Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 17 December 2008

Sikh Extremism

Hi, I have had a lot of questions and comments on the subject matter of Sikh Extremism

Its wish to be deleted (by some) has been declined and will continue remain on Misplaced Pages.

If you want to discuss the subject matter please feel free to do so on the relevant discussion page.

As far as I am concerned, the issue of deletion is now closed.

Finally, I would like to thank all the admins who decided and voted to keep, and contributed to the article. Thank you. Satanoid (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Islam and Sikhism

Proselytizing of Muslims or the generally Misplaced Pages population? Because I've never heard of the former from the Sikhs, even in their history it has been a movement primarily but not exclusively made up of Hindu converts. Either way, the article is something we can improve together. --Enzuru 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the dynastic and political aspects of Sikhism that you mentioned, in fact I recently visited Amritsar on my way to Pakistan, and got some interesting books there, though nothing special you couldn't get anywhere else. My father, who loves Guru Nanak, was upset to find out that the later Gurus turned it into a dynastic institution. He blames the Mughals for the militization of the faith, which is reasonable from the literature we read. --Enzuru 10:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism

copied from User talk:Doug Hi Doug, thank you for your attention ref Sikh Extremism I would like to point out that admins Flewis and DJ Clayworth voted to keep the article along with many editors, and the final decision was not to delete. Unfortunately the article is continually subject to vandalism by user Sikh-History Satanoid (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not participate in this debate. I closed an MFD that may have somehow been related. I am not sure what the relevance of the fact that certain votes were made by admins is, but you certainly seem to be going a bit overboard on this campaign against User:Sikh-History. If you are asking me to act against perceived vandalism, I will not. You have presented no evidence and if you continue to feel that some action is necessary you should be taking it to WP:AIV or some other appropriate forum. If you are asking for advice, on the other hand, then please WP:CHILL.  :-) Cheers!--Doug. 14:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pidhu The Great

A tag has been placed on Pidhu The Great requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial 21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey...Whats wrong with Pidhu The Great ? He seems like a nice friendly jolly chap to me ??? Incidentally if you think he's a good stand up comedian as I'm sure you do, I'd be more than happy to welcome you in contributing some info on this funny person, thanks Satanoid (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Verification

Please verify your e-mail address so I can contact you through Misplaced Pages. Go to my preferences and you can put it and save it there, and then verify it when the e-mail comes to you. --Enzuru 11:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave me out of Sikh Extremism

I don't know how to contribute to it, they reject every source we bring, we are getting no where. And they check my userpage to see whatever you say to me, and then link each other to it, it's eerie. That's why I was trying to get you to confirm your e-mail, so I could e-mail you privately without our every word being scrutinized. I can't stand this, count me out of this article. Good luck, and please don't insult them or break rules, once you're banned that article may never make a return. --Enzuru 09:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Satanoid,

We're trying to get a discussion going on Sikh extremism. At least as far as a good set of sources is concerned. I'd advise you to take Enzuru's advice to heart and be a little less abrasive. If we can agree on a set of sources then our way forward will be easier. I'd really appreciate it if you could take part in the discussion as well! :)--vi5in 18:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not easy when most of the editors are displaying extreme antics and heavily tagging the article (the episode you may have missed out on) Either way all Admin expressed a preference to keep the article, so the extremist/pro terrorist lobby argument is not a genuine fair one bearing in mind those like me and Enzuru are trying to be silenced as are you I suspect. Satanoid (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

