User talk:Jattnijj

'The question is', said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is', said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-that's all.'

I'll be back

Jattnijj (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sikhcoalition.org/about-sikhs/history/dhttp://www.sikhcoalition.org/about-sikhs/history/dasam-granth-its-historysam-granth-its-historyttp://www.sikhcoalition.org/about-sikhs/history/dasam-granth-its-history{unblock reviewed| reason= Guys Please don't misunderstand me but this article and the other one are the incorrect they are at best propaganda And I don't know how to use wiki or the conventions Jattnijj (talk)|decline=You are blocked for edit warring; you'll need to address that in your unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)}} I would decline your request if I were an admin (I'm not), but still, I am not convinced by your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that[reply]

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Insulam Simia (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you knowledgeable about Sikhism?

No, but that's nothing to do with your unblock request (I just saw your unblock request on recent changes). And if you don't understand Wikipedia, then:

Hello, Jattnijj! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Insulam Simia (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

There ya' go. Insulam Simia (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also provided references - they were deleted !!!! http://www.sikhcoalition.org/about-sikhs/history/dasam-granth-its-history http://sikhspectrum.com/2006/02/misrepresenting-sikhism-as-vedantic-philosophy/

Where were the personal attacks? Im sure your friends are capable enough to present their arguments themselves.....

Recent edits to Sarbloh Granth

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Sarbloh Granth article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! AsceticRosé 10:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Sarbloh Granth, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Dasam Granth, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 16:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sarbloh Granth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Sikh scriptures}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dasam Granth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

] containing texts unlikely to be associated with the tenth [[Sikh guru]], [[Guru Gobind Singh]].<ref name=
| title = The Encyclopaedia Of Indian Literature (Volume One (A To Devo), Volume 1

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sikhcoalition.org/about-sikhs/history/dasam-granth-its-history== Your edits == Hello, please do not edit or add any further content to the articles without first following some of the links provided in the messages above. You may not add your personal opinions to the encyclopedia's articles. Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 16:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of article is opimiom or propaganda, do you know anything about sikhism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs)

Adding more opinion is not OK. Please do not continue to add unsourced material. If you are unsure how to add a reference, please view this tutorial. Thanks again, Dawnseeker2000 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Razorflame with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Razor flame 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Dawnseeker2000. Razor flame 16:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Jat people, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sarbloh Granth with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jat people with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Dasam Granth. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sitush (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the references

http://sikhspectrum.com/2006/02/misrepresenting-sikhism-as-vedantic-philosophy/

http://www.sikhcoalition.org/about-sikhs/history/dasam-granth-its-history

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jat people. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Sudo Ghost 19:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jat people may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|caption=<small>Chaudhary [[Charan Singh]], the first kisan [Prime Minister of India]], accompanied by his wife, on his way to address the nation at the [[Red Fort]], [[Delhi]],

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jat people may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

and warlike' people who were members of a 'fresher race' in [[Northern India]] and Pakistan.<ref name=sbayly-p138{{cite book|last=Bayly|first=Susan|title=Caste, Society and Politics in India
October 2011|year=2001|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-79842-6|page=385}}</ref>}}{{efn|"... in the middle decades of the (nineteenth) century, there were two contrasting trends in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Despite several previous blocks, you are continuing to edit war, lob personal attacks at other users, and generally not edit according to our rules. The next time you break our editing policies, you will be blocked again, and for much longer than your previous blocks (as in, a month or more). It's time for you to slow down, learn about some of our policies (links have been provided to you above), actually check articles and references before removing verified information, and engaging in discussion rather than edit warring when your edits are disputed. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ the sources used are not balanced or reflective of the different views - if you have an argument please present it, but you should also know something about the subject matter otherwise you cannot discriminate between misrepresentation, mistake and coherent arguments. Jattnijj (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am unsure if your recent changes to Sarbloh Granth play a role in the aforementioned edit war, but you incorrectly attempted to add references. See WP:REFBEGIN on how to add references, and WP:RELY on how to determine if they constitute as reliable sources. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I need to give you the other following formal warning:

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jat people, you may be blocked from editing. You cannot make trivial edits for the purposes of soapboxing in edit summaries. That is vandalism. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol, did you never hear of freedom of speech ! The whole article is unbalanced and incongruous! Have you even been to India ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 August 2013‎

