User talk:Vanished User 1004/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit war - AKJ and vegetarianism in Sikhism

Hi friend, I have been watching an edit war going on. This user appears to be trying to add vast amounts of extremist Sikh POV. I noticed from the Sikh Extremist thread (which has great edits from you) taht you know about Sikh affairs. Could you watch this fellows edits. I don't wish to get involved or make an account. --92.238.29.55 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I know little about Sikh affairs or issues. I am interested, but mainly I help with wording, structure, and sources. I lightheartedly hope I have helped with some edit disputes. I'll look at the article and see if I can help. :) sinneed (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I notice the complaint about me above from an anon IP above.

I would appreciate it if you looked at the AKJ article from their own point of view to get a better forensic and accurate non-pov on AKJ and the vegetarianism in Sikhism articles.

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

http://www.khalsanet.org/sikhs/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=11&Itemid=2

Khalsaburg (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not use sikhiwiki as a reference as discussed before, and we don't use extremist sikh sites as you have quoted. Please add ISBN references from verified authoritative sources.--Sikh-history (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would expand on that: Articles in the mainstream press would be good... web pages of those same press.sinneed (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes articles in mainstream press. We have had too many problems in the past with obscure blog like websites. Khalsaburg you would do well to understand the entire Shabad http://w w w.s r i g ra nth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=AdvancedSearchGurbani . Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AKJ work

I have done a good bit of work on the AKJ article. I am VERY sure that I have made errors, as some of the wording seems either to have been damaged in edit wars, or possibly to suffer in translation. If the language is not strong enough to present the AKJ point of view, I would ask for a quote on the discussion page with a way to find it in a reference, so I can try to work it in. Please correct or let me know about any errors. I will be happy to see them fixed, or to fix them. This may seem odd... but the AKJ clearly has a point of view, and the article is about the AKJ. This is challenging. :)sinneed (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha :-)

I was wondering why you left a message about the AKJ on my page. Your input is always welcome Sineed. I am a little concerned about ISBN references and section put in by other authors being deleted for no reason. The article in itself is pretty poor, lacks references and links to spurious websites. Hopefully its NPOV can be improved.--Sikh-history (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Do not cause pain to any creature,

Go back to your Home with honour." Sri Guru Granth Sahib, pg 322

Is that your IP above Sh ? Khalsaburg (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering I am from London. Doubt it. --Sikh-history (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood me

Hi Sineed, its good your online at the same time as SH, anyway....Using ISBN when those pages do not contain references at all equates to obfuscation. Khalsaburg (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, in that case, I *personally* would put {{fact|date=feb 2009}} behind the source and note in my edit summary that I was killing it the next day because there was no related content on that page.sinneed (talk)

So you are saying the pages with ISBN numbers do not contain the references at all? Well that can be easily checked.--Sikh-history (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its interesting that you ONLY point out selective and dubious sources weasel ISBN refs; apart from direct respectable translations online? On top of that many of your ISBN references contain zero references.

Your only knowledge of Sikh history seems to be obsessed with meat use and little else. Your references to Guru Hargobind about eating meat then changing his mind is insulting to not just the Guru but to his word. Trying to make out he scoffed KFC and was good at martial arts creates more questions than answers, its not a video game fantasy doll dressing exercise that schoolboy fanatics embark on, most people reading your edits will have a higher degree of reality and intellect than you display. Khalsaburg (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Khalsaburg. You may find the quote insulting, but this is wikipedia, an encyclopedia. That quote exists and is legitimate. I have added the reference for the book and the quote come from Dabistan-e-Mazhib. If you find encyloprdic material insulting than wikipedia is not the place for you. Also please focus on the content rather than attacking the editor. Any edits I have done are legitimate. ISBN numbers is howwe do it here on wikipedia. That is a primary source and is the best type reference to provide.. There is a scale for wikipedia sources, you would be best to explore that. --Sikh-history (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi Sineed, a few years ago we had the extremist editor of Sikhiwiki polluting content on wikipedia with POV and it went to arbitration. Can you advise me on how to go about it. I am getting sick of extremist Sikhs coming onto this site and deleting ISBN references which do not fit in with their POV. In my mind this amounts to book burning. We used arbitration to expose the extremists before and I want to kick it off again. Please advise me as to the best course. Look at this article. Hours spent on citation from reliable sources to be turned over by someone who is obsessed with one issue. This is making a mockery of wikipedia. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I fear I have never gone through the arbitration process. I fear that if mediation doen't do the trick I just leave (see my edits at the "owned" page at Young Earth Creationism where the Judeo-centric crowd that owns the article feels STRONLGY that none of the rest of the world matters). Hmm. Let me see if I can find the name of an editor who might be able to help with advice on wp:dispute resolution. I must tell you, though, that your edits do tend to escalate conflicts (I do this too, sadly) rather than quieting them.sinneed (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Speak to Singh6, Roadahead and other editors. They are really annoyed about Khalsaburgs deletions. I think wp:dispute resolution will expose Khalsaburg once and for all and stop him from getting rid of valid references. The irony of this is I am a vegetarian and most of the content dispute is about meat in Sikhism. I feel awful as it is sticking up for meat eaters :-) Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at dispute resolution, the key steps that you need to be on now are "Focus on content", "Stay cool" and "Discuss with the other party". I am happy to volunteer my page for that, if you don't want to use the appropriate article page(s). You might also pursue an wp:RFC... I have never asked for comment, but I have responded to them. Sometimes they help. You might want to go to the wp:Mediation Cabal, as that, too sometimes helps. I don't think you are ready to seek the last resort, wp:arbitration.sinneed (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets see where we get with what you have suggested. I warn you, it may try your patience. :-) --Sikh-history (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't Give Up So Easily

If you look at Dabistan e Mazhib and chronocles by one of the hsitorians quoted earlier they contradict Nanak's behaviour. That was the point I was trying to get across. See here --Sikh-history (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Showing Good Faith

Who said that there's a requirement when you 'fix' one thing to go on and fix the entire article?

The user in question makes thousands of edits each day without really checking any of them. According to his edit history his reversion of my contribution was the second edit he made that minute. It is pretty obvious that he saw an edit from an anonymous IP and deleted literally without putting a minute’s thought in to it, which is hardly wp:assume good faith.

After his disregard for policy was pointed out to him he then claimed his revert was legitimate because my contribution was not required. Tell me, could you be certain in less than a minute whether something other than the most obvious of vandalism was a legitimate contribution or not? 81.157.176.5 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"...certain in less than a minute..." - Depends. A few yes, many many no.
And yes, I am always suspicious of edits I don't understand... and especially very quick edits I don't understand. But I assume good faith.
Thus, when the editor zapped my change, I looked, decided my change was good. Restored it, explaining why I thought it was good (citing wp:red links in this case), left a courteous note assuming good faith and explaining that I had restored the link and why. My edit that the editor killed was a bit odd...I added a comment in the code next to it. I hope that helps.
In this case, though, the disambiguation page didn't need that bit of biographical information... interested readers will find it readily at the link.sinneed (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The chain of needing to assume good faith can go on forever. He made the initial reversion and therefore did not assume good faith at that time. Accusing him of not showing good faith is no more failing to show good faith towards him than if he accused me of not showing good faith when I accused him of not showing good faith. When you accuse me of not showing good faith towards his reversion aren't you yourself not showing good faith towards me? The policy is there for a reason and if anyone who ever accuses someone of breaking it is themselves always in violation of it then it might as well not exist at all.

I really cannot think how this could be a more obvious case of an editor failing to assume good faith in removing a contribution made by an anon IP, a second edit made in the minute, could be 1 second or 59 seconds after his previous edit, in any case not nearly enough time.

If you don't think a disambiguation page should require anyt important biographical information about a person then why don't we change the Bin Laden page so he is not referred to an Islamic extremist? He is after all the only Osama on that list so why would anything more be required? Like it or not, a small snippet of biographical information can be useful in disambiguation pages. When I was initially looking for the Peter T. King page the disambiguation page confused me a little because I just assumed it would list that he is a well known terrorist supporter. I even searched the page for the text 'terrorist' to find the correct Peter King, but didn't find it. 81.157.176.5 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"He made the initial reversion and therefore did not assume good faith at that time." - If this is your starting point, I think you are going to find Wikipedia an unhappy place. Your statement assumes bad faith.
Just below the box where I am typing this it says "Please Note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.". Other editors will change, delete, expand what I write. That doesn't show bad faith on their part. It shows they don't think my changes were perfect. Or that they don't think my changes belong at all. I see us as now having come full circle in our discussion. Please feel free to continue the discussion, here or elsewhere, but I am not at all sure I can add anything useful to it. My non-answers won't be me ignoring you... I just don't expect to be able to come up with something new and useful to say.sinneed (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Please Note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." So do you think that lines supersedes any part of Wikipedia policy? I have no problem with my edits being improved on, removed if they aren’t useful, or even being redistributed for profit! but I do have a problem with users assuming policy doesn’t apply to them, or doesn’t apply at all when dealing with anon users. I have been making edits on Wikipedia for a number of years and they have always been useful edits, and there are even articles that I have written the bulk of. It’s just that most of the time I chose not to edit with an account because I don’t want to be linked forever with each contribution I make. 81.157.176.5 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Question to you specifically on AKJ

I can see some collusion with vandalism on your part.

Unless you can answer me directly using the references that were airbrushed:

Do AKJ eat meat ? The Rehat does not force meat eating on the contrary the SGGS (Holy Book of the Sikhs) states meat is wrong.

