User talk:Sikh-history

Mr. Jat I have entered Sachin Pilot Picure on gujjar wikipedia with genuine way, and you better know that sachin belongs to Gujjar community, and you always delete. We dont need your contribution on Gujjar wikipedia. The everything we write here with full authentic and proofs as described in Government ghazette. Dont try to remove any genuine text from Gujjar. We know about your conspiracy. Thanks

(Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

Stop to deleting the genuine text

Dear Mr Sikh History

Please stop the deleting the trusted and genuine text and history. You dont have right to interfere in Gujjar history and its personalities I think you have much better things to do.

regards (Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Be Calm

Dear Mr. Sikh history, i write whatever you entered on your webpage (i am jat), and please listen, m not inexperienced writer on wikipedia. Why you should give me warning without a reason? We are here to not promote or satisfying individuals feelings. We are here to provide authentic information for society.

(Gurjeshwar (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

Muley Jat

May be got a bit emotional. Unfortunately there seems to be many edit wars over South Asian articles, and thats why I got a bit flustered.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your very odd edits on two articles

You are an administrator , and I am Intrigued by how you are misusing your powers to provide misleading edits , references and deletions of valid content .
Here are two examples , I could explicitly provide several more instances in other articles .

• Kutha Meat .
• Khatri: Instead of coherently replying my query , you answer Will take a look when I get a chance?
  

Very unbecoming of an admin ??
Intothefire (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

REPLY to some very odd comments

I think this is a clear case of WP:LAWYER and not WP:AGF. I also note you have past history of this sort of behaviour as pointed out here. I suggest you concentrate on that first. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTENTION REQUESTED! article: JAT People

My Dear Sir, it seems some people are interested in ruining the article. You are always very quick in reverting edits of the people. But Sir, why are you ignoring what's going on, in the introduction section of the article. A person seems to have directly added the quote from another Encyclopedia Website, using that particular encyclopedia cite as a reference. But Sir, the users are expected to provide very strong references (with ISBN), but in this case, it is not so. The original text should be restored. Why don't you suggest them to provide such information on the External Links section, if they are so interested. And when you have all the authority in the world regarding this article, why are you waiting to revert the edit. Using quotes from other Encyclopedia Websites, doesn't seems to be a solution. Their are a number of Websites on the internet, whose information contradicts with each other; this is only going to create edit wars. Please look into the matter. I am looking forward for yor cooperation. Such ones should be limited only on the talk pages, and not on main page of the article. Ask them to discuss on talk page.

I think people deserves to share their views, but in a proper manner. I believe that guy didn't find any other strong reference which is acceptable by you guyz (official editing crew), and he involved informatiom from other websites. Anyone can do that, there are a number of Websites on the World Wide Web. This one needs your attention. Everybody should be given a chance to edit, but with neutral approach, and not to acheive any particular goal. You must have got what I am trying to say. This is not good what happening to the article.

Respected Sir, I do respect this page. I have never made any such attempt which may create any edit war, when you have advised me to not to do so. If you respect this fact a bit, please take necessary action. Sincererly. Abstruce (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

[Here http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=jat+peasant#q=jat+peasant&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp&fp=7145a8ee82ec6b14] are hundreds of books that refer to the "Jat peasant" caste. It's called WP:Balance. Thanks--Sikh-History 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

i did, look at my explanation. i was talking about how the concept of sikh extremism was being used erroneously in the article. the article was defining sikh extremism, not by an extreme or fundamental interpretation of sikhism and according actions, but instead was simply describing men who were born into sikh families, who did not follow fundamental or extreme interpretations of sikhism, as being sikh extremist, solely because of their background.this is erroneous and proof is beared by how the documented athiest Bhagat singh was described in the article as being a sikh extremist, despite his non -adherence to the proper definition of sikh extremism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.242.70 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Where, according to my history, have i been deleting properly cited information?

In fact, it is you who has deleted what I included from the Britannica Online article. Please do not waste my time with your petty arguments on user updated online encyclopedias, which in this case is wikipedia. If you have no better way to spend your free time than to find ways to demean an ethnic group to satisfy your own insecurities, please do so elsewhere. Wikipedia is a tool used by many to gain information on a variety of topics, and to give false and or bias information would be an injustice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeonamorh101 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Following Up: PERSONAL ATTENTION REQUESTED! article: JAT People

My Dear Sikh-History Sir, Thank You very much for your valuable time. I would have posted new text under old one, but a gentlemen seems to have interrupted the section I started, in between.

Respected Sir, I have two queries, but they are inter-linked with each other, that's why I am putting them together here. I have read WP:Balance before as well, and it clearly states that when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, then the person editing the text is expected to describe both approaches and work for balance. Same seems to be the case here , I think you would also agree to it. So, instead of deleting the line I wrote, you could have used any phrase like, On the other hand; and then described another views as well, Sir.

Furthurmore, as you told me that there are many references which describes the same view as the Encyclopedia Website from which the information has been posted in particular, then why aren't they put as a reference; but instead, an Encyclopedia Website has been directly used as a reference, in an article of Wikipedia!!!

And even if they are put as a reference, can any of their writer counterbalance the reputation of Col. James Tod!!! Please be honest!

