayada is clear and concise on this. If you do not wish to obey the Sikh Code of Conduct then that is your perogative, but the Rehit Maryada is very clear on this issue. You cannot force other people to follow your way. I learned that many years ago. Here is the Rehit Maryada:

Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law."

Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law."

In the Rehit Marayada (http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html), Section Six, it states:

The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha);
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse

4. Using tobacco.

— Sikh Rehit Maryada

I think you need to get less emotional and stick to facts. As for going against Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, that is another issue, and again you are completely wrong, but that is another debate--Sikh-history 15:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibitions in Sikhism

I'm removing that point altogether right now and I'm not going to make any further changes to the article at this time because if I add/remove anything from the article, it will just be the wrong version. Please discuss the changes on the talk page. This is obviously an issue where there is disagreement about whether or not eating meat is acceptable and really the most WP:NPOV way to deal with this would be to present both sides of the argument or leave that point out all together. If you want an informal mediation on the talk page I can help out with that, but if you want a more formal mediation, I'd suggest opening a formal request for mediation.--Isotope23 14:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Isotope23. It is great to see that fanatics like Sikh 1 and Sikh Historian to not have a monoply on Sikh History here at wikipedia. Could you give some pointers to opening up mediation. I will be gratefull. Thanks--Sikh-history 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with Sikh 1

I have a couple of comments. First of all, you cannot complain about User:Sikh 1's civility and level of discourse when you continue to misbehave in the same way yourself. See your comment above: calling other users "fanatics" is a personal attack. Make the first step, be civil and reasonable at all times. Read up on the core Wikipedia content policies: it's by referring to those policies that edit disputes are best resolved. The core policies are verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. Also, if you have been editing from an IP address, it would be better if you logged in and claimed responsibility for all your edits.

Specifically in this dispute, I will be the first to admit that I don't know a lot about the subject, and am speaking from ignorance. Ironically, this puts me in a good position to judge, because the right kinds of arguments to use are the ones that would convince me, even someone who knows nothing about the subject. It seems to me that you have largely based your argument directly on certain important texts in Sikhism (based on what you have on your user page). You analyze the text, including its translation, and come to conclusions about whether or not meat-eating is forbidden. While I think you have been scholarly in your approach, this is not a good argument on Wikipedia, because it is original work. For all I can tell, this is something you alone have come up with, that is rejected by the Sikh community at large.

What would convince me more (but still not enough) would be to see the same claims you are making reflected in published sources independent of yourself. If books about Sikhism reflect that the prohibition against meat is not absolute, then at least I'll know that it's an opinion that has some level of support. (Note, though, that the core religious/law texts of Sikhism don't count as this kind of published source themselves: the verifiability policy expects information to come from secondary, not primary sources. What I'm talking about here is analysis of the texts that others have done and published.) However, it wouldn't really be good enough to only show scholarly support for the idea that meat-eating is not forbidden, what's more important is to understand if many Sikhs actually live their lives this way or embrace that idea.

Note that sources supporting your view have to be reliable ones. Ideally, we're talking about books or magazine articles (preferably printed ones, and preferably, in English). Less ideal would be online sources with some special authority -- if, say, there were an official website of Sikhism, or something. Sources that really can't be considered enough on their own are sources like websites with no special authority, blog or webforum posts, et cetera.

Even then, it is important to present the view in the proper context: is it a majority of Sikhs that are prohibited from eating meat? Virtually all? Roughly half? This context must be presented correctly, because of the neutral point of view policy, especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which makes the point that it may be appropriate to not cover insignificant points of view on a subject. I'm going to leave Sikh 1 a similar message. Hopefully you can work this out in the proper way and stop calling each other names. Mangojuice^talk 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mango, point noted. There is no excuse for me to can people fanatics. I will delete that remark. I should not stoop down to other peoples levels. I pride myself on sound scholary and research and therefore insults have no place there. I don't think I have edited from IP addresses for months now. That was probably when I did not realise I could make an account. I always edit from this, unless I forget to login, but I have changed settings to auto log in now.

You are right the essay is probably an original piece of work (it contains many people's work and was edited by my colleague Randip Singh),in that it sums up all the arguments about meat vs vegetarianism in Sikhism, but these ideas are nothing new. There are quotes from verifiables sources, thatback up the fact that meat eating and vegetarianism in Sikhism is a personal choice.

In the article I try and use souces that have ISBN numbers and are also written in English. I have made refrences to the Sikh Holy book too, but that was just to illustrate how the metaphorical language used in there is twisted to mean something it does not. Classic trciks being to remove a few sentences from a paragraph, or to mistranslate.

There are some 25 million Sikhs worldwide, of that say 2 million are vegetarian. They are a vocal and vociforous minority. Many of these 2 million are followers of "Sants", or sects of Sikhism. Most of these sects have started in places abroad. Exampls are 3HO, Guru Nanak Nishkaam Sewak Jatha (GnSSJ) etc. There are other smaller groups such as the Akhand Kirtani Jatha (AKJ), and Damdamai Takhsal.