So I ask again, do AKJ eat meat ? Does an Amritdhari Sikh eat meat ? Khalsaburg (talk)

I have addressed your remarks at your talk page.sinneed (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made the no-meat statement at AKJ much stronger. Please check the edit to be sure I have remained inside the statements at the sources. And please, be assured that while I **WILL** make errors, I will never vandalize.sinneed (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC) -> FAO Sh

Hi Sineed, I only asked a simple question with the links as to where you can get the real answers, thats all.

I have provided some respected links if you could kindly look at these and compare them to the few of Sh blog sites pointed out by Sh

http://www.sikhnet.com/news/daily-news/drugs-meat-alcohol-gurbani-vichaar

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

http://www.info-sikh.com/PageM2.html

I hope you agree that blogs or opinions or wishes to change opinion or by self-appointed-unqualified-unrecognised "educationalists" can not account for references Khalsaburg (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No where in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji does it stae meat is wrong. This is your interpretation Khalsaburg and your POV. Yes ann amritdhari can eat meat and does eat meat. Avtar Singh Brahma was an Amritdhari and ate meat. Bhai Maskeen was an Amritdhari and ate meat. I myself am Amritdhari and am vegetarian. Sineed has an immpecble history as an editor, and you should be ashamed of accusing him of vandalism.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Khalsaburg. Those are all blog sites you have quoted. www.gurbani.org is a blog site for T Singh. www.info-sikh.com is a blog site for a Mr Jutla. www.sikhnet.com is a 3HO blog site and discussion forum. All 3 do not meet wikipedia standards, so please don't add them. Also note I a quick scan for legitimate Sikh encyclopedic sites and they all contradict the blogs you provided Khalsaburg.

• http://www.sikhs.wellington.net.nz/meat.pdf
• http://www.sikhstudies.org/Periodicals.asp?TtlCod=214
• www.sikhs.org/meat_au.htm
• www.sikhs.org/meat.htm
• http://www.sikhs.org/meat_gn.htm
• http://www.sikhs.org/meat_gs.htm
• http://www.sikhs.org/meat_q.htm
• http://www.sikhnextdoor.org/teachers/faq.html
• http://www.sikhism.com/rehatmaryada
• http://www.sikhism.us/essays-on-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html
• http://popularsikh.com/node/65642
• http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Prespective_on_Sikh_tradition.pdf

Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments You Left On My Page

Ok, point taken on attacking the editor, I have changed my comments. It is very frustrating for me, because it is precisely this sort of editor that gives fuel to people like Satanoid, to create pages on Sikh Extremism, when the reality is Sikhs are pretty easy going generally. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I understood. I suspect I have similar feelings about several other editors. If you look at my archive, you can see some fairly serious squabbling with some of them. It just isn't easy at all dealing with folk who behave badly. Since I am so very bad at dealing courteously with such folks, I try to avoid it. One jerk banned me from his talk page, then pursued me here for days before finally losing interest. I also have a bad habit of feeding the trolls. I try to avoid that too... but it is HARD.

I know it is never pleasant to get less-than-positive remarks, and I hope I am helping rather than making things harder than they need to be. I can only promise that I will do the best I can at the moment... I won't claim it is a GOOD best. :) sinneed (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is good you are involved because you keep me focused on NPOV and content rather than editors. I should know better, because I get challenged by my students all the time. Keep up the good work. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sh, do not delete references as you have previously done, thanks.

• Gurdwara Protocols
• Diet and Spirituality in Gurbani
• Origin of the word 'Langar'
• Vegetarian Protocols in Langar Khalsaburg (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

www.gurbani.org is ablog site as not a valid source. It will be removed if added as a reference. [This http://ashthefoodie.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/the-origin-of-the-word-langar%E2%80%94truly-is-a-great-virtue] is also a blog and will be removed if used. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept your good edits

On AKJ and your interpretation seems fair. Khalsaburg (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Judgment/Judgement

Got you message and I was not aware of that. Wish I could go back and tell a few English teachers what's what.  :) Now I only know my experience and impression, which is that the non-e version is the common, but I acknowledge I may be incorrect. The ICJ publishes official opinions in English. May I suggest we use the spelling that the subject of our article uses? IMHO (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Erk. I am sorry, I did not mean to cause you to answer. In Wikipedia as I think you are saying, the key is to follow the version of English used in the article... all judgement or all judgment.sinneed (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I took no offense at all. And I do think that judgment is the predominant use, but since you did bring up that judgement is viable use at least in some places, my suggestion was serious. I understand that the Wikipedia policy guideline, rule, policy or wherever they place this in the hiearchy is that when a subject uses a certain spelling, the article should use it. So that, where English between England and the USA differ, an article on England should use the spelling commonly used in England. This is a little different, but if either of us come across the volumes of the official published ICJ opinions (I know they're bound by year, or pretty sure at least), then we should use the spelling there.

Again, I took no offense. And while, I'm not going to running to the nearest library with ICJ published opinions, I will try to keep in mind when I'm in the area. IMHO (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

user:sikh-history referring blog sites

Hi Sineed, can you confirm if this is a blog site / discussion forum this ? Thanks Khalsaburg (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not used blogs, s-h has on the other hand has done Khalsaburg (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sineed, I appreciate your input as have many editors who have had the same problem with s-h

Could you kindly have a look at these articles? Khalsaburg (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Sikhism Langar Thanks Khalsaburg (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A Spade is a Spade, Not a Shovel

Dearest Khalsaburg, That is a very good essay, but alas I do not use that as a reference, as it is a discussion forum. Like I have stated before, do not focus on editor but on the content. STOP deleting ISBN numbers and references and adding wayward religious POV. This is not a religious site, but an encylopedia. The sites I have used in the past are as follows:

• http://www.sikhs.wellington.net.nz/meat.pdf
• http://www.sikhstudies.org/Periodicals.asp?TtlCod=214
• www.sikhs.org/meat_au.htm
• www.sikhs.org/meat.htm
• http://www.sikhs.org/meat_gn.htm
• http://www.sikhs.org/meat_gs.htm
• http://www.sikhs.org/meat_q.htm
• http://www.sikhnextdoor.org/teachers/faq.html
• http://www.sikhism.com/rehatmaryada
• http://www.sikhism.us/essays-on-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html
• http://popularsikh.com/node/65642
• http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Prespective_on_Sikh_tradition.pdf

Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on the fools-who-wrangle thread and Vegetarianism in Sikhism

Hello, Sikh-History and Khalsaburg, http://www.sikhism.us/essays-on-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html is an open discussion forum so it should not be used as a reference. It should be used in an article as an EL only if and where it adds specific value. It might have use on a talk page.

• As I have said before, I see no way I can help at Vegetarianism in Sikhism without wiping out essentially the entire article and reducing it to a stub. At the moment, it seems to be a forum for arguing over Vegetarianism as practiced by various Sikh persons, or claim to have been practiced by various Sikh persons, throughout history. I started to edit the article, but reverted my edits, made a note on the discussion forum, and left.sinneed (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Sineed, and that is why I have elected not to use that essay fom there, but it is incorporated in many Sikh sites. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it! It looks like a blog to me, and any fool can write in a blog and point to it as a source of reference. I do agree, it can be used on a talk page. Incidentally can you inform Sh I am not a 'he', I am a 'she' thanks Khalsaburg (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, any fool can write a blog, and that is why we do not permit them, and that is why 99% of your blog references were deleted. In anycase that site is not used as a reference. --Sikh-history (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ashlie Michelle Cebak

Re your message: No problem. I meant to do it earlier, but I got distracted. That article was just a mess. Sorry you had to deal with it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's Not An Insult or Personal Attack

Sineed, I think you are taking this personal attck business a little far. Many people are scared to post on forums for fear of people tracing their IP's or maybe being abused is some manner. In this instance, I used the word scared against Khalsaburg, not as a personal attack, but merely as a term. There was no malice intended. --Sikh-history (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning to notice the problems I've been having Sineed. Unfortunately we will always have obfuscation, distortion and provocation, I just wanted to point out a useful link.

http://www.info-sikh.com/PageM1.html

Thank you, Khalsaburg (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Khalsaburg, Sikh-history, both of you have repeatedly indulged in insulting one another.
  Sikh-history - I am disappointed that you do not see accusing someone of being afraid as a personal attack. In many places and times, "them be fightin' words!"
  Khalsaburg - I am disappointed in the tone of your response "beginning to notice"...
  I have cautioned both of you about your behaviour, and I refuse to be drawn into your dispute at the Vegetarianism article... I don't even see an article there, just a personal squabbling-ground for the 2 of you. I challenge you both to each treat the other as respected persons between whom there is INTENSE disagreement. It really isn't required that we all agree. It is required that we treat one another with dignity.sinneed (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Khalsaburg is a believer of a sect called Akhand Kirtani Jatha. They are a minor sect within Sikhism The site mentioned by Khalsaburg is run by a Mr Jutla from North Yorkshire and a personal blog site where he puts the views forward of another minority Sikh sect known and the Guru Nanak Niskam Sewak Jatha. I try and draw my references from ISBN sources, intellectuals, and what is know as the Sikh Rehat Maryada (Sikh Code of Conduct), which was drawn up in a democratic manner by ALL Sikh groups. Unfortunately Khasaburg does not believe in that. We had a mediation last year on this and that is why we have minority Sikh sect articles like AKJ and GNNSJ, where Khalsaburg is free to add is particular sect POV. Other sources as listed above are:

• http://www.sikhs.wellington.net.nz/meat.pdf
• http://www.sikhstudies.org/Periodicals.asp?TtlCod=214
• www.sikhs.org/meat_au.htm
• www.sikhs.org/meat.htm
• http://www.sikhs.org/meat_gn.htm
• http://www.sikhs.org/meat_gs.htm
• http://www.sikhs.org/meat_q.htm
• http://www.sikhnextdoor.org/teachers/faq.html
• http://www.sikhism.com/rehatmaryada
• http://www.sikhism.us/essays-on-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html
• http://popularsikh.com/node/65642
• http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/Prespective_on_Sikh_tradition.pdf

Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your help with the Taurus Investment Holdings, LLC page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ISM1000 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem

I'm always glad to help. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

It took me a long time to come up with a good User name.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RRQ

Hi Sinneed, the word militant is ok. It does not necessarily mean a violent organisation but a organisation engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat for a cause. - Philbox17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbox17 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

sections

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Or-section&oldid=207465329 - this was indeed redirecting to the template SB was using. Rich Farmbrough 07:05 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Gertrude "Angelle" Vachon

I've saw it in her profile before and that's the name she used in Moolah's school,that's why I changed it to that,she was born Gertrude but I'm 98% sure that's her middle name ; will look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazyj2010 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Maniac Depressive

That is what she said in the interview,lol.