Furthur, even if their is any such person, then also, both the statements deserves to be on the page. I believe that's what WP:Balance demands. And so Respected Sir, I once again Request you to look into the matter, and take necessary steps. And of-course, I do respect the fact that you have always tredted me with leniency. And, I have never used any such comments like 'biased' for you Sir or anyone else, ever. Please tell me whether books written by Col. James Tod can be used as a reference to post information on Wikipedia or not (if the text is used in accordance with the guidelines of Wikipedia) Abstruce (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor DBacham, got rid of many of the 19th century references, because they were simply wrong. Thanks--Sikh-History 22:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Muley Jat

I have already used this book as my source Rivalry and brotherhood: politics in the life of farmers in Northern India by Dipankar Gupta. There is also reference to a second book on your list "Social movements and the state by Ghanshyam Shah", I will try to get hold of this as well to further strenghten the article. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Into The Fire

I have examined some of the diffs for the recent dispute between yourself and User:Intothefire. Some of his concerns are valid; if you are adding content to articles you need to have sources to back it up. There is already so much unsourced content in our India/Pakistan articles, but it is inappropriate to add still more. Same thing goes the other way: If you are removing content that quotes a source, you better have more justification that simply saying "the sources are wrong" before you remove it. When an editor has a concern about your content decisions, please address them; don't just remove them from your talk page. Example: [here]. I have also left a message on the talk page of User:Intothefire, which you are welcome to read. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: User Into The Fires WP:Wikistalking and WP:Harassment

Greetings, I think your concerns are a bit undue as regards any participation on my part in this argument. Intothefires asked me for support/advice, and I simply said "if you feel you have a case, take it to ANI and do it unemotionally, with a clear context, and provide difs." The only vague form of "support" that could possibly be inferred was "yeah, one of the diffs looked excessive." So far as your complaint about alt accusations, your link just brought me back to a talk page about this current ITF issue, where I don't see anything from me about alts. Are you referring to some other case, and if so what does that have to do with the disagreement between you at ITF? In short, the argument between you and him is not my issue, and I simply told him "can't help you, take it up with ANI if you think you have a case." Hope you guys manage to sort things out amicably. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK

Have it your way.Winston786 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Upsetting people about caste divisions

Hi! I am so glad you wrote to me on this contentious subject - one that has been troubling me for years. In principle I agree with you totally. On the matter of caste, though - I have found through long and bitter arguments (as I am sure you would be aware) that any mention of caste is likely to stir up reams of heated debate that never seems to get anywhere and is just a great waste of time and energy (two things I am running short of).

Also, I believe that the caste system is gradually breaking down and I try not to contribute to people digging their heels in over caste issues. Additionally, I think that saying whether a caste is a caste of peasants, warriors or "royals" is, fortunately, becoming increasing irrelevant in the modern world as we find people of all castes (and casteless people as well) taking up and working in roles completely unthinkable just a few decades ago. This, I believe is an extremely positive development, and one which may allow India to be a much fairer and happier society and allow millions to lead far more fulfilling lives. Certainly Jats are found working in practically every possible occupation these days. So, to refer to them as a "peasant caste" is becoming not only more and more irrelevant, but actually serves mostly to cause division and bad feeling. Perhaps a way around this would be to put things in the past tense. For example, it might be possible in the article to say (without, hopefully, starting another bitter feud) that Jats were previously considered to belong to a peasant caste. I would very much appreciate your thoughts on all this. Many thanks for bringing it up. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. About the use of Encyclopedia Britannica: As it is, like WP, a secondary source, it should be used with great caution - especially on contentious issues. Furthermore, aa it is in competition with WP, I prefer not to use it as a source unless others are not available. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Name change

Hi, Sikh History. I hope all is well with you. I just saw your note that you are thinking of doing a user-name change. That might be a good idea, who knows? People might be assuming you are here to promote a particular agenda. Please be sure to drop me a line and let me know what your new user name is, if you decide to make a change. And thank you for taking my criticism last week with your usual good humour. Happy editing, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Alphabeticalizing sources

In reference to the links listed at the end of the Sikhism article, what do you have against alphabeticalizing the links? What is the current order? Order of relevance? Who decides that? Listing the sources in alphabetical order is a neutral, convention that is widely accepted. Why do you not accept it? Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, me and other editors have tried to put the links in order of relevance, as some sites are obscure. Also there has been a bit of a free for all, in adding links, therefore we have had to take a view that no more links are added, unless one is removed, and you have to add an edit summary as to why. Thanks--Sikh-History 11:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikistalking

I can only provide you links to the pages where as soon as I did any editing, Rama's Arrow showed up and started an edit war along with his tag team. He and his tag team and meat puppets successfully got me and three other users banned. He was later removed from the post of administrator after he started to fight against the members of the same tag team who previously supported him. I, as a Pakistani Muslim, had firsthand knowledge of Pakistan and Islam which he constantly challenged and fought against. He is one of those fanatic ideologues who want to enforce their own version of facts and, because of extremely faulty and unstable nature of Wikipedia, get away with breaking every rule in Wikipedia's books by subversion and threats. Because I have realized that Wikipedia is a hopeless venue with zero respect and is viewed with utter abhorrence in among academia I have ceased to be a regular contributor. Hope this helps. Szhaider (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)