I look forward to any further guidance you can provide. I hope I can be a valued member of this Wiki project. My aim is the same, to provide neutral point of view policy. I can sometimes be a little overzealous. Thanks--Sikh-history 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Jat

I've posted something to WP:RFPP, lets see where it takes us. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think editing or presenting NPOV has been an ongoiing problem with this page.--Sikh-history 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File Page Protection. WP:RFPP. This is content dispute. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuthaa

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Kuthaa, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CobaltBlueTony 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CobaltBlueTony I haven't had time of late to expand this article. Its more than a dictionary term but refers to Sikh Culture and custom pertaining to meat. Much like Halaal or Kosher for Muslims and Jews respectively.--Sikh-history 12:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIKH

Are you a member? If not, you should join. Thanks for the help on Bhai Gurdas.Bakaman 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page

I have replied to your comment at User talk:Zsero#Sikhism Prohibitions. Let's keep the discussion in one place so it isn't confusing. If you have a reply, please make it at my page and then delete this note. Or move the whole discussion here and leave me a note on my page that I should reply here. Zsero 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt and Bhatti

I have seen you have taken some criticism for your work in differentiating Jatt from Sikhism in all fairness.

There are some writers on here that are hell bent on promotion POV.

Can you help with these two articles? I will do my best and hope you will help me also.--Mein hoon don 13:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will try. Have limited time at moment.--Sikh-history 07:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Comment on my talkpage

It doesn't look like vandalism to me, just typical editing to advance the editor's own point of view. Since it happened several days ago and that IP has not edited again, I wouldn't worry about it too much.--Isotope23 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Isotope, I am just worried that an edit war may start again.--Sikh-history 06:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh4Life

You wrote: Sikh4life has vandalised my page once already and seems to be treating the wikipedia NPOV with contempt. Shall I report him? --Sikh-history 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't been very active lately - the vandalism was nearly a week ago, so I'd hold off until he does something like this again. If you catch him immediately vandalising your user page, then by all means report him. But if you do it now they'll just say "oh, it's not an ongoing problem, maybe he's learned his lesson". Zsero 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Jatt Page

Thank you so much for your comments about the Jat people page. I am really pleased to see you are now contributing to it - especially as you have particular knowledge of the history the Jat people over recent centuries.

You are certainly correct to state that; "The people who are editing this page are treating it as their own personal property and not the property of wikipedia. They are also not adhering to NPOV."

I don't know whether you noticed, but one of the Wikipedia's Administrators has said: "I don't have much time on my hands now, but I'll attempt a neutral rewrite next month, when I'm free. utcursch | talk 14:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)." He hasn't started yet - and it will be a big job if it is to be done properly, but I am hopeful that the article will in time develop into a balanced, factual, interesting and useful account of Jats and their history. Hopefully, we can all contribute together towards this worthy goal.

In the meantime, I wonder if you would kindly also look at the related articles; Indo-Aryan origin of Jats and Common Ancestry of Jatt Names? Both these articles seem to me to reek of racism and need lots of work on them to make sure they are up to the Wikipedia's standards. (I have just noticed that the link to the article Common Ancestry of Jatt Names has been recently removed by someone from the main Jat people page (probably after some scathing comments were written on its Talk Page by utcursch).

Let's hope that these articles will in time become not only informative and accurate but articles that all Jats can be truly proud of.

Cheers and best wishes, John Hill 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank I am of Jatt origin myself and do find it quite embarrasing when all sort of crackpot and silly theories are banded about Jatts.I do not have much time at the moment myself but will take a look at these articles.--Sikh-history 09:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you are NOT Jat you are a Tarkhan (Punjab). Don't try and pull the wool over our eyes.--Sikh 1 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being silly, I have also commented on Khatri, Rajput and Labana pages. I cannot be all these castes. Anything connected to Sikhi I will try and edit. --Sikh-history 18:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on my talk page, There is already a dispute tag on the header seems not necessary to put more dispute tags on each section. There is limit of period for such tags and if dispute is not resolved these can be removed. There seems not much of contribution to this page from your side. By the way whom do you expect to resolve these tags and within what period? burdak 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you trying to fool?

Listen you need to fix your act up. You clearly are not a Jatt. And your user page is silly, if you want to advance your own personal theories of what Sikhism is then please do so on your own website. Please stop spreading ignorance on the internet. --Street Scholar 14:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to gain or lose from fooling people. My goal is wikipedia's goal and that is to seek a neutral point of view. One of the most ridiculous pages on wikipedia is the Jatt one and it clearly needs some cleaning up to conform to the NPOV of wikipedia. Sikhism and Jatt culture are both very dear to me, but I am not stupid or ignorant enough to confuse them. Thanks --Sikh-history 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khatri Kshatriya A Sikh Perspective

My compliments on your fantastic post on the Khatri talk page  : ).

