User talk:History Sleuth/Archive 1

Hi

You appear new to Wikipedia, but have a pretty sound knowledge base on Hinduism. While I value your critiques, would you mind if I periodically refer to for consensus regarding other issues to with intricacies of opinion on Hinduism topics? I have many lol.--~Raja~ (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Raja Sahab. Sorry I had to leave our conversation yesterday due to some errands that I had to run. I will discuss more with you on the discussion page as I get time ...cheers--History Sleuth (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Oct 2009

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Airplaneman ^talk 03:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Hi History Sleuth - sorry for not getting back to you regarding the images. As you saw I asked Skier Dude for clarification after he deleted one of the pics, and I relaise you came across his reply to me. It seems his explanation was sufficient, and looks like you know what to do, but feel free to buzz me again if there are any more issues. AJ Cham 21:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saini suryavanshi

Hi,

If you believe that Saini suryavanshi should be deleted, rather than replacing the page with a note, you need to nominate it as a redirect for deletion. WP:RFD provides the steps to do this. If you have difficulty doing it, feel free to ask me for help. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu Singh Hamdard

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sadhu Singh Hamdard, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Sadhu_Singh_Hamdard. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it yet. Let me rework the language. This content is in public domain. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Krishna

Hey, If Lord Krishna was a Saini, then why everywhere is written that he was born in YADAV's family? --59.177.100.151 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Maharaja Shurasena article. Thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Saini

You are correct; I will remove it. However the article still needs cleanup; please remove the non-English references and add more references. Cheers, laurap414 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harpreet Singh Sidhu

Do you have any details regarding this person ? Jon Ascton (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits and violation of Wikipedia policies. KINDLY JOIN THE DISCUSSION IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE. Stop this vandalism. Your sources do not say what you are ADDING. Wrong information can not stay The rollbacks, such as edit 1, edit 2 is a violation of Wikipedia policies. The rollback feature can only be used to fix Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Your edits are going to be reverted to save this article from your vandalism now. Nothing has been given undue weight. I have read the article; every single sentence has a valid reference. Hence it does not violate wp:BLP. You have been given a chance to come up with reliable reference which could support your text, but you could not add them. You CAN NOT just add ANY REFERENCES alongwith TOTALLY UNRELATED TEXT. I again encourage you to address the issues in the discussion page before adding any controversial statements. You can not glorify a person without reliable references. If the person has such a bad reputation/history in the newspapers/reliable sources then it is not a fault of the editors who are opposing you. You must provide a source to add text, otherwise it will not stay.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an Admin? Unless you are an admin you are not authorizsd to issue warning like this. Secondly , you are plain wrong that I am tryhing to glorify the person. I was the one who wrote about the controversies first. You are obviosly involved in the gaming the rules to push your POV. You are trying to denigrate this person by supperssing anything favorable about him in the article. Please stop this. I understand your passion about the whole issue but do not try to game the rules here. You should not have deleted the edits before engaging other editors in discussion but you obviously deleted the edits first and then made a token attempt at discussioin. Please do not game the rules and refrain from issuing such warnings in future. If you are that worried about this article, I suggest you request a third editor's participation or submit this article for dispute resolution. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respected editor, Kindly make yourself knowledgeable about wikipedia policies. This warning was in-compliance with existing wiki policies. Also, per wp:BLP and Wikipedia:Libel, any unsourced information from this article can immediately be deleted. Again, I am willing to work with you to improve any articles. Kind Regards. --DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop playing this reverse psychology game here. You deleted well sourced edits. You are gaming the rules here. You seem to have vested interest in denigrating this person. Thanks. --History Sleuth (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any editor can issue a warning, though abusing warnings is very serious. I don't see how these edits merit a last warning, at all.

I would encourage both of you to focus on the edits, and talk on the talk page, and to try very hard not to take our differences to heart. Everyone has a point of view. Our mission as editors is to place Wikipedia's neutral point of view ahead of our own.- Sinneed 00:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving an illegal "final warning" was his way of pre-empting me from complaining against his bullying and patently libelous and emotional editing. I could have played the same game and placed the same "final warning" tag on his user page and we could have played this unproductive mug game to nobody's advantage. When you are sincere in your intention about resolving something fairly, you don't start a conversation with those who differ from you- with whom you never had a prior exchagne- with a "final warning". Talk of an "extremist" approach:-) In his rage he deleted a lot of well-sourced edits some of which he himself restored later on. Rules and the idea of discussion almost seemed like an afterthought, merely a tactic to cover tracks.

