User talk:Sapedder

Hello, Sapedder, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages 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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Punjabi grammar into Punjabi language. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa I'll keep this policy in mind. I am relatively new here and still picking up the fine points. The language section was meant to be a very basic summary, meant to lead to the main grammar article, as mentioned at the end of the section. Sapedder (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indic Script

- Please do not add any Indic script, to any of our India related articles, as you did at Jat Sikh, as this contravenes WP:NOINDICSCRIPT - Thank you - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. That policy is a bit excessive imo but I see the reasoning for it. I originally added the Gurmukhi to justify the addition of the more common endonym, since the page was retitled at some point to the less common term. Sapedder (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gurmukhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Sapedder!

Happy New Year!

Sapedder,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks for the nice message Fylindfotberserk, Happy New Year to you as well. Good collaboration during the past year and hopefully more to come. Sapedder (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Idolatry in Sikhism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dal Khalsa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Punjabi Suba movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Joginder Singh, Akali, Darbar Sahib and Hukam Singh

Anandpur Sahib Resolution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Balwant Singh

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Punjabi Suba movement, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Moga, Langar and Darbar Sahib (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ravi and Watchdog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Your addition to Punjabi Suba movement has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I believe I did rewrite the cited material in my own words, and I don't think a blanket revert was necessary imo. Can I have a copy of the old version sent so I can see what resembled the source material too much (other than the extended quote in the States Reorganization Commission section, which was duplicated for obvious reasons), and reword them to be more suitable? The material was from this widely available book, which may have been developed from the thesis (same author). Sapedder (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. There was no way for me to remove the overlapping content without destroying the article, so I removed your edit. I have sent you a copy of the article immediately before removal via email.

I have a new bot report on Singh Sabha Movement where you copied material from the same thesis. Here is a link to the bot report, which shows some but not all of the overlap. So I have removed pretty much all the material you sourced to that thesis. The removal is still temporarily visible in the page history to give you the opportunity to view.— Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I see. I wanted to quote accurately and not stray too far from the source material (I thought the extensive citations would have helped), but may have stayed too close to it in doing so. In any case, I have rewritten both edits and would be willing to send them to you for inspection before attempting to add them again, or I can just add them and see what happens, though I would not want to set off the bot if possible (a couple of sentences may have been hard to reformulate without sounding awkward). Sapedder (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content has to be completely re-written in your own words. If you suspect that what you've prepared will trigger the bot again, it's not ready for publication yet.— Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, shouldn't take too long. I'll post when it's ready and when time permits, thanks. Sapedder (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tat Khalsa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gurmukh Singh and Darbar Sahib.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Blue Star

Hi. I suggest you strike out portions of your comment here. WP:NPA is a core policy on Wikipedia and quite a bit of what you've written there violates that policy. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I admit I got upset when the source analyzing survivor accounts was variously described as propaganda, or "primary," or other mischaracterizations thrown at it to see what sticks and make it go away, and I didn't quite stick to the subject. But the other user constantly and immediately sniffing for covert paid involvement or ascribing internet plots to people he doesn't agree with, or filing frivolous cases on noticeboards that backfire on him and waste everyone's time to avoid communication, or their generally dismissive tone and reluctance to collaborate, should also be addressed, and hopefully that happens. Sapedder (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and not a biggie. I happened to notice your edit but haven't seen the comments of the other user. If you see NPA violations again, drop a note on my talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darbar Sahib.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dharam Yudh Morcha

added links pointing to Ravi, Watchdog, Punjab Police and Jammu and Kashmir

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Civility Barnstar
		This is for your patience and civility in bettering Wikipedia through your research and hard work Elephanthunter (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have shown extreme patience and civility in the face of openly hostile and warring behavior, and that your contributions are always well-researched. As a side note, I believe you are less than 30 edits away from automatically receiving extended confirmed privileges. This should allow you to directly edit protected pages without making requests on the talk page. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephanthunter: Thanks for this barnstar and the nice words, and good to hear about the edit privileges. Your help some months ago, which preceded many such contributions, is also appreciated. We're wrapping things up over there and it couldn't have been possible without your vigorous aid then, which played a big role in turning things around, slowly but steadily. Thanks again, Sapedder (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1978 Sikh–Nirankari clashes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab Police.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Makki ki roti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Your comments on Talk:Religion in the Punjab are largely focused on attacking another editor. See WP:FOC and refrain from incivility. LearnIndology (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment would have weight if a similar comment was also left at the other user's talk page. It is clear when the ad-hominems and mass-lobbing of inapplicable policies began. Sapedder (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media section of JSB article