Cheers
Intothefire 13:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend. I wanted to bring the arguments to a close by putting the Sikh perspective. If the 10th Guru Guru Gobind Singh ji states in Dasam Granth that Sodhi's are Surya Bansi Kshatriya then that is proof enough.--Sikh-history 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user Sikh-history

I have been working on a new article Punjab Chiefs . Durying the course of working on this article I came upon this page Sodhi . Someone has given their own spin on this .Sodhis are listed as Jats .This seems to be incorrect . You seem to be better versed in these matters , would you take a look at this .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a Jatt family myself I have never heard of Sodhi being Jat. There are however Sohi Jatts, which some may confuse with this. I have altered the page.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please check Deh Siva Var Mohe. Please go through the history and help resolve disruptive edits. ThanksAjjay (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regarding message in deh siva..

But that does mean that Siva is not Shiva in Deh siva var mohe.... in which Guruji is asking God to give him strength. He is asking God and not Shiva. The tales or incarnations, of Shiva are used as a metaphor in Up avtaar. Deh Siva is part of Chandi Charitar not Up avtaar. This anonymous ip address, namely someone calling himself Dave Green ( i am sure he is some rss party card holder, or a communist, certainly not english, as he would like us to believe)refuses to see the point.

Further his continously referring to website of gobind sadan of Baba Virsa Singh, sheds a lot of light on his intentions and beliefs. You should check his contributions[1]. The guy is wrecking hell on sikhism related topics.Ajjay (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

message

Should Siva be allowed to be stated as Shiva or Siva, in Deh Siva Var Mohe. Please do the needful and change as it should be. Currently it appears as Siva and not SivaThanks.Ajjay (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it makes no difference friend. What is important is that the definition of Siva/Shiva in this context is to the almighty and not to the Hindu diety of Siva/Shiva.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Hi. I've had a look at the contributions of IP user 90.196.3.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), whom you reported to AIV for continuing problems. Generally, AIV is only for active vandalism, or vandals that are active right now - and this IP appears to have last edited on 10 April 2008. On this basis, the report was removed from the page. If this was the incorrect IP, please let me know and I'll have a look - but, otherwise, it's probably not an issue until and unless this IP edits again. Thanks for reporting vandalism, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting your time

..by reporting an anonymous ip to Administrators. They won't respond unless they themselves get in the line of fire of this mental IP. You have now a real problem knocking at your door. This Vandal won't leave you now. He will now unleash his mentally retarted vision on articles you have contributed. His persistent mental acts and non-action by administrators will make you crazy. Also he is operating countless sock puppets. But you will be harrassed always by anonymous IP adress so that you cannot figure him out. Search the history of any Sikhism article and you will find similar tone of edits, but always by a different user. I suggest you prepare for serious harrasment by this mentally retarded person, who it seems is always struck to his comupter. An old friend 06:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Friend. I am very resilient to people such as these. I have been trained by the best (you may know Mr Randip Singh a very able Sikh Historian), and I have their support in my endeavours to ensure neutrality in articles. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doris

Why are you using references that are flawed in their observation and dubbed as anti-sikh?Mahaakaal (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed she is very anti-Sikh in her writings and her conclusions are flawed, but I think this was a refrence to a first hand source rather than POV/Sant Mat websites like www.info-sikh.com. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page edits

If you like, I can semi-protect your user page to stop IPs and new users editing it. Leave me another message if you want this done. Hut 8.5 09:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hut 8.5 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

82.37.24.7

I've given him a standard warning notice asking him to add a citation for his material - he probably doesn't know anything about talk pages or our verifiability policy. Hut 8.5 16:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

92.237.53.167

Again, he probably has no idea that talk pages exists. I can't resolve all these disputes for you - for all I know this person could be correct. Hut 8.5 16:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kotkapura

can you help me in banning the ip address that keeps editing kotkapura withe references to ujjal singh and pov statements about kapura brar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Islam and Sikhism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, my intention was not to remove templates, but to revert the text back to its original. --Sikh-history (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP problems