1st - Every editor's opinion is very important...admins have additional duties and specific powers...it is consensus among editors (some of whom are admins) that matters.
2nd - Your statement is not correct. The outcome of the AfD was "no outcome"... not "keep".
I encourage you to remove your focus from admins, antics, and other editors and focus on the content. I you can do so, it will lend FAR more weight to your positions. At present, your focus is on yourself and the other editors, which will indeed make it difficult for you to focus on the content. Cheers. sinneed (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the outcome was to not consensus ie not delete, same as any other article on Wiki Satanoid (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Your statement "all Admin expressed a preference to keep the article" remains incorect:
"Keep" is an outcome.
"Delete" is an outcome.
"No consensus" is an outcome.
Since it is much easier to create pages in Misplaced Pages, one could as well argue that any article that had not been deleted had a consensus of "keep". No... it just isn't deleted. The logic fallacy here is "If x and y have the same results, then x and y are the same." A nuclear weapon and a spade can both be used to make a hole... but they are not the same. "Keep" and "No consensus" are not the same, though they do have the result that the article is not removed. I again would encourage you to focus on the content, rather than the editors. Every editor's voice is important. Arguing that my voice or yours have less validity because we haven't been through an RfA indicates a real lack of understanding of what Misplaced Pages is. sinneed (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't keep on repeating myself, as Vivin and Enzuru pointed out, editors like roadahead and sikh-history who wanted the article deleted dont have the right to vandalise it either and niether do you, thats why I have reverted it back to the neutral point when the admins voted to KEEP it Satanoid (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are both allowed to keep repeating ourselves. However, you are not restoring a "neutral" version of the article. You are vandalizing. Stop removing the neutrality and cherry picking flags. Stop inserting unsourced (yes, really unsourced) statement that "Sikh Extremism is Religious Terrorism". Leave the flags in.
Also, you need to understand that every voice in an AfD is important. Admins, because they normally have a great deal of experience with AfD work, have very persuasive voices, but everyone's voice is heard. It is true that an admin closes the AfD process... but that is a decision that the discussion has reached a conclusion... in this case, that there were strongly opposing views and that no consensus was going to be reached. This in NO WAY means that the "no consensus" article was a neutral point to be reverted to over and over. Stop that, it is rude. All the best. sinneed (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your "Final Warning" at Sinneed

What was my disruptive edit? I assure you that restoring the deleted article flags is not vandalism. While restoring flags is not exempt from 3rr, it is not vandalism. I must tell you that your lack of understanding of how Wikiipedia works is inhibiting the development of this article. Please follow the process: warn, and explain. Then warn, and explain, then warn, and explain. THEN last warn and explain. THEN escalate. You have been warned repeatedly not to continue to remove these flags. Your statement that "Sikh Extremism is religious terrorism" is not supported by your source. You are applying the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.sinneed (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"First of all, you fail to acknowledge, that the article had its extremist opponents..." Please... assume good faith. Everyone who disagrees with you is not your enemy. Everyone who agrees with you is not your friend. Perhaps some who disagree with you about the article are extremists. I don't care. Misplaced Pages does not care. It does not matter. Only their edits matter.

"... who want to disrupt even delete the article or hide/merge merge it with political articles." Please... assume good faith. You feel the article as it is at this moment is not a good article, and keep removing the content recently added. Please consider: that means you want to "delete/hide" those positions. How can I help you see the similarity of the position you dub "extreme" and yours. Please, add sourced content, and stop removing key, sourced content.

"... Sikh extremism encapsulates terrorism, such as Air India Flight 182, the indiscriminate killings of civilians, its links to al Qaeda operatives in South Asia" post hoc ergo propter hoc. Humanity encapsulates terrorism. This does not mean humans are evil. It means humans can be evil, or do evil. I have made sure that there is a clear citation of the link between Sikh Extremism and terrorism. Why do you keep deleting that link? sinneed (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please either explain why my reversion was vandalism, or remove your warning from my page. Thank you. sinneed (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not care that you are frustrated with the article. I do not care that you disagree with the flags. I do not care that you dislike other editors. This is not about you. This is not about me. This not about me "acknowledging" the situation. This is about you stating that I have vandalized, and your repeated failure, while posting, to explain what **EDIT** *I* have made that was vandalism. You are here and posting repeatedly on my talk page, and appear to be attempting to extort my support for your position. REMOVE THE WARNING NOW! sinneed (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The unexplained warning remains on my page. Please remove it at once. There is no excuse for this behaviour. sinneed (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The unexplained warning remains on my page. Please remove it at once. There is no excuse for this behaviour. sinneed (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have archived your warning. No further action is needed or requested. All the best, and I am sorry your behaviour is so offensive to me. sinneed (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Content removal