No, I never had the opportunity. My cameras, however, and not just once, stole my money, hopped on air planes bound for Delhi and helped themselves to a few sights: File:Bhagirathi alaknanda ganges devprayag2008.jpg, File:GroupFromNorthEastIndiaAtTaj.jpg, File:MKGandhi assassination spot.jpg, and File:JatsAroundDelhi1868.jpg, to name a few, which they managed to upload on Wikipedia in my name. They're still AWOL in India. The last picture makes me suspect they might be among the Jat people. Perhaps with your intimate knowledge of the country and the people, you could locate them for me. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a shame, give me the details and I'll put some feelers out. Why did they upload in your name? Jattnijj (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop this disruptive editing. You are welcome to discuss your concerns regarding the Jat people article at Talk:Jat people but not by making silly edits in order to do so via edit summary. If your concerns are legitimate then, believe me, you will find people are willing to listen to you; however, if you carry on in your current manner then you are going to be blocked from contributing and that will mean you become unable to voice those concerns. Basically, your present behaviour is self-defeating. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting Sanctions enforcement. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jattnijj, after many warnings, the choice is clear. You can continue with these edits, insisting you're right and the community view is wrong or you can give up this tenacious and obsessive pursuit of being "right" and learn how to collaborate with others and stay on Wikipedia and contribute to creating great articles. Wikipedia Admins will follow through on their warnings so it's entirely up to you whether you persist and get blocked or change, adapt and help us with all of the work that needs to be done here. It's up to you. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting Sanctions enforcement where it is proposed that you be blocked from editing. This seems necessary because of your edit warring and disruption in the field of Indian caste material. You may be able to avoid this if you will respond in that thread and agree to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is wiki here to promote democratic learning or allow bullies to write bias?

I am a jatt of the jatt race And a sikh some we are not a caste nor hindu. The caste system is a creation we did not and do not live by, its dangerous and fictitious. Some claim that jatts are a caste or labourers or peasants is not proven.

 It is a pov promoted people who propagate dogma or those up to mischief.

If that is the point of wiki then I will fight you. If not then learn something of the subject matter ! Would you allow non Jewish people dominate the writing about them ? Which side do support copernicus or the church?

If you persist to allow this material without context, balance and researching what is already on the page you leave me with no choice but to escalate to the authorities in race and religious hatred.

The least you could do is read my comments - I am not anti western or academic but anti bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jattnijj (talk • contribs)

I've moved your comment to the correct place. The answer to your questions is that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic summaries of reliable sources. Being a member of a group (or company, or being otherwise related to a subject) gives you no special rights or abilities to edit the page. We always go by what reliable sources say. Because, remember, anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. Would it be acceptable for me to claim to be a Jat and then go edit the page however I want, because I "know the truth". Of course not. Now, if you want to learn how Wikipedia works, we can help you. But if you don't--if you just want to insist that you be allowed to edit however you want according to your own personal beliefs, then you can't edit here. Editing is open to everyone who is willing to follow policies and guidelines. You have no "freedom of speech" here, because this is a privately owned website. Are you willing to give up your edit warring and combative behavior and start to edit collaboratively? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can also claim they are trying to present open, collaborative and balanced views.

This article by default is presented as truth ! That is my point.

I have as much fteedom of speech as you and anybody else to present views.

Then why don't you provide a balanced view from other sources or contextualise those you post?

You're also not provided special rights if you are not a member of the group, have been wiki longer or along time, are an academic western, arab indian or otherwise.

Please explain reliability. Please explain the mission of Wikipedia.

Jattnijj (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should also be aware that If you persist to allow this material without context, balance and researching what is already on the page you leave me with no choice but to escalate to the authorities in race and religious hatred constitutes a legal threat of the sort that we do not permit. India's legislation regarding non-discrimination etc may be fine and good but such threats have a chilling effect on discussion. You are welcome to take such actions but you will not be permitted to contribute here until they are resolved. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to bump in and provide some resources for Jattnijj to refer to regarding his questions. WP:FREE goes into detail why "freedom of speech" does not apply to Wikipedia. Just as Qwyrxian explained, it is a private organization, therefore Wikipedia can decide how it wants its content to be presented. As for "reliability" and "mission of Wikipedia", I wonder if you have reviewed our five pillars yet? These are the underlying principles Wikipedia is based on, and it is very important to get a basic understanding of them. For more info on reliable sources you can refer to WP:SOURCE, but I think you may find WP:VERIFY very useful as well. It explains how content should be based solely on previously published information. Hope I've been of help here, cheers :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the indian authorities I have in mind. ...presenting rights under law is not a threat its a citizens right But my main point has and is why you dont present a more accurate view - nobody has conducted extensive reliable search, therefore your claims are too strong.

