User talk:Ganda Singh

May 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Guru Tegh Bahadur. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop. You are writing in encyclopedic prose and interpreting primary sources which is not allowed. Go to the talk page of the article. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Primary Persian Sources are from Mughals and have Big Bias towards Sikhs by calling them "Dogs, Inflidels, Unbelievers" etc. the source also goes against WP:AGEMATTERS and Ghulam Hussein is too Wrong and prejudice to be used as a Source as he states that Guru Tegh Bahadur ji was executed in Gwalior which goes against every Reliable account this again goes against WP:RS so we can clearly say Ghulam Husseins Account is not Reliable neither to be Trusted Ganda Singh (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be starting a discussion on the t/p of the page some time soon. Let's discuss there, please. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okk tell me the time and I will reply back Ganda Singh (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should prove the Authenticity and Reliability of Ghulam Hussein or Persian Accounts then you should change the page, You ghulas hussain was biased and we got many points against him. He didn't even knew the place of execution of the Guru was Delhi but he mentioned it as Gwalior he was this wrong. There are many other mistakes as well which we will discuss. Satish Chandra was pro mughal that's why he's defending Mughals Ganda Singh (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ganda Singh! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Guru Tegh Bahadur several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Guru Tegh Bahadur, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 18:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Hussain Khan the author of Siyar-ul-Mutakherin is not reliable source as pointed out it goes against WP:RS aside from False Dates of Events or Degeratory remarks in his Book Ghulam Hussain was employed by the East Indian company under Warren Hasting [1] this goes against WP:RAJ as Ghulam Hussein worked and was influenced by Britishers hence it can't be used as a Source. Ganda Singh (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia

I disagree that your edits are "more attractive", but that's a matter of taste and I'll let it slide. However, you've added (well, copied from your source) the paragraph

It's truly remarkable how an orphan at the tender age of four, who initially served as a humble stable boy, feeding horses with grass and grain, ascended to become the foremost military and political leader of the Sikhs and the architect of a significant state. He enjoyed the extraordinary opportunity of capturing Lahore and minting his own currency. Additionally, he had the unparalleled honor of sitting on the throne of the Mughal Emperors within the majestic Red Fort in Delhi. Moreover, he engaged in several direct confrontations with Ahmad Shah Durrani, widely regarded as the preeminent Asian general of his era.

That's not in keeping with the encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view that we strive for at Wikipedia and was clearly written by a person who is quite a fan. I would recommend rewording as follows:

As a young orphan, he found work as a stable boy, and eventually ascended to become a military and political leader of the Sikhs. He captured Lahore, minted his own currency, and occupied the Mughal throne in the Red Fort of Delhi. During his rule, he engaged in several confrontations with Ahmed Shah Durrani.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone has their own preferences, and I understand your point. However, I was referring specifically to the structure of the dynasty section, where I provided brief summaries of each Sardar and subsequent kings of the Ahluwalia misl. Additionally, regarding the aspect you mentioned about sounding like a fanboy, I simply quoted Hari Ram Gupta without adding my own input. As I'm new here, I hope we can collaborate on exploring Sikh history together. By the way, are you of Sikh faith? Ganda Singh (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on debunking Siyar ul mutakherin and trying to remove it from Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji's page. But an Afghan is not letting us succeed, he's using some retard arguments and wikipedia is also siding with him. It would be kind of you if you can join our team on Instagram Ganda Singh (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro don't mind but you're using Satish Chandra's argument to valid Siyar Ul Mukatherin. Then my question is that why are you not allowing us to add the analysis of Hari Ram Gupta on the same book? What's your motive ? Ganda Singh (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point your talkpage should be used to discuss your block and potentially requesting an unblock. If you continue your ethnically tinged rants, your access will be disabled. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to appeal my block from editing on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that my recent contributions may have violated Wikipedia's policies, specifically regarding neutral language and maintaining a factual tone. In the heat of emotion, I used inappropriate language regarding recent events involving Afghanis and Sikh history. I realize now that my words were not in line with Wikipedia's standards, and I am genuinely sorry for any disruption caused.

I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view and adhering strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines for accurate and unbiased content. I am committed to contributing constructively to Wikipedia and ensuring that my future edits align with these principles. Moving forward, I will take extra care to use neutral language, cite reliable sources, and engage respectfully in discussions with other editors.

I kindly request that you reconsider my block and grant me the opportunity to continue contributing positively to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ganda Singh (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should use the unblock template that is mentioned in the block notice below.RegentsPark (comment) 21:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir thank Ganda Singh (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to appeal my block from editing on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that my recent contributions may have violated Wikipedia's policies, specifically regarding neutral language and maintaining a factual tone. In the heat of emotion, I used inappropriate language regarding recent events involving Afghanis and Sikh history. I realize now that my words were not in line with Wikipedia's standards, and I am genuinely sorry for any disruption caused.

I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view and adhering strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines for accurate and unbiased content. I am committed to contributing constructively to Wikipedia and ensuring that my future edits align with these principles. Moving forward, I will take extra care to use neutral language, cite reliable sources, and engage respectfully in discussions with other editors.

I kindly request that you reconsider my block and grant me the opportunity to continue contributing positively to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ganda Singh (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason= Dear Wikipedia Administrators, Ganda Singh (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]