Sikh-history

jatt sikh shinda

surinder shinda & sukshinder shinda is jatt surname shinda jatt clan of punjab 78.150.66.253 (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Shinda actually is not a surname, and Surinder Shinda is actually called Surinder Singh Hunjan. So stop deleting the references. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mandippal Jandu

it appears this article of yours has been vandalized. I posted some article links on its talk page, if you choose to rewrite. Thanks! Catt851 (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

kalistan is dead

hello you dont no whats sikh history is do you plz reply --81.147.73.34 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Morbid Fairy and Satanoid the Same

On my talk page, you wrote:

Hi, Sineed I see various accusations being levelled at you by Morbid Fairy on the Sikh Extremism article. I suspect this is Satanoid. Please note the investigation here and make some comments.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a wp:sock. The old account seems to be dead. My understanding is that that is acceptable.- sinneed (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Satanoid Morbid Fairy (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, I don't always use the same passwords, so what ?

• Interesting, eh? After all these months of abusing me, this editor still cannot spell my user ID.

Sockpuppetry (see wp:sock) is, as I understand, using more than one account at a time, or evading a block to continue an effort that resulted in the block. The philosophy of Wikipedia is that, except in cases of bans, an individual is free to abandon an old account with a bad reputation, and create a new one. People grow and change. I leave to the reader the decision as to whether growth or change have happened in this case. Only in the case of a ban is it unacceptable to create a new account, so long as the new account is not simply used to evade a block and lives within the rules. A ban is a way of cutting a human out of the Wikipedia society, and even banned persons may read. They simply can't write, under any account.- sinneed (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sikh mediation

I suggest the use of WP:MEDCAB-Binary TSO ^???

Sikh extremism

If you have a chance, please drop by and give your opinion at discussion of removal of neutrality flag at Sikh extremism. I have some concerns, but the article is receiving attention from only a few authors. I am considering an RfC... as unproductive as those have proven for me so far. Even 1 more interested editor might make it worthwhile. In any event, I am uncertain the flag is still needed, though many of my edits another editor states are "extremist POV", and I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment.- sinneed (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

and on a completely non-wiki item

A Sikh temple, the name of which I did not write down, has opened here in Memphis, TN. A neighbor said "There's some kind of STRANGE SYMBOL on that building next to the post office, what IS that?!?!?" (say this to yourself in a VERY deep Southern drawl) and I have you and other editors of Wikipedia to thank for the fact that I was able to promptly tell her what the symbol was, and point her to the Sikhism article.- sinneed (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hindu Extremism

Should a parallel hindu extremism article be started? (couldn't find one) -- RSS, Shiv Sena, etc.

what would be the value of such an article? Thanks--Sikh-History 10:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Jat

On my talk page you posted:

Mr LR Burdak seems to treat this article as his own personal property? I added legitimate refrences and he reverted them. No reason given.--Sikh-history (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

LRBurdak Contribs... that editor does seem to like the undo button. If it weren't for the need for speed in wholesale vandal-fighting I would be campaigning for a required explanation on every revert...- sinneed (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a Minute Out

On my talk page, you wrote:

Hi Sineed, I was in the process of adding some relevant information to the Dabinderjit Singh article, which is relevant, because Andrew Gilligan is a very controversial UK journalist. Some blame him for Dr David Kelly's death. He has previosly written for Right Wing tory papers like the Spectator. His smear campaign against Mayor Ken Livingstone is directly attributed to the buffoon Boris Johnson being elected as mayor. Dalbinderjit seems to have been caught up in these politics. At least give me a chance to balance the article? Next time at least give me 3 minutes if not 1 to at least show what I am adding:) . Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have mattered.

Sorry on the time thing, I was editing the article, not the change log. :)

Attacking the author in the article breaks wp:BLP, doesn't belong in that article at all, etc.

If you object to the source, please flag the statements with a Citation Needed, and attack the wp:RS status on the talk page.

The author is not the wp:RS, the paper is. The paper is tabloidish... It is weak... but there are other sources. Sikh Times...etc.

- sinneed (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sineed take a minute out before reverting. This point about Gilligham is relevant and his attitude towards ethnic minorities. He is a Right Wing journalist and I added a link." And I will take it back out. wp:Talk belongs on the talk page. Content belongs in the article. Please join the discussion.- sinneed (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning: wp:BLP - You may not christen a Living Person as "Right Wing" based on a citation to, for example, socialismtoday.org. You know better than this. If you want to attack the use of the source, you know how, and this is NOT it. Please remember that wp:BLP violations are excluded from the wp:3RR, and I will remove this content as often as you add it. Please join the discussion.- sinneed (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If interested, you may choose to join me on the talk page. If you disapprove of a source, you may be interested enough to explain why you believe the source is not wp:RS... on a talk page... or on the page for the source (not the author... the author is not a wp:RS). But you know all this.

And yes, as I said, if you continue to break wp:BLP I will remove it again. I will also warn you. You know better.

- sinneed (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Baba Deep Singh ji

I would like to ask you where you are getting the information about baba deep singh from as per all the sikh books i have tell me he was a khaira as his father was but his mother was a sandhu please cite references if you are wanting to change this.ok i apologise and will now start citing my references from now on. now read what i have written on the page where you added the tags

Please join the discussion on the talk page. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

yes i do not support you writing on the page names which you prefer when you dont have the proof as you can see the way i have left it is more relevant and people can still see the discussion tags,wikipedia shouldnt post things that are not known as facts so please refrain and do not be immature about the issue many many thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterconginialtastical (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And i do not like the way you have obsessed over me after proving you wrong, by checking all my contributions and reverting them i see people have warned you about edit wars before please refrain this,it is a profesional site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterconginialtastical (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please adhere to wikipedia rules. Do not remove tags. Do not add unreferenced content. Do no add opinion. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD?

Is this correct? I don't see an AfD flag on the article. I apologize if I just missed it.- sinneed (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought, and I figured you would want to know.  :) All the best.- sinneed (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-English sources are acceptable ... just not desirable wp:v

Where a non-English source is used (well really, even for an English source), it is appropriate to request a quote since it may well be beyond one's own ability to study the citation. One might even ask the citing editor to provide the editor's translation. Ideally, we want English sources, as it may be more difficult or even impossible to meet wp:v. If it turns out the quote is a wp:hoax, seeking admin help is an alternative.- sinneed (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and any such overtly fraudulent reference should be flagged, and the editor warned.- sinneed (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is strictly a personal request, but I would ask that you simply flag the source with {{dubious}}{{fact}}, just for a couple of days. If the adding editor doesn't address the issues clearly it will then be very reasonable to simply cut the content, source and all. The article is quite adequately flagged so that no competent reader should mistake the content for something to be relied upon at this time. I do reallize it may seem offensive to leave "bad" sources in... but Wikipedia won't be damaged in the short time the bad refs will stay in... then either it will improve because I will use my editorial hatchet, or you will, or the content will be better-sourced.- sinneed (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will flag the references. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sansi or sandhawalia?

Please note that maharaja ranjit singh was of the sandhawalia clan that emerged as an alternate name of the sansi jatt clan ,you can see this in the sandhawalia article also ,peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterconginialtastical (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Know you history. There is a debate as to whether he was originally from Sansi caste, to to the propondency of Sansi caste to thieve cattle. Budh Singh did exactly that.--Sikh-history (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But seriously a king who made it that big i have books about his rule at my home talking about the jat sikh rule of punjab and how the sikhs and the jatts status both grew because of ranjit singh,well i have given you a reference that says hes a sandhawalia jatt if you ignore that it is you showing a bias view , Please show a neutral view point on the matter in hand.Misterconginialtastical (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also his indirect ancestor Preminder Singh Sandhawalia was the one who writ the book that i have and he is also stated he is jatt and so was ranjit singh .but i accept what you have written on the page,but these historians do not know alot about the way these castes work ,but all the writers who wrote about him at the indeed all of them stated he was a jatt of the sandhawalia clan. Misterconginialtastical 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I think we must present WP:NPOV. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

I cannot support this warning for personal attack.
That said, I would add, SH, that:

• while responding to Satanoid/Morbid Fairy there might not have broken wp:talk or wp:No personal attacks
• it was unkind to Nisikid64
• responding with a "reflection" (doing what the other person did, but opposite) is an escalation technique... it only makes conflict worse.
  

I did not warn Satanoid for that note, as I felt that while it was unkind, it skirted personal attack, unlike some of the other "canvassing" posts. I did respond to it by trying (without noticeable success) to draw Satanoid into the discussion of the proposed (and removed due to copyvio and lack of relevance) change.- sinneed (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war... or leaving an edit warrior to war alone...

I do hope you will not find my words offensive, as they are meant most respectfully.

While I think it is not a bad idea to watch for and correct bad edits, responding to comments made on other individual editors' talk pages is unkind...they don't want wp:edit warring on their pages... and they don't want to be drawn in. After having been cautioned, I should think that repeating this will be taken as incivil behaviour. Whatever the latest salvo in the single-editor edit war, it should stay a single-editor edit war... I encourage you to let this user edit war alone. You should heed the other editors' cautions about this, here and on one of the editor talk pages, if you don't heed me.

For myself, my intent is to comment only on article talk pages, in edit summaries, and where needed, comments on article flags... or if absolutely needed on the user's talk page or mine. The strange and minor nonsense here might well be a bit of a test, intended to make it appear that I am wp:stalking this editor. Eventually, this editor will either tire of such, or run afoul of an admin whose patience runs out.

