User talk:Docxx

Welcome!

Hello, Docxx, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Sikhism, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion on the Sikhism article

[Copied from Talk:Sikhism]

I do apologize for the apparent personal attack. That was never my intention. It really was a question to understand if the "two theories"-theory has been taken from some source ? From [71] ?

Thanks for copying the text here. Now, I am really interested in understanding what the two "competing" theories are ? Is the 2nd theory a contradiction of "Nanak's teachings and Sikhism were a revelation from God, and not a social protest movement nor any attempt to reconcile Hinduism and Islam in the 15th century". If yes, is it a contradiction of all of this ? Or pieces of this ?

And, of course I meant "undo the reverts to my two edits". That request remains based on my arguments above. I hope Ms Sarah Welch would honor it as a gesture of good faith. If not, I am unlikely to pursue this discussion further and would leave it in the good hands of both of you, until I feel there is a genuine need for me to come back and share my views/knowledge. Docxx (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Docx, Having given your welcome message above, I thought some further guidance here might help.

• We are all busy people in real lives. We choose to spend time here out of interest. And, yes, contributing to Wikipedia does take time, lots of time in fact.
• What we write on Wikipedia is not based on our "views/knowledge", but rather the views and knowledge of the scholars. Our knowledge comes into play only in knowing a wide range of reliable sources and our ability to understand them and distil them. We cannot put our own views into Wikipedia no matter how strongly we believe them.
• I am glad to see that you are debating the issues on the artcile's talk page instead of edit-warring (which many new editors do). However, you need to truly engage in the discussion, i.e., attempt to understand the viewpoints of the other editors so that all the editors can arrive at a consensus.

I have the Sikhism article on my watch list even though I don't regularly participate there. If you need any help with any points, please feel free to ping me by putting my name like this {{U|Kautilya3}}. All the best. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3, thank you for your note. Indeed through my views/knowledge, I did not imply my personal views, but what you state as "the ability to understand and distill" the sources. I would probably post some further message on the Sikhism article talk page. But I also urge you to contribute there based on whatever has been discussed until now. The content that has been included in the article has no consensus whatsoever, and Ms Sarah Welch does not really seem inclined to understand what the vast list of sources say. Despite these concerns, I do not want to indulge in any edit warring, but do expect that the disputed material be taken off till consensus. Docxx (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ARBIPA notification

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

--regentspark (comment) 14:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82. Thank you.--regentspark (comment) 14:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)