Hi, you and me have a common problem on the Islam and Sikhism. The admin protected the page, so this time, we can actually try discussing it with the troublesome IP and hope that he stops his vandalism. Just thought you might be interested. Deavenger (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we seem to have this periodic problems with sockpuppets.--Sikh-history (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay. Since the admin who locked it down I know personally, and he'll be watching the page for the next couple of days while we discuss, and he'll make sure that the IP discusses it. So if we play it cool, the IP might be blocked and we can work on the page for a while and improve it. Deavenger (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get involved in the edit war. Just report it to Admins and Spam teams. Unfortunately we Sikhs have our fair share of fanatics.--Sikh-history (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I met Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, and the closest the Atheist fanatics (sigh, we can't seem to get along in peace). The admin told me that if the IP starts refusing to discuss it at all after the page is protected and does what he is doing now, he'll put a rangeblock on the IP. Deavenger (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this IP is using different means now. He, User talk:90.192.59.43 had thought to add following NPOV sentence into Behzti: (Although uncommon, rape & murder have actually occurred in Sikh places of worship) but then changed your mind and his new sentence shows his association with User Talk: 90.196.3.246 as well. Be carefull. --Irek Biernat (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help in helping to find if there is bias in op blue star article

Hi, I and one of my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of bias on a controversial topic Operation Blue Star, the summary of dispute can be found at [2], please let us know your views so that we can solve the dispute amicably. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanjli Wetland

I wish you had given some reasons for the deletion of a reference to Sikhi wiki in my article. Are Silhi wiki articles unreliable to quote? Please clarify your action. Now, errors have appeared in referencing which needs to be fixed.--Nvvchar (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with Sikhiwiki per se, but if you look at the articles, they are actually articles written from oother refrenced material. Its's like someone asking for a refrence for an article and I direct them to an article where there maybe a dispute. The problem with Sikhiwiki is thatit is written from a POV. I am sorry if I have caused errors, I was just trying to add some first hand sources rather than Sikhi wiki i.e. articles from verifiable sources. I don't thing Sikhiwiki would count as that. The article itself is brilliant. --Sikh-history (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Extremism by User Talk: Satanoid

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Even Admin User talk:DJ Clayworth has called this article an Insult to Wikipedia.--Singh6 (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, regarding this dispute, hopefully the issues can be sorted out on the article's talk page. Your input would be much appreciated --Flewis^(talk) 13:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the sources on the article. No primary sources, just secondary and much innuendo.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN notice

There is a discussion about your userpage at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Sikh-history.27s_userpage. Please read WP:USER and remove most of the content to follow policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sikh extremism

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) 08:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sikh-history, Please participate in the discussion and please vote. Yor vote is very important. --Singh6 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You had participated in the AFD on Sikh Extremism. I've had some time to look into the article and commented on the talk page here. Please find some time to read and comment. Thanks,--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 18:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Sikh-history

User:Sikh-history, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sikh-history and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Sikh-history during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tan | 39 17:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have closed the discussion as keep but I have manually archived your talk page to remove the material that is not generally acceptable nor particularly useful to this project. Please consider whether you actually need it and if not delete it (possibly you could just keep a copy on your computer). Thanks, and happy editing.--Doug.^(talk • contribs) 00:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers matey.--Sikh-history (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm?

Enzuru I must correct you on a few points. You are assuming Guru Nanak went East and West on a mission of conversion. Sikhism has no words or methods for conversion. There are no Crusades, and no Jihads and no forced conversion.

Could you find where I said he was looking for converts? Because I don't believe that, and I didn't say that, his mission was clearly different. And in Islam, there are no forced conversions either, no Crusades, no Jihads for rounding up converts, at least for mainstream fiqh. And I didn't say Baba Nanak was a pacifist either, so, I honestly don't know what you're correcting me about. I feel (and I hope incorrectly) that you are judging Islam in a poor light through that, as well as making judgement about my beliefs before I even state them. Going to Amritsar was a great moment in my life, I have nothing against Sikhism nor the Sikh Gurus. --Enzuru 23:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I have a deep respect for Islam (as do most Sikhs), they don't necessarily have a deep respect for some of the followers eg Arabs, Afghans and some tribes from Pakistan. Some of teh purest forms of Islamic thought I have found amongst some of my Persian, Kashmiri and Turkish friends. If you didn't say the above about Sikhism then I am sorry. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Sikhism and Islam is less than that of a Sakura's petal, no question about that in my heart. I truly believe in Baba Nanak's inspiration, that it came from the Ahl al-Bayt in my perspective, who in our traditions guide people regardless of whatever name or faith they refer to themselves as, and if it would be right to refer to myself as a Sikh of Baba Nanak I would. I agree, I do find that Islam seems to be purer amongst those more connected with its esoteric currents, though I don't know if they correspond with those ethnic groups. --Enzuru 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Sikh Extremism

Thank you for your kind words. I think I need to leave this to people more knowledgeable on the subject such as yourself, or a bit more aggressive than I about pushing sources such as vi5in. I'm not willing to push any source that doesn't have a consensus, but in the end someone will need to do that. I just hoped we could rebuild the article without much arguing and such, because debates can and will go on forever. And I can't honestly see an end in sight when so far most sources have been rejected. There is obviously much more to this than I understand, I just wanted to help guide the article in what way I could. Perhaps you and RoadAhead should rebuild the articles using sources acceptable to you two (because I don't understand what is), and then call upon the rest of us to do the POV editing needed to balance it. --Enzuru 11:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your request on my talkpage

Can you help me file this? --Sikh-history (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anytime you are in such a situation you can request for comment (RFC). This is how you can go about it

1. Read the RFC guidelines for "RFC on users" here.
2. Create a new page using the this link.
3. See example of some already filed RFC on user conduct to see what you need to substantiate to show the disputed/offensive conduct.
4. Explain well why its offensive and how the user is slipping insult into comments and escaping being noticed by wikipedia admins who may not be from the same culture?
5. Send link of the RFC to other editors who have the experience of seeing the edits of the user on whom you are filing RFC.
   