Why did you delete the sourced content form the article K P S Gill? ...and then replaced the "Human Rights" activists with "political activists". Could you explain your edits? --RoadAhead 17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, his political opponents wish to degrade his counter terrorist victories. Satanoid (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You deleted 2 portions (see my comment with links above) and are replying to only one. Even this reply is not appropriate. You need to understand that is not a platform for original research. You are sabotaging the information by replacing "Human rights activists" with "political activists" because it was not the political activists who have found HR violations but the HR activists. In particular, that para where you are making this replacement is talking about HR activists not political. So stop deleting and replacing in that. Additionally, you have once again deleted the sourced content, without explaining your first deletion of this content. --RoadAhead 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again personal insulting attacks

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Addressing other editors "Don't overdo it son!" is deliberate insult. You are continuing personal attacks unabated after several warnings. Here and here you had attacked other editors by cracking insulting joke and calling them "extremists". This is where you were informed about your uncivil behavior and were given another/final warning about personal attacks but you still continued here and here in edit summary.--RoadAhead 17:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are continually using insulting language for other editors. Stop insulting other editors by personal remarks like calling them "son"; other editors are not your son. Before this, you had called one another editor "Don't overdo it son!". You have been informed about this earlier here. Stop! this, such kind of language is straightforward uncivil. I'm filing another report on your personal remarks --RoadAhead 01:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please give examples

OF PERSONAL ATTACKS ??????

December 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did to User talk:Sinneed, you will be blocked from editing. "If you can acknowledge in fairness what I and Enzuru and Vivin have said I think we can comply with your demands ?" Extorting support from other editors is a *Bad Thing*. Placing a warning on another editors page simply because they refuse to "acknowledge" your opinion of other editors is vandalism. Do not do it again. sinneed (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of wp:vandalism - thank you, but no.

"If you cant answer then dont lecture Sineed" - If you would care to engage in a discussion of WP:Vandalism, please do. :) I don't care to. Even if I did, the talk page for a random article is not the place. Please. Remove your focus from other editors, and place it on content. sinneed (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Satanoid. Please stop using the word extremist and stop talking badly about other editors. If you do, they will find an excuse to block you through it. Please just try to build the article and show how they are not using any valid sources. We need your help, I don't want them to block you. --Enzuru 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet either! --Enzuru 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh extremism

I'll try to work on it some more when I have time to sift more through the JSTOR findings. It isn't a good sign that the attempt to get the article moved to Sikh terrorism failed. All of our sources focused on the terrorism, but I think some users have some personal issue with "Sikh" being attached to "terrorism," so they are hindering progress as much as possible. I've seen some very absurd actions so far, including outright dishonesty about the content of sources that I have brought to the table.

Just be sure that whatever change you make has a reliable source attached to it. I noticed that your response to Sikh-history's use of the unreliable khalistan.net to describe Khalistan as a "theocratic-democratic" state (whatever that means), you just modified it say "non-democratic" instead of using a reliable source. While I don't believe I have seen the "democratic" part in any reliable sources, it is still best to rely directly upon reliable sources instead of operating on your own. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mahraz Darshan Das Jee & Sikh Extremism

I have no desire to be drawn into this situation. If you want an article restoring, I reccomend you discuss the issue with the deleting admin, or follow the deletion review procedure. If your concern is about civility, personal attacks, Wikistalking or something like that, try this page or post at the incidents noticeboard. Note that if this is merely a content dispute then admins from the noticeboards will not step in. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Avicenna's notability

Please vote on this issue. Thanks! --Enzuru 03:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

There is a discussion at WP:ANI here about your editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. You really should explain yourself. I see a history of incivility (patronizing comments like this, and bad faith (a content dispute like here is not vandalism). You've been given plenty of last warnings. Stop this now or you will be prevented from editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)