Thanks and I look forward to your response Jattnijj (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide some reliable sources on the article talk page for what ever it is that you think needs to be improved then I am sure that they will be considered. No-one is claiming to have read everything on this subject matter and the problems you are experiencing at present relate to your mode of conduct, not what you want to say (which, to the best of my knowledge, you have not yet actually explained). AS for Indian authorities, well, I am sorry if I have made an assumption but it really doesn't matter which authorities you take this to if your purpose is to seek a legal remedy. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redress I seek is balance and context through reasonable discussion is preferred.

Point 1

Why is the opening claim singularly referenced I.e. susan bayly non elite tillers?

You need to do this at Talk:Jat people, not here. The article talk page will get attention from a range of people with some sort of interest in the article subject, whereas your own talk page will only be seen by people with some sort of interest in you. Having said that, I also think you should attempt to read the article talk page before posing a question such as the one above - it has been raised on several occasions and on each occasion has failed to achieve change. I'm not saying that you will fail but repeatedly raising the same point using the same arguments (or lack of them) doesn't often work. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sitush Im on the jat talk page waiting.....

Jattnijj (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll try to take a look at it later and, hopefully, others will also. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC) ' "=WP:RS== Have you actually read our [[WP:RS] policy? I see nothing wrong with the references you are deleting with no rationale whatsoever. You don't get to just delete any material that you don't like and claim "not a reliable source" without a more specific reason as to why the source is unreliable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These references arent academically peer reviewed. You cant just reference websites or names is my understanding from the jat page.

Jattnijj (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC) {unblock|1=I've been accused of edit warning, but gemuunely think the second pillar is not being applied effectively. Im trying to present a balanced and contextualised view that usnt going down well with some users. Two examples: On the dasam granth page the references are not academic peer reviewed so I removed them and the text they supported since otherwise they would just be claims.[reply]

On the jat page a single source is used and my point was to contextualise and provide other views and sources since there are other views and that the opening claim is contextualised e.g. a socio anthropology definition is ...

Both these articles make claims about ateas where uncertainty exists but views are presented as certain fact.

Also, what is the policy on evaluating if biased views are the published sources? }

== notice of Edit noticeboard discussion ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jattnijj reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: ). Thank you. SH 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and disruptive editing related to articles covered by Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Permalink to discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jattnijj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been accused of edit warning, but genuinely think the second pillar is not being applied effectively. Im trying to present a balanced and contextualised view that usnt going down well with some users. Two examples: On the dasam granth page the references are not academic peer reviewed so I removed them and the text they supported since otherwise they would just be claims. On the jat page a single source is used and my point was to contextualise and provide other views and sources since there are other views and that the opening claim is not contextualised e.g. a socio anthropology definition is ... Both these articles make claims about areas where uncertainty exists but viees are presented as certain fact. Also, what is the policy on evaluating if biased views are the published sources?

Decline reason:

Your note here doesn't show that you understand how Wikipedia works, especially our policies and guidelines on collaborative editing. You have been blocked in the past for the same edit warring behavior and displaying a battleground mentality, but those blocks do not appear to have had any effect. Take this time to review our policies and guidelines, read the welcome message and the links within, and when your block is complete, please edit with an understanding of our policies.—SpacemanSpiff 12:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi, I just want to let you know that your request above will be reviewed. These things are automatically added to a list of pending requests that are reviewed by administrators and those people - who cannot be involved in the cause of the block - make a decision. It is not uncommon for this process to take a fair few hours and sometimes even a couple of days but please rest assured that it will be considered. - Sitush (talk)

You'll most definitely have to address the suggestion of violence against another editor that you have posted below before any admin would consider an unblock. There's no room on Wikipedia, nor indeed on this planet for such behaviour ES &L 11:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest violence against an editor. I said they should be free to hold their position and defend it. It's a shame people have made dearh threats and editors havw to revert to hiding themselves.

If wiki doesn't agree or its against your policy thats not a problem to me.

In english law its called self defence - that's the real world.

Jattnijj (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So can i propose edits for them to be reviewed and accepted or declined? If so how? Please respond to evaluation if sources for bias and also on what way is the senior editors / senior owners of pages selected and vetted for competence and conflict of interest?

Thanks Jattnijj (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see wiki page on jati as a reference point on not using the caste system terminology since it was 'created' By one group and resurrected by the colonialists for the census.