Thanks for the correction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazyj2010 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

==LOL True :)== --Krazyj2010 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Conduct Question

I have been issued a vandalism warning by Jbolden for my recent edits in the Sovereign Grace Ministries page after, what I would view, as polite discussion over the issues at hand for the past few days. Could you please give me your thoughts on whether my conduct was out of hand or not? Thanks.FenderPriest (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

You want to discuss the article discuss it there. jbolden1517^Talk 17:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That was specifically about editor behaviour: claiming consensus where there is none. You are welcome to post here at any time, and I will certainly honor your wish to stay off your talk page. Your posting is less than civil. Please consider your approach.sinneed (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanding a bit. You have made it plain that you and I have VERY different understandings of what wp:consensus means. I understand that. However, while it is certainly great to wp:Be Bold and make changes, it is not good to make undiscussed changes, or changes supported only by that editor, and claim they are wp:consensus. We also clearly have vastly different understandings of what constitue wp:Reliable Sources. We also seem to have vast differences in understanding where wp:EL should be placed and how they should be used. All the best. sinneed (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, my placing that note on jbolden1517's talk page immediately after starting an ANI is a good example of a bad technique... it is escalation, rather than de-escalation, and counterproductive. *sigh* sinneed (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is jbolden the fellow from the film Ghost aka "Stay Off My Train!" :-) --Sikh-history (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I Didn't Realise We Were Colluding?

I didn't realise. I didn't realise those tickings off you gave me could be construed as coluusion? :-) --Sikh-history (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit to add)I was surprised by that myself. While I have learned a great deal from you, I have not been able to support several edits. :) (original follows)
I am always amazed that so many folk have such a hard time just accepting that I don't agree with them. Ah well.
In a big squabble on a political board once, I posted a note that went something like:

OK, whatever-the-name-was, assume I am wrong (you already think I am wrong, so that shouldn't be too hard):
Do I need to be stupid to be wrong? Well, no, very smart people are wrong. Witness the number of brilliant people on rabidly opposed sides of any major issue in the press.
Do I need to be evil to be wrong? No, I think we have all experienced being wrong sometime in our lives when we were simply... wrong... without evil intent, and I should think: even with the best of intentions.
Do I need to be foolish to be wrong? No, again, very wise people disagree with one another profoundly on the most serious of issues.
Do I need to be your enemy to be wrong? No, again, following any of a great many disagreements in philosophy, economics, physics, mathematics, psychology (there's a rich field for profound conflict), politics, or any successful marriage will show that one need not be an enemy to disagree fiercely.

And really, in a disagreement where 2 people are on exactly opposite sides, at least one is wrong.

But it is So Hard to accept.
:)sinneed (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think disputes are easier when you can agree on the terms of reference too. If one party thinks sources with ISBN numbers is obsufucation, then there is no hope :( --Sikh-history (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

response

Good tag, good work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

archive

---

Thanks for your help on the Babywise article. Taketime (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi there. I need some help on the FAC Ralph Bakshi. Could you take a look at the article and see if there's any work you can do in regards to the prose/etc.? Thanks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

I'll be happy to look at the article, but I fear it may be later in the weekend. :) - sinneed (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I don't remember if I've thanked you before, but thank you for your contribution to the Babywise article. It was terrific to have a third party take a good look at it. Your last edit is perfectly correct. You asked me in your most recent revision note to discuss why I had "tightened it up" -- I did that because I thought the clause with "however" might be interpreted by some as making a value judgment about which group's opinion holds more weight. *I* am comfortable with it as it is, though. 72.14.107.33 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry--forgot to sign in. Taketime (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Milewski

Can you explain why on the Terry Milewski article it states "However, the WSO did not identify any factual errors in the broadcast." Thats what I added to the article as it is correct, relevant and appears on the article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid Fairy (talk • contribs) 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I didn't add it, so I have no idea.

"Thats what I added to the article as it is correct, relevant and appears on the article page." It conflicts with the source next to it. If you have a different source that disagrees, you might re-add the content, citing the source.- sinneed (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This change you made is here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Milewski&diff=prev&oldid=291045047 is not warranted, if something does not occur it does not need a citation. If the WSO could identify any factual errors they would have. They did rebuff his words, but did not identify anything incorrect wrt media stories. I will place a link.

You have basically altered the original TM article's information which I used to further enhance the information on the secondary SE article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid Fairy (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I fear I find your arguments specious, and in the wrong place. Please discuss the article changes at the article.- sinneed (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you not delete the events in Vienna with another user as they are absolutely relevant. Whether it is a news story or not is not the issue, since it has already appeared on various other wiki articles. Morbid Fairy (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people would accuse you of unwarranted censorship, but I wouldn't!

Anyway you may (or may not) be aware of Extremist activities in Vienna yesterday ? I suspect you will deny that its not 'Extremist' because the word 'Extremist' is not mentioned even though two people nearly died in Austria over an admixture of political and religious differences. There ARE other links in Wikipedia regarding this story - are you going to delete them too ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid Fairy (talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Trinity Western University

I agree, HotCat really does kill when it comes to edit summaries. My apologies for the confusion! King of the Arverni (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No apology needed. :) Thanks for catcleaning! :) - sinneed (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Morbid Fairy and Satanoid the Same

Hi, Sineed I see various accusations being levelled at you by Morbid Fairy on the Sikh Extremism article. I suspect this is Satanoid. Please note the investigation here and make some comments.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a wp:sock. The old account seems to be dead. My understanding is that that is acceptable.- sinneed (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I have spoken to some of the Admins and they are concerned about this fellow and the disruption he causes.Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here. I am particularly concerned about his WPOuting violation here. I am assuming Good Faith for now, but this fellow seems to be "spamming" every editor and their cat as to how bad you and me are and how he is the victim. --Sikh-history (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for what I wrote on my page. Need a wiki break I guess.--Sikh-history (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Balbira

Hello, Thanks for weighing in. I agree that the wife (or wives) of Cain & Abel may not deserve an article. What I'd like to do is give this a week or so as it's own article to see if we can score a good source. Once we have a good source and see how much we know about them we can look into merging the article(s) with the Cain & Abel one. From the prelim responses I'm getting there may be differing traditions as to the names. Joe407 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns raised at my talk page

For convenience, I am duplicating this note at both of your talk pages. If you wish to discuss it further, please do so at my talk page. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There's background here with which I'm pretty obviously unfamiliar. So I need to make clear that my opinion is not related to the nature of the content in the article or the appropriateness of disputed material. However, Wikipedia's copyright policies are very clear that we must not use copyrighted text on Wikipedia unless we do it in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline, and this means that we can use brief quotations under circumstances if they are clearly marked with quotation marks. Any other use of copyrighted material, unless we have explicit permission to license it under GFDL (and, soon, CC-BY-SA) is a violation of policy. If you can quote or revise copyrighted material, User:Morbid Fairy, then you must. Otherwise, we can't use it. If you have questions about this policy, please let me know.

User:Sinneed, if you encounter problems in the future with a contributor restoring copyrighted text to an article after it has been removed, then you certainly may take them to the copyvio board, but it moves slowly; usually, an admin does not even the listing for a week. When you have a contributor who is restoring copyrighted text to an article after it has been removed and does not stop even after receiving a warning ({{uw-copyright}} is a good one, as it includes a link to the policy and a block advisory), then WP:ANI is probably the place to go so that he or she may be stopped immediately from violating copyright policy.

In this case, I hope that this information will be sufficient to take care of the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please let me know if I've missed something. I tried not to get distracted by content issues, but that might have resulted in my missing something I should have addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was only the newest in the series remaining, and I killed it immediately. I had already recreated, in (I light-heartedly hope) non-CR-breaking form, the other sections that were initially straight copies. Thank you for the advice, even though I have not yet quite figured out how to get the template to do useful things. :) I'll get it to work on a sandbox. And thank you for the help. :)- sinneed (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Jat

Mr LR Burdak seems to treat this article as his own personal property? I added legitimate refrences and he reverted them. No reason given.--Sikh-history (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

LRBurdak Contribs... that editor does seem to like the undo button. If it weren't for the need for speed in wholesale vandal-fighting I would be campaigning for a required explanation on every revert...- sinneed (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a Minute Out

Hi Sineed, I was in the process of adding some relevant information to the Dabinderjit Singh article, which is relevant, because Andrew Gilligan is a very controversial UK journalist. Some blame him for Dr David Kelly's death. He has previosly written for Right Wing tory papers like the Spectator. His smear campaign against Mayor Ken Livingstone is directly attributed to the buffoon Boris Johnson being elected as mayor. Dalbinderjit seems to have been caught up in these politics. At least give me a chance to balance the article? Next time at least give me 3 minutes if not 1 to at least show what I am adding:) . Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have mattered.

