Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. If you need help, you can drop a note on my talk page or use Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. You can also type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia! utcursch | talk05:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many categories in Wikipedia are reserved for human beings. A book about such human beings is not eligible to be added to those categories; please do not re-add it. --Orange Mike | Talk13:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use ihro.in as a reference. It is a biased website which completely ignores the atrocities committed by extremist religious bigots in name of Khalistan, while exaggerating use of force by noble Sikhs like Kanwar Pal Singh Gill ji.
There is no doubt that Gill's police forces engaged in acts that can be considered as human rights violations, but we can use non-partisan sources like Amnesty and HRW as references for these. ihro.in is not a notable organization and only presents one side of the story. It exaggerates too much, which might lead the readers to believe that all this is propaganda by Khalistani militants.
I have removed material from Kanwar Pal Singh Gill that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Navneet Singh Khadian, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Looks like they agreed that it should be deleted. You should not remove prod tags. However, since you have significantly editted it since it was originally prod'd, I am moving the debate to apublic forum, see below. - UtherSRG(talk)16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Navneet Singh Kadian.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Peace be with you Singh6. Just came across your recent comment on this article about Islam and Sikhism which read Oh Really ? Mr Extremist, why dont you understand that if we are not targeting your religious/historical articles then you should spare ours as well ??? History is history, why to distort it ?. Just wanted to remind you that it is quite possible that someone could take offense or be hurt by the word extremist. Your edits i.e. [1] could have been justified in a better way; please be polite in your approach towards 'community editing', as I am sure you are quite capable of. Thanks for understanding. Peace. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see your point respectable friend Singh6. Vandalism must be condemned and stopped wherever observed. And I also agree with your statement History is history, why to distort it?. Peace 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Namaste Singh6. I just found this comment of yours "What do want to acheive with your distructive edits". I just want to say that this goes against wikipedia: no personal attacks, even if the guy is vandal/spammer/extremist person. Just a small warning. Deavenger (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(followup) As I look at your edits in more depth, there is a great deal to be concerned about, both in the way that you are deleting sources, and also in uncivil edit summaries, such as referring to "hate".[2] This practice really must stop. I would like to see you stop using "revert" as an editing tool. Edit-warring to push through desired content, is a completely ineffective way of enforcing a change. Better is to try and find a compromise. In the future, if you see a version of the article that you dislike, please don't revert it, but instead try to change it to a compromise version. Then if the next editor makes a compromising change, and so forth, it is possible to circle in and try to find a consensus version of the article. For other problems, discussion at the talkpage will probably be helpful. Good luck, and let me know if I can be of any further assistance, Elonka04:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi this is in regard to your revert of my edit on the Khalistan Commando Force where I had removed a mention of 'Gurdev Singh Debu' who was allegedly boiled alive by security force. The references [3], [4] are extremist blogs and pov sites and hence qualify as questionable source as per WP:QS, so I would request you to revert the changes made by you or provide reputed verifiable source to back up the fact that 'Gurdev Singh Debu' was boiled alive by security force, within a reasonable time-frame. LegalEagle (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gurdev Singh Debu, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Hey, thanks for that. The Admin who is handling it is a really good guy who tries to be fair to everybody, which is why he's encouraging the IP to start making good edits as you can see on User talk:Master of Puppets. He even told me, the only reason why he hasn't banned the IP before he protected the page was because to ban all the multiple IPs would require a rangeblock, which Admins try to save as a last resort.
Anyway, for the barnstar, to give it, you would go to what subject it would fall under. Like maybe Sikh barnstar maybe. There is probably one for defending certain Wikipedia policies, but I don't know where they are, but project barnstars like the Hinduism, Sikhism, or Islam barnstars would probably do fine for that. Then you would go to the project page, and they probably have good instructions on how to award it, for the future. But I don't believe I deserve a barnstar for this. Because the only real edits I have made were reverting the IPs vandalism. And the only reason that I started reverting them is because the IP was deleting such large amount of information that it caught my eye, as I don't really work on too many religious articles as I don't know much about either religion. Including my old religion of Hinduism, I still know very little about it past basic beliefs, which is why I don't work on too many hinduism related articles.Deavenger (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'd like to give you a well-deserved commendation for your edit to my talk page; that's actually probably the most well-crafted case I've ever seen here. You've backed up every point, and I really think this will help. Now, all I need to do is round up the editor and make sure he's read this; if this continues on, I'm afraid a range block is the next step, as I've already protected the page. Great work! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :)04:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I commend you for your hard work on the articles on Sikhism. Well done. I have noticed an alarming trend in the usage of www.sikhiwiki.org as a reference. Whenever I click the links I find a wikipedia type page with references to other articles or even worse no reference. Surely this cannot we right. Sikhiwiki cannot be used as a reference? I seem to spend a lot of time removing sikhiwiki references and putting in direct links.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Singh6. I'll post my thoughts there. But I won't be able to do much as real life concerns and the wikiproject I'm a part of I need to start working on more.