Let me know if you need any more help on wikipedia processes or policies.
Regards,

--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, recurring personal attacks reporting should be done at this page. Apologies, I guided you to another lengthy process which is actually used for editing behavior of a user, not something as obvious as a personal attack. Generally, Wikipedia suggests to initially ignore and warn for incivility, but WP:NPA rule states some attacks are never acceptable and that includes religious or racial comments directly pointed at another editor or community. For example, comments like this comment and and this comment are obviously deliberate religious insults showing hate towards other editors and community. Wikipedia is very strict on such kind of personal attacks. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will bare this in mind. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, since Satanoid continued hurling personal attacks on other editors after repetitive warnings, I have reported him at ANI here. You have earlier reported non-constructive personal comments from this editor so feel free to add to this report.--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello Sikh-history,

I would like to, but it is hard to move forward when one party doesn't want the article to exist in the first place. So every reference that is brought up is immediately questioned - not in the context of the source itself, but in the context of invalidating the article as a whole. It's very hard to work in an environment like that. I propose this. How about we list sources that are acceptable to both parties and then move from there? Thank you for trying help improve the article --vi5in^[talk] 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on the content, rather than the other editors and/or their motivations

"...purely in the basis of your previous history and the bad faith you have created. I have not even taled about the extreme hate you have expressed for Sikhs..."
Working on a complex global article using only 2nd sources, avoiding PoV, striving for completeness yet keeping to relevant information, is very demanding. I would like to make the same recommendation here as I have at other user pages. It is even harder if we, as editors, are distracted by other editors' personalities. Many places in Wikipedia, there are words to the effect of "focus on the content, not the person". I believe this is a critical part of the long-term success of Wikipedia. If we each can remove our focus from ourselves, from other editors, from our motivations and feelings, from their motivations and feelings, we can focus much more effectively on the challenging task creating and maintaining the encyclopedic knowledge of the entire human species. :) All the best. sinneed (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good sir, I think I may have over-played my statements. I don't think you have anything to apologize for. All the very best. :) sinneed (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings on User Talk pages

It is considered acceptable to delete warnings, even serious warnings, from one's user talk page. Even anon users may do so (this was news to me, a kind editer gave me the link) please see wp:blanking. We should not restore deleted warnings on talk pages other than our own. Deleting warnings is considered to mean that the warnings have been read and understood. All the best. sinneed (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow , I didn't know. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey. This is an off wikipedia thing. Is it okay I ask you some questions about Sikhism and your own personal opinions on some things Sikhism related? Deavenger (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I must warn you I am more interested in the History than the religion. Sometimes my historical views are at conflict with some religious people.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. If there's any questions taht you don't want to answer, just tell me.

Do Sikhs like Hindus. Because I know in India, Sikhs are looked upon with much respect and they were always tight with the Hindus. But whenever I go to pages like Khalistan or other places on the internet, there seems to be plenty of Sikhs who hate Hindus.

Also, I heard that under (I think itw as the first Sikh ruler of Punjab, not sure though) had a kingdom that stretched from Punjab all the way to parts of Tibet, is this true? Deavenger (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some mindless fools who confuse a deep seated dislike for the Congress Party and its politics with a hatred for Hindu's, but amongst Sikhs they are few and far between. Maharaja Rajit Singh's Kingdom streched from Kashmire, and most of present day Pakistan. --Sikh-history (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you support Khalistan? and also, I remember reading about a person named Kabir. Was he a Sikh? Deavenger (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always ask the question, what would the nation of Khalistan achieve today for the Sikh people? Nothing. Where would it's border be? Parts of Pakistan and India? That would be a non starter. It would be land locked. My conclusion would have to be that it would be illogical to support Khalistan. In a world where people are moving together, Khalistan would be going againt that trend. Saying all this, I cannot say as a historian I am too thrilled about the treatment of Sikhs in the late 70's and 80's by the Government of India. The entire 1984 debacle was a political stunt by Indira Ghandhi and her son Sanjay that backfired. Who suffered the most? The Sikhs. Can anyone honestly say Extremism was heard of amongst Sikhs prior to that?--Sikh-history (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Honestly, I think it's safe to say that there's almost no one, unless they hate sikhs, who are happy about how the Sikhs were treated in the 70's and 80's.

