User talk:Roadahead

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Roadahead! I am NAHID, and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

NAHID 07:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Under Cross Examination

Hi, I can't find a the article cited to in the Sun Herald. The link you gave just goes to their main page. Can you provide a link to the main article? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saved the article a few weeks back but now it seems to have been overwritten by some thing else. Try this - search in the title in google and then instead of going directly to the link, go to "cached" version. I'm currently in the process of reading the book and once I have more information and time, this entry will be expanded. If you search for the title of the book, you can find some more information. Cheers! Roadahead (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Goingoveredge

The RfC you filed has been closed. You may read the conclusion there. Wizardman 14:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I think this user is now banned indefinitely here. I'm surprised to see the list of sockpuppet accounts that he was using. Regards, --RoadAhead ^Discuss 22:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar has a unique modus operandi. The accounts in that category display that MO and also belong to IPs from the Texas area, where Hkelkar lives. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that difficult when you think about it. If you have access to many computers (as he would, since he attends university), then it would be no challenge to create many sockpuppet accounts. Personally, I prefer to apply Occam's razor to these situations. If an account pushes the same POV, comes from the same area, and edits from the IP range (roughly speaking), I feel it is safe to say that one person is behind both accounts. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dirk Valentine

You just reverted as "vandalism" a user who blanked his own userpage. If you notice, it appears that his account had been compromised, and because of that he had been blocked.

Agreeably, he should have archived and not blanked, but it is his own userpage, and he is not a vandal for blanking it. -t BMW c- 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad; apologies. I see that he already noted that and reverted me. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Extremism by User Talk: Satanoid

Hi

Please pay your kind attention to article Sikh Extremism written by User Talk: Satanoid alias His Biography alias User talk:90.192.59.43 (his previous IP) alias User Talk: 90.196.3.37 alias User Talk: 90.196.3.246. His past and new acts have been duly documented by several editors on User Talk: Master of Puppets in several sections. This respected user with extremist ediology was blocked several times.--Singh6 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had tried getting permission from User Talk: Master of Puppets to create this article and instead he has received a warning with heading "Hi Again". He has come up with this account after getting numerous warnings to his three IPs, i.e. 90.196.3.37, 90.196.3.246 and 90.192.59.43.

Sikh Extremism means using an abusive word for an entire religion which is definitely a POV article. I strongly believe that this POV article should be deleted.--Singh6 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even Admin User talk:DJ Clayworth has called this article an Insult to Wikipedia.--Singh6 (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he changed his mind didnt he ?? Satanoid (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, Thanks for your kind attention to POV article Sikh extremism. Just for curiosity, why I do not see link "Email this user", under Heading "toolbox" on left hand side of this (your talk) page, is there something you need to fix ? You can see "Email this user" in my talk page. If you simply want to see how it work prior to enabling it, then you can try emailing me as well :)--Singh6 (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor, I have been looking at some of the references used on the Sikh Extremism article. To say most if not all are a bit dodgy is an understatement. I think a closer analysis needs to made. One of the things that made me chuckle was linking the Behzti incident to terrorism.--Sikh-history (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sikh extremism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sikh extremism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikh extremism. Thank you. Singh6 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Rollback

Hi. If fulfilled your request. Please remember that rollback should only be used for removing obvious and simple vandalism, or for reverting your own comments when there is no benefit in an enhanced edit summary. In other situations it is best to use another methos of removing edits. If rollback is misused it can be easily removed by any admin. If you need any help please ask me or see WP:RBK for more. I noted your fairly recent block for edit warring. Please DO NOT use the rollback tool in content disputes or it will be removed. Pedro : Chat 07:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noted. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Hi, I didn't remove info from those quotes in the article. I suspect the quotes were lost earlier; perhaps removed by another editor. --vi5in^[talk]

NP, I have not pointed out anybody specifically in my notes on the talkpage of the article. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespectful Comments by Satanoid

Hi, I am very annoyed about the comments made by Satanoid about Guru Gobind Singh children, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enzuru&diff=prev&oldid=254812699. What further action can be taken against Satanoid? --Sikh-history (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this comment from Satanoid is highly uncivil and obnoxious behavior. Perhaps, it should be clear to the greater Wikipedia community now that the intentions of this editor are pursuing of hatred and propaganda on Wikipedia. One can file RFC on this user by using the supportive data. Here is what I filed earlier on a similar conduct by a user account "Goingoveredege" which came out to be a sockpuppet of Hkelkar. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me file this? --Sikh-history (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this fellow is making a mockery of Wikipedia. Have you seen his latest abuse on my talk page. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh I think Satanoid is refusing to learn from earlier ban. I suggest filing a new report at ANI and linking the previous history of report in the new filing. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 18:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed it here. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pidhu The Great

Whats wrong with Pidhu The Great ? He seems like a nice friendly jolly chap to me ??? Incidentally if you think he's a good stand up comedian as I'm sure you do, I'd be more than happy to welcome you in contributing some info on this great guy, thanks Satanoid (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roadahead hate agenda