I am willing to put this behind. Yes, we all have our biases and we should be willing to acknowledge them rather starting to game the rules to make them look objective. If we can't control our biases, then it is best to invite uninvolved editors rather than get confrontational with those who disagree with you.

Given below is the link to the original stub when I created this article. No attempt was made to hide Saini's controversies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sumedh_Singh_Saini&diff=317975436&oldid=317975327

Since I started the article , I also feel a bit responsible for ensuring that it is not exploited by Saini's political enemies, who have their own demons to exorcise, for their own agenda. Whether Saini is a hero or a criminal is for the courts to decide. If he is guilty of any alleged crime, it is not wikipedia's task to be instrumental in bringing him to justice, nor should wikipedia permit itself to be used for this purpose which is other than enyclopedic. We must make sure that the wikipedia article about him mirrors the entire range of facts and opnions available about him in reliable sources , weighted as per their importance and notability. Since the opinions about him border on both extremes, then it our task as wikipedia editors to make sure that these opinions are presented with symmetery and are properly sourced. Just my two cents.

I am willing to take long deep breath and start over. Thanks for intervening and taking control of the article. I look forward to work with both of you in improving this. Regards.--History Sleuth (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sumedh Singh Saini

I request you to join the discussion on Talk:Sumedh Singh Saini and address the issues with your text. It is not healty practice to add text without supporting references. Please answer all my points one by one so that you could understand the issues. Kind Regards. --DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't always a good idea to make point by point answers... I usually do this and very many folk find it confrontational and tiresome...I have to apologize for it with some regularity. :) - Sinneed 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sumedh Singh Article

On my talk page you wrote

I will purposefully stay away from editing this article for few days. Now that it is under your scanner, I believe it is in right hands. Thanks for help and advice. I do not know the WP regulations as well as the Admins. That is why I had sought help in first place to prevent the edit war. Please assume good faith about any perceived mistake. It part of the learning curve. Thanks again.--History Sleuth (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember I am not an admin. I don't think you need time away from the article and encourage you to continue your work. IMO you have made good contributions, I just can't support all of them: I can't even support all of what *I* do after I read it again. Please feel free to answer me here, as I will be watching, or of course you are welcome on my talk page. I'll help if I can. :) - Sinneed 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue work but will not directly edit the article again for some time unless another editor begins libelous and emotionally charged editing. I will place my suggestion on the discussion page of the article and a totally uninvolved third editor can make the edits on our behalf after due consideration of all perspectives. If our purposes are truly encyclopedic, then this should not pose a problem. Please keep watching that article. This article should be placed on Admin's watchlist. Thanks again.--History Sleuth (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rockwell Diamonds Inc.

A tag has been placed on Rockwell Diamonds Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Oneiros (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porus

My number question to you is are you a Saini?

Does not matter either way.

I am very sure you are, otherwise why would a sane man want not to believe a government website which clearly says that King Porus was a Katoch Rajput.

Unfortunately , the [link http://hpkangra.nic.in/history.htm] you posted makes no mention to Porus whatsoever. It merely says , "At the time of invasion of Punjab by Alexander in 326 BC Trigartha was ruled by a Katoch prince." No mention to Porus here, even an indirect one. It requires a tremendous leap of faith, not permissible on wikipedia, to connect this reference with Porus. Secondlly, goverment websites do not have the same reliablity as research journals or the works of published scholars known to be authorities on subject.

The Saini articles claiming of Porus as a Saini is against the wikipedia guidelines as well, as the so called opinion has no proof anywhere, you guys are concluding that he was a Saini after taking in account some 10 odd analogical statements like- Porus's dynasty was Yaduvanshi and Sainis romanticise themselves as yadhuvanshis too, hence he was a saini. or that Porus's people worshiped Krishna, and the sainis worshiped Krishna hence he was a Saini.

It is a little more complex than what you are making out. The synthesis you are hinting is not made by the article was made by historians like Tod . The article merely quotes his opinion, i.e, Porus was probably ä descendant of Maharaja Shurasena, which is supported by other cited authorities of history in the article. If you have problem with any of the references, consider starting a thread on the discussion page of the article with proper citations of WP rules to establish consensus. Repeatedly removing of references and well sourced edits without establishing consensus is called vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism

What I Don't understand is that why are the sainis trying to recreate history ? You guys are such funny people that you're on a look out for any personality who can be claimed as a "Saini" by any stretch of imagination.