You're Punjabi right? How often do you visit Punjab and how well can you speak Punjabi. Deavenger (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I am from Haryana, abd I am a Sikh by choosing. My parents are Hindu Panjabi from the Amritsar area.I am fluent in Panjabi and Hindi and am currently learning Persian.--Sikh-history (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I haven't yet had the pleasure of visiting Haryana or Punjab yet, though I'm hoping to do it in the future. I'm also trying to learn Hindi as well as my parents language of Malayalam. Deavenger (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avicenna's notability

Since you're impartial, please vote on this issue. Thanks! --Enzuru 03:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you roll back the removal of the source?

If you feel it should be in, why not simply say "source says '...democratic...' on page 22" or whatever? Why mention my name in the undo? I am not the focus. The content is the focus. A *LOT* of these sources are being misused, by multiple editors with multiple agendas. sinneed (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was adding in another source in the refrence, but got sidetracked. You will see it in the next few minutes.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanoid's insulting personal attacks reported

Dear editor, tired of explaining and warning Satanoid of his/her repetitive personal attacks, I have filed a report at ANI. Your views will be appreciated. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing style - complex edits - removal of sources - changing of statements

Please do not make complex or multisection edits. It is rude, and you tempted me to revert your edit. A good rule of thumb is that if a good explanation won't fit in the edit summary, you are doing too much in the edit.

Please do not delete sources at this time. The article is very contentious, and it is rude. Please flag and discuss instead.

Please do not change the statement of someone whose statement you dislike. Instead, if you feel it presents an unbalanced view, add one that does. This article is far too contentious for this kind of behaviour.

Please do not remove a reasonable request for a page number. You are prone to giving HUGE sources, and not saying WHERE the in the source one should look. This, too is rude. You further tempt me to revert your edit. It is not a good change, as it is now. sinneed (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-flagging an entire section is pointless. Instead, there is an Unsourced flag that can be added to the section. I am reinserting the globalsecurity.org citation, only 1 time. I am adding a section flag.sinneed (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are much much better than this edit would lead a reader to believe. I ask that you do the quality of work on this article that you are clearly capable of, and have done. sinneed (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just thought it placed to much weight on one source. Will be more careful in future.--Sikh-history (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a flower petal on a cup full to the brim"

One of favourite Baba Nanak analogies. It also shows the depraved caste that Sufis had evolved into at that stage. --Enzuru 05:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read The Sufis by Idries Shah, it is attributed to many other Sufi's too. Regards :-)--Sikh-history (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, interesting! By "attributed" is there certainty, and would that mean he had been quoting? --Enzuru 09:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read The Way of the Sufi and its forward (by Idries Shah), I think this same story has occurred on many occasion. I am not sure, but it maybe Ibn el Ghazli, who is cited in the forward. Long time from when I read it, and I am getting olf now. :-) --Sikh-history (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Christie Davies

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Professor Christie Davies, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/lw/Sociol/publish/people/academic/christie/bio.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring - user:sikh-history, user:satanoid, user:Roadahead at sikh extremism

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:

• edit summaries for every edit - please
• if someone makes 5 edits, and you want to revert 3, do... not all 5 - please
• if you think another editor is vandalising, say so, in the appropriate forum. Not an edit summary, not on an article talk page. Your talk page, their talk page, or possibly seek a 3rd party who might help

All 3 of you are better than this makes you appear. sinneed (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 or 5 times he has deleted my refrences and you have done nothing. I am not edit warring just restoring contributions.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*blink* - Well.
I am sorry you perceive the 100 or so (98 on last report run) edits I have made to the article, 34 edits to Satanoid's talk page, including multiple last warnings, only warnings, warnings, correcting notes, suggestions, requests, an unknown but large number of edits to the article talk page... as "nothing."
Be that as it may, killing an entire block of edits with a description of "reverting until the edits are discussed", then discussing nothing, is indeed continuing the edit war. sinneed (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair point. Regards

Speedy deletion of H S Phoolka

A tag has been placed on H S Phoolka 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.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Closedmouth (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H. S. Phoolka first version completed

Can you help me expand this--Sikh-history (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can try to gather information on H. S. Phoolka. I know about the subject in general but adding specific notable information will require some reading on my part. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sikh-history, after your request on my talkpage, I was able to do some study for the propsed article on H. S. Phoolka, here is the result (typed red-eye, will edit and improve later). The article you created "H S Phoolka" was already deleted so I utilized the opportunity to title my new entry appropriately as "H. S. Phoolka" --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 09:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please: Edit summaries, No original research, Talk on the talk page, Citations. Please.