A man I admired at University gave me an old saying "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" when he was being TRULY reviled by some foolish university "political opponent". I do find this editor's odd series of wp:SPA's annoying. But I will watch for them, and eventually the editor will grow kinder, or grow bored, or be blocked again and again. But, I must note that very very many of the sources in the Sikh articles are from this presently rude and often destructive editor, and I hope it will be the 1st of those, rather than one of the last 2.

I must tell you that I fear you will be blocked if you fall into the trap of responding to this user's insults on the talk pages of others. I don't want to lose your edits either. (edit to add) I thank you for the kind words, but please, I need no defense from the words of this editor. Please see my user or talk page... the lesson one of my elders gave me about not being the person giving the insults. There is absolutely nothing this particular editor can say to me that will hurt me, or reflect badly on me. If I do something wrong or right, my actions will speak for me, ill or well. :)

- sinneed (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and it is correct. Have you ever heard of the saying if you throw enough mud at someone, eventually some will stick.This seems to be what this editor is doing. You saw the warning I got from the Admin (which he withdrew). I have no doubt that that editor, or one of his alter ego's, e-mailed the admin, and the admin did not check to see whether I had actually abused the other fellow or was pointing out past behaviour. When He realised what I actually had stated in my post he withdrew his warning. It is that kind of behaviour which I find annoying. Anyway thanks and good luck.--Sikh-history (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Willingness to yield

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I just wanted to give you a barnstar for being so eminently reasonable in the Sunny Leone discussion. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lust (Kaam)

Just a heads-up - I've merged the article you created for "Lust (Kaam)" with the existing article on Kam. No sense in having two articles on the same topic. Tabercil (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of disambiguation work at KAAM and Kam (disambiguation) - please check for errors?- sinneed (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has reapplied the proposed merge template to Kam. I defer to your greater knowledge. If you have a feel for whether Kam should be merged into Kama or not, you may wish to comment.- sinneed (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kanwar Pal Singh Gill

Since your edit history shows that you have done good neutral work on Sikhism related articles, I would like to invite you to help us in making this article 'Neutral' as well. Kindly participate in article Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and its talk page. It will be an excellent effort. Thanks in advance. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some information youd like to see?

As your into history and all i have a book on sikh history i finally found it on the web you may see the book on http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/postgurus/herosvillains/heroes%20villains.htm it as a amazing old book written in british india just after the collapse of the sikh empire. Regards :) Information-Line (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Get back to me of what you think on the book Information-Line (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sikhiwiki attribution removal

Hi. With regard to this edit, it is necessary to include such attribution as the whole article is based upon text taken directly from the Sikhiwiki page, where it is licensed under a Creative Commons license, the terms of which require attribution. If we do not give that, we are violating the terms of the license, so I've re-added it. Regards, – Toon 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about Sikhiwiki not being a reliable source. The main issue I had was simply removing the attribution and leaving the text there; the text was taken from the website, and therefore we have to abide by the terms of the license. I also think that the battle may be notable, as a quick google books search revealed that it has received quite a lot of coverage. I wouldn't mind if the article itself was stubbed to include information only included in reliable sources, but if we keep the text that is there, or use it as a base for new text, then we have to keep the attribution. Since there has been such vociferous rejection of the text, I assume that stubbing would be a good solution for you? – Toon 20:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've trimmed it down to some basics which are backed up by reliable sources. If you can help expand the article or have access to some good resources, I'd appreciate all the help you can give, as it's a little threadbare at the moment! – Toon 20:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bohemia

I know his grandfather was a sikh i was first to add it to the article but my reference was lost somewhere through all the editing but he actually wasnt born in indian punjab he was born in Karachi but his family were from lahore waris road and then they moved to the U.S , here lemme give you a youtube link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RolG8emSG6I

check it out

and ........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuwlF5-aBCI

Information-Line (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sat sri akal

Sat sri akal,

paaji tusi teek ya?

kere pind toh ya?

Information-Line^talk 13:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sada Pind hai Dadyal, near Namasher (Shaheed Bhaghat Singh Nagar).--Sikh-history (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

--Sikh-History 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh hanji tusi mehnu biba bhanona ya ? pela oh pk5abi nu biba banadey oh chittar kaan wala ya,oh teek ya assi Lahore toh ya feh sadi parwar england nu agi si partition toh baad.

tuada sher ki ya england de wich ?

ਸਿੱਖ Information-Line^talk 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ਸਿੱਖ Information-Line^talk 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --King ♣ Talk 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Kingoomieiii's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bhappe

Thank you for bringing this pageand the discussion to my attention. Also I appprecite the sentiments you have expressed.

I have voted to have the article deleted. The current article is poorly written and reflectsabiased perspective. However I am having second thoughts about it.

I have traced the origin of the term (Vappa/Bappa as in Bappa Rawal, cognate to Bapu and Baap), and and at least some history of its usage.

In Sikhism,there should be no castism, although there is nothing wrong with people taking pride in achievements of people of their type. The only way to address castism is to discuss it, carefully and accurately.

There are a significant number of sources where history of the social aspects of this issue (Jat vs Khatri) has been discussed. --ISKapoor (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Satti Khokhewalia

Spaceman Spiff pointed me at this on. I cleaned it a bit, but I am dubious... is this a real person? No idea if you are interested or not, but if so you might give it a lootk. Either way, thanks. :)- sinneed (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a prolific Bhangra musician. Cheers --Sikh-History 07:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Innapropriate Use Of Templates

Khokhar it is you reverting my edits, not the other way round. You are deleting valid references. Also your use of templates in this manner to warn is inappropriate. Regards--Sikh-History 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jat people

At Jat people, you rolled back these 2 changes.

While I lack the knowledge to determine whether these 2 changes were appropriate, they seem clearly to not be wp:vandalism, but simply part of a wp:content dispute. I encourage you to go to the talk page and explain the removal. It would have been much better to have flagged this, and given the editor time to respond. Or, if you simply could not bear to have it in the article, or remove the changes in detail, and copy the removed content to the talk page for possible inclusion upon wp:consensus.- sinneed (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Err before you make comments about my reversion I suggest you check out the links first. One does not exist and the others are un-authored from a wikipedia type site. Thanks--Sikh-History 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Was hoping you might give a look at the discussion topic I posted on the "Jat people" talk page. Hopefully you'll include the mention of Indo-Scythian lineage, as evidenced by numerous sources in the article and by the origins of Jats page, aside from the news ones I mentioned in my post on the talk page. PR-0927 (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Jay Sean

I think you may be right i have a friend who has the ruprai name and is a Tarkhan ,it would sum alot up about Jay sean about choosing the path he did,he must be Tarkhan Information-Line 22:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean, but I know many Jatt boys in the Music business. Many of my relatives from Bilga are in music. Thanks--Sikh-History 16:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean he has said in interviews bhangra didnt suit him and it was choosing specifics and he wanted to target an audience which everybody could relate to his songs,thats why he started singing in english. I meant as in Jatt people usually prefer singing in punjabi as there is alot of bhangra music based aound jatt culture and life so these days you may not see many other castes/ethnic groups stepping into the bhangra industry.Im not saying this in a harsh way but how it feels to me that some amazing talent in places could really have gone to waste in this new generation because of some jatts thinking they are superior than others.

Information-Line 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Baru Sahib

Can you take a look at this page? Needs a lot of help, thought I'd come to you directly this time instead of posting at Sinneed's TP. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tarkhan Personalities

Thanks for your note about the Tarkhan Personalities on my page. Please note my edit was made in error, occasionally when editing articles with lots of text, some of the text becomes garbled. I am not an authority in this area and was only trying to amend an link. Regards, Pahari Sahib 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. That page needs looking at. I am not an expert in this tribe. Thanks --Sikh-History 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Move requests

Hi! When requesting page moves, please don't edit Wikipedia:Requested moves/current manually, as you did here. This is because the page is updated by a bot, and manually added requests will be lost the next time the bot updates the page. Instead, you should follow the instructions here and list the move request on the talk page of the article. I've done that for you here. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to let me know. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sikh extremism

I guess we need to add Indian national Army, Komagata Maru, Gadar Party and several other Indian independence movement related parties into the Sikh extremist organizations section. These were all formed by Sikhs.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sardaji Jokes

Dear Sikh History; I have appreciated your edits on this page; except for this addition on Bihari jokes on the second line of the article. I think, if it all it was to be added, it could have been added in the ending paras of the page.

I dont think you should have marked my deletions as "Censorship". Go through my blog at http://o3.indiatimes.com/sardarji/ to see that I have been objectively trying to take up this issue for a long time; including taking up the issue with the press.

I dont know why a stray remark by some Bihari gentleman that Bihari jokes have become more prevalant than Sikh jokes becomes a definitive statement on the issue; and you insist on making it a statement portraying a FINAL judgement on it; that Bihari Jokes "Greater than" Sardarji Jokes. Tell that to a Sikh child whose hairs were pulled today in school, you'll get your answer.

Anyway, I am not a religious fanatic, and I would insist that you go through my blog; understand the issue; and then withdraw the warning.

Issuing Warnings without understanding the issue is such a pathetic way of debate; something that our Indian society really misses.

Still you may add a Paragraph on Bihari jokes on this page if it satisfies you. Kulveer (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your missing the point. If an article is saying that another joke is overtaking Sardarji joke, then we must include it. We must adhere to WP:NPOV. What you are saying is censorship. We can't do that here.--Sikh-History 07:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the warnings. Take care.Kulveer (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jat Article

I was looking through the Jat article and happened to notice that the religions shown have no valid sources backing them up,im presuming when the article was created these figures were added randomly and have been stuck there since . I would not like to remove the information as it would look like vandalism? any advise?