You removed the sentence I originally put in the opening paragraph of JSB. Page 381 quote of the first source published by Pennsylvania University "the fulcrum of politics shifted increasingly to the revivalist, extremist, and terrorist movement symbolized by Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale" along with a few other sources which i have included quotes for. If you have the right to reinclude things which were deleted, I also have the right to do so. You do not own the article. I will also be bringing up your obvious soapboxing to the admins in some time. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1983 dhilwan bus massacre, your claim/implication that it was a conspiracy by the government (which is incredibly disrespectful to the victims, and not corrobated by any other mainstream academic sources) is sourced from the SGPC. Really? The SGPC which is a zealot religious organization that manages Sikh assets and property. Please tell me how this doesn't violate WP:Neutrality? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given my reasoning for Crenshaw (LABEL, WEASEL, etc.). In any case, that one source was the sum total of my removals, as opposed to over 13k bytes of removal based on IDONTLIKEIT. Who is really assuming ownership here? Also Dhilwan is not "my" claim, it is specifically qualified as an Akali claim. Regarding that and the SGPC (which is cited relatively sparingly on its own) used to balance the page in the face of Congress/govt claims (and used in similar proportion), as well as your views of other existing sources, all that and more is addressed on that article's talk page. Sapedder (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hey i just wanted to bring something to your attention ,

reddit.com/r/DesiMeta/comments/qviz8v/the_page_of_jarnail_singh_bhindranwale_has_been/ ,

i know you've been in discussion with this user under sant ji's page, but is this user posting and inciting reddit users to mess with (multiple) articles not enough for a ban/removal of editing priveleges? its clear his goal is to push a platform not help build wikipedia. anyways, thank you for your hard work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.185.28.197 (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC) (you can delete once you've read the above, idk how this works sorrry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.185.28.197 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely calling edits a vandalism

Stop this childish thing now.

Most of the content I removed on my edit was per WP:OR because mostly it is unsourced and the few sentences of the section used only 1 dead link that does not even support content. 110.226.28.89 (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Childish" is denying a concept because you alone don't like it, vandal. "Childish" is your determined reinstating POV favoring your ingroup that does not follow sources. Sapedder (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 110.226.28.89 (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail

First, I don't respond to user e-mail. Second, your e-mail implies that other editors, perhaps checkusers, are involved ("Apparently after consulting with others"), which means I'm not getting the complete picture. Either fill in the dots, or file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, didn't mean to imply plural "others." I had originally consulted with one other admin (GeneralNotability) who I had been in contact with. A few weeks ago they had uncovered a large sockfarm (of which a "bad hand" sock account had visited this otherwise slow talk page just prior to its blocking. That case is unrelated though, hence why I didn't get into it). They replied that in this case it isn't technically the same computer being used between the two accounts I mentioned, but did allow the likelihood of meatpuppetry. That is when I then contacted you, as you have already given a block to this user referring to that very act in the past (I'm also less familiar with the burden of proof required to prove meatpuppetry specifically beyond user activity, so I could use some of your input if you choose to look into it). As I said earlier, the signs of a connection seem glaringly obvious. Sapedder (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too confusing for me. If you want to pursue this, take it to WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BALANCE for one, and stop trying to push POV to the exclusion of other reliably sourced viewpoints. Sapedder (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring 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:Sapedder reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: ). Thank you. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it promptly flopped, and nearly backfired on you ("clean hands"). Stop strawmanning and address the central BALANCE issue, or it will be addressed for you. The admins at ANEW only confirmed that I have a case. Sapedder (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already said on talk page that I am not willing to engage in your banter, yet you are doing nothing but exhausting my patience with your WP:IDHT, personal attacks and outright trolling. If I am wrong, then tell me how else will you refer to the following messages of yours?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? Don't be ridiculous.[1]
Your cheap attempt at ANEW almost backfired on you, so stop dodging and deflecting and discuss your edit in good faith[2]
so the current tone is not damnatory enough for you[3]
Want to take that up with the admins and embarrass yourself[4]
Thanks for admitting what I suspected. lol "we."[5]
"ThAt's WhY wE cAn't CaLl HiM mIlItAnT oN lEaD" When did I say this? Hallucinating more strawmen?
Congratulations on answering a question that was never asked.[6]
Amarinder source disagrees with you too lmao[7]
you are being willfully obtuse to continue obfuscating[8]

Just recently, at least 4 editors including Accesscrawl,[9] Kautilya3,[10] Chennai Super Kings Lover,[11] and me[12] restored the wording.