Anyway, if the article can be fixed to be NPOV, I think it should stay, as religions like Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism which had problems with extremists in the past should have articles on this. As Islam and Hinduism has articles like this. But there needs to be plenty of changes, as well as change in the title, to possbily fundamentalism, like it is for Christianity or Islam. Or possibly a specific name like Hinduism fundamentalist page is called Hindutva. Deavenger (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your attacking comments on individuals are unwarranted and display extremist tendencies in view of the fact this article was not deleted as per your demands. I'd suggest you retract such comments Satanoid (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Singh6, this is 3swordz. You left me a message regarding the article "Sikh Extremism" and its proposed deletion a few days ago. I have just discovered that message and it turns out that that forum had just closed due to a lack of consensus. I am sorry that I had not found out about this matter sooner, I would definitely have cast a "delete" vote. The sources that the article cites have had their facts very selectively picked to support an anti-Sikh agenda, and most of the cited "facts" are simply the opinions of non-SIkh government people who want to subvert Sikh identity under Indian hegemony anyway. There are plenty of credible articles and opinions on the Web to counterbalance the ones used, some of them even in mainstream Indian news outlets, so even the selection of articles was unfair. The complexity of the articles and the matter are ignored by the people who maintain this article.
"Sikh Extremism" itself is such a relative term; it is though Sikhs who want to bring about autonomy even through peaceful means and have been discriminated and attacked by Hindus and such are labeled "terrorists" and "extremists" simply for fighting back, as if 1984 and the undermining of Sikhism by Hindutva groups should be a distant memory and people should not demand justice. The very few incidences of major overt acts do not constitute an article on their own, and at best should be assigned to a subsection of another article. It sickens me that people should mention Sikh "terrorism" without any context and with a subversive agenda. Fortunately there are many articles on Wikipedia to neutralize the malice of this one, and on articles like these we should continue working and maintaining.
So, those are my thoughts on the matter. I support what you do on Wikipedia, and I am humbled to be asked to contribute. Keep it up and keep me posted on issues like these, I will try to be prompt in the future. I apologize for this. Peace. 3swordz (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:ShaheedBhaiGurdevSinghDebu.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
He has un-protected Sukhdev Singh Babbar without caring for any vandalism being done by User:Vivin etc. ([[User
I wonder, is he giving him full freedom to vandalize fully referenced article Sukhdev Singh Babbar by saying "It is unprotected now"? instead of encouraging him to tag any sentence asking for a reference so that editors could provide the references, if the editors do not provide a reference, only then he can remove it. Why is not reading every single sentence of this article and the associated NPOV references. If he need any help to point towards the references behind every single sentence then I will be more than happy to point towards that reference. Would you editors be happy if this editor Vivin keep suppressing the fully referenced/documented crimes of a regime. If references are there then why is he not jumping in to save the article????
Hi Irek
I am sad that we are being forced to go through all this by an Indian administrator. I never knew that some illegtimate blocking can ever happen on Wikipeida and non-Indian administrators do not pay attention to this kind of illegtimate acts. Regarding your questions:
I am also a Sikh, I live in state of California. And Yes! this is the same state where a large concentration of Sikhs live.
My employer name doesn't start with letter "A", means we do not work for the same employer.
As far as I can recall, I have always edited in state of California where I live.
I'd appreciate it if you kept the drama out of the edit summaries in Sikh extremism. I'm not trying to get Hindu Taliban deleted. I haven't done anything with my article since I voted in the AfD. Instead of rambling on about Indian atrocities and "hypocracy" [sic], try and improve the article. Thanks. --vi5in[talk]16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love Sikhism, and I love Baba Nanak and Kabir, I am their Sikh. I am a devout Shi'a Muslim woman, that doesn't change anything. I love Baba Nanak just like you, don't worry, Satanoid can't change that. --Enzuru05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurdev Singh Debu 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. DBigXrayᗙ03:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