Sikh Extremism
I pulled the addition about the top 10 political mistakes, as there was no response on the talk page for 5 days.
I removed the OR about there being no Sikhs in the entire UK who aligned with Al-Qaeda, please remember wp:NOR.
Citations: If you can't find a citation for something, that will be a good trigger to stop and think "Will this help the article? Will it be able to stay in the article?"
Also, please, please, use the edit summaries.sinneed (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User Khalsaburg

I will take a look at the article, abd it's talk page as well as the user's edits and talk page. I will leave updates here, so stick around! :) Andy (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the users edits and I see that they are generally good faith but yes, contreversial. I ahve responded on the users talk page and recommended what to do there, I will keep here, to see how it goes, and if you need any further help hit me up! Andy (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate, I ve looked and cant see any of the users edits. Thanks for linking it but again, User:Khalsaburg edits are not there. Thanks for your help, though. :) Andy (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again, Khalasberg provided with two legitimate refs that seemed to go well with his edits, I am going to have a look at the article now, to see how it looks. I thibnk it is different branches of Sikhism believing different things, so I will see if I can get the article to a NPOV status, covereing the majority of beliefs. Regards. Andy (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khalsa has just left me a note saying you deleted his edits, if they are good faith (which they seem to be) please don't revert, especially if they have references which they provided me with. If you need a hand, I will see what I can find out for you. :) Cheers. Andy (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted. Just restored a previous version where a swathe of text was deleted for no reason.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see once again. What I would do now is to tke a wikibreak to calm the situation down, (I have also said this to khalsa) and I will see to the articles, and make sure they are NPOV. Regards Andy (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, if it is good, verifiable, uncontraversial material, put it on, what I recommend is to include both sides of the argument in the article, like yours and Khala's. I am sorry for all this mix up, you are truly a great editor. I will give khalsa a shout on what you and I have said, but I still think a wikibreak for both of you is a good thing. :) Andy (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barn

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your hilarious comment on my talk page. It is good that editors can still be calm and composed and even funny through difficult situations! :) Andy (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Ranjit Singh

Hey SikhHistory, On Maharaja Ranjit Singh's page, you keep changing the name of his birth place from Mughal Empire to Sikh Empire. Let me explain you that Sikh Empire was a country that was established by him much after his birth, there was no Sikh Empire before his birth. Mughal Empire was the place in which he was born, at time of his birth, the Mughals were the authority of Punjab. If you have have any comments then leave them at my page. User talk:Wjkk20 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I see thanks .--Sikh-history (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jahkta

Well then, plese put all that in:) That they don't do halal etc as that was a requirement for conversion is just what I thought, but you summarised it well- that must go in! The enobling bit is ok but it should just be briefly summarised like you just did, in one sentence, not a long quote as that's not the best style for articles as it over-emphasises one person's writings, and we tend to summarise. Sikhs are not all vegetarian, and there's not a requirement on them to be, but many are [3]. So we could put that, as it's a fact.:) Sticky Parkin 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which sect is that? We could just say there's no requirement for sikhs to be vegetarian, but some are. It is particularly prevalent in the 'bloggs' sect, amongst whom vegetarianism is preferred because...' Must admit, I've never heard of sikhs particularly avoiding meat before, but then I only studied it once, for a few months. Sticky Parkin 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If it has to be football, I suppose I'm a Chelsea fan.:) But I'm more of a Shakira fan.:) Sticky Parkin 12:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttha

Namaste thanks for your inquiry. I know Persian and some other Iranian languages, but such a word "Kuttha" does not exist. I can offer you two theories though. The first is from the Persian word: کته which does mean a piece, it can mean a piece of many things, food included. It also is a specific form of rice as well. However, some Iranian languages borrow Arabic words heavily and transform the word to different meanting. Another is that "Kuttha" comes from the Arabic (QaT'a) قطعه which قطع (QaT) means cut-off/ripped off. So piece of sacrificial food that was sacrificed could be related in meaning to this word also. Your best best to e-mail the Iranist in Harvard like this person: [4]. You can give him my viewpoint and see if he agrees as well. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gurunanak Jal Jeer at Bidar, Karnataka

I am trying to finalise an artcile on Architectural Legacy of Karnataka. I have included a section on "Sikh Gurudwara at Bidar" since it was first established at Bidar in 16th Century and is very relevaent to karantak's legacy. There is an artcile on this Gurudawra in Sikhi Wiki with some good photos. But when I tried to use these photos in en:wiki, the same were rejected as not licensed properly. Can you help me by posting one or two good photos of the Jal Jira Gurudwara at Bidar on wikicommons for use in my article? Thank you. --Nvvchar (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Sansi

Please include these additions with references. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above message. Did you mean that I amend Maharaja Ranjit Singh article based on the secondary source citations I posted on the discussion page of that article? I do not want to create any discord. Therefore, I am posting citations on the Discussion page first so that other editors get adequate time to consider various sources to reach a consensus. Regards. --Internet Scholar (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H S Phoolka