"The British, since 1901, for the purposes of the Decennial Census, fitted all the Jatis into one or the other of the varna categories as described in Brahminical literature. The Census Commissioner had this to say, "The principle suggested as a basis was that of classification by social precedence as recognized by native public opinion at the present day, and manifesting itself in the facts that particular castes are supposed to be the modern representatives of one or other of the castes of the theoretical Hindu system;""

I can't understand why modern scholars use the language of 'brahmanical literature' .. 'of the theoretical hindu system' as social anthropology language.

Compare the language used by susan baylyl for brahmin, ksytria, gujars, jats - its the definitions from things like the manu smriti and dharamsastra.

Jattnijj (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2 definition from ca bayly

In some places, as Stokes has pointed out, persons called Jats accounted for 70-80 per cent of the total population. They were clearly not a caste in the sense that the Gautam Bhumihars were a caste. Instead they were a wide category of .... Not traditionally seen as caste of the hindu varna system.

Jattnijj (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jattnijj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Suggest not just pointing out edit war but also the way forward ie have the debate on the talk page re. Proposed edits and once arguments have been concluded edits are made. In the interim the default text remains. Present mo just feels like people are on your case before its clear how to work together. Also think editors should introduce themselves since its not clear people have been here for a while, and be more constructive to new comers and how things work in nstead of throwing buzz words around use plain English. Or have a buddy system so they can explain. Jattnijj (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request appears to be a collection of your musings as to how you believe Wikipedia should work as opposed to an actual unblock request. In order to be unblocked you will need to demonstrate an understanding of why you were blocked and explain how you will avoid the same mistakes in the future. Please read the Guide to Appealing Blocks for additional advice. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jattnijj (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest on controversial claims / evidence editors add a link which lays out the justification for inclusion. Jattnijj (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest established editors review responses of other established editors and newbies to avoid escalation to threats of death and have standard responses ie content under review etc.

On My Page

I'm actually in India for teh next 6 months, however, the reason why I contribute on Wikipedia is to maintain my anonimity because some of the articles I contributed to have been contentious. I have had death threats in the past, therefore that is why I tend not to meet up up with fellow Wikipedians, but thanks for the offer. Please learn to work with felloe editors and you will find that you will be taken seriously here. Thanks SH 07:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, serioisly? Why?

I mean I know this stuff is controversial, but shit man everyone must accept there is still lots of uncertainty, on both sides of the argument.

Jattnijj (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually mate, if someone's offering you out and you r genuinely haven't done anything then f em - organise a fair fight and take them down. Jatt Sikhs are powerful and with God and truth on your side you will be victorious. With your jatt determination and anakhi and the gurus jorsh you will jet.

You still training right?

I can be there to make sure its fair If you need. My name is Nijjer and we have Gill, Grewal, Randawa, Bal, Hyare, Hundal, Cheema family and friends and im close with some hardcore punjabi bamans, tarakans and rajputs they have family here and punjab. Let me know. Jattnijj (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jattnijj, suggesting organised violence on Wikipedia really is not a good idea. Thankfully, I've been acquainted with SH for quite some time now and I think they have more sense than to take up such an offer. FWIW, I also have had my share of death threats. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned your comment at WP:ANI - you can see it here. I'm really not too happy about it, sorry. If you want to say something in response then say it here and ask for it to be copied to the ANI thread. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing to add is its not violence its your human right.

 self defence - every human has the right to speak their mind freely and without needing to hide, defend themselves, self respect and self sufficency. Whether you agree wirh those values is a separate point.

But im sure sh admires your concern for him Im surprised no one else has made stronger offers of support or you guys haven't fought back.

Oh well it's a philosophical value thing I guess.

Jattnijj (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And fair fight means in thw ring in a club. It's nor uncommon here.

Jattnijj (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A threat of violence may suggest the other side has lost the argument - why shouldn't you be free to defend yourselves -if you believe in your position?

If you were having a debate im person ans the other side tried to intimidate or threaten you, what's your recourse? Jattnijj (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you make one more edit suggesting that violence is an appropriate response to Wikipedia disagreements I will remove your ability to remove this talk page. And I wish you would pay attention to what you've already been told: you have absolutely ZERO free speech rights here. This is a privately held website. You cannot walk into the office of TOI or the New York Times or The Guardian and say "YOU have to print my opinion in your newspaper because I have free speech!!!!!!" Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not talkingy about freedom of speech, wiki or violence, im talking about debate and the right to defend your position. Im not sure which point you dont understand. But appreciate you might disagree with one or both points.

No I can't , they have journalists that write opinion pieces or someone might write a letter with opinion that is printed.

Jattnijj (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]