| Revision as of 23:14, 30 July 2015 editCushionMail (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,525 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:35, 30 July 2015 edit undoKautilya3 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,860 edits →ARBIPA notification: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
| Can you prove this ? Who gave you the authority to proclaim that the Sardarji jokes began as jokes made on Sikhs, and not on Sardars. Which one is more accurate description ? THINK before responding please, although that seems like expecting too much based on what I have experienced so far. ] (]) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | Can you prove this ? Who gave you the authority to proclaim that the Sardarji jokes began as jokes made on Sikhs, and not on Sardars. Which one is more accurate description ? THINK before responding please, although that seems like expecting too much based on what I have experienced so far. ] (]) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == ARBIPA notification == | |||
| {{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
| '''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding ], ], and ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
| Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
| Js82, please note that you are required to read and follow all Misplaced Pages policies. Otherwise you can be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. It is unfortunate that you have removed my welcome message, which had links to the relevant policies. -- ] (]) 23:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:35, 30 July 2015
Welcome!
|
|
Hi CushionMail!! You're invited: learn how to edit Misplaced Pages in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Misplaced Pages AdventureThis message was delivered by Human3015 knock knock • 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
July 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —SpacemanSpiff 00:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Being blocked once and then creating an account to edit war again is not on. —SpacemanSpiff 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Why have you blocked me ?
I created an account, and posted several messages on the talk pages of the existing editors. One of them appears to agree with the edits I am proposing. The other one has not responded to my last set of arguments on the talk page of the article I am trying to edit. Having not heard from him, I went ahead and clearly posted that I assume he is agreeing with me, and then I went and tried to edit the article again.
I am not engaging in any edit war now. I clearly have done all the due diligence to argue with the editors who were having issues. Only after having one of them seemingly agree with me, and the other one not responding any further, have I tried to edit the page again.
- You were blocked for edit warring, then created this account to evade your block and come back to do the same edit warring. In addition, your talk page posts have been plain disruptive, attacking the other editor. Take this time to read our policies, including our no original research and verifiability policy. —SpacemanSpiff 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not create an account specifically to evade the block (it would anyway go away in 24 hrs), nor to engage in any further edit war, as is evident since I have tried to edit it only once now. I do feel the editors reversions were completely illogical. Nonetheless, I must apologize for using language not befitting a gentlemanly debate. However, having made this account, as I mentioned above, I have tried to reason with the editors and form a consensus. I clearly have done all the due diligence to argue with the editors who were having issues. Only after having one of them seemingly agree with me, and the other one not responding any further, have I tried to edit the page again (that too after mentioning that I am going to go ahead and edit the page now assuming they have no further issues). Given this background, I believe the block is not justified.
As for the no original research and verifiability policies, none of the edits I have suggested violate them. Please take the time to read my discussions with the editors. Js82 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff I assume you are not going to respond now. It has been about 2 hours since my last post.
And now some new editor Utcursch comes and again reverts back the edits I made.
Is there any orderly and systematic procedure to argue here, or any random editor can jump in and do what he wants. I want to know if this new editor who has jumped in now (maybe the 4th or 5th one) has read the previous discussions I have had with the editors. Is the onus on me, as a user, to keep explaining the same thing to everyone who jumps in.
No wonder[REDACTED] has no credibility. The misfortune however is that the wiki pages end up being the top hits on google. Js82 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I also now happened to check your discussions with some editors, where you or someone else posted "Now a new user quacks like duck: Js82 (talk · contribs)" This is very non-disruptive, non-attacking, and respectful language, I must admit ! Js82 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- You have to provide reliable source for whatever you are writing in article. For example, read these some of sources in article, Sikhs ask cops to ban 'Sardar' jokes on Net - The Times of India, also Sikhs irked over the use of ‘Sardar’ in ‘Shabd’ -The Tribune also Indian businessman on joke charge -BBC. You can click on any of these news, you will see they are talking about jokes on Sardar or Sikhs. These are reliable newspapers thats why we are considering that whatever they have published is true and we are writing it in article. We can't write our own thoughts in article. If you have such sources from books or newspapers who supports your claims then your edits will get accepted. --Human3015 knock knock • 04:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Human3015 Here we go again, man are you serious ? I do not understand what do you want a reliable source for ? The statement " Sardarji jokes are related to Sardar stereotypes" is a self-evident statement. I am instead objecting to what you have right now that "Sardarji jokes are related to Sikh stereotypes". Which one you think is more accurate description? In fact, you are the one who should be providing a reliable source to prove that Sardarji jokes began with Sikhs, and not Sardars. Can you prove to me that the first Sardarji joke was made on Sikh stereotype, and not on Sardarji stereotype ? I hope you understand that Sikhs are not the only people that use the title Sardars? Is this clear to you. Would you call pathan jokes are jokes on Pathan stereotypes, or would you call them jokes on Pakistani/Muslim/Afghani stereotypes ? Think about it.