Sorry on the time thing, I was editing the article, not the change log. :)

Attacking the author in the article breaks wp:BLP, doesn't belong in that article at all, etc.

If you object to the source, please flag the statements with a Citation Needed, and attack the wp:RS status on the talk page.

The author is not the wp:RS, the paper is. The paper is tabloidish... It is weak... but there are other sources. Sikh Times...etc.

- sinneed (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You did it again? You killed everything. You are being over zealous. I added this, which expands on the feud between Gilligan and Ken Livingstone and you killed it for no reason. The Guardian is a reputable source. I am assuming in your eagerness you didn't see that. Please add it back in. Ok I can understand the Right Wing thing, but killing the feud link has no basis. It is part of Dalbinderjit Singh's story. It is part of the time he worked for Ken. Part of why Gilligan wrote what he did. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These Surnames

Hi Sineed, I just came across this article today? I have noticed at the bottom links to articles on surname. Looking through, I see really poorly refrenced stuff. I don't think they are good enough for Wikipedia. Cast you keen eye sir, and see what you think?--Sikh-history (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is very poorly written and I having trouble with a user who keeps adding dead links or links some things written in Punjabi. Whats the best way to proceed. The chap thinks he owns this article and that I am against him? Thanks

South Asian Terrorism Portal

I have expanded the article a bit. the key players in ICM which maintains the portal are KPS Gill and Ajai Sahni. KPS Gill is retired chief of Police from Panjab and is widely credited with controlling the militancy there. Ajai Sahni is also a well regarded expert in terror issues as the affect South Asia with several publications /interviews to his credit. In additing info from SATP is used as a source in other articles published in RS. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My Mistake

My mistake. The chap keeps removing tags. I used the wrong warning. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought, and I figured you would want to know.  :) All the best.- sinneed (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The chap clearly wants to make an honest contribution, but I cannot seem to explian to him the value of good referenced material. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right on non-English references, but you have to trust me these are very, and I mean very dodgy refernces, even by Punjabi standards. Some just link to the Punjabi alphabet. --Sikh-history (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ajai Sahni

good job on this articleWikireader41 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry i did not know how to edit the tag i thought it could just be removed .i apologise many regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterconginialtastical (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

So please help me to read those 18,200 sources as well, I alone can not read them all to extract this information. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You will do fine, there is no rush. Or it can remain as it is. One possible source of citations would be the article Wikilinked on the line in question. This might prove easier to deal with. Or not.

I do encourage you to log into your account, as I will otherwise feel compelled to start a wp:sockpuppet investigation, which will waste much admin time.- sinneed (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

maybe if you focused less on me i might focus less on sikh extremist terrorist related personalities ? (officially or unofficially) take your choice Morbid Fairy (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please rest assured that I do not focus on you.- sinneed (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

really? then why are you following me like a little kid when i make comments on talk pages and not even on sikh terrorism ?? - u need to get out more, weather has changed since jan Morbid Fairy (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop following me around or answer questions you constantly archive

WARNING why do you keep on following me around ? If I discuss (on an editors talkpage) about another persons vandalistic tendencies regarding removing large swathes of material from Sikh Terrorism or sikh extremism and not sticking to the subject matter but rather POV objective traits (with another editor), this is in the hope of improving wikipedia and reducing vandalism by the pro extremists, AND WHY ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME AROUND, its annoying Morbid Fairy (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remove your focus from editors and their intent, and place it on the content. Also, please don't wp:SHOUT. Thank you.- sinneed (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

another warning for wp:wikihounding as on youtube talk page - I think if its ok to have Islamic terrorism and Islamic extremism then.......it may be an inherent possibility you may not be familiar with the subject matter ? Or maybe you are but would rather prefer it was blanked over - can you stop deleting everything I do Morbid Fairy (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remove your focus from me. If you put 10% of the effort into building consensus that you spend wp:edit warring, you could accomplish a great deal. I am sorry that you cannot see the impact of your work. I have created articles composed largely of information, or information from sources, that you provide. Entire large chunks of other editors' work is simply gone from Sikh extremism, while much of yours remains.

Idly, what warnable Wikipedia rule do you believe I am violating? If you feel you are being treated poorly, please see Wikipedia:Etiquette. It is a valuable document.

I encourage you to abandon your wp:edit war, and join the discussion, work toward wp:consensus. Wikipedia lives on it. I understand that you badly want your own personal article which none of us (to you) "extreme" editors would edit. And you can have that, just not in Wikipedia. Your behaviour here really must change.- sinneed (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Threatening another person is considered harassment. This may include threats to disrupt their work on Wikipedia. It does not constitute a threat to make a statement of intent to use normal Wikipedia processes properly, such as dispute resolution, so don't threat - discuss before hand.

Before you deleted a whole article Sikh Terrorism - did you discuss this (y/n) ?

Morbid Fairy (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Reread. No threat. Please stop this behaviour.

The article is not deleted, as you know: it is Sikh extremism. Please rejoin the discussion at Talk:Sikh extremism.

Yes, we discussed the creation of Sikh terrorism when you created the wp:content fork last time, not long before you were suspended again.- sinneed (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply

No worries. Unfortunately, I have just cut one reference. I will follow your advice and keep moving them to the talk pages. Thanks. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would you violate wp:npov? Do you want Sikhs to add all Khalistani mouth pieces/references as well. There could only be 1 rule and NOT 2. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would I indeed? I have no plan to do so, and restoring *A SOURCE* has nothing whatever to do with content. There are not 2 rules but thousands. This is not a prisoner exchange, and it is not swap meet.- sinneed (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Job

good job on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill Wikireader41 (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's like trying to arm-wrestle octopi. :) I have people on both sides "He is great! Yay!" and "He is a fiend! Boo!". Thanks for the support. Much appreciated. :) - sinneed (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

sure . his success in ridding Punjab of militancy is notable but his methods were controversial. He deserves a good article on WP. Don't let the POV pushers bother you ;-).Wikireader41 (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• It actually isn't the POV pushers that bother me. It is the other editors (and most especially admins) that assume that if you oppose a POV push that you have a POV. I have written a very early (less than 1st) draft of what I hope will be an essay on that problem. ;)- sinneed (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You might not have expected this from me, but I would like to say that it was fun working with such a neutral person today. Your work/efforts are commendable. Best of luck with your NPOV approach. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to hear it. :) I don't claim anything WILDLY approaching perfection. I won't even claim to be good at this. All I can promise is that whatever I put in will be the best I could do right at that moment... bad...good... or indifferent. :) I promise to try. Thank you very much for your kind words.- sinneed (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

your essay is interesting. the neutrality debate is going to go on forever. I myself consider myself somewhat of a POV blocker but have been accused of being a POV pusher by the opposite side. I agree many admins and editors here have no clue of what NPOV is even in theory. the cool thing here is to pretend that one does not have a POV which is theoretically impossible. best wishes though for your WP 'career'. I actually once was at a party with KPS many moons ago.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neat about Gill. Ah, neutrality...we are humans, we can only strive for neutrality... if nothing else our societies, languages and training filter our view of the world. Best of luck to you. If this is a holiday weekend for you, have a happy one... and if not have a great weekend anyway! :)- sinneed (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Guru Nanak

Hi Sineed, I have possibly come accross the worst article ever written. I am minded to deleteand start again. Your POV watch would be helpful. Cheers --Sikh-history (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Sinneed, eventhugh I did not like your intereference, but being a humble man, I would still like to thank you for your time. Everybody think differently, just imagine ..... If, after following your personal messages on some other respected wiki editor's talk pages, I had typed something similar in your own talk page .... then you were NOT going to come back to me 'Only' to say "Thanks" ..... instead you would have typed a lot of "blah blah blah ...". This is where and how we differ... anyways .... Good Night. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to your editing articles and related talk pages. I was referring to your following my personal message to a third respected wiki editor and your un-asked opinion on it...on my talk page. I wont care if you say Hello, Hi , Thanks, sorry .. bla blah blah to any other wiki editors. I wont interfere. I will only concentrate on improving articles and article talk pages and NOT on whats happening between you and others. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page you posted on, you may be able, if you study carefully, to see that I had warned that anon editor, and thus have the page on watch, in case the editor has a question, or becomes problematic. In this case, I saw the editor being misled by another editor I have recently warned. I went to your talk page to caution you again. I assure you that is not interference, and I don't see anything in my behaviour here that I plan to change.- sinneed (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bit of humor... you were replying to me on that talk page... so... erm... no (edit to expand)... my reply to your reply was not interference it was me continuing a conversation that you had joined. -- - sinneed (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC) --- sinneed (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Howdy

And thanks for the welcome.Witt E Pseudonym (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And you are welcome! :) I find that block of links useful, even though some have aged out. All the best! :) --- sinneed (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Sinneed/Mass cremations in India

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your neutral efforts on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill

I have noticed your discussion on User: Wikireader41's talk page, I am aware that you were NOT involved in the edit war in Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and it was only between User: Wikireader41 and anons, but I could not indicate the same in User:Wikireader41's talk page since anons can not edit it. I appreciate all your efforts to help/motivate User: Wikireader41 and ANON editors to discuss their points in the related talk page so that article Kanwar Pal Singh Gill could be improved with their consensus. Anyways, good job. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Coach Cal

Your jesting is accepted in the spirit in which it was offered! :) It was I who started the editorializing anyway. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How Does this Awful Article Read Now?