I noticed you wiped out the whole article on Mahraz Darshan Das Jee and forgot to mention he was also assassinated by terrorists in 1987. I can dig out the murder of this man from News archives if you like, but at least let it have its place in history it rightly deserves and not be wiped out as his life was Satanoid (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are deliberately creating hate and confusion, note that this is the only edit from me so far on this article. Can you show how this edit is wiping out article? However, thanks for bringing this to my notice as this content which you have now input is a blatant copy violation from this site. Had not removed it before, but will have to remove it now due to copy violation. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pidhu The Great

First of all, Pidhu is supposed to be a comedian, I'm not. He also happens to be a follower of Guru Nanak like yourself, which explains his head apparel ?

Secondly I'm not a racist, I have to say I have noticed sikh extremists play the race card against white people accused of being racist during the Behzti affair when all they are arguing about is the freedom of speech or the democratic rights of civilians or even the issue of religious terrorism. These issues do exist, its no point brushing these things under the carpet.

On the subject of Darshan Das, the humanitarian peace campaigner who was assassinated by Sikh terrorists, again by deleting masses of information about him only accentuates your religious insecurities. Satanoid (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally don't threaten me. OK Satanoid (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanoid please stop this hate agenda and accusing others of hatred. --Sikh-history (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanoid , reminding of wikiquette is not equivalent to threatening. Please keep your gibberish upto yourself and stop playing hate propaganda on wikipedia. The warning I put on your talkpage for your uncivil religious and personal attacks is indeed enough as you have been informed earlier of your personal attacks. Please refrain from such behaviour; the recurrence of this will only earn you a ban. Now that you have been reminded; could you stop feigning ignorance about your personal attacks? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You keep repeating 'personal attacks' like admins are going to beleive it only to ignore your demands to get the article deleted. 2. I have been called an extremist by (how shall I describe them? Pro-Extremist perhaps ?) pot-kettle-black ! 3. Kindly stop vandalizing the article just because you wanted it deleted. 4. Give a straight answer to Enzuru & Vivin Satanoid (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanoid, stop trolling! Here and here you have attacked other editors by cracking insulting joke and calling them "extremists". This is where you were informed about your uncivil behavior and you were given another/final warning about your personal attacks but you still continued here. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:CHERRY

I have nominated Wikipedia:CHERRY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:CHERRY

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:CHERRY, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

it is a useless redirect. Pointless as well to redirect from the Wikipedia namespace into the main space

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Wikipedia:CHERRY|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- IRP ☎ 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hi. I've recently saw that you believe Bhridnwalde is a sockpuppet of another user. If you believe this, then please perform a checkuser on both the suspected sockpuppet and original account to see if your suspicians are true. If they are, then report him to the admin. Deavenger (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H!! I don't have checkuser privileges. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 18:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. There's a page in which you can request someone to do the checkuser for you. Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser Deavenger (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style of editing at Sikh Extremism

I thank you for your edits, and ask that you be a bit kinder in your application of them.

I must tell you that your style here is somewhat opaque and really rather insulting. I would encourage you to simply say what you mean instead of using potentially-insulting things like "PoV statement?". How does it help? Simply flagging it with [citation needed] is good, and simple. If an editor doesn't understand that you don't see a source for the statement, they aren't going to be helped by "PoV statement?", and since this is an emotional issue, a bit of extra kindness may (or may not) go a long way.

Also... I quickly and easily found a source for one... a simple Google showed me where it was listed.

In another spot, you killed a sentence that seems to be clearly supported by the source.

Please, please, focus on the content, rather than on the thoughts and intentions of the editors.

Please, rather than flagging so very many things in this article that you clearly care about, fix them? And I don't mean just kill them. If someone puts in an interpretation, please consider finding someone who has a different one, and including and citing that. If someone is misconstruing, please reword. Simply flagging something you are already quite familiar with will make other editors feel you are using us as your personal web-search/typing service. (that would be me)

Thank you again, and thank you in advance for your future work. sinneed (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, accept my apologies if that sounded insulting. I generally try to put a comment in the tag to express the specificity of the issue and I wasn't sure if the claim by that statement had a source that's why there was a "?" at the end of "POV statement" comment hidden in the tag. Also, I feel that NPS Aulakh in that claim is talking about the funds coming for outside for support of "Punjab Insurgency". I'll once again go through all those sources when I get time. Further, I did not choose to remove the miscontrued content because from my previous experience I've found that often led to edit-warring. No I do not want anybody to be my personal web-search/typing service. Cheers! --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 05:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must tell you that I perceive your edits as edit-warring with user:Satanoid. I encourage you to simply STOP killing sources, and leave them in. Then to fix the content, not by killing it, but by adding to it. And please, use the talk page before killing sources? I know, I killed 2 (and I stand by the killing), but I did not realize the sheer intensity of emotion from multiple (or possibly multiple) editors. In my frustration on trying to pick through the debris of the edit war to restore deleted content, I wondered if there might only be 1 other editor besides my self, using multiple accounts.sinneed (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 editor? Roadahead, Sikh-history, Satanoid, and myself are the same person? Lions and tigers and bears! Oh my! 67.194.202.113 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after I recovered from the intense headache trying to edit through an edit war (it feels like e-bullets are flying past my head) I thought: noh wai! sinneed (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..what? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is English your native language? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dr Gopal Singh