Information-Line 15:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ad hoc I have read there are more Muslim and Hindu Jats than Sikh Jats but I need to find the references. Thanks --Sikh-History 19:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know much more about this than I do?

Third_Sikh_Holocaust_1984

I am learning that the issue is a very complicated one. I am Irish and German, by ancestry and live in America. I found out about this topic because I surfed in from Articles For Deletion, and thought it a little sad that an article with 160 sources was being deleted. Yes it has some point of view problems, but I think that with enough work it could be fixed. For this reason I did not come into the debate with any fixed ideas one way or the other.

Thanks for taking an interest in this subject, your knowledge could be very valuable.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

In the Prohibitions in Sikhism article discussion a historical debate exists, however Gurbani should be looked at to discuss this issue, since the SGGS is followed by ALL Sikhs. Depending on who you ask, Gurbani says different things about vegetarianism. I am simply saying that quotes from Gurbani should be used, rather than rehat, "historical" evidence, etc. to discuss this issue from a neutral standpoint. (There is still much debate over many historical sources used, and not all Sikhs follow the SGPC) Please let me know if you disagree. Gurbanivichar (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia, demands,you have cited references. Gurbani will not do. The article is balanced, but could do with more cited references. The fact is SGPC is the governing body for Sikhs and all other Dera, Sects, Cults etc views are to be treated differently.Thanks--Sikh-History 11:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you falling into the trap of fighting on another editor's talk page?

Just curious, honest.

The poor editor worked a wp:SOCK investigation and now the article has stuck to the editor like a burr. Maybe the editor volunteered to help in the case of future problems? Otherwise it just looks like wp:wikistalking, and the editor's page is being buried in an avalanche of ... smelly stuff.

3rr? I only counted 2 reverts for both of you. Maybe I missed something, sorry if I did.- Sinneed 21:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you are correct. I just hate people WP:GAME the system. Make no mistake, Morbid Fairy,/Satanoid/Analtap/Heliosphere is Gaming the System. Regards --Sikh-History 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bhappa

Hi sorry for writing on your page but i think the user WALTHAM2 has created another derogatory page called Bhapa Sikh. He is a Pakistani nuisance that is disturbing the credibility of us Punjabi Indians. we need to take some action against him be talking to the wiki admins. Thanks brother. --KhatriNYC (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concerns, but I am more concerned about WP:Notability. This seems to be a term used by us Jatts to describe Khatris. It is not a common term. I am also concerend about retalliation. What next, an article Jatt Boot, Soola Jatt? Mischevious behaviour like this, by the like of Waltham2 and compatriots like Heliosphere, do no one any favours. Everyone loses. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This was not orignally my article. It created by User:ISKapoor. Perhaps I should have read it, and edited some of the more objectionable parts. Certainly, not some conspiracy. Far too many paranoid contributors. Perhaps some of the Sikh contributors can edit the article. The point was not offend anyone. I am happy to edit myself, if accetable. Once again, the point was not offend anyone.--WALTHAM2 (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm that makes it worse. Cheers--Sikh-History 09:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback of nonvadalism. Pleas don't.

Among other edits I can't identify, you rolled these back] as vandalism. Please restore these corrections.- Sinneed 20:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a mistake, and please try and be more polite when leaving messages. Thanks--Sikh-History 11:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That was polite. If personal messages are not acceptable, I will use templates.- Sinneed 12:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that despite stating that this was a mistake, and having edited the article, you have not restored the edits by Mild Bill Hiccup. Please repair the damage.- Sinneed 12:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Khokhar, did not appear to be constructive. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Here you have again rolled back non-vandalistic edits. Stop now, or your access to these tools may need to be removed. - Sinneed 16:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong

Err no, a refrence was deliberately removed. You failed to pick that up. I put it back. Regards.

No, I did not fail. But you used rollback on multiple edits instead of fixing the problem. That is indeed "wrong".- Sinneed 22:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Not Abuse Get it Right

Please stop abusing automated tools such as WP:TW. Your recent edit here at Damdami Taksal reinstated incorrect information which I had corrected. Please refrain from future disruptive edits. --Soc8675309 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-read the edit. I rolled back information that was pure POV and reinstated your edit. In future check before you start making accusations on peoples talk pages. Regards --Sikh-History 08:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

While I can't support the edit (I have reapplied the spelling correction), I would not support calling the reversion abuse... just not an edit I can support. I added a quote and changed the book ref to a cite book.- Sinneed 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed the particular edit was an abuse. I said that an automated tool had been abused in that User:Sikh-history misused the tool solely to revert to a previous incorrect spelling. I'm glad that someone eventually reinstated the correct spelling, which User:Sikh-history had removed, but the reminder stands that one should be careful with automated tools to properly use rather than misuse or abuse them. --Soc8675309 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit did not constitute abuse of the tool, as I see it.- Sinneed 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an abuse or misuse. I used it correctly. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, with SH. - Sinneed 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointless defensiveness. Use of the automated tool replaced a word (which had been spelled correctly) with a word spelled incorrectly. Plainly, the automated tool can be said to have been misapplied. It's certainly obvious that the automated tool was used improperly. You two might want to look up the meaning of the word abuse, especially its primary (#1) definition as a verb. --Soc8675309 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Soc just stop. I put back the correct word here. You are being plain silly now.Thanks--Sikh-History 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting your error. --Soc8675309 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and if you had bothered checking in the first place you would see I added back the word in the first place. That is why you wrongly warned me. Please don't do it again. Thanks--Sikh-History 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Thanks for trying to help. Anyways, I removed sentences that were un-cited and seemed to have been added to the article to portray a different(wrong) image of our religion (I assume you're a Sikh too). Perhaps you oversaw my edit summaries. Never mind, I apologize for any trouble I might have caused to you. --HFret (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Alphasyllabaries

Hello,

I just read that you are a Historian/Scholar, that's wonderful. I'm a linguist, and just thought It'd be more sensible for words from our alphasyllabary (Gurumukhi) to be placed under titles of their Italicized spellings, rather than slang approximations.

To help the cause I'll explain abugidas to you.

Italicization :- त - ta र - ra खा - khā न - na

Abugidas such as Sanskrit and all of it's descendants from Punjabi, Tibetan, Hindi to Oriya, Thai etc. have an inherit 'a' vowel attached to all of their letters (except vowels themselves, of course). Some simple examples of proper Italicization's are:-

सिद्धार्थ गौतम - Siddhārtha Gautama, any layman might even write it as Siddharth Gautam

स्वस्तिक - Swastika, not Swastik (it's common but it's another slang) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFret (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

योग - yóga, you see Yog is still in use but it's just an approximation of the real pronunciation. Even I know that the 'a' in Yóga is nearly silent but many Indians themselves, out of ignorance, tend to read Yóga as Yógā (योगा) and Yog as योग् and not योग (note the virama below ग). Such slang's are quite a sad truth of our ill-literacy laden Bhārat..(yes it's Bhārat like Sanskrit without an 'a' thanks to the virama) our education and cultural departments have some nice jobs now!

--HFret (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing and Hemkhund example

Sikh-history, have you seen the example citing the statement in the Similarities section I was editing in in the Hinduism and Sikhism article? The source has entirely nothing to do with the statement it was brought in to back: that Sikhs and Hindus visit each other's place of worship. Now, I don't doubt there are a few "Sikhs" who visit Hindu mandirs, but the vast majority do not;I've yet to see this belief sourced properly. As for Hindus visiting Gurdwaras, I associate this with Punjabi Hindus due to the Sikh majority's cultural sway in the region; "many" non-Punjabi Hindus cannot be visiting Gurdwaras simply because Sikhs are spread rather sparsely outside of Punjab and its adjacent regions, Gurdwaras of these regions even more so.

That said, I don't mind saying that many Hindus *period* visit Gurdwaras as you insist; what I do feel strongly about is the statement that "many" Sikhs visit mandirs, it's simply not true especially for a tight-knit community like the Sikhs; people cannot ignore the rule to overemphasize small exceptions.

The statement did not include "Sikhs visit Hindu temples" for the longest time before someone seemed to have recently added that part.

In short, I don't mind saying "Hindus" unstead of "Punjabi Hindus," I will settle for your version. But I feel that the mentioning of Sikhs is an inaccuracy that cannot be fixed merely by adding a citation tag; this I feel strongly about. I hope you get my point.3swordz (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Sikhs seldom visit Hindu temples. The reason why I put back the statement that many Hindu's visit the Sikh Temples, on a recent visit to the Golden Temple, I must have seen more Hindu's there from other states than Sikhs. It is an ad hoc observation and I would need a reference. The entire article is poor to be honest and needs more referencing. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Sikh-History. You're right, the article definitely isn't the best. These types of articles degenerate quickly when they aren't maintained.3swordz (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

mass edit

On my talk page, you wrote:

Hi Sineed this user has made lots of Vandal type edits, and has been blocked. Is there a quick way of reverting his edits. I have tried to do some but simply have not got the time. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth asking at the ANI thread for a mass-revert, but I really don't know. I am sorry I did not know enough about the subject to quickly be able to ask for a block... but I just don't. Please feel free to answer me here, as I have the page on watch, or you may answer me at my talk page, of course. All the best, and sorry I don't know more. :( - Sinneed 17:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

115........