Have a read of Akhand Kirtani Jatha#Khalistani Support and Links. (edit - I, Sinneed, converted that to a wikilink from an EL, for clarity) See what you think. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I always seem to get problems with AKJ supporters. See the comments left on that article. Hmmm. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on Sineed. You know better. Assume Good Faith. I don't have views either way on AKJ. Just on the poorly written article, that looks like a narrative/discussion rather than an encyclopedic article. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And introducing wp:POV edits won't help. I have 100% confidence you are editing in good faith. Otherwise I would have warned you. I question whether or not you should edit this article further, not because of your intent, but because you have a wp:COI, as at the pornstar article. Your beliefs overshadow Wikipedia's non-belief. This isn't wp:bad faith. It is wp:good faith... but it is still a wp:COI.

Please let me be clear: I have full confidence that you are editing in wp:good faith but that you have a wp:COI.- sinneed (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets be clear Sineed. I asked you to look at the article. If I was trying to push POV, I would not have bothered. Also note, legitimate references have been deleted (including Britannica), which describes it as a sect. The problem is, that this is a minority group/sect, this does differentiate betweem "mainstream" Sikh views. If we need to define what is mainstream and what is a sect then so be it. In Christianity we have various sects. In the UK the ruling Body is the General Synod, which is like the SGPC. Off this we have various Christian sects. Cheers --Sikh-history (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "I asked you to look at the article. If I was trying to push POV, I would not have bothered." - Why not? I have points of view. If I believe they are correct and neutral, I will seek help. Sometimes that help agrees with my view, sometimes not. You seem to confuse having a POV or COI with Bad Faith, and they are in no way related. - sinneed (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• "In the UK the ruling Body is the General Synod, which is like the SGPC." - No. "Off this we have various Christian sects." - No. Those are both very specific points of view. In the example you give, some consider the General Synod to be heretical, and everyone who listens to it to be damned for all eternity. Others see them as a splinter group. Others see them as a quaint throwback to a former time. Others see them as representative of all that is wrong with organized religion. - sinneed (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm. Continuing the thought. Many of the churches that consider themselves Christian are offshoots or descendants of the old Catholic church of Rome. But some are not.- sinneed (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Many groups will be quite firm that they are of no sect of church whatever, but simply a group of people who agree on certain points or practices. Even those with strict guidelines for membership, and a strong POV they push on others who consider themselves Christian, sometimes do not claim they are of a different religion... but simply that they have certain beliefs. In a specific case with which I will not be associated: The members strongly oppose abortion. They argue that anyone who supports abortion cannot be Christian, as abortion is murder, and murder is forbidden. These individuals belong to many sects of Christianity. Their "binding beliefs" are very specific and extremely strongly held.- sinneed (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well thats your opinion, and we are not writing about opinion. Letme give you an example of where you are being over zealous. Here you killed a link that describes AKJ as a sect. Why? I also added a JSTOR link that was perfectly fine. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

and some reading http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sikhism/akha.html. Thanks

• "not writing about opinion"..."overzealous" - irony. No. Please take the discussion to the article.
• and no, not interested in further reading. I am interested in wp:RS and what they say, that someone chooses to add to WP articles.
• and I restored the content about the sect, it did not belong in the lead, needed balance, etc. as explained in the wp:edit summary and on the [[wp:talk] page. You also know better: "strict sect" vs. "sect" == POV push. Stop it.
• JSTOR - you provided a wp:EL, not a citation. I asked for a quote, and you declined. Quote please, at that web address, and not here.

• And firmly, if you want to discuss opinion here, you are welcome. Please discuss articles on the article talk pages.

- sinneed (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No you are wrong in this instance. You are being overzealous which is in many instance an admirable quality because it keeps editors in check (including myself). You killed a perfectly good citation from Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1195393/Akhand-Kirtani-Jatha. In addition to this you have assume that I am biased. On both these accounts you are wrong. Restore the Brittanica link that describes AKJ as a Sect and also strike the comments I am not adhering to NPOV. I am an expert in this subject and have commented and written on many other sect ranging from Radhaoswami's to Namdhari's. Also read this http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sikhism/akha.html:

• Doctrines

They believe in the efficacy of kirtan (devotional singing) and regularly hold overnight sessions (rain sabai). This group also attaches particular importance to the meditation and repetition of the Sikh mantra 'Vahiguru' ('wonderful guru'). The group observes strict vegetarianism and will only cook with, and eat out of, iron utensils. All references to caste distinctions are strictly forbidden. They reject the list of musical modes at the end of the Adi Granth (rag-mala), because of its inaccuracies and do not repeat it when there is a complete reading of the scritpure. However, believing that the words of the Guru Granth are literally the words of the Guru, they can be called fundamentalist. Furthermore there is no interpretive explanation (katha) given of scriptural passages, since the meaning is assumed to be clear and transparent. The group replaces the original uncut hair (kesh) with a small under-turban (keshki), which both women and men wear. In such beliefs the group reject the general code of conduct known as the Sikh Rahit Marayada of the S.G.P.C. (See introduction and Singh Sabha and Sikh Panth entries), and produced their own called rahit-bibek (bibek means discrimination, discernment, insight). They also believe in a different Khalsa initiation ceremony, wherein the five beloved ones, or five Gursikhs place their right hand on the neophyte's head and meditatively repeat the mantra "Vahiguru", revolving around the innitiate for five or so minutes.

• History

Randhir Singh (1878-1961), a Jat from Ludhiana, initiated the movement from his long periods in prison - since he vehemently opposed British rule. He caused considerable consternation with his vehement demands that he abide by his Khalsa's rahit (code of conduct) whilst in prison. His rigorous interpretation did not allow him to eat out of anything not made in an all-iron vessel (Sarob Loh, echoing Guru Gobind Singh's term for God). He was associated with Teja Singh of Bhasaur and his Panch Khalsa Divan (see introduction). However, he cut all ties with him when Teja Singh was excommunicated. His followers are known as the Bhai Randhir Singh da Jatha, which is used interchangeably with the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. The latter is headed by Amarjit Kaur, whose husband was killed fighting the Sant Nirankaris in Amritsar in 1978. The Sant Nirnakaris were an off-shoot of the Nirankaris, see entry. There was an extremist off-shoot of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha in the form of the Babbar Khalsa who claimed responsibility for killing many Sant Nirankaris in the 1980s. The Bhai Randhir Singh da Jatha and/or the Akhand Kirtani Jatha movement had organised kirtan in the years after for the Harimandir Sahib (Golden Temple). Amarjit sided with Harchand Singh Longowal, president of the Akali Dal in the troubled times of 1984, and deeply opposed the extremist Jarnail Singh Bhindranvale. (See introductory essay).

• Symbols

The women are expected to wear the turban (Keski) aswell as the usual kesh (uncut hair). The importance of the keski is justified by the fact that all the other five K's are external and additional to the natural human form, except for the uncut hair (kesh). Therefore it requires special external treatment. (See Khalsa Singh entry).

• Adherents

There is little research available for this movement. There are no official numbers, (see at the end of the Explanatory Introduction).

Headquarters/ Main Centre

| Amritsar, Panjab, and they have a base in Coventry, UK. The Bhai Randhir Singh da Jatha is based in Ludhiana, Panjab.

Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pagan and Buddhist Jatts in the 17th and 18th Century Panjab

We are trying to establish whether Pagan and Buddhist Jatts actually existed in Punjab in the 17th and 18th Century. Please join the discussion. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear I would be of little help. I am quite dubious about the need for many similar articles. I fear WP drowning in such things as "Left-handed, light-complexioned, intact males in the 1800s". How do these improve the encyclopedia?- sinneed (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He he, you described the "Indo-Aryan" malaise, my community suffers from. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Good Work Is Being Undone

Just a little concerned that you good work is being undone by this User. I have reverted it for now, but I would check for changes. Cheers --Sikh-history (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor will either learn to behave better or will run afoul of an admin, eventually. I am only concerned about the content. The editor has made some useful edits. I do hope the verbal abuse tapers off a bit.- sinneed (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Analtap, seems like Satanoid, and Morbidfairy. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see a great deal of similarity, but I don't look for it. Satanoid/Morbidfairy has an almost irresistible urge to roll back changes to articles, IIRC.- sinneed (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well. From the block log, it would appear that you were wiser than I.- sinneed (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Need Your Assistance

This user seems to be involved in a number of edit wars and seems to have a one track approach to the articles. I was going to get involved, but I maybe seen as partisan as this user seems to be Pakistani Muslim and I am Indian Sikh. Could you please take a look at what he is doing. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am interested only in troublesome content, not troublesome editors.- sinneed (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Analtap

Whilst the name has been blocked, I do wish to note that per the listing guidelines noted at the top of WP:UAA, if discussion has already been initiated with the user, and the user continues to edit, then you should have taken the report to the request for comment on usernames (RFCN) noticeboard instead of reposting at UAA. Not a big problem, but please do mind the UAA guidance in the future. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Analtap is Satanoid aka Morbid Fairy and this fellow, who has been blocked yet again. Cheers --Sikh-History 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Need Your Help Batman? :)

Can you take a look at this. My gut feeling is that it was started as something mischevious, but people have tried to make it more encyclopaedic. Something does not seem right. Want to have a bash? Cheers --Sikh-History 20:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have seen that before, following up on edits by editors that had been vandalizing. I haven't edited it, though.
• Like jewish humor, polish jokes, blonde jokes, and many similar... these pop-culture articles are often weak, and offensive to some. They don't capture my attention though. Too much more interesting stuff out there. :) - sinneed (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is one you may wish to try. It was badly written like the AKJ, one and I have tried to re-write it using cited books. I could use some of your input. I checked out the DDT websites and I cannot make head nor tail of them. Cheers --Sikh-History 12:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

69.65.224.246

Looks like we've got a bit of a live one on our hands. He's now made two attempts (and counting?) at vandalising my talk page, not to mention his ongoing misbehaviour at Honda Accord. I've reported him at AIV. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:91.195.163.18, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Do not edit or remove my comments/warnings from other editors/IPs talkpages. Bidgee (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Profound apology.