Is it me, or do some of these people not have a clue as to who Dr Gopal Singh, and how weight, what he writes carries? --Sikh-history (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The folks are unwilling to understand the issue. Dr. Gopal Singh is certainly more reliable and notable than Mr. Kapur on the Khalistan issue. I have been stating repetitively about the notability of the individuals from Council of Khalistan (P. S. Ajrawat and G. S. Aulakh) but anon is beating around the bush trying a wrong key. If the issue was of not using Ajrawat's own web (which I feel can be used to state what he says), that has been solved by bringing in the documents from Congressional Records. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well The IP seems to dodge my arguments as he has here about holocaust. I annihilated, everyone of his arguments that stated that because the Khalistan site had called the Delhi Riots a holocaust, it was a "fringe source", however when I showed him the other sites referring to incidents like Trilokpuri as a holocaust, he started to get defensive and change tact. I am convinced him and Satanoid are the same. One is tapping in from a University computer and the other from home to cover their IP tracks. They never post at the same time.Ironically, I have been a vehement anti-Khalistani, but I find myself in an odd situation defending it, against people who would use every tact to mis-inform. Ireally hate having bad faith against anyone.--Sikh-history (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the same, I also find the patronizing language like "if you don't like our rules", "we are not going to...." etc pretty strange as well. The "fringe" allegation by IP is also not valid, if it does the whole idea of Khalistan is fringe and should not exist on wikipedia (obviously not true). Just like Khalistan article exists and is notable, so are the council of Khalistan and their statements. The IP either does not have enough understanding of Sikh history and other issues related to Punjab or is refusing to use the understanding. Googling keywords and adding them to wikipedia is obviously detrimental to the quality of wikipedia and I find people doeing that on many article (sigh!). Whatever it may be, I feel s/he is trying the wrong key. I did not look into the details of IP and Satanoid being the same, they may or may not be the same, I don't have enough information yet. Regardless, none of Satanoid's argument make any sense and editor is involved in flaming; I suggest neglecting Satanoid's flaming comments. The IP claims s/he did not like that a good/contructive editor was driven away (most probably in regard to Enzuru, but failing to note its was Enzuru's personal decision), so there could be a personal touch as well (which may compromise neutrality). --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Sikh Terrorism again?--Sikh-history (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

Looks like I shot the wrong person. I humbly apologize. Jonathan321 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting on your Point of View at Sikh Extremism - I am very concerned.

You wrote:

Like I've stated before. Instead of searching the keywords and depending on those, one needs to look first - what are the proponents of Khalistan claiming, second - if these articles are giving the logic behind why they are calling the state theocratic, why the article/authors feel that the proponents are going to implement "theocracy". Once again, Khalistan is not a fact but a proposal and as such when refering to it in the lead, one needs to keep the claim by the proponents of Khalistan. Feel free to put in article body something like - "most of the authors perceive the proposed Khalistan as a theocratic state" (thats the author's problem not the proponents). I've said this before/above and let me reiterate it again - any criticism of the proponents of Khalistan and the idea of Khalistan should go into the article content ( and let me add, content of article Khalistan) not here.

"what are the proponents of Khalistan claiming" - I don't care. I care what is making its way into wp:rs, whether it is what proponents claim, detractors claim, observers claim, victims claim, opressors claim. Please do not attempt to prevent me from presenting a balanced view.

--> That comment was the direct progression of talk with other editor. In no way I'm attempting to prevent you from presenting a balanced view. I feel you are jumping too quick to assumptions about me, you have done this earlier on my talkpage and now it has started to feel insulting. I understand that a lot of discussions and information is passing on this topic, but it is rather unwarranted to jump to conclusions like this.

"if these articles are giving the logic behind why they are calling the state theocratic" - No, we don't have to do that. In fact, looking for logic in the public statements of politicians is, IMO (yes PoV) a fruitless endeavor. Also for most everything else. I look for reasoning, but it is rarely presented in the press because it takes too long and doesn't sell. (with sincere apologies to members of the press... this isn't a critique of the press, but of the readers/watchers... you have to eat)

--> Again no, the gist is not of press statements but of the notability of Gurmit Singh Aulakh and Jagjit Singh Chauhan on Khalistan. Are they not notable on Khalistan? If they are saying they want to implement democracy in, what is their own idea (ie. Khalistan), so what is the problem in nothing that?

