User talk:Roadahead

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

]

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]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

"?? 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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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 explain why this article,

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 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? --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]

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]

		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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

If you have a chance, please drop by and give your opinion at

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]

I have opened an

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

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

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

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]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,