Vanished User 1004 (talk | contribs) Reverted to revision 275224763 by Khalsaburg; Rem note from some person.. (TW) |
Ashlies Rep |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
[[User talk:Sinneed/Archive 1|Archived 2009 February 15.]] |
[[User talk:Sinneed/Archive 1|Archived 2009 February 15.]] |
||
==um hello?== |
|||
I am her rep, I represent her directly. Who are you to judge? Why dont you help me out, take that entire article and help me with it or email me instead of damaging her name. Signings08@live.com |
|||
==Edit war - [[AKJ]] and [[vegetarianism in Sikhism]]== |
==Edit war - [[AKJ]] and [[vegetarianism in Sikhism]]== |
Revision as of 19:36, 5 March 2009
Hello! I spend a bit of time patrolling recent changes.
When I make a mistake, please note:
|
um hello?
I am her rep, I represent her directly. Who are you to judge? Why dont you help me out, take that entire article and help me with it or email me instead of damaging her name. Signings08@live.com
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 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)
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)
I accept your good edits
On AKJ and your interpretation seems fair. Khalsaburg (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)