"Feel free to put in article body something like - "most of the authors perceive the proposed Khalistan as a theocratic state" (thats the author's problem not the proponents)." - This makes me feel somewhat better. However, unless we find an RS (at least one) that DOESN'T say it will be theocratic, it will be hard to justify insisting on "most". I usually use such language, simply as a matter of course... but others don't agree, and surely someone can show an example (even one).

--> I think editor Sikh-history has already given one source, we can work on finding others. We can get rid of "most" for now if that helps.

"I've said this before/above and let me reiterate it again - any criticism of the proponents of Khalistan and the idea of Khalistan should go into the article content ( and let me add, content of article Khalistan) not here." This statement concerns me the most. It seems to say that you will not allow any negative comment (from your Point of View) about proponents of Khalistan... which would certainly include all Sikh Extremists if the lead-in stands. This is a bad statement. Please consider changing it. sinneed (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--> Please read my comments on the talkpage of the article. No, how can I "not allow any negative comment (from your Point of View) about proponents of Khalistan"? In you later comment, "... which would certainly include all Sikh Extremists if the lead-in stands." you seem to reflect that extremist and separatist are the same, this is not true.

Clarification here; additionally will embedded short replies in your comments above --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: If the lead-in stands, then yes, Sikh Extremism is Sikh Separatism (all squares are rectangles). Sikh Separatism may not be Sikh Extremism (not all rectangles are squares). But this article is about Extremism. sinneed (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sinneed, sorry but this is wrong analogy. "Extremism" is a more general term than "Separatism", therefore, if I go by your analogy - the rectangle is "Extremism". The problem occurs when one tries to push a rectangle (which is not square) through an opening which is in reality a square. Nevertheless, the analogy does not help on this subject matter and I disagree that "extremism is separatism". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead-in isn't even being discussed for change, and starts off with "Sikh extremism refers to separatist beliefs that involve the formation of a Sikh state, referred to as Khalistan..." Please be sure to bring up your objections to the lead in, and what you want it to say instead.sinneed (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of this page is damaged.

I cannot reply to your comment without editing the entire page. Also, the indents are damaged, and your reply appears to me in a box. Please feel free to kill this if you can see what is wrong. I am no expert and I don't see it. :) sinneed (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"which may compromise neutrality" - Erm. With all due respect, neither of you is even APPROACHING neutrality. I think you honestly both think you are, but... I don't see it. sinneed (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe We Need To Start A Heading Here

The infamous Balbir Sodhi case after 9/11 would be a starting point? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think generalized information addition noting some major cases like that of Sodhi will be helpful. Basically, very less words and more encyclopedic information will be helpful to any reader reading that article. For instance, it would be worthwhile to note that many of such victims (like Balbir Singh Sodhi) are victims of 2 things - first religious intolerance, second mistaken identity. Last week, there was another such case in Texas where the folks whose house was burglarized called the police and ended up becoming hate victims as well. On personal fronts, it hurts to see such religious intolerance incidents in the land that has been known for freedom. Religious intolerance is nothing but detrimental to basic idea of democracy --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought - edit summary at sikh extremism

"?? already enough going on here. plz don't add more controvertial stuff"
Actually, that would pretty much mean no one could add content. :) This is ALL controversial. :)
I would encourage holding to the actual problem of the edit: Maybe something like "Because of the controversial nature of that addition, it would really need a source. Sorry."
And I really do mean the "Sorry." People often work very hard to put in edits, only to have me kill them just because they aren't sourced and are either dubious, or about a living person and controversial, or in an already-contentious article. This is intensely frustrating. I was VERY UPSET with the 1st editor who reversed out one of my edits. Nay, I was *ENRAGED*. I agree with you, though, it needed to go. It also seemed to be just inflammatory...I don't see how it ties in. But with a source, we could at least tell what in the world the editor was talking about. Maybe. sinneed (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Cherry-picking

Template:Cherry-picking has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh extremism