I clicked that same button at that moment, the page popped up... and I thought YOUR edit was the one I had just made! Having, while the page loaded, decided a spam warning was more appropriate, I changed it. I am very sorry I changed your message. I assure you it was an entirely innocent and well-intentioned change... I thought I was changing my own.- sinneed (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Question I thought you could help me with

Hi, I noticed you appeared to be doing a fair bit of vandalism patrol and I've been trying to learn the ropes on doing it myself. I know you want to continue to warn users who are vandalizing but I was wondering if you should stop after you have reached the required 4 (and they have been reported for admin intervention) or if you should continue giving "final warnings" or something else. A recent example would be User_talk:59.100.170.136 Jamesofur (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• After the final warning, if the problem persists, escalate it to wp:AIV, wp:ANI or whichever of the kagillion escalation processes (the pages explain) is called for. I know that isn't clear. I don't understand, so I can't explain. Which leads me to the rest:

I must tell you that I am *NOT A PERSON YOU SHOULD EMULATE!*

In general, warning after the 4th is pointless or even counter-productive: It just confuses or angers the editor... they already got a final warning, what more can there be?

That being said, and understanding you should not look to me for leadership. :)

• Usually, if I find some profound reason, such as at user:Morbid Fairy and that editors many previous and later accounts... I don't use the template... or I add a note below it, saying something like "While this says "final warning", please understand that this is simply yet another level 4 warning, and that any admin who takes note may block your account at any time."

I have not found these to be highly effective, but it makes me feel better.- sinneed (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey man, I was reading the Video Game Addiction article and saw that u made a lot of posts on the comment page. Dude, Your contribution history shows that u edited Wikipedia for 14hours straight from 18.00 Aug 1 to 08.00 Aug 2, time zone may vary. Although I do not know you, this is rather alarming and it might be the case that you have an addiction yourself! Please, seek help! seriosuly, it's for you own good... anonymous IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.237.217 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Only 14 hours? Gotta work on that. Really should be 17. Seriously, it is for my own good. Who knows, maybe I'll even make a useful WP contribution somewhere in there. Or not, as may be.- sinneed (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your flag

Sinneed - thank you very much for your efforts regarding the "Robert Lanza" page. It might be helpful for you to know that the edit war began on 25 May 2009 with computer IP 96.231.162.160 (which appears to be an exact match for an individual involved in an internet harrassment case targeting Robert Lanza, Advanced Cell Technology, and other stem cell companies (information regarding court action has been furnished to your legal department for inspection). Subsequent IP addresses involved appear to match both geographcally and to IP addresses involved in the above case. At this time, adding a section on biocentrism is likely to promote another edit war, as the above individuals have been posting abusive messages non-stop on other sites for over a year. I agree with you about your comments regarding Lanza’s home life. These concerns have now been addressed by another administrator. At this point, it might be best to remove your flag so as not to promote further changes. Regener (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Satti Khokhewalia

Can you take a look at this page? I came across it sifting through CAT:U pages, thought you might be able to help this one. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm not much to work with. Do what I can.- sinneed (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, but figured you'd be able to find some sources that I can't. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, people make (justifiable) fun of my source-finding. :) I do light-heartedly hope it is better now. Just not a lot better.:)- sinneed (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And now that I cleaned it a bit... I wonder if it is a hoax. I think I'll prod a someone who can search for sources I can't read. :)- sinneed (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought so too, but don't follow Bhangra, that's why I figured I'll send it your way, I couldn't find English sources. cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

English, some French, some German, some Spanish (actually Mexican with a terrible Texano flavor). I must say it was a nice break from some of the other stuff I have been editing, whether it turns out to be real or not. Thanks.- sinneed (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Oh, I've seen you active on some of the Punjab/Punjabi related pages, so I just assumed that you'd speak the language! That'll teach me! cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandal-fighting led me there. So many of the articles were strewn with edit-war debris and amazingly bad English that I found a lot to do, and entire sets of cultures, peoples, religions, and histories I could learn about. And with this, I bid you a very Good Night... off to snooze. :)- sinneed (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Sikh-History, I am more confident this is not a hoax, though still unsourced. :) - sinneed (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone can add a ref good, if not someone will PROD or AfD it. The initial text it in it had a tinge of slobbering fanboy syndrome, which probably also means not hoax. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• nod*- sinneed (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

He is there on albums etc as a lyricist, but I cannot find solid verifiable articles on him. Cheers --Sikh-History 19:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, albums are themselves published works and therefore reliable in the sense of wp:SELFPUB. Like a self-pub source saying "My name is x, my wife is y, my dog's name is z." So long as there is no dipute, it should be good enough. Now, if the albums are not notable, then it won't fly. :)- sinneed (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't realize that this discussion was still going on! Good luck with your searches, I've done my part for a genre of music that I'm not particularly fond of. cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Heh. It isn't, really. More a bit of idle chatter. Pay no mind. :)- sinneed (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Relief Fund

hello sineed i am the person trying to update the sweet relief page. i am the communications director for the charity and I am using copy from various press and info pieces i have written. the only copy/paste i used was the supporter list. you folks are amazing at this wiki stuff. i am trying. i would really like to see some of the info i entered back on. your last edit looked good. what do you think? tylerjamesmax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerjamesmax (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ok I give up. I was only trying to get good up to date info about our charity in Wiki. Maybe you could write it for us? I am amazed at how you and the other person who wrote and edited were so quick and consistent. Who are you folks? How does wiki cover so well with almost 3 million entries. I am impressed and appreciate you all keeping wiki on the up and up. Maybe you can recommend a wiki writer for us. We are a charity and have no funds for this kind of thing oh well peace Rob Max Tylerjamesmax (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Khokhar

Could you take a look here. I think the editor does not trust me because I am of Indian origin. Thanks --Sikh-History 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also could you take a look at article Khokhar, it is like the Khaira one. A lot of WP:SYTH. References deleted that included Arains, and Churahs as being Khokhar (I suspect because they are low caste groups), and also Tarkhans because they tend to have conflicts with Jats. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Err No Sineed

The comment you made about this rollback is wrong. I checked the links. The one thing I did not do was leave a reason because my connection was playing up, something I should have done. Check the links for WP:V and you will see for yourself. No mention of Jats whatsoever. Thanks--Sikh-History 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I assure you it was not wrong. wp:edit summary needed, and that should have been 2 separate changes. This is important, and I believe that if you continue to refuse to accept it you will find yourself again unable to edit.- sinneed (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Err No Sineed, the chap deliberately changed a cited reference in one edit from Gujjar to Ahir and then added these dubious citations. I was correct 100%. The one mistake I made was not making commentary, and that was because my PC was playing up. Just STOP this now. Thanks --Sikh-History 20:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The conversation will end at any moment you choose to end it.
I am sorry I cannot explain this better. I encourage you to seek guidance from some other editor who you will believe, perhaps the blocking admin might be willing to help.
You *must not* roll back changes that are not *indisputable* vandalism. This will almost never include addition of sources.- sinneed (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am going insane and cannot make myself clearer. I t w a s v a n d a l i s m. He changed a cited refrence from Gujjar to Ahir, and then removed other stuff and added complete nonsense. Understand? Yes? No? I acknowledge I should have left a comment. Do you want me to write that in blood? Conversation over. --Sikh-History 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Again, I understand that you see these changes as wp:vandalism.
  And you should have removed each in detail, using an informative wp:edit summary on each, rather than rolling back.
  And again, the conversation will end whenever you choose. Until then, it will continue.- sinneed (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Matrix decoder

"At Matrix decoder, you seem to have duplicated the entire article, and added a link to a wordpress blog. I don't normally use those in WP, but if it belongs, it will belong in the wp:EL section, which I have added for your editing pleasure. :) - sinneed (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)" I did nothing more than add a link to an outside source regarding the topic. All else was placed there by another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obbop (talk • contribs)

Well... this edit appears to have been done from your ID.- sinneed (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Punjab TP Stalkers

Another Punjab related article - Chachowal. I've cleaned up, stubbed and referenced. But it could likely be expanded, maybe you and/or Sikh-History could take a look? cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I am of the "that is what an atlas is for" school of thought on these tiny villages being notable.