Just loo at those edits u r making they r not sourced and are provocative try to be creative rather than being negative115.252.44.42 (talk)

You should be tagging them not deleting. You will be blocked at this rate.--Sikh-History 09:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

They were put in their by ppl with anti-Indian sentiments JUST LOOK AT THEIR HISTORY115.252.44.42 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerened by anti-Indian, or infact anti-Sikh sentiments, just to maintain NPOV. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles renamed

Hi again Sikh-history, this time I'm here because of some articles being renamed by a user named HFret (I see that the user has commented on your page; and with his use of English claims to be a 'linguist'). I have to say that I do not agree with what he's been doing to a few articles, changing their titles from a simple transliteration into the Latin alphabet, as most English-speakers would go about saying them (as they should be, I believe; isn't that the naming convention?), into pronunciation guides that suit his/her views. This has been done to the articles Ik Onkar and Tarkhan, that I know of). The 'inherant -a' that he/she claims to champion is being blown way out of proportion; I think most Sikhs transliterate "Ik Onkar" the way I've just written it, not with a's everywhere; if his/her logic is to be used then articles names like "Sikh" would be "Sikha," "Guru Nanak Dev" would be "Guru Nanaka Deva" etc etc, and I say to simply keep the articles names as what they are commonly known as (as is the rule on Wiki). I'm more of an occasional casual editor, and my attempts to undo these changes don't seem to work. If you agree with me, I would appreciate it if this could be done. Of course, I would like to hear your opinion first.3swordz (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I probably agree with you. You are more than welcome to take it up with an admin and I will back you up. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

hello

hello you dont no whats sikh is do you plz reply --81.147.73.34 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been warned several times about you editing behaviour. Read WP:Etiquette. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Family Foundation School article

From your comment on my talk page, here is the response:

The term "FFS" stands for "Family Foundation School" which is the article that we are commenting on. It has no derogatory or other attacking meaning. Sorry for confusion, but the other editor has continually edited the article which omits various relevant and reliable sources, it was not meant to be an attack. I will take a look at the welcome page as you suggested. Thank you. Flyboi9 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sikh Ramgarhia

Hello WadeSimMiser, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Sikh Ramgarhia - a page you tagged - because: WP:CSD#G1 is only for "incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories... ". Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

...and the same applies to Hundal. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

However Sikh Ramarghia was a copyright infringement & has now been deleted as such. Best, Nancy ^talk 14:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Fullmoon94

Hi there. I blocked Fullmoon94 earlier this afternoon as a sock of User:Lndpunjab. I have been through Fullmoon's contributions and cleaned up the worst of it but I think that, particularly for the newly created articles an expert eye is required so I was wondering if you had a few moments to take a look. Apologies in advance if this request is misdirected. All best, Nancy ^talk 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Akhand Kirtani Jatha

I have left a message for Sinneed asking him/her to refrain from characterising good faith edits as vandalism and to stop issuing inappropriate warnings. I have also told him/her that the edit warring must stop, this latter comment equally applies to you. The place to settle this is the talk page of the article & I would urge you, as I have urged Sinneed, to go there and thrash it out in civilised manner and back everything up with sources Nancy ^talk 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, thats all I want. Regards --Sikh-History 14:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed this. Since I did not characterize any of these edits as wp:vandalism, I cannot stop. Since I have not issued any inappropriate warnings I cannot stop. - Sinneed 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, some of your edits damaged some of the citations. Please repair them.- Sinneed 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll just drop the ones that don't work, when I have time.- Sinneed 13:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramdasia Page revertions

There is an attempt by some people to project Ramdasia's as different from Ravidassia (Chamars). They are the same.

Citations below

Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province by H.A Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan (http://www.archive.org/stream/glossaryoftribes03rose#page/n5/mode/2up)

On page page 148 of the book (Page 311 of online book), the author writes "Just as the Muhammadan Chamar is styled Mochi so that Sikh Chamar is called Ramdasia"

Panjab castes by Sir Denzil Ibbetson (http://www.archive.org/stream/panjabcastes00ibbe#page/n7/mode/2up)

On Page 269, the author writes: "Similarly, if the Ramdasias do not follow the occupation of Chamars, it is no reason to separate them from that castes. So if a Ramdasia is Julaha, that is a weaver, and if he is 'Bazzaz' that is a draper, his caste remains unchanged. If a Chamar, a leather-worker becomes a Sikh and receives 'pahul' to-day, he at once joins the Ramdasias. The Ramdasias do receive the daughters in marriage of ordinary Chamars, but give them 'pahul' before associating with them"........."The the Ramdasi is still a Chamar".

On page 300, the author writes: "The Sikh Chamar or Ramdasia. — It will be seen from Table VIII A that in the north and centre of the Eastern Plains a very considerable number of Chamiirs have embraced the Sikh religion. These men are called Ramdasia after Gui-u Ram Das, though what connection they have with him I have been unable to discover. Perhaps he was the first Guru to admit Chamars to the religion. Many, perhaps most of the Ramdasia Chamars have abandoned leather-work for the loom ; they do not eat carrion, and they occupy a much higher position than the Hindu Chamars, though they are not admitted to religious equality by the other Sikhs. The Ramdasia are often confused with the Raidiisi oi Rabdasi Chamars. The former are true Sikhs, and take the pdhul. The latter are Hindus, or if Sikhs, only Nanakpanthi Sikhs and do not take the pcikul ; and are followers of Bhagat Rav Das or Rab Das, himself a Chamar. They are apparently as true Hindus as any Chamars can be, and are wrongly called Sikhs by confusion with the Ranidasias".

The Religious Life of India - The Chamars by G.W Briggs ISBN: 8175361840 (http://books.google.com/books?id=PTgsR0xjG4MC&dq=The+Religious+Life+of+India+-+The+Chamars&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=2YBHFq1QVx&sig=xxt0ynAhjQrOkuASylmaGWYNqx0&hl=en&ei=HxWASquUHpWMtgfq17T3AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=ramdasi&f=false)

On page page 28, the author writes: "the various subcastes of chamars originated due to different occupations. Quote: "The Chandar does not tanning and is the highest of the subcastes"....."The Ramdasi is a weaver"..."The Bonas are weavers of blankets who are Sikhs".

According to the Constitution of Indian (1950 Amendment,)the Official Census of India (Source: THE CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULED CASTES) ORDER, 1950](C.O.19) (http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/rule3a.htm) (Source:List of notified Scheduled Castes: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/SC%20Lists.pdf In the state of Punjab, the Chamar is known as Adharmi, Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Rehgar, Raigar, Ramdasia, Ravidasi

The well known newspaper columnist writes in his research paper Scheduled Castes in Sikh Community A Historical Perspective http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/scheduled.pdf

In the customary scheme, outcastes such as mazhabis (Churah Sikh), balmikis and ramdasias (chamar Sikh)/ravidasias were not allowed to own land.

Perspectives on Sikh Studies by Jagjit Singh (1985, published by Guru Nanak Foundation, Near J.N.U and Qutab Hotal New Delhi 110 067) http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/per-sikh-studies.pdf

on Page 75 the author writes that "The Ramdasia's or the Sikh Chamars occupt a much higher position than the Hindu Chamars".

On page 77 the author writes that "By changing their name to Ramdasias, the Chamar Sikhs could alter positon in the Sikh case hierarchy, becoming Sikhs and refusing to marry or interdine with Chamar Hindus.

Rehat Maryada

This can not be renamed at WP:CFD since it is an article and not a category. You can move the article or use WP:RM to discuss a move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You just need to add the following text to the end of the talk page for the article you want moved.

== Requested move ==
{{subst:move|NewName}} A short reason for page name change. --~~~~

Change NewName to the name you are proposing and fill in the reason to replace the sample text. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
Message added 10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nancy ^talk 10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Hi Mr. Editor

I have noticed that you have contributed in this article. I am not an established editor hence I can not edit this article (it is semi-protected) I guess. I have found several neutral references to make some changes into its lead section

From -

...was the controversial leader of the Damdami Taksal, a Sikh religious group based in India, who supported...

TO -

...was the 14th head of the Damdami Taksal, a 300 years old Sikh religious school of the Sikhs which was founded by last Sikh prophet Guru Gobind Singh. He supported ...

Can you please make this edit in Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale to make this article more valuable and neutral.--24.5.208.21 (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Include them. I think the Dam Dami Taksal can be used in certain circumstances. It definitely is POV. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not an established editor and this article can only be edited by established editors, that's why I put 'my sentence, alongwith references' over here otherwise I would have edited the article directly. Kindly change the sentence as I have requested above, you can simply copy and psate my sentence. It will make Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale's lead section neutral.

Now, regarding Damdami Taksal, First of all I do not think that it is POV. This organization is older than today's India and several other countries of the world. Secondly! regarding Damdami Taksal reference, (for now) it is simply being used for a very minor information purpose. I sincerely hope that you will agree with me. Regards...--24.5.208.21 (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Jhatka

You're welcome and thank you. Raj2004 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

to bad, crappy computer. I am sorry about the gerk vandals. I used to be a vandal. No point. You seem cool and nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editpowah (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

Your removal in Jhatka is fine. I added the info because there was some earlier comment on Shaivites being meat-eaters only, which is not true. Many Shaivites are vegetarian.