Hi. I'm an administrator who volunteers at the copyright problems board. My edits to that article were prompted by your report, automatically logged here, which came current for closure today. If I have missed duplication of text in addressing the copyright concerns in that article, I would greatly appreciate it you would point out specifically what remains that is pasted from that external site so that the material can be excised or revised. I removed everything I saw, and it would really be very helpful if you could point out the specific sentences that concern you. Not only would it be far more convenient to excise any infringement right now rather than to allow this to run through the copyright problems queue again, but it is legally problematic for us to continue publishing information that violates external copyright. I've watchlisted your page in case you choose to respond. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I located two more sentences that I missed on first read-through. I have not removed the tag, though, pending your response, since my lack of familiarity with the material may have caused me to miss something else. Just for the record, while we do appreciate your tagging problematic material, you are also welcome to remove it or revise it yourself per Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored." :) In fact, doing so is a great service to the project. Since our content is quickly and widely mirrored, particularly fresh infringement can be kept from spreading by rapid removal of material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the note. I'm not sure if we should keep the copypaste tag (may be its no more appropriate tag anymore), however, it still seems plagiarism from the same website where it was earlier copy pasted. What's the course of action in this case? I don't want to remove what I feel is plagiarism because I'm involved in dispute about this article and so it may sound conflict of interest. What say? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to address plagiarism is to attribute. :) I can see that it's a contentious article; I always look for a note made at the time the copy-paste is detected, and I was really surprised to find it a full archive back. I can understand, if you're perceived as having a conflict, why you wouldn't want to remove it. I believe I've picked up all the literal duplication this time. I'll look at it again to see what I can do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have attributed information that seems to be heavily drawn from that article. As an outsider unfamiliar with the subject, it is difficult for me to recognize, of course, when a statement might be contentious, so I may not have attributed enough. I don't believe there are additional copyright infringement concerns in the section, though you were certainly right to be concerned given the literal duplication I did find. If you agree that copy paste concerns have been addressed, let me know, and I'll remove the tag. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks Moonriddengirl, I've removed the {{copypaste}} tag. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 08:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring - user:sikh-history, user:satanoid, user:Roadahead at sikh extremism

I hear you each saying you think one or more of the others is misbehaving. ALL 3 are misbehaving. Stop doing these huge editwar-type reverts. If you don't care enough to give edit summaries, and if you don't care enough to make the individual changes, then perhaps a break from editing this article would be good for you. Please:

edit summaries for every edit - please
if someone makes 5 edits, and you want to revert 3, do... not all 5 - please
if you think another editor is vandalising, say so, in the appropriate forum. Not an edit summary, not on an article talk page. Your talk page, their talk page, or possibly seek a 3rd party who might help

All 3 of you are better than this makes you appear. sinneed (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sinneed, may I request you to not keep smearing my talkpage by terms like "edit warring" etc? I can understand that you are trying to be neutral but I often find your comments on my talkpage rather hasty. From all the 3 points you have mentioned above, I take the responsibility of number 2 (partially). I agree that I had reverted Satanoid in one case where he made 2 edits which may be ok, but then followed up with various edits back to back which were problematic and they were not simply revertible. Those type of problems are being explained and discussed from many days and I felt Satanoid is wasting everybody's time by still making similar edits. However, I agree that was not the precise step from me - I should've reverted the 3 problematic edits to Satanoid's edit number 4 and then explained if there any issue with the remaining 2. Except this, I've been making considerable effort to explain things and have not made even a single edit without edit summary. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask, but it will be profitless. "Smearing?" Nope. I promise that if you stop edit warring I will stop talking to you about it. I am not trying to be neutral. I am neutral. You are all behaving badly. It is very clear from reading your work that you are better than your actions here make you appear. Further, you are NOT discussing the edits. You make sweeping statements like "problematic edits"... but no discussion. None. sinneed (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though there were edit summaries in all my edits you are correct in saying that I have not discussed each edit on the article talkpage. My underlying assumption was that since Satanoid is repetitively introducing same edits (discussed already), should I go ahead and create a section for everyone of my edit? Since there are primarily 6 editors (A baby Turkey, Ricky, You, Sikh-history, Satanoid and me) editing this article and all of them are aware of the issue related to the article I've felt stating the same thing repetitively as redundant and unnecessary flooding of the talkpage. However, since there is a demand, it can be met - I can try to put a discussion for all the edits. Still, do you really think this is practical? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very possible on the disaster of a talk page, I missed the discussion, and I apologize for not thinking of archives. Idea:

Instead of "Small contructive edits have been followed up with multiple back to back problematic edits and are causing problem in reverting. I tired of explaing Satanoid, so will"

How about:

"Reverting many edits already discussed and archived. Please stop retrying old edits without restarting discussion first." or something?

That way, I would have a hint to look in the archives?

"Still, do you really think this is practical?" - no, if it has already been talked over, you should not have to do it again, and you don't. And please, remember I am no more entitled to make demands on you than you are of me.sinneed (talk)

Going a bit further, you could pop over to my talk page and say "Sinneed, you are a smarter guy than that note on my talk page made you look. If you look through the archives, you might see we had already talked each of those to death." But you are probably nicer than I am. ;) In any event, I hope you had a happy First Day Of Winter. All the best. sinneed (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that suggestion for the edit summary could have been more precise (agreed), but the field is short and we are busy so the edit summaries are not always perfect. Also, by this time I could never guess you have not read the archives (or anyone of 6 editors involved has not read). If you note all the discussions including the archives, you will find that I have spend huge amounts of time explaining what is wrong in the article and other content being repetitively forced on the article content. At some point, it is natural for me to feel that Satanoid is wasting everybody's time. I went ahead and started to look how you are loosing your information and commented here on the findings. I still feel that the word "Edit waring" from you above including my name is kinda unjustified and request you to reconsider the wording (after reading why you are loosing your edits from that article). --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 05:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being clear, I fear. I lost my edits because I did something wrong. I just... lost them. They were to the talk page. My bad, no one else's. The key points I typed again.