Are we looking at the same article? The article about this gentleman, which I agree I deleted, contained a total of thirteen words, and gave no specific information about him at all. Mr Phoolka may well be a significant person, but the article did not so indicate; the book you mention did not, for example, figure in the deleted text. Notability in wikipedia rests with the wording of the article, not in other information which is not included in the submitted text. If you wish to expand the article to the point where notability is indicated in the wording, let me know and I will happily restore it. But please be advised that if it is not rapidly augmented another admin will delete it again! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

Hi, I was reading Sikh empire and I noticed that the coat of arms in the upper right infobox looked a bit... modern. Do you happen to have access to a contemporary picture of the empire's coat of arms, assuming it actually had one? The sleek, rounded symbol, with lovely shadows, looks more like a computer icon than an early 19th century coat of arms, so I suspect it is not a picture of the actual coat of arms. Do you agree? A baby turkey^[citation needed] 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. Will search for examples.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the Satan Returned?

My dear friend has the notorious Satanoid returned under this guise. Here are his IP's 90.192.112.168, 90.192.59.187. Same BSkyB broadband. Same cry wolf. Same attitude. Taraa a Bit --194.217.96.4 (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate. People are on the case. Haqve more faith in wikipedias NPOV. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Sikhism

Are all the recent edits regarding inputs before yours incorrect > Khari Sharif (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wandering why this particular reference was reverted by yourself? Could you kindly re-examine the following link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_Sikhism&diff=prev&oldid=271670851 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khari Sharif (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khari Sharif (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven, Hell?

W'Salam, you said, "Sikhism uses heaven and hell as a metaphor rather than an actual place"

I tried, but could not find references to your suggestion?

The closest ref was http://www.sikhism.com/

It states clearly "Sikhs do not believe in heaven or hell" so I will add "In Islam there is no metaphorical rendition" if you disagree with the above link? Khari Sharif (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

terrorism map

Hi,

I started a discussion on the template and map talk page. No one responded, so I deleted the map to spark some action. Even the second time I deleted it, I added a request in the summary to refer to talk, but still there is nothing. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is kind of ridiculous. You can run with this if you want to, I'm not interested in giving up the time to fight this kind of crap anymore. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

We can protect the article, where only admins can edit it, just send an admiin a message. Just an idea. Thanks JMS Old Al (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted sections and references from Islam and Sikhism article ?

These?

Mughal Empire and references to Qu'ran  ?

I deleted the repetition and you have put it back? Khari Sharif (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khalsaburg

Hi. You created this as an encyclopedia article - I have moved it into your user space at User:Sikh-history/Khalsaburg. The place to make a suspected sock-puppet report is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI cases

When filing a new SPI case, please;

• Use the buttons to ensure that the case template is properly filled.
• Follow the instructions that are explicit that you must NOT add additional headings.

Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: the request, on the SPI case that you raised, was for diffs. Linking to contribution histories, and expecting somebody to go through the whole lot is unreasonable. Mayalld (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any Islamic or Arab references to verify this as authentic ?

"At Mecca, Nanak was found sleeping with his feet towards the Kaaba[1] Kazi Rukan-ud-din, who observed this, angrily objected. Nanak replied with a request to turn his feet in a direction in which God or the House of God is not." The Qadi took hold of the Guru's feet. Then he lifted his eyes seeing the Kaaba standing in the direction of the Guru's feet[2], wherever he turned them. The Qadi was struck with wonder. He then recognised the glory of Guru Nanak[3]."

Your references seem far too vague ? Khari Sharif (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question above? Can you verify your story from authentic Islamic scholars because as you understand most if not all Muslim will find the story total nonsense? I hope you understand, then you suggest on my talpage that I rely on wholesale information from non-Muslims! Do these non-Muslims have the concrete proof of any of the above story of the 'jumping Kaaba'? If not, I think it should be speedily deleted. Khari Sharif (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to...

Request page protection? (Only admins can edit it) or semi protect, only users can edit? Or neither... JMS Old Al (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and...

I mean the Skih vegitarinisim page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMS Old Al (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Checkuser results.

Checkuser has reported back at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khalsaburg.

Satanoid is "stale" in that he has no recent edits to check. However, given that he hasn't rdited in over 3 months, there seems to be little need for a block, and should he return the IP that Khalsaburg uses is now a matter of record, so it would be possible to checkuser at the time.

The CU check has shown two other users who use the same computer as Khalsaburg, and your input would be welcome as to whether these users have made problematic edits.

Mayalld (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Guru Nanak: A Global Vision - Dr Inderpal Singh and Madan jit Kaur
2. Guru Nanak: A Global Vision - Dr Inderpal Singh and Madan jit Kaur
3. Guru Nanak: A Global Vision - Dr Inderpal Singh and Madan jit Kaur