Regards, Raj2004 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Sikh-History If I have time, I will take a look. Regards,Raj2004 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hii

I read somewhere that Mata Gujari kaur was from Gujar sikh community.Is it true ?Just wanted to confirm.ThanksChhora (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I am not too sure. I know she was from a Khatri family, and unless, Gujar tribes have Khatri's in them, it maybe true, but I would suggest you find evidence. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for response.I would try to know actual fact but if you come across such a information, plz let me know.Thanks Chhora (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Category for deletion: Your opinion needed

There is a category which is being discussed for deletion which I see great use in. It is: Category:Musicians who have served in the military. I wonder if you would check it out, and offer your opinion, either way, "Keep" or "Delete", here. (As I don't know you very well, I hope you'll let me know whether you find this request inappropriate.)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

History of Sikhism

The version you reverted to is poor; it is not well written, and it does not well cover Sikh history. The edits by the IP editor vastly improved the article. Why did you revert? I have returned the article to the state the IP editor left it in. Fences&Windows 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct it is not well written, but the edit version was a lot of narrative, much POV (Pro-Sikh) and mot many refernces. Also there were needles salutation like "ji" etc. That is not encylopedic. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not work from the expanded version to correct it, rather than wholesale removing it? Honestly, a pro-Sikh history is better than no history as a starting point. Fences&Windows 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. That is POV. Please see WP:POV. If I didn't revert it another editor would have. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that policy, teach your Grandma to suck eggs next. I don't understand you at all, you want to revert back to a poor version of the article rather than improve an expanded article? There's more to Wikipedia than reverting edits you know. Your username doesn't seem very appropriate if you're not even interested in improving History of Sikhism. Fences&Windows 03:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on a private discussion, but I hope you won't mind the view of an outsider. I am sensing that you, Fences and windows, currently have the energy and insight to work from both versions of the article and create a better one. Sikh-history on the other hand has the energy and insight to oversee your work. Now, come on, Fences, don't be lazy or try to put the work off til later or onto someone else. You seem to know how to do it, and I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if you would do it. I'm sure it would take as much energy as your last comment above and it would be much more useful to the readers than this squabble. Anyway, hope you both have a beautiful day.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for my abrubt responses, but at the moment I do not have time to work on articles, however, I would more than happy for someone else to reinstate the material with appropriate edits. Go for it, and I will dip in from time to time. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you and I have worked well in the recent past, Sikh-history. I just wanted Fences to know that it is possible to have a nice editing collaboration with you, and not have to fall into insults. Hope nobody considers me rude for butting in.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Karni Namah , Panj Sau Sakhi and Dasam Granth

Dear Sikh History, Your erudition is illumining.I just need your help in clarifying the authenticity of these works. While Karni Namah talks about the second coming of the Tenth Nanak , Sau Sakhi further endorses that notion. Dasam Granth cements all this by adding another angle on Chaubis Avatar who seems to be due if the said prophecy is true? I am a little ignorant and need your help to clarify. Nobody has been able to satisfactorily answer this yet. And Yes, Is Guru MaanYO Granth verse written in SGGS. wgjkk-wgjkf KingLionsRoar KingLionsroar (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not know what article you are talking about? Thanks--Sikh-History 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

shinda is bhullar

user Sikh-history the singer Surinder Shinda, Sukshinder Shinda is jatt Bhullar not hunjan u beening mistakein itz bhullar --86.140.15.42 (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken . See http://www.amazines.com/Surinder_Shinda_related.html. Also find the link to the TV interview with him on youtube. He confirms it himself. thanks --Sikh-History 13:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

k you tell me itz sukshinder shinda is hunjan --86.140.15.42 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about Sukhshider Shinda. Find a link and add it, to confirm whether he is a Bhullar. Thanks --Sikh-History 13:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

give me fake site http://www.amazines.com/Surinder_Shinda_related.html you no itz bhullar everyone no itz bhullar just out shinda from hunjan page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.15.42 (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith.http://www.sadapunjab.com/news/?p=532 Like I stated, the oness is on you to provide a link that states he is a Bhullar. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

plz forgot these fake site you trying to improve he not hunjan no real prove or less you made new page shinda and take off shinda of hunjan page and there no harm making new page shinda --86.140.15.42 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If you do not, then I will be forced to issue warning which could lead to your block. Also do a google search on Surinder Shinda Hunjan, and you will find many links to his interviews. I cannot even find one site that states Surinder Shinda is a Bhullar. Thanks and end of discussion.--Sikh-History 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Gnowor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

misuse of sources

SikhHistory, what I deleted is an obvious opinion; as I've maintained from the beginning the source is legit but is being misused. What I deleted (in italics) is not blatant POV opinion?

"Between June 3 and June 6, 1984, the Indian Army under the instruction of Indira Gandhi brought troops into the Harmandir Sahib to arrest Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (a militant created by the Congress and the SGPC). He and some followers had taken refuge in the Harmandir Sahib, and resisted the police who sought to arrest him for acts of terrorism."

Read my edit summaries, talk page, and perhaps the cited article itself as well, I have been fully explaining my edits, and the edit does not match the source (the person saying that Bhindranwale is a congress/SGPC created terrorist is a BJP politician with no scholarly weight, obviously he would say that, it's politics, not something to be cited as fact! And for the record I support neither BJP or Congress, if that needs to be clarified). The BJP guy stated his opinion to make a case to have Bhindranwale's image removed from Harmandir Sahib, I have no clue why you seem to find his personal opinions citable as fact. I'm not deleting the reference per se, I am deleting the POV edit which the misused source happens to be attached to.

In short, you can't seriously think a non-scholar politician's predictably partial opinion is citable. If you absolutely must keep this POV, there should be a note made saying that this is only a BJP opinion, not the fact it is being used as, or it needs to be balanced. Moreover, as i've said in an earlier post, personal views on Bhindranwale being a freedom fighter, terrorist, created militant etc. belong on Bhindranwale's page, not here.3swordz (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You still cannot delete it without raising a discussion. Follow the correct proceedure, I urge, before you get yourself ino trouble. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So discuss already! Share what you think is good about that POV edit. I haven't deleted it since I've posted the last message, I've been presenting my arguments repeatedly now. So start discussing already and stop repeating "procedure," which is all you've been doing. I've even presented alternate edits to discuss, if you have a problem with my reasoning then...start discussing.

Yet again I will make plain: My problem is NOT with the source, it was with the EDIT MADE.

You're the only one who seems to have anything to say about this edit, who else am I supposed to be discussing it with? if you have a problem with the reasons for my edit, share them.3swordz (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SikhHistory, userSinnead has weighed in as asked, reply on that article talk page if you want to reply. I apologize if I seemed confrontational.3swordz (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of references

Dear editor

Respectfully! Sat sri Akal.. I am not giving you any warning under wp:pov pushing eventhough you did it. I am not dragging you into any administrative noticeboards eventhough your act was a clear violation of several wiki policies. I am extremely sad that how a nice editor like you could think of destroying wiki articles/references. I am just interested to know that how did you feel inside your heart when you decided to go for wp:pov pushing while deleting a whole section without giving any reason. Being an editor how did you feel when you deleted other editor's hardly found 7 references, you must be sad right?...you must have thought about the hours and hours of research time other editors might have spend on finding these references.. right ? just feel how would you feel if some other pov pushing person destroy your own hardwork .. lets be fair...lets do only what we expect from other respected editors... lets follow wiki policies...regards... sat sri akal...--24.5.208.21 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut the nonsense and the WP:Personal Attack. Trivia section are not encouraged and routinely deleted from articles. If you want to integrate the references in the article then that's fine, but any trivia section will be deleted. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
Message added 11:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nancy ^talk 11:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I noticed you reverting some vandalism and wondered if you'd like rollback? If so have a read of wp:rollback and drop me a note saying when you would and wouldn't use it. PS you missed this - if you've got the time it is often useful to look at a vandal's other contributions. Cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers 15:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi,sikh-history,

whats your decision on adding "36 royal races" statement with valid refs to Jat article which you removed?

I can provide even more refs but I think what I provided were more then enough...so what do u think about this issue?-- Last Emperor (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

no my friend,Im not saying that we have to act like "pseudo-Rajputs" + why we need to?? Actually my point is that before origin of rajputs (6th or 7th AD) Jats were dominant race and had a place in "36 royal races of India" + being a royal race does'nt mean that you have to be rajputs..(they does'nt have a reservation for that...)..so I think in my view it should be added to Jat article supported with refs...regards-- Last Emperor (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And

plz have a look on the ref you added on Jatt Sikh page abt. there concentration in sikh community...It says "Jat-Sikhs" form majority of sikh community and own 95% of punjab's land" but does'nt say Jatt-sikhs forms 35-40% of sikhs,its said about other groups...thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And

Your name appears to be multi-coloured on talk pages ,how?...regards-- Last Emperor (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Royal Jatt I know how you feel, but I've had some major debates on this and it difficult to prove. I do know this, that in Manu Smirti the Saka (or Scythian) is considered a fallen Kshatriya to Sudra. In anycase, I guarantee, DBacham, who is very knoledgeable, will come back with many other sources, so I cut it to avoid that business. If you wish to include, so it, but I stress, get FULL quotations and state exactly what they mean. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jatt, its true that in Manu Smirti the Saka (or Scythian) is considered a fallen Kshatriya to Sudra BUT its not yet proven that Jats are Saka (or Scythian) by anyone,its just views of some 19th century historians...moreover there are many who believe that Jats are true Aryans or a branch of them...summery is that its not proven yet...! well thanks for your concerns about my recent additions to Jat article,I'll make sure that I know my sources inside out + I can provide many more refs when my addition will be challenged...Thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jatt Sikhs

The reference does not claim that Jats form "form the 35 to 40% of the Sikh community". The only direct quote about Jat population is "The Jat Sikhs constitute the majority and own over ninety five percent of agricultural land in the state". I guess there is some confusion caused by the line "In these districts they account for 35 to 40 percent of the Sikhs..." which actually is a reference to the "other section", the Balmikis and the Ramdasias. See [1] (if site is down, you can view google cache version[2])