Please feel free to kill this section if it offends you, you need not even archive it, In My Opinion. I remain firm that what you are doing is an edit war. I understand why, I do. I reverted one edits, and I would have reverted one of yours... and some purists might argue that that would have been ME being part of the edit war. Please consider simply leaving his bad edits in place and saying they are bad on the talk page. Someone will eventually clean them up. I am trying to go the extra step of killing them, then remonstrating the editor(s) for not keeping the edits short, not providing summaries, and edit warring and inciting others to do so, then putting the questionable parts on the talk page, then putting the clearly problem parts on the editor's talk page with suggestions.sinneed (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of reading the archives. I absolutely am not reading through all that squabbling and insulting. I will search for the keywords there, as I do on the talk page. :) READ all that???!?!? Ick. I'd have indigestion. sinneed (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sineed, I spend some time looking into the edit history of article to find out what is going on and where you lost your text that you mentioned here. Going some edit histories back one can see that here is where editor Satanoid removed the content you are missing. Then another edit followed by editor Satanoid where he replaced Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa". Then I came in and restored the content edited by Satanoid, including both - the section you are missing and his replacing of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa". After which, Satanoid again came back and not only once again removed the content that you are missing, but also replaced Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa" again calling it "corrections and cleanup". After this edit from Satanoid, another editor Sikh-history noted it and reverted his deleting of your missing text and also restored back Satanoid's stubborn replacement of Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa". Very soon after this, Satanoid again came back and replaced Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa" (once again). He (Satanoid) then followed up by again deleting your missing text. I hope this helps you to understand how you are missing your text. Also note that these are not mere reverts but specific edits from Satanoid, so I guess he can better explain why your information is being continually edited by him. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you have misunderstood and either missed or again misunderstood my note where you addressed this earlier. The only text I have lost, I lost because I made a mistake in editing. I am sorry that I lost that work, as it was mostly an explanation of my reversion of Satanoid's work.sinneed (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sinneed, I wasn't confused before but now I'm confused thinking why you are being apologetic. The diffs in my reply above are showing clearly how and who was continually removing without explanation the text you added to the article. I thought your note about edit warring (above) was for the article. If you have not noted before, it is still good to note the source of edit warring on article from my diffs. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 17:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a need to shrug helplessly. I do appreciate your thoughtful efforts.sinneed (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Can You Help Me Expand HS Phoolka Article

Can you help me expand this--Sikh-history (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can try to gather information on H. S. Phoolka. I know about the subject in general but adding specific notable information will require some reading on my part. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completed some study, here is the result (typed red-eye, will edit and improve later). --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 09:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have perhaps received answers to your questions regarding this article, but just to confirm, the article was nominated for deletion by Closedmouth, and I deleted it on the basis that the article did not demonstrate any encyclopaedic notability. There may indeed be significant notability attached to the gentleman in question, but this has to be contained within the article. I am happy to restore the article as and when you are ready to expand it; let me know. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Roadahead, That is really great research. I understand he had a colleague too, that helped him. It maybe interesting to do an article on him too. Cheers --Sikh-history (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I still have to review my first entry; you can do it too. Which colleague are you talking about? - it could be anybody from the long list of people with whom he worked - Narula, Sorabji, Mitta ...or? Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 21:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Mitta. These fellows are like the chaps that exposed Watergate, and yet we have overlooked them.--Sikh-history (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: users talk page

What do you make of this fellows edits and reverts?--Sikh-history (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the this edit?. I would say this is new height of misquoting, mistranslating and pushing POV. The quotes used by this editor for supporting the points are actually not talking about the issue at all. Also there seems to be copied pasted text from SikhiWiki in this edit. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:55, 7

January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Indeed, and there are a few more. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H. S. Phoolka 1,50,000

Glad to help, and sorry I didn't catch them all. It is just almost impossible to completely edit one's own work...thus editors have jobs. :)

However, "1,50,000" is not a number in standard international notation. At least many readers will not know what it means. Is it "1,050,000", "150,000" or something else?