Aren't you supposed to gain consensus in a civil manner instead of throwing personal attacks and frequently edit warring? I guess you are still not understanding this given the earlier warnings against you over personal attacks and bad faith assumption[13][14][15][16] and even a full-fledged ANI report in 2021 where you were warned against this poor conduct of yours. You have made less than 40 edits since.

As the page history shows, you are alone with removing the word "militant" from the lead per WP:1AM. To compensate for that, you are citing the WP:ANEW report against your edit warring and throwing personal attacks by continuously failing to get consensus to remove the word "militant". You are making various efforts just to get rid of the word "militant" from the lead since 2020, which was also observed by Bishonen in 2020.[17] I am of the view that you should be topic banned from this area because your long-term disruptive editing and toxic behavior is beyond obvious. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another cheap diversion. You will literally litigate anything but your own edit. Anyone can file any case, it doesn't mean it has a shred of merit. Didn't you learn that at ANEW?

Also, you seem to openly ignore any source or policy that contradicts you, so I don't rate your judgment for "trolling." Sarcasm is not "trolling."

First, 5 users (Hjhajj, Elephanthunter, Chomskywala, Daredevil, and myself) have also reverted. The ANEW admins also noted that. So don't lie about 1AM. Chennai is a vandal of user pages as you know, and none of your users have anything to contribute in talk, so I wouldn't draw attention to this dream team if I were you.

Don't lecture me on "civil" consensus. You've long since drained my patience with your fundamental insincerity and I have no need for any "banter" from you. You ignored all evidence to the contrary shown to you by Chomskywala, to reinstate your edit unchanged. This is all you do, pretend to listen to others while making no adjustments or compromises to account for the sources or counterpoints that contradict your POV. That is not civil, that is fundamentally dishonest "trolling."

"Militant" was never "censored," it is already twice in the lead. Don't pretend to care about "consensus." This was added without consensus only for a few months in 2019 when "leader of militancy" was already there, so stop cherrypicking a brief version of a page almost 2 decades old. It was redundant then, and it is redundant now. I helped built consensus along with 2 admins and six users over months of reasoning, significantly changing my edits according to suggestions. You know that a whole row of sources say that he never asked for Khalistan (the real issue), but you keep editing tendentially to add it anyway, and blatantly disregard all sources to the contrary.

Your snooping is a hypocritical attempt to decontextualize past events to try to comment on the editor instead of defend your edit. That's all you have in 4 years? In short: the ANI was filed by a swarm of IPs and POV-pushers who tried and failed to erase an article, Bishonen was adminshopped by a disruptive editor (who behaved similar to you and failed) and apologized graciously, and DBigXray was famous for his lack of consensus-building before he famously lost his account(s). Like I said, anyone (like you) can file and fail. "topic-banned?" It is more likely that this will WP:BOOMERANG back on you, like ANEW nearly did, for you lack of clean hands in all this. Once the admins at DRN see the quality of your "edit" it will be an open-and-shut case.

Go file a case at DRN and I will happily dissect your edit in front of users and/or admins who won't let you keep squirming out of NPOV.