SPat ^talk 10:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got something a bit more substantial. Lets include it and stick to Jatt Sikhs, and not divert to landholding, size of chests and biceps etc as we did before :) . Thanks --Sikh-History 17:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of this article, all I did to it was remove the arbitrary uncited jatt religion demographics, as the article was regarding Sikhs. I did not add the bit about "% of land holdings" you attributed to me, if you actually looked at the edit i made, nor do i care about it, though it could be argued as relevant. I left it alone as it was cited. The way you handled our previous incident and this one suggests you may need to slow down and look at edits/motives with a bit more care before you revert in such a cavalier fashion.3swordz (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And going on about reading carefully, "30 to 45% of the Sikh Population in Jullundhur, Kapurthala, Hoshiarpur, and Taran Taran" does indeed refer to Balmikis and Ramdasias. As for being so averse to mentioning agricultural landholding (again, which I didn't even add), it might in fact be very relevant to Jatt Sikhs as that's what they are known for, and it plays out in caste tensions and Punjab's politics. This isn't an ego thing, if it's cited it's in. You were the one who liked holding on to any and all references if I recall. If you're doing this so as to not piss off non-Jatt editors or something, I suggest you not yield to that, it certainly would not be out of place. And I'm sincerely hoping you misquoted the source by accident.3swordz (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "Piss off" non-Jatt editors. I am sorry, but this is Wikipedia, and the fact I am a Jatt, does not compromise my zeal in ensuring articles are from a WP:NPOV and not WP:OFF Topic. The articles on Jatts, Tarkhans, Labanas, Khatri's on Wikipedia have been little more than an attempt to "big up" groups, with little or no attempt to present articles of quality and analysis. Let me give you an example. I want to know about Jatt Sikh. Emphasis being "Jatt with Sikh". Do I care whether they own 95% of land (which is a bane considering the number of suicides), or whether how what where a Jatt who was a Sikh came about? WE have a choice, either these articles can remain a joke, or they can be encyclopaedic and referenced from REPUTABLE sources (of which I do not include Dahiya, Dhillon etc al who's penchant is to show how big their phallus is compared to other caste groups). Thanks --Sikh-History 09:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is not an ego thing, and very relevant, it plays out in Punjabi politics (socially and economically). Everyone knows that Jatt Sikhs are a landowning group, just because you seem to equate that with comparing phalluses does not mean it does not have a place in the article. That's one of the few cited facts in that article, I'm not sure why you are so averse to it; previously you found a BJP spokesman's opinion quotable as fact. It's not "bigging up" a group, it's a significant fact, and yes, you are afraid of pissing off non-Jatt editors, given that your reason for deleting a statistic seems to be to avoid an uproar and stop a "big up" contest. It's not ego, it's fact.

Just because you "don't care" about that tidbit doesn't render it useless. The article was addressing caste inequality, in the Asian Tribune by a political analyst named Ratan Saldi (doesn't sound like a Jatt, does that seem good enough for you, as "Dhillon/Dahiya" and any other Jatts who talk about Jatts are simply bragging?)

And to address your tangent, because of the suicides brought on by bad economic times, suddenly owning land is a curse for all the farmers, after all these centuries? Would you rather they didn't, and no one did, in your quest to present a pretty egalitarian picture of Punjab? is it really news to you or anyone else that Jatts own a lot of agricultural land? You cannot censor anything, be it the good or the bad about Jatts (you don't see me deleting instances of Jatt violence against these other groups, do you?)

Again, I did not add it but I see the merit in doing so, and again, I want you to fix your editing mistake, and start editing with more care in general. Again, the tarn taran stuff etc. refers to Balmikis and Ramdasias, as bent as you are to distort that.Now go fix it! 3swordz (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are overstepping the mark and what you are saying constitutes a wp:personal attack. Thanks--Sikh-History 11:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I just refuted your points and opinions one by one. Why don't you read it more carefully? Your reason for deleting the source and a significant fact is that "it makes you uncomfortable." if you've got a better source bring it up, otherwise it's perfectly fine there.3swordz (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusing me of pandering to non-Jatts ( as if they were lesser human beings) is not only racist, it is a personal attack and I am 100% sure all admins would back me on this. Thanks and this is the end of this conversation. --Sikh-History 07:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Now look who's engaging in attacks. "racist." You're the one censoring significant information to prevent a caste "big-up" contest (this is your only given reason for your actions, a ridiculous reason), you are the one with race on your mind, you think Jatt authors are incapable of being objective, I'm just presenting the facts. Despicable. Not to mention you're constantly misquoting and deleting sources you don't like. You had no problem using and (mis)quoting the source yourself during the whole time it was there, until someone (me) looked through it and quoted it correctly. Guess what? the source you were defending in our previous argument was the same kind as this one (an online newspaper article), don't be a hypocrite.

I will not let you use invective to shut this debate down. Perhaps we should have another neutral third-party trace and give their opinion on the matter like last time, when you kept distorting my intentions and another editor understood perfectly. I never accused you of "pandering," and I never put down non-Jatts ever (I have no clue where you got that from), unless you think "non-Jatt" is a slur(?!). I accuse you of deleting info for fear of some imagined "uproar/phallus contest." Do you even know how ridiculous that sounds?3swordz (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have already involved an admin, and as you keep forgetting being a Jat has nothing to do with Wikipedia.Thanks--Sikh-History 11:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

or rather me being a Jatt has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Best Wishes--Sikh-History 09:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So then? What's the ruling?3swordz (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My Dear 3swordzplease familiarise yourself with Wikipdia protocol. Wikipedia is not about rulings. Its about getting consensus. Me and other Sikh editors, try hard to try and get consensus and try and make articles encyclopaedic as possible. The Sikh articles and those related (Jatt Sikh, Khatri, Tarkhan, Labana etc), were at one time probably the least encyclopaedic. They are still far from perfect, but as editors our goal should be always should be to make articles neutral and encyclopaedic. If you have a problem then please raise it as WP:Mediation. Happy Editing. --Sikh-History 07:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then. If you don't have a problem with it anymore then I don't. The information isn't wrong or partial/not neutral in any way, it just made you uncomfortable. Seems like you're over that. By "ruling" I meant regarding the source legitimacy. Never seemed to get a response against it from the admin you involved to mediate. Other sources say the same thing, notably a couple of peer-reviewed journals. Those need to be ordered so I'm working on that. Hopefully that will override any concerns over phallus-contests and "discomforts" you have about this information.3swordz (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So Lets get into Discussion

First of all it was great to see you there. I have made major changes which has been publically declare in India by Sikh Highest Authority Akal Takhat. The article is already Violates the NPOV fundamentals of Wikipedia. I hope you understand What I am talking about . You said neutral sources? So please Show me the reaction of the Amritdhari Sikh on Same & Where you debate for these resources?

--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not on my page. Raise it on the article page, and don't lose your cool. You will get blocked. Best Wishes--Sikh-History 21:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear , can you elightned me as you are saying these words(-*Block?) second time to me, without knowing me ? Well I will make changes One by One instead of random ,would appreciates if you take care of this page , Help me to bring Truth without compromising NPOV.

--Dilpreet Singh Virdi (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Admins have the power to block IP' and will prevent you from editing. So keep cool. Remember this is an encyclopedia, and try and back up everything you write from reutable sources i.e. books with ISBN numbers. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh Yogi

Can you please take a look at this? I have no idea about this person, but I'm just trying to remove this excess negativity sourced to one person. I haven't personally heard of either of these two people before I came across the WP article, hopefully you can help. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Will have a look when I get a chance. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

your message

You sent me what I'm sure was a bot message about removing content from the [jat people] page, you should know that the link you sent me to its revision history doesn't work-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jat_People&action=history- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

reverting my edits in jat people

Hi sikh-history. I am trying to improve the jat people page but my edits keep getting reverted. when they were originally reverted by royal jat warrior I provided justification for my edits on his talk page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Royal_Jat_Warrior#Jat_People). I am editing constructively and I would appreciate your help in detailing what exactly about my edits needs to be changed. I understand that deleting the template saying the section needed to be improved was a bit rash but the only other problem I see with my edit was I didn't properly cite my source. I don't understand why my edits are being reverted instead of improved... please respond!Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, you are googling references, without being familiar with them and when I have checked them they haven't actually said what you have put down. Thanks--Sikh-History 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I undertook two actions in my edits. I provided 2 citations for something already there and deleted semi-irrelevant information. I know that that origin can be a contested point so I decided to add citations to info that was already there. Additionally if you actually look at my sources they are properly cited to the page. I don't think it's appropriate to block me for simply backing up information that is already there. it seems like you're putting a stranglehold on the section by not letting me improve the section. Now about the sources, The Indian empire: its people, history, and products(I will change the citation to pages 179-180 because that illustrates the point better)and the census of india both indicate that jat people were of scythian origin and at some point intermarried to the local tribes, both mentioning rajputs. That backs up the sentence they are behind.... I really don't see the issue here. remember WP:AGF, because after my edits were originally reverted I went back and improved them. I just don't see why you keep reverting my edits because I've illustrated why they are relevant... Can we take this to a third party to resolve this debate?