If you hammer out any other new and interesting articles you would like another set of eyes on, please let me know. I find your writing interesting, have learned a lot from it, and I hope I have helped in some small way. :) All the best.sinneed (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can seek help when/if I have another article on Wikipedia. Regarding the number of visitor, I think "1,050,000" still stands not equal to "150,000" regardless of the notation system it is being represented in. My original approach was to to quote the notation system of the source, i.e. "1, 50,000", but I'm fine if you want to change it to Standard International Notation, keeping the numbers same. Cheers --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is I don't know what the number is... is it 1,050,000? or ? I can't fix it because I don't know what the notation means. Sorry. :) sinneed (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer my questions please

Can you explain why this article, Vegetarianism in Sikhism is about meat consumption ? Langar is by far a non-meat function ? I was shocked to see that the Akhand Kirtani Jatha has been so badly edited, I felt it needed correcting. You could start an article meat consumption in Sikhism or perhaps make a list of those Gurdwaras that do serve meat, because I've never heard of any. If you can answer these questions, that would be nice starting point, thanks Khalsaburg (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to use these links (below). If you don't find anyone of them {including the Sikhiwiki you found} objectionable without reason, so kindly provide reason(s) as to why these additional links may or may not suffice, thanks again Khalsaburg (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-institutions/the-sikh-institutions-langar-and-pangat.html

http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/institutions/langar/

http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart18.htm

http://www.baisakhifestival.com/langar.html

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Guru_ka_Langar

I would remind you again that Sikh Langar is not or never has been a meat feast Khalsaburg (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And can you tell me categorically that none of the above links have been previously or are currently being used as references surrounding Sikhism ?

I await your response(s) Khalsaburg (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is baseless; feel free to remove the above links if you find them being used unreliably. SikhiWiki is the lowest on the WP:RS scale. You remind me of a recent co-editor of Wikipedia. Anyway! No, the article is not "about meat consumption" but is about the AGGS view on Vegetarianism. I would love to discuss and talk at length with you, but wikipedia is not a chat forum; there are loads of analysis available on this issue if you Google. But seems like you want to limit your reading to the AKJ and SikhiWiki povs. Regardless, your argument that Langar is vegetarian so there must be restriction on meat for Sikhs has no value. Guru Nanak is very clear in his words when he says that "..when both plants and animals have life, how can you say that eating one is sin and not eating the other?" and further, "...you do not know the where the flesh came from. Its the water that the life comes from...." etc. Therefore, there is no dietary restriction for the Sikhs as per their religious scripture, except restriction on ritualistically prepared meat (halal/kosher). The quotes you are picking are not about eating or not eating meat, but about hypocrisy. On your "Langar" question, I can ask you, "Why most of the Sikh Gurdwara's have four doors facing all four directions?". If you don't know - that is because the Sikh gurus invited all religious, creeds, beliefs from all possible denominations in their area and to physically represent this spirit the Gurudwara's have 4 doors facing all for directions. Regardless, Gurus did not enforce their ideals on anybody so is the case with the idea of eating or not eating meat. The "Langar" was the concept that Nanak encouraged to make all sit together at equal level, be it King or their wards, be it Hindu, Sikh or Muslim and eat together before they can deliberate and involve in a discussion. Since some sects in the area had (may have) taboo against meat eating, the Langar is kept to the simplest form so that everybody can eat it, even those who are not Sikh. The practice continues. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You claim it is the AGGS view of vegetarianism. I would say instead its your POV ie interpretation of the AGGS.

All relevant links on Google regarding the AGGS (SGGS) view on vegetarianism are clear, and don't seem to fit wit your POV. (subjective not objective)

You haven't answered my question(s)

Why are these links not acceptable?

You haven't answered if they have been used (previously or currently) as references on other Sikh Wikipedia articles? Thanks Khalsaburg (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you have stated Khalsaburg by quoting verses from the AGGS ji is POV clearly. They are tukhs taken out of context. If you can provide any ISBN referenced artciles to back up your POV then please do so. Roadahead has clearly answered your questions. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Thinking What I am Thinking?

Are you thinking what I am thinking? --Sikh-history (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are thinking what I'm thinking, then - yes

--Roadahead ★ 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm makes you think why some people don't have a more positive chardian kalan attitude.:) --Sikh-history (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some canvassing going on here. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another qestion

Can you kindly provide evidence that Sikhiwiki is 'not reliable' as per any direct referece in Wikipedia. NB I don't want any POV, just reference(s). Thanks Khalsaburg (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this if you really don't know. --Roadahead ★ 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask if you are anti AKJ ? Khalsaburg (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information regarding my "anti" that will help you is that - I'm "anti" vandals, socks and propagandists. Please stop wasting my time asking the irrelevant. Thanks, --Roadahead ★ 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Great Work Against Vandals

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		well done --Sikh-history (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind gesture; however, I have to admit that socks and vandals eat up the time that I would rather invest in developing articles. --Roadahead ★ 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Vandalism and Disruptive Edits by Khalsaburg