Your personal opinion. You are welcome to it but if any violation of WP rules is proven through the process of Wikipedia:Consensus, the violation will be addressed. But the same would apply to many articles , for example, Ghorewaha article which claims or rather "romanticizes" (in your words) the Kachwaha descent of the community which was disputed by English writer called W.E Purser in a government publication whose veracity you vouch for so ardently. It is understood that you being a neutral Wikipedian would be willing to apply same rules to the Ghorewaha article which you allege that other articles violate.

If you are a real Historian then try to look at the real side of the story that King Porus or Rajanka Paramananda Chandra was a Katoch Rajput whose descendant is today the Katoch Maharaja of Kangra. Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response already provided earlier. There exists no reference to "Rajanka Paramananda Chandra" in any reliable source of history. Secondly, no genunine Katoch considers himself linked with Yadavas of Shoorsainis of Mathura who have been linked with Porus by the cited historians.

If you can find a citation from a reliable source, then you are free to quote it with proper attribution but they would still not be able invalidate the citations that present the other view. At the most it would be become citable in parallel.

Lastly, thanks for leaving a message on my user talk but I would be able to respond to you again only if you have a citation to discuss. It is also hoped that you would not make any further unconstructive edits to any of Saini , King Porus or any other articles. Regards.--History Sleuth (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satyaki

Here are the facts- Satyaki (of Sini Kul – Sini was father of Satyaki and great grand son of Vrshni and brother of Prsni,Prsni was Akrurji’s grandfather – separated from Vrshni kul because of some fight with people of Andhak kul) and Kritverma (of Bhajman Kul) were MahaRathi and commander in Mahabharat war. (Even though Sini had separated, Satyaki for various reasons – he went to same gurukul with Pandavs was one, were best of friends with Pandav Arjun and Krshniji). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.142.20 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving commentary.--History Sleuth (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hargurdeep (Deep) Saini

The article Hargurdeep (Deep) Saini has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't see any significant contributions aside from holding an important position at a University.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PoeticVerse (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC) "[reply]

A dedicated article in a reputable newspaper like Times of India automatically establishes notability. Please provode citation from WP:Notablility before tagging again. thx--History Sleuth (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

The decision is from a longstanding consensus that a number of caste motivated users consistently ignore. I understand your edits were in good faith, but I will revert your edits, because categorizing by caste is untenable (due to the number of castes in South Asia, the disputes over membership, and the declining merit of caste as an identifier in India). Oh, and for the record its rather nonsensical to assume I ignored your message when it is patently obvious from my contributions record that I have just signed in 2-3 minutes ago from my editing on tuesday.Pectore^talk 02:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Just because consensus is flouted by glory seeking casteists, does not mean it ceases to exist. Many users such as myself, Dbachmann, and others have tried to prevent unencyclopedic caste nonsense from seeping into Wikipedia. The decision to listify people by caste allows for the glory seekers a place to see who is a member of their caste, and also prevents the rest of Wikipedia from suffering from the problems I listed above. Its not a perfect solution, but its a solution that should leave everyone happy.Pectore^talk 02:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems you are interested in topics about Saini people I'm definitely willing to help on that front (which is why I created List of Saini people) but Categorizing by caste unfortunately reflects Caste bias and is not conducive to the building of the encyclopedia or for the arguably higher task of reducing casteism among South Asians.Pectore^talk 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, List of Saini people is the correct title. If they have a Wiki article, they are most probably notable.Pectore^talk 02:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jat

Yes. I do plan to go after all of the caste categories. I've heard from some that Jat is an ethnicity, so I think that is more of a CFD sort of option. Rajput too is a tad bit complicated, because they are also a huge royal clan (its very complicated because Hindi speaking North India does not have strong ethnic lines). Smaller, more clear cut categories like Kamboj, Iyer, etc are easier to sniff out.Pectore^talk 22:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be right. I'll cleanse the categories of biographies and will listify that as well. I was afraid to touch that more or less for the reasons you mentioned, but it needs to be done.Pectore^talk 04:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saini soldiers

I've removed the hangon from this category: it's only been marked as empty for one day, so it's going to be three more days before the category is eligible for deletion as an empty category. If you want to keep it from being deleted, instead of using a hangon, you should simply place one or more articles into it. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]