• engage wp:talk cloaking device!* Near my old home, there is a village called Redwing. When I was little, we used to joke that we were going to get war elephants (the big African ones that no one had anymore, even way back then), put metal garbage can lids on their feet, and invade Redwing. By the time I was grown, the village was dead, but there were still 2 abandoned buildings standing there. They fell down. But there is still a village of Redwing on the map, and there are roadsigns coming from all 4 ways to the intersection, announcing Redwing. :) Nothing there but a stopsign. When I am being annoyed at some truly ludicrous article that just...won't...die...I want to take a picture, do the GPS thing, and create an article, complete with image. I think I can dredge up a citation for it, from car wreck news coverage.- sinneed (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a ref for you to help get started on the article ;) -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, this appears to be in PA! But never mind, it's another village. cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PA, LA, it isn't very far, really. This is "my" Redwing. The scary thing is that there is Google Streetview coverage there... I forgot the graveyard. It is growing.- sinneed (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC) AND the signs are GONE! I suspect thievery. Such a popular place. Maybe not. Be Safe and Have Fun! :) - sinneed (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Khokhar

Could you point out what exactly is disputed about the article as the NPOV matter has already been discussed on the talk page and pretty much resolved as for consensus, well I don't see what exactly requires consensus as everything is sourced by multiple authors and put forward in a neutral manner following almost exactly the order used by promminent historians mentioned within the article, in fact a lot more weight has already been given to a 'minority' according to the WP:NPOV extract I posted , again please refer to the talk page as I have already covered NPOV and I feel your reversions are not justified. Khokhar (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• wp:consensus - addressed in the edit summary. "reversions" - Please review and correct your post above. Thank you.- sinneed (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" also the onus is not on me to seek WP:Dispute Resolution. Thanks Khokhar (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Irony - Indeed - Please read Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"

• Also please read the tag at the top of the article that says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."
• You reverted the adding of the flag because you feel there is no consensus it should be there.
• Then you objected to the restoration of the flag, because there is no consensus to add it.
• In any event, please be aware that you don't need my approval:

I have made my one and only edit to that flag.

I have reminded you that the flag calls for consensus that the dispute is resolved before the flag is removed.

I have explained that the dispute is not resolved because there are 2 editors discussing, and 1 sees the dispute as resolved and the other disagrees.

I have suggested that you either:

follow wp:dispute resolution or

wait until other editors, besides the 2 recently blocked for edit warring, have an opportunity to see the flag, review the article, and comment

You need not be bound by any of my suggestions.

All the best. - sinneed (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I've lost you somewhere, but seriously, all the issues with the article have in fact been agreed upon with a single outstanding issue, wehich was what I concentrated on in my last entry on the talk page before removing the tags as the tags were no longer needed as the 'issue' will have to be taken to 'dispute resolution' if despite all the information I provided the other editor doesn't agree ( which to me, doesn't seem logical), so really the tags aren't required as everything has been pretty much agreed. Removing the tags was also an indication to the other editor to make the changes we had agreed upon (some had already been done). Though, could you please explain again what you mean by:

• You reverted the adding of the flag because you feel there is no consensus it should be there.
• Then you objected to the restoration of the flag, because there is no consensus to add it

Because I didn't get the irony and kinda feel left out -_-

Khokhar (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your follow-up, and am sorry my statements are not useful to you. However, as I feel my statements here offer no opportunity to improve Wikipedia, I don't think pursuing them will be helpful. I expect I have made my last edit to that article, as it is no longer on my watch list, which I have sharply reduced. All the best.- sinneed (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that edit, my friend did it without my permission. ←_Fridae'§^Doom→ 07:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's About Time You Got One!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your Vulcan like work ethic and your Vulcan like logic (which is correct but infuriates me :-) ). --Sikh-History 11:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message. No worries. Even though we ended up in issues in the past, but I still appreciate your efforts. I will co-operate with you and will expect the same. Every issue has a solution :) ... Regards ....--99.51.223.161 (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:International Game Developers Association

I agree with your edit of my comment on the Talk page however I would just like to assure you that had I made an edit to the IGDA article, it would of course have been from a NPOV. Due a prolonged absence from Wikipedia (and the loss of an older account due to a forgotten email address) I failed to remember that poor sourcing and strong opinion in non-article space is also in violation of Wikipedia conduct and I will adhere to this in future; my opinions shall be kept to myself. Thank you for your reminder and I do hope this error will not affect your opinion on future edits I hope to make to other articles. --Glitchd (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your help requested

Sinneed, your help is urgently requested on the "Robert Lanza" page. It seems as though we're starting from scratch over exactly the same wording that was resolved on the "Bicoentrism" page. Thanks WikiWatch31 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The admin involved has made it clear that I am my talk page posting style is unwelcome on talk pages that admin frequents. I have no expectation of posting on talk pages where the admin is working, as a courtesy. I wouldn't have the job on a bad bet, and strongly support those who do. My editing and especially talk page style is quite QUITE offensive to some, and I avoid inflicting it on those so affected.- sinneed (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You've done an incredible job on the biocentrism page (dealing with all these people deserves a medal)In any case, you have my thanks WikiWatch31 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have your talk page on watch, I am happy to answer you there.- sinneed (talk)

Meh

I knew someone would fix it... what I was perplexed by was the fact that the article displayed as if the Javascript/template was properly reading "uncollased" as "uncollapsed"... I need to go have a look at the code again. --Izno (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Betting on 1st-letter-check... maybe 1st 2 letters. If it were I, I would have used only the "U" and "C" unless there were other options. :)- sinneed (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Zucchini

This is interesting [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: IGDA COI, GameX Edit

I don't think it's really a COI, I was just disclosing my connections with GameX -- in fact it is counter to my interests to remove references to the event. I felt that the reference in the article was written too much like an advertisement, and it was the comment from the history ("one to watch") that really pushed me to remove the reference completely. Anyway, I appreciate your edit, it's an improvement over the previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariusk (talk • contribs) 15:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just wanted to be sure you had seen the wp:COI article. All the best and happy editing! :) - sinneed (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Functional pronouns and format conventions

I have undone your edit in the article about Yukio Hatoyama's grandfather -- not because you're wrong, but because your otherwise reasonable changes in Ichirō Hatoyama may not be best in this limited context.

I do understand the Western convention which prefers the use of a surname as a functional pronoun in subsequent references after the full name is identified. In most Wikipedia articles, it would seem perhaps disrespectful or awkwardly informal to introduce a given name rather than a surname in lieu of a pronoun. Indeed, many articles about prominent Japanese politicians are conforming to the Western convention which informed your edit. However, compare articles the shoguns of the Tokugawa shogunate. In some instances, the pre-Meiji period naming conventions are perhaps better than the Western conventions. Neither your judgment nor your intent was wrong, but I wonder if there might be room for the use of an alternative in articles like Hatoyama Hall or in articles about the Hatoyama, e.g.,

1st generation

• Kazuo Hatoyama
• Haruko Hatoyama

2nd generation

• Ichirō Hatoyama
• Kaoru Hatoyama

3rd generation

• Iichirō Hatoyama
• Yasuko Hatoyama

4th generation

• Yukio Hatoyama
• Miyuki Hatoyama

• Kunio Hatoyama

As for your other edit, you commented that a two-column format was not necessary for the limited number of inline citation notes; and indeed, you are correct, of course. It is plainly not necessary. But why can't this format be construed as an acceptable preference, as an easily scanned graphic alternative? In the list of names above, two columns were not necessary, but in my view, the tightened format is easier to take in at a glance; and it clarifies the generational relationship amongst the members of a family which the Wall Street Journal and others describe as the "Kennedys of Japan"?

In posting this comment, I'm explaining my revert action; but I'm also soliciting feedback because I wonder about editing other related articles which rather clumsily use the full name rather than deciding whether to follow Western or non-Western conventions.

What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good thoughts. I would encourage you to place this on the talk page of the article. :) - sinneed (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As you suggest, I have copied this thread at Talk:Ichirō Hatoyama. Thank you for helping push me to explain previously unexpressed notions. --Tenmei (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• You are most welcome. I have enjoyed learning a bit from both the articles and your comments. I thank you.- sinneed (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war warning

I'm trying to be more careful about this, having recently learned 3RR applies to a consensus as well as another editor. -MBHiii (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Rauschning

Dear Mr. Sinneed, Thank Your for Your message! I agree with You that my remark was not very polite. But this man has blamed me indirectly to be a nazi. And this is also not very polite. He also undid my revision of this article which existed for about half a year and contained nothing more than what Rauschning had written in his book. Furthermore he made restitution impossible through conflicting editions. Could You be so kind to tell me what I can do now? Thank You! user:Jäger 22:40, 14 September 2009 (CET)

KKCK

I guess with this edit you understand how I began to just consider the anon user's edits vandalism. When they constantly edit war and refuse to use the talk page, and add things that are clearly in violation of WP:OR and maybe even WP:COI, it is clear they aren't here to be encyclopedic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't. I can understand your frustration. But wp:edit warring isn't the way. - Sinneed (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WhoIs Templates on 208.101.226.27‎

As I told another user, trust me, let it go. It isn't worth getting into a big war over a WhoIs template. I did the same thing on User talk:94.192.38.247 as you know and as you also know I got admonished and blocked for it. Clearly people in the higher powers of Wikipedia see WhoIs templates as something OK to blank even though it says on WP:BLANKING they aren't. Just let it go, I don't want to see another editor blocked over something silly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. I watched, sadly.

It may not work. I put it back, and explained. I'll put it back again, if needed, and explain. Then give up on the editor.

If they won't listen, they won't listen.

There are a sadly large number (maybe 4 or 5- it just seemed like more) of editors that I just ignore completely and move on.

I don't even warn them any more, it is pointless. I just fix the mess, or if they are warring just RPP on the articles until they wander off, THEN fix the mess.