Hi Fellow Editor, I have tried to enagage and get Khalsaburg to discuss various Sikh articles, but he seems fixated on pushing forward a POV which goes against the Sikh Rehat Marayada. He has copy and pasted unreferenced work from Sikhiwiki and also other articles, by an anonymoue T Singh. I am getting tired of reverting his POV. Do you want to take further steps? --Sikh-history (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel that feigning ignorance and wasting others time and effort is the new tactics that most of the pov pushers follow. It will not be long before this guy earns a ban for consistently reverting information and pushing pov. --Roadahead ★ 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roadahead, can we start procedure in getting Khalsaburg blocked or at least certain pages protected. I don't think this fellow understands what POV is and what references are. Dam shame really as we need good editors for Sikh articles in particular. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate and understand your concern; don't worry such activities lead to a ban eventually. The problem is that there is no foolproof method on wikipedia to detect and block malicious intent. Regardless, it will not continue forever because eventually these guys are caught and blocked. Please be patient and continue contributing to Wikipedia. I can clearly see the pov push and stubborn reverts from these accounts. --Roadahead ★ 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi roadahead. This fellow just will not stop. He won't listen to reason or compromise and just stubbornly keeps adding POV or Vandalising pages. Lately he has taken to canvassing other people like Jsu. Is the only option to ask to get him blocked. I don't like doing this but he won't stop. To be honest his name Khalsaburg is a buit insulting to Sikhs because it is a play on Calrsberg lager. Also note his IP here look familiar? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roadahed. The user Khalsaburg has gone too far. He is now saying use of ISBN numbers is Obsufication. I have started a Mediation Cabal for this. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered questions II

You said.

"Your argument is baseless; feel free to remove the above links if you find them being used unreliably"

I have replaced them with these links:

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-institutions/the-sikh-institutions-langar-and-pangat.html

http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/institutions/langar/

http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart18.htm

http://www.baisakhifestival.com/langar.html

Kindly explain why these links are NOT acceptable ? Giving clear reasons

Also, can you state if these links have been used previously or currently regarding any Sikh articles ?

Thanks Khalsaburg (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop feigning ignorance, my reply above addressed all what you said. You have copy pasted the same text again by adding a line on the top. Stop flooding my talkpage by copy pasting the same material. --Roadahead ★ 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Harbans Jandu

I am trying to develop this article on Jandu Littranwala. I was wondering whether you had any input or links and references I could use. Also, I am trying to develop an article on the Acoustic maestro Mandippal Jandu (Harbans Jandu's, Grand Nephew). Any Input would be welcome. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to do some reading on them as time permits. --Roadahead ★ 19:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Sikh-history (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enter Singhvikram1

Am I getting paranoid?--Sikh-history (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! --Roadahead ★ 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Not Incredible?

Are you this fellow from Sikhiwiki who ran circles around HariSingh? I followed the debate he and Incredible had for some time, and it was "Incredible" to follow. For my money Incredible won hands down, and really checked HariSingh's ego into place. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! I'm not "Incredible"; I don't edit sikhiwiki. However, I've seen HS's debates and edits on wikipedia and sikhiwiki and very well understand his pov. --Roadahead ★ 02:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry for the confusion, but there were some nice points put by user Incredible. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is This ?

I don't think there is a word Persection...do you ? Then why do we have a page called Persection of Muslims ? Of course it redirects to Persecution of Muslims but why it needs to be so...? Kindly reply on my talk page ...thanks Jon Ascton (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems an obvious typo. The entry under that typo needs to be removed; I don't have the page delete rights but hopefully someone will delete it soon (now that the page is marked for deletion). --Roadahead ★ 20:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akhand Kirtani Jatha and Randhir Singh

I don't know if these are of interest to you, but I have edited both heavily.

I see you had edited the RS article before, and I suspect it needs some of the same edits applied again. These need sourcing help, a much more knowledgeable person to fact-check/fix them.

I moved a great deal of content out of the AKJ article into the RS one. I fear I cannot fact-check the articles due to lack of knowledge... my intent is to help with wording and structure. I hope I have done so.sinneed (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these Users the Same?

Is this user the same as this user? --Sikh-history (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, it seems likely. Will spend some more time looking into this issue as I get a breather from worklife. --Roadahead ★ 23:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinneed, sure wil do. I'm very busy at this moment. Will read the article and leave my feedback soon. --Roadahead ★ 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Labh Singh

I have opened an wp:RFC about a dispute at Labh Singh. I wonder if you might have both time and interest to comment. No problem if not, life is far to short to worry about such things. Hope you are well, and thanks for dropping by the Sikh extremism discussion.- sinneed (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have your comments on Sunny Leone

Could you take a look at the discussion? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust_(Kaam)

Please help build this section. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does your colored name tag mean that you are an administrator?

Just wondering?GHALOOGHAARAA (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wiki Like Site

Hi, a friend of mine has set up a wiki like site, but appear to be having problems with codes. Have you any idea, how to help? Thanks --Sikh-History 08:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sikh-showing-burned-property-burning-1984-delhi.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sikh-showing-burned-property-burning-1984-delhi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sikh-property-burning-1984-delhi.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sikh-property-burning-1984-delhi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sikhs camp shadara 1984 prashant 070411 outlook india.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sikhs camp shadara 1984 prashant 070411 outlook india.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gandhi Under Cross Examination for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gandhi Under Cross Examination is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ratnahastin (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]