your recent edit removed content from Jat People the content I removed was because it was not on the origin of the jat people but on the origin of the Romany, it took up the entirety of the section so i reduced it to a mention. Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia rectified this in my recent edits. please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit I cited the census of india and a book by William Wilson Hunter

you need to specifically state where we disagree because I have corrected all of these mistakes you listed earlierProfitoftruth85 (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Such dead sources were cleared out in a previousd edit, and not also, the deletion of current sources was a creation of WP:POV. Please look at previous discussions on this article. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also ask for a Third Party intervention (this was done before) and the result was sources like yours being cleared out. By all means try. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you ask for a third party intervention?Profitoftruth85 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Also why did you rearrange the pictures of famous jats? I had them arranged to correspond to their time periodProfitoftruth85 (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

hey sikh-history I took the dispute to the mediation cabal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-03/jat/

lets talk this through Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added User: Dbachmann to the dispute as he made the edits to which I reverted too. Thanks--Sikh-History 17:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

An admin has agreed to help mediate Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-03/Jat people Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Idolatry#Sikh views of idolatry

This article was highlighted on the WikiProject Sikhism. It's not really well put together at the moment and from your userpage it looks like you have a functional knowledge of the guru granth sahib. I'd like to improve it but I wouldn't know where to start. Can you help improve it? Profitoftruth85 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation from Punjabi Wikipedia

I am trying to write as many articles about Sikh and Sikh history on Western Punjabi Wikipedia[3]. If you know the script please help us in this effort. If not just glance at them and comment.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot read Urdu, but thanks --Sikh-History 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Notices

You need to learn what a personal attack is. I only (sharply) criticize your actions and your stated reasons for them (justifiably and to positive effect, as you are realizing your mistakes one by one, and you've finally stopped repeatedly deleting academically cited information you don't like, and then citation-tagging said cited info to make it look shoddy).

I do not say anything about you as a person, as you have (remember "racist?" THAT is a personal attack). Just because you take these criticisms "personally" does not make them personal attacks. And if you involve an admin like last time, I'm sure they'll agree that not a single thing I said constitutes a "personal attack." 3swordz (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you need to learn what constitutes a personal attack and what [WP:AGF] is:

• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users..

You have made several attacks like this. Several of which I have ignored. Other Admins have confirmed your behaviour to other people as well is similar to this. I tried warning you, without doing it formally on several occasions. I regret it has come to this, but I fear you maybe blocked. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see this "evidence." I suppose calling my intents "racist" is assuming good faith and not a personal attack, and not hypocritical at all.3swordz (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is over. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen, i am also a gujjar and giving my contribution in right manner. You dont have any right to stop me. I am providing references with my text. You stop to writing on Gujjar Page. Veer Gurjeshwar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurjeshwar (talk • contribs) 12:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks

You are doing a good job trying to clean up the Jatt articles. It is refreshing to have a user self-identifying as a member of an Indian clan/gotra/tribe actually doing something useful in getting rid of the crap piling up. So thank you and keep it up. But don't let yourself get worked up over it. It's only the internet, and you can always come back later and fix it. I just wanted to tell you that your efforts are noted, and appreciated. If you can muster the energy, perhaps you can do the same for other gotra articles, such as Brahmin communities etc. If it's not your own group, you may also feel less involved personally, which makes it easier to just insist on proper format and referencing in a detached way. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I am time limited at the moment, but will try. I feel Jatts had become a bit of a joke on wikipedia and it inspired me to clean up the articles. The fact I am from that clan may have made me more determined. You are right, it is nothing to be worked up about. Thanks for the kind words.--Sikh-History 18:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just stop to write on Gujjar

Listen Mr. from Sikh History.

I am the scholar of Gurjar history and all information provided by me based on true facts. You just stay away from Gujjar page and look after your sikh history. We know what is wrong and right.

Just stop to giving me warning. I am also contacting to admin for your behavior.

Veer Gurjeshwar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurjeshwar (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Why are you doing this. What do you want. Just stop to teaching me rules. I know what act is wrong in wikipedia. Just do your work which you should. Dont try to revert the messages. Gujjar writers will report to wikipedia admin. The ban may be impose to you. regards--Gurjeshwar (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gurjeshwar, I understand you frustration, but please try and understand the Wikipedia rules. They are created for a reason. The basis of all wikipedia articles is WP:NPOV. This rule is there to protect not only the editor, but also the group about which the article maybe about, in this case Gujjar. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and religion

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Talk:Vegetarianism and religion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arjun^codename024 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Urgent

Respected editor, I am aware that you opposed some of my edits in the past but since you have activily worked on and improved some sikhism related articles so I would like to let you know that an Afd is at its final stages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1984 ghallooghaaraa, if you want you can participate. I would respect your delete/keep/comment - whatever vote you cast. --DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a great honour! :)--Sikh-History 09:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Yeah, the article definitely needs exapnsion and more sources. I'll write that book down, but for at least a few months I can only access material available online. I'll be able to find more sources and add to the article in a couple of months, specifically with "Umdat-ut-tawarikh" Daftar I and II. Thanks for the encouragement.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Guru Nanak and the Siddh Yogis

Kindly let me know what was on your mind when you deleted this section. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• You kindly asked me to look at your comments. I will love to look at them, but where are they? Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

jat mutation

Please do not restart the edit war here which me and several editors were at pains to resolve.The change in edit is very mischievous, and seeks to deny any connection between Jats and Roma. The quotation from the article was left in so as to leave no abiguity. Thanks

this is my edit[4]. It wasn't mischevious at all, and the information about genetic studies was left in. I removed the quotation because it is irrelevant to the article, our goal isn't to emphasize what we believe is a clear connection. The section on genetic studies right now is focused more on the romany than it is on jats. I actually stated that during our mediation, but you ignored it. I don't think you were at pains to resolve the "edit war" at all, you just pushed your side. I'm not going to edit that page again though. --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith. The edit you made, made the article look as if it was just about a "Jatt Mutation", wheras the quote is about a direct genetic link between Romany's and Jatts. Now it remains to be concluded from where Romany's originate, i.e.which came first the chicken or the egg. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Guru Nanak & the Siddh Yogis

If you like, we can discuss this section. You say it "can be interpreted in many ways from the reference." Let's discuss these interpretations here. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation Blue Star

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Profitoftruth85's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Arjun024's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arjun^codename024 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranjit Singh

The section on Ranjit Singh and Gypsies has already been added further down, hence it's deletion. Scroll down the page. Thanks--Sikh-History 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The ancestry of this Maharaja is a very widely discussed subject and has adequate notability as a controversy to merit inclusion in the lead of this article (see WP:Lead). Lead is the summary of the entire article. Please do not delete it again as deletion seems to be driven by casteist POV. Thanks for cooperation. --142.205.241.254 (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You have again deleted two very important references (Latif and Williams). With regard to your edit summary : "need for this to be added twice. See Sansi section further down." your stand is untenable since Lead section is the summary of the entire article and all controversies need to be referenced briefly. Also, I was not able to see this "Sansi section" anywhere in the article. Do you have the problem with fact that Ranjit Singh's clan had their origin and Rajputs and gypsies? Otherwise why would you delete the entire references? Please explain on the discussion page of the article so that other editors could also comment. thanks.--142.205.241.254 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith WP:AGF. I have no problem with Maharja Ranjit Singh being a Sansi or Gypsy. He was a Sikh and that is all that matters. Thanks

--Sikh-History 09:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

mediation

Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) has agreed to mediate our discussion here--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism

Reverted your edits because the Bali sacrifice is a fairly obscure area of Hindu traditions that doesn't merit a heading. However, Hinduism#Ahimsa_and_vegetarianism section may be a place to add a piece on jhatka.Pectore^talk 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks. Bali means sacrifice in Sanskrit, and many instance's of "Bali sacrifice" I found on google hits (of which there were only 3440) used the phrase Bali (sacrifice), indicating the translation, or discussed the mythological tale of Mahabali's sacrifice.Pectore^talk 17:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Also quit removing the categories. Discuss either here on on the requisite talk page how this is a "philosophical concept" as opposed to a "tradition" (when a philosophical concept is by definition untangible and slaughter is oh so tangible), and also why you consistently add a red category when Category:Traditional meat processing meets the bill.Pectore^talk 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Abusive comments like this will be not tolerated. It us you who are edit warring, and I am going to issue warnings. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of issuing template warnings on my page, please make a reasoned argument as to how I am firstly (a) wrong, and secondly (b) abusive. In the above statement there was no comment on you at all, in fact, I did not even pass a judgment of any kind there. And on a preemptory note, I do not believe in Krishna or Vishnu, so I am not a Vaishnava.Pectore^talk 03:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the word "Bollocks" maybe complementary in your vocabulary, but on Wikipedia it is deemed abusive and an insult. --Sikh-History 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Again please refrain from posting garbage on my talk page. You still have not made a reasoned argument outlining any abuse on my part.Pectore^talk 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia protocols WP:Manual of Style, please control these abusive outbursts. Thanks--Sikh-History 07:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

hinduism mediation request

I looked over the discussion on the request page, and just as an outside observer I have to say that I think you're pushing this issue a little too hard. There's a matter of wp:weight here that needs to be considered. Hinduism as a whole is a large and diverse entity, and while animal sacrifice was (and is) an important aspect of certain segments of the religion, it is largely considered to be atavistic, and the faith as a whole is moving away from it. it deserves mention, but it should probably be mentioned in a limited, contextualized form as an archaic practice, and not equated with the current practices of hindus who would largely find animal sacrifice to be offensive.

Just for comparison in the Christian world: yes, it was a common practice hundreds of years ago for Christians to cut off body parts of saints (usually fingers, hands, heads, shin bones...) and preserve them as objects of reverence. yes, such objects are still revered by a few in this day and age. But no, the practice is no longer done (not that there's any rule against it, but it would be viewed with distaste), and most Catholics (not to mention Christians in the broader sense) would be deeply offended if you suggested that it was a common practice and equated it with (say) receiving communion.