Smacking them with a big stick works where edit wars won't. And just going away and editing something else works if the big stick says "No, that anon reverting 99 times isn't a problem. Why are you here again?". I only recently figured that out, by the way.

I spent a few weeks clicking "random article" and fixing stuff, and figured out the vandals are just not worth the effort. There is this whole huge encylopedia out there, and a STAGGERING amount of it needs the most basic of help... and a STAGGERING amount of it is so good that I just go WOW! - Sinneed (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had a couple people tell me to give the "random article" button a try and fix what I see. I might actually give that a try.

I noticed a little while after signing back in, that the WhoIs template was again removed (page was completely blanked), I just shook my head. Part of me wanted to revert, but the common sense half kicked in and I clicked over to Facebook and played a game. Hopefully the user realizes he can create an account and won't have to worry about the WhoIs template, but it might turn into a Izzedine situation where the user tries to OWN their IP too. Hopefully that doesn't happen in this case. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Uphill battle

Trying to keep the vegetarianism article well-referenced and on-point has become an increasingly uphill battle. Thanks for sticking in there. I appreciate your efforts. Bob98133 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Zuccini

I very much enjoy seeing your efforts to rein in the vegetarianism article. For articles that attract such a high level of fanaticism, I think efforts to exert balance and sanity will largely be fruitless (pun intended). But you remind me of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry character comparing crime fighting to to waves from the ocean. Very noble. You've gone ahead and made my day. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Most of it is a bit of "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"... the section will get killed when this editor wanders off... though the editor DID finally find one bit that might actually belong in the article, so maybe the work will (har) bear fruit.

Who cares, at least it is better than it was before, even if it doesn't belong.

Today's quote "Knowlege is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing better than to put it in a fruit salad." - Sinneed (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to help expand fruit hat. Or even to wear one if you so desire. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I fear it would interfere with the function of the all-important tin foil hat. - Sinneed (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's "The War Between the States", not...

Thanks for your comment. Note I wasn't calling any person 'ridiculous'; only the tags (and the escalation; one un-neutral word turned into two tags and two 'cite needed's, then a tag at every last header?), and the dude got what he said he wanted (the cites), while he still didn't pony up himself? (I think expecting him to is only fair.) Sounds to me like somebody's just not happy... even the clique at the Beatles WikiProject (membership in which I politely declined, awhile back) never hung a WP:CIVIL label on me, in all these years. I will be first to agree that the article could use improvement, and already said so, on its talk page; your tag works for me. Zephyrad (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I loved the tomato quote in the above section. Cracked magazine put it "A tomato is a fruit when raw, a vegetable when cooked, and a mess when mashed." (And my header here is a Bullwinkle ref, if you didn't know. I wish that show was still on.) Zephyrad (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Followup

Wow, he wasn't even happy with your tagging, and reverted it to his umpteen tags. I'm not gonna play that game; let one or more admins deal with it. Zephyrad (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that many admins would be too concerned about a good faith effort to get a good article to conform to policy. Radiopathy •talk• 23:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback?

I don't have rollback rights. I'm able to restore a previous version in one click with Twinkle, which is what I did with the edit in question. It's not the same as rollback. Radiopathy •talk• 23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle does feature a "Rollback Vandal" link, which does work for me; that's the one that can be controversial, and I rarely use it, unless someone adds gibberish or obviously deliberate factual errors - then one click and it's gone! Radiopathy •talk• 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:118.208.127.111

Hi, thanks for adding the explanation, but my original response was indeed back in January, when the vandalism occurred. I added an explanation in August, when the IP queried it. I think there's just been different people using that computer, with the innocent one wondering what is going on. Thank you for telling me about the WQ alert. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Woops. Thank you for your courteous note. I apologize for the error. - Sinneed (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words about my work, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse. Much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Eh?

Actually it was to your user page. I should have outright reverted those. I misread which page they were on. But to answer your question, yes, they did. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no

thanks for note.

It can be seen from edit history that I've been quite focused on content of Kripalu.

A legitimate dispute with an administrator concerning civility is being pursued on proper notice board.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a dispute. I see you abusing a fellow editor. All of us deserve better treatment.- Sinneed 19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

No problem. I had a pretty good idea you didn't mean me. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The name thing is a pet peeve of mine... I just...keep...leaving...it OFF and it annoys me so.  :) All the best and Happy Editing. - Sinneed 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Loyola University Maryland is now unprotected

KnightLago (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply from The Ink Daddy!

I apologize for having overreacted, and I'm still learning the finer points of Wikipedia etiquette. I also feel the need to explain my side of the story. I had been working hard adding a section to the "Loyola College in Maryland" entry about its name change, which included three references. I later discovered that Neutralhomer had eliminated all of my contributions. What infuriated me was the comment he left: "No references given to back up name change." My understanding of what an editor is supposed to do is, first and foremost, scan the entire entry before executing an action. In this particular case, find where the name change is discussed and check the references provided if they're relevant and legitimate. Considering his comment, which was rash at best and definitely callous, I felt he didn't do any of this. If Wikipedia is to improve its credibility and thrive in the future, editors are expected to operate as professionally as possible, which I strongly felt Neutralhomer failed to do. Thank you very much for your time. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Civility Award
		A million thanks for your great communication. Your professionalism & teamwork is much appreciated. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

R&AW edits

Hi, this is in reference to you edits on R&AW page, as they are quite extensive and also changes the structure of the article, I would request you to provide a brief edit summary (and if possible the reasons for the changes) in the talk page of the article. LegalEagle (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. The edit summary was too compressed to give a full understanding of the reasons for the change, for example in one of the edit summaries it was provide Some overall structure mod and the section on secretaries was put in the end, now I wanted to inquire as to what your rationale was behind this move (like why did you think this would streamline the article etc.) so that I may understand the edit from your perspective. LegalEagle (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add that Talk Page can also be used to Discuss edits LegalEagle (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com

Just FYI, Examiner.com is not a reliable source, so should not be added as a reference to articles. It was discussed over on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard quite extensively in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, sinneed, just wanted to say that your page completely made my day!! Keep up the good work! Dr. Clutch (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Clutch has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Ah, why not just eat the cookie. Even if the revert button is nonexistent in real life, one or two can't hurt, right? The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia Yeah, that's my new name.

September 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
Before you go about warning me, I would suggest you drop the illusion of being a mod, and rather re-consider your language skills. English not written as it is spoken and I will certainly not entertain amateurish wording editing of the RA&W article. I would appreciate your elaborating on how it qualifies as a 'disruptive' edit. (Saroshp (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Warned editor.- Sinneed 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your constant condescending tone does not intimidate me. Perhaps, you should be more open to accepting your short comings instead of shooting off ban-warnings right and left. If only you had read the para instead of undo-ing my first edit, it would have saved yourself a lot of anxiety. If you are truly convinced that the sentence construction and wording before my edit was even OK to say the least, then I really can't help myself of being judgmental. If not Me, I am sure any other moderately educated reader with a time and inclination would have done the same.

However, I would like to believe that it is our common interest to improve the quality of the page and indulging in any other activity such as this, is absolutely an exercise in futility (Saroshp (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

I am glad we could put this behind us. My apologies for having lost my cool. Wish you the very best. (Saroshp (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

A book for your references

I have noticed that you work very hard on sikhism, Sikh/Punjab Human Rights and khalistan related articles. I have come across an interesting book Reduced to ashes. You might be able to use it for reference purpose in several of your articles. While reading its un-identified cremations related chapters I have found it extremely sad though...--166.129.181.254 (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, I don't work hard on Sikhism. However, I have used the book and online version... though it must be used carefully.- Sinneed 15:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments/editing.
The next time you violate Wikipedia:POV, as you did at Labh Singh, you will be blocked for disruption. Work on making Wikipedia articles valuable instead of harassing other editors. It is very acceptable to disagree with me about what specific words should and should not be used in an article. It is *NOT* acceptable to harass other editors because you could not check the references.

Dear editor Sinneed, it appears to me that while repeatedly deleting some specific text from article Labh Singh, you did not care to read the references. I have noticed that you had almost destroyed article Labh Singh in the past only because you did not care to read the references even at that time. It is extremely sad that you indirectly force other editors to read the references to you if they want to save the text from your hands.

Through edit 1 and edit 2, you have repeatedly deleted the text "Sikh militants in police uniforms drove into the headquarters of Punjab Armed Police and .." for no reason. Please note the following references which are already part of the article.

1. here it says, "..drove into..". 2. Here, Los Angeles Times state that "..in police uniforms and a phony police jeep broke through heavy security Friday at a police headquarters building in.."

Also in your edit summary, you have actually mentioned “added what the press says” which indicate that you did not read other editors hardly found references properly and kept on pushing your own version based on what you thought or what (partial) reference you could read. By doing so, you might be killing other editors’ motivation to work on Wikipedia and instead you might be frustrating them because of your own lack of fact checking. Stop now. --32.177.111.155 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well. I must say that if disagreeing about adding whether terrorists "...drove into..." a police compound or simply remaining silent is PoV... well... really. Um. PoV? Whether to include "drove into" is PoV? And I'll be blocked for *NOT ADDING* the content that they "drove into" the compound? I... think I can sleep safe knowing I won't come back to find my account blocked for a nasty PoV edit like that.- Sinneed 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted 32.177.111.155's addition to the Labh Singh page up to 3RR. The user then switched to another IP, 209.183.55.115 (out of the same area), and templated me for vandalism (HA!) and switched to a third, 135.214.154.100 (cell phone this time), and continued reverting. I reported 32.177.111.155 and the ducks are a-quackin' on the other two. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)