I will also be cleaning this irrelevant screed from my talk page as well, as you still don't touch how your edit does not contradict a dozen sources. If you have time for this, you have time for that, but of course you have no case. Sapedder (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your replies exactly confirm the issues I raised. You haven't even answered that why you happen to be the only person who is making efforts to get rid of the word "militant" anyhow on talk page. Admins are not going to assist you with DRN. I havent seen a single source which disapproves of the undisputed fact that Jarnail was a militant. You should stop attempting to divert attention by bringing unrelated subjects when your concern is entirely limited to getting rid of the word "militant" from first sentence. There is no reason why we need to tone it down. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Khalistan movement" is disproven by a dozen sources. You attached that to "militant" in the same edit, and then hide and obfuscate behind "militant" without ever touching "khalistan movement" because you can't. No amount of red herrings can obscure this. Something that is twice in the lead is not "censored," that tactic is a bit shameless at this point. One can't be a militant leader of a non-militant organization, that makes no sense. "Admins are not going to assist you" speaking from experience are we? Sapedder (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Don't leave misleading edit summaries. It is also as much disruptive as your edit warring. GenuineArt (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just another interloper who doesn't bother to understand the issue before jumping in. The proof is right in the edit history. Sapedder (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Unfortunately, I find that your argument about misrepresenting what the sources say is persuasive. In other words, unfortunately, it appears that you do have reason to file at WP:ANI. I don't want to use the DRN talk page to encourage reports to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, if I understand this correctly, I'll go ahead and file. In explaining the circumstances, I will note your DRN ruling regarding RfC rights and your agreement with filing an ANI, if you would be able to vouch for these details should admins happen to request any such thing (if that's all right). Thanks for your help thus far. Sapedder (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

I just noticed that it is over 12 months since you got a DS alert for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan so here it is:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Gusfriend (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 20:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sapedder, I've blocked you for the tone of your posts (e.g., [18]). Since you edit only sporadically, I don't think this will seriously affect you so just treat this as a warning. If you don't tone it down, you're likely to end up indef blocked.RegentsPark (comment) 20:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you got off incredibly light, a 2 week- 1 month block would have been more fitting considering these gross attacks have been going on for years. I'd wager that most people would agree. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, if you could advise while you're here: isn't there an element of GRAVEDANCE in this? Block suggestions and "getting off light" from this user? Is "coreligionists" also not a revealing personal attack?

I don't fault you, but isn't this all adminshop-ish on his part? Admins involved in his past cases were not given a potential opportunity to weigh in. If the circumstances and terms of his indef block appeal were actually being enforced, this could have arguably BOOMERANGed. Sapedder (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, acknowledged. But consider my side:

I edited to make sure that sources are broadly and precisely, not selectively, represented. I saw who added the content, but I held my tongue and simply quote the discussion and source, charitably calling it a misunderstanding. He reverted by trying to invoke the WP:RAJ essay for a secondary source, accusing of "religious POV-pushing" and violating AGF. My second revert noted more flaws in the content. He then violated 1RR, a "self-imposed" condition offered to escape his indef ban (among others, but none of them ever seem to be enforced). At this point, yes, I lose my patience, I own that. But there are enough problems around here without old ones being needlessly reintroduced.

I want to mention HOUNDING. The best way to avoid conflict is for him and me to stay out of each other's way as much as possible. For that, his years-long stalking has to be stopped. This is the core of his editing pattern, and hasn't changed at all. Since our first run-in in 2021, not long after he made his account, he began to stalk all of my edits and discussions, to be a nuisance that would engage in petty obstruction whenever he could. Every time I come back from a hiatus, whether after months or years, he is back within hours tailing me. By last time, he had escalated this with sockpuppets and a near-constant presence, even after blocks. I was not active to present these further issues during his indef block appeal. He mainly locates and follows around only whichever "coreligionist" editors are active at a certain time, noted by others, for reasons that I need not get into further. I've said my piece.

Also, if my bullet points on the Khalsa page remain unanswered, the content should be reinstated. RAJ is not the only issue here. I will make a strong effort to maintain as cool a tone as possible, but I would appreciate any outside input as needed. Sapedder (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely need to keep your cool. A lot of your responses are way beyond the line and anyone else would have blocked you for a longer time, perhaps even indefinitely. I did not primarily because you had a clean block log and the only warning was the one I gave you a while ago. Now you have been well warned so please be careful. As a general rule, if you find yourself getting angry, don't respond immediately but wait until you are calmer. If your edits are reverted, don't edit war. Instead make your case on the talk page (dispassionately) and seek dispute resolution. You can ask for a third opinion, check for the validity of sources at WP:RSN, start an WP:RFC. Keep in mind that, in general, the status quo is given preference and you will need to seek consensus if you want to change that status quo. Getting indef blocked is definitely not going to result in your content getting into articles. RegentsPark (comment) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Punjabi Suba movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puadhi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]