I don't really think this needs mediation, and I'm happy to help you work to construct a compromise wording on the article talk page, but I think you're going to have to recognize that you're overstepping NPOV a bit here. --Ludwigs2 17:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that not a good comparison, because animal sacrifice is still a central tenet of Sakta's, Eastern Indian Hindus, Balanese Hindu's and well as Nepalese Hindu's. The only sect that is trying to move away from this practice are the Vaishnavs. The comparisons here are wrong. But thanks for your input.--Sikh-History 09:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

transferred from my talk

Please see the article here. As you can see it is well referenced.The analogy you used on my page is not applicable, because Bali Sacrifice is a very complicated topic. In India Hinduism seems to be controlled by the Vaishnavs (who in turn control the media). They tend to be from the so called upper castes and push Hinduism as they see it. Animal sacrifice is practiced by the so called "Sudra" and "Untouchable" castes (the majority of Hindu's) and well as Eastern Indian Hindus, and Nepalese Hindu's. Non-Indian Hindu's practice animal sacrifice too eg Balinese. Warrior castes such as Rajputs and Kshatriyas practice this to. We are talking about some 50 million Hindu's (at least) that practice this today. Fuller from Princeton Universities research looked beyond the Vaishnav propaganda and found that Animal sacrifice is still a central tenet of Hinduism. I think in the interest of WP:Balance you must look beyond the Vaishnav Hindu cow-worshipping line, and see Hinduism for its diversity. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's have the conversation here or on my talk page, not both. splitting it up that way is confusing.

so, please note: 50 million Hindus is about 5% of the Hindu population. that's a noticeable number, but nowhere near enough to credit it as a significant aspect of Hindu practice. Nor is it a practice which is gaining popularity - by all measures it is gradually fading out of Hindu society. As you say, balance is important, and wikipedia cannot write the article to give excessive weight to a fairly extreme traditional practice maintained by a small minority of believers.

And incidentally, using phrases like "Vaishnav Hindu cow-worshipping line" is not a convincing way to impress people about your interest in neutrality.

But I'm offering to help here, not to argue. If you don't want help creating a balanced article, then you are on your own, and if this is your typical attitude and approach, you are going to make no headway whatsoever. so have a nice day, and let me know if you decide to give up axe-grinding and want some help editing. --Ludwigs2 15:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

50 million? Thats more than the adherents to the 5th biggest religion in the world, Sikhism, yet they get their own pages here? How does that work. As for the statement re: cow-worshipping, would you see "cow-belt" as offensive? Coming from a Hindu family myself, such statements are not seen as offensive and are used frequently? Thanks--Sikh-History 08:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-17/Operation Blue Star

I'm closing the case as stale, after a week of inactivity; should this dispute flare up again, feel free to reopen without prejudice. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sikh-history. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 00:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:DISPUTE

Sorry, Sikh-history, I appreciate the work you are doing, but I must say that I do not see a problem with Pectore's edits. If you have differences, you should try to work out a compromise on the article talkpage. Your edits to the "Bali" article have been rather confused or confusing, and I must say it appears as if you were driven by some sort of agenda. Apparently that agenda is emphasizing the role of animal sacrifice in Hinduism. Now it is certainly interesting and notable that there is animal sacrifice in Hinduism, but within Hinduism as a whole, the practice is still marginal.

As far as I can see, two kinds should be distinguished, sacrifice in Shaktism, which is strictly a topic of the Shaktism sect, and the wider field of tribal cultures (Adivasi) which can be included in the wider definitions of "Hindu". These are mostly neglected in accounts of "Hinduism", and it would be important indeed to expand our coverage of folk Hinduism, but always with the understanding that this is a field separate from mainstream Hinduism (that is, Vedantic Hinduism as it developed after 1000 CE). So can you please stop the attempts of portraying animal sacrifice as an integral part of mainstream Hinduism. --dab (𒁳) 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly was not my intention to portray it as mainstream, but it was certainly my point to highlight this practice still exists, since my latest visit to India and seeing it my self in Jaipur and is practiced by Millions of Hindu's. Thanks Anyway --Sikh-History 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I think animal sacrifice exists in certain traditions of Hinduism such as the Shakta tradition but is less definitely present in the South. Raj2004 (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

sikh history

u think all sikh history is jatt thats where u r wrong fix u stupid Julaha jatt

julaha jatts did not done anything in sikh history its was ramgarhia sarders waste man talk sum slag english (ghetto english) u waste man (78.147.215.102 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Help?

Could you please take a look at Chahal Jats? I'm totally at a loss as to what is sound and what is worthless in this field. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem?

i don't know what's going on but are you going to delete every single post i put up? i was tasked with putting up at least 20 sikh canadians on wiki and i started with one. i have not done this before and some guidance would be better than deleting everything i post. you delete a punjabi when the person is obviously punjabi. you delete sikh when a person is obviously a sikh. you delete canadian when a person is obviously canadian. this is my first time using and i would have appreciated something better from someone with the name sikh-history. today i was supposed to be working on another surrey canadian sikh who is punjabi and from british columbia, surrey and is a sikh and punjabi and canadian but i'm afraid you will stalk me and vandalize the pages i post on. sikh history is based on history and anyone that vandalizes that is not trying to promote facts but destroy them. i am not self publicizing. i am publicizing for canadian sikh punjabis. you want me to give up then i do. thank you! go and delete all that i put up. i will pass this on to someone else. why not you do the research yourself and put the persons up? if i made a mistake on last name or information why not correct instead of vandalizing? every person i was asked to put up is sikh canadian and wear turbans. you will delete them all? why don't you go back to every spot you deleted of mine and look at the information and repost it properly. i task you with that unless you only like to vandalize. i was asked to put what jatha they were each from but i did not because that is irrelevant. may god bless you regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianblood (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't me then some other editor would have deleted it. You had spammed images of this person everywhere. The question arises is this person WP:Notable. In terms of JattSikhs, is this person on the same level of notability as say Dhamedra or Maharaj Ranjit Singh. If not, then why add it? Thanks --Sikh-History 07:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Namdhari massacre

Hello. I just realized that WP does not have an article on this important event that happened in Malerkotla in 1872. You seem knowledgeable and interested in sikh history. Is this something worth your while. this reference goes into it in some detail [5]. cheers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Jay Sean

Per resolution of a long standing controversy at the Jay Sean article, please do not add any origin for him or his parents more specific than "Punjab". Reinsertion of such material will result in a block.—Kww(talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend this to be a threat, just a statement of fact. The edit war of Pakistan vs. Indian origin has been going on for so long that EyeSerene took this step and I have continued enforcement of it. I see no reason to believe that you had bad intent by making the edit, and I give the same notice to any editor that places it. Indeed, I had not noticed the edit by KhanMUFC. I have reverted and warned him as well.—Kww(talk) 22:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail

I just thought I'd let you know that you have a series of new messages from Abstruce waiting for you over at the talk page of the Jat people article. I don't think Abstruce has yet worked out that you can write on other users' talk pages if you want to get their attention. AtticusX (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--Sikh-History 12:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

what is your problem?

why u r rolling back tarn taran article again and again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarn taran (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry

I am terribly sorry for posting the previous message and the edits, i did it in a bad mood and a weak mind. Please don't have hatred between religions and let us live in peace. Sorry for the above message and the edits.

Jat/ Jatt

Hello brother there seems to be a problem in which I would require your help, there is this guy from Pakistan Qaleechpuri who is claiming Jat is different and Jatt is different . I added to the page that he created about Jatt the same stuff we had on Jat people page so that there is no confusion but he is hell bent in pointing out that only Punjabi Jatt is there and Jaat is seprate of rest of the India. I have given him references too but he is bent upon saying that eastern Punjab and western Punjab is Jatt and rest is not. If you could help me plz contact as he is trying delete the page of Jatt with the text on jat page and add his Pakistani Muslim jatt history.Plz help.

Fellow Jatt--Sheokhanda (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

i,m right here if you wish to discuss. Jaat is not the same as Jatt Punjabi tribe they do not share the same tribal names nor the language . Jaat means caste in hinduism and is a term for those people who never fell into any of the caste varnas of hinduism while Jatt is a tribe of punjab who share a common language and culture and also have same family names whether in east or west punjab! --Qaleechpuri (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Will look into it. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jatt

Hi, I'm just wondering if you could direct me to the discussion on "Jaat, Jatt, Jat, Jat" that is whether these are all the same. There are two editors on my talk page arguing about it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi fellow editor. Check all the references on the Jat people page. They are exactly the same people. This nonsense started a few years ago and we consensually decided to keep one page, titled Jat people. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

judging by your above posts on Jatts i can see you have some personal vandetta against Jatts. i gather that you yourself do not belong to the Jatt tribe of punjab ?--92.15.196.208 (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

okay fine you think you own the tribal name Jatt i will prove that those who call themselves Jaat in haryana have nothing in common with the Jatts of Punjab in the page Jat. all those references you refer to in Jat page are based on a load of nonsense where every king of old is taken to be a Jat which is complete and utter rubbish. you have allowed yourself to be influenced by religion and politics hence your version of history will always be biased towards a group or another. the Punjabi Jatts are no way ethnicly related to the Jaats of haryana or rajasthan neither do they speak the same language this is i will prove and sheokhanda is not the only one with sikh friends i also have many real Jatt sikh friends not ramgharias or tarkhans sitting here deciding who is a Jatt and who is not! --Qaleechpuri (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)