OKAY..let us keep it simple. I propose the following text
Sardarji jokes or Sardar jokes, are a class of ethnic jokes based on stereotypes of Sardars (Sirdars/Sardarjis). Sardar is a title that has been used across various communities of people in Persia/India/Pakistan/South Asia. While the title of Sirdar (literally meaning "someone who is a leader/head of a group") has been used by various communities, most extensive usage in present day appears to be by Sikhs. Sardarji jokes are generally considered tasteless and inappropriate by members of the Sikh faith in India.
Now tell me what do you want a reliable source for ? If you still do not get my point, let us just get over with it. It is your website, keep writing whatever you deem fit. Js82 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is not my website. Anyway, why you want to give explanation of term "Sardar"? Sources says that "Sardar jokes" are only applicable to Sikh sardars. You should provide reliable source. Moreover, in every Sardar joke character name used is "Santa" (Santa Singh) and "Banta" (Banta Singh) which are very common names in Sikh community. You can check out jokes at santabanta.com. Now close this issue. also see these ones. It is less likely that your edits will get accepted, so it will be better if you leave this matter. --Human3015 knock knock • 06:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Your understanding is incomplete. You are providing only a contemporary (meaning "modern") understanding of the topic. What I point out is a more historic treatment. You have still not proved that Sardarji jokes started with Sikhs. How on earth can you then have it as the very 1st statement of the article. This is completely inaccurate without any proof. What is the reliable source that you allude to that says that Sardar jokes are applicable only to Sikh Sardars ? Show me that reliable source. Otherwise don't keep on playing the same tune again and again.
At the least, you should point out in your opening statement that "It is unclear what is the origin of these jokes". Only in contemporary perspective, it has been applicable to Sikh Sardars (due to the inferiority complex of Hindus/Brahmins, as it points out in the article later).
As to Santa Banta, the usage of these terms were popularized by Khushwant Singh, which, again, provides only a contemporary view, not a historical one.
And IT IS YOUR WEBSITE. You are the one who is in charge right now. You have the liberty to change back the edits, to block users, and so on. Not Me.
And stop providing me links to websites of jokes. I have enough jokers to deal with in the real world. You can keep reading these jokes and enjoy. Js82 (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will not reply you anymore. When your block will end, I will suggest you to contribute positively to Misplaced Pages. Otherwise you will again get blocked. If you are interested in Sikhism then you can edit pages related to Sikhism, like Hazur Sahib Nanded, Guru Grantha Sahib etc. Also you can edit pages of various Sikh leaders and celebrities. --Human3015 knock knock • 06:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Lol..you are funny. All this while you have been wasting my time with your illogical points without any proofs. When you lose the argument, you do not even accept it and run away with another one of your mumbo-jumbo posts.
Have fun editing your website. Keep propagating what you want. It would have no credibility though. Js82 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- You completely misread what people are telling you. We don't "propagate" anything of our own whim. We are writing encyclopedia based on what is published in reliable sources. It is quite possible that we are mistaken. But you have to prove this using references to reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not a blog . Wikipedian's opinions cannot be added in[REDACTED] articles. If you have a knowledge in this subject, you are very welcome to contribute to wikipedia. But you have to follow[REDACTED] rules. If you understand what we say and agree to follow the policies, you can be unblocked right now, just request the unblock, as described in the block notice. We understand that you are new here. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Staszek Lem I did not misread anything. Did you read all of the above conversation before deciding to jump in. If no, there is no point of talking to you, unless you agree to read all of it first.
One of your own editors wasted all my time above trying to argue with my proposed changes, and then he just ran away without providing any closure. I will keep it very short for you: You are not following your own "rules" in the article being discussed here, which has actually been written as a blog, rather than what you proclaim ("based on reliable source"). Give me a reliable source for the very first sentence of this article "Sardarji jokes or Sardar jokes, are a class of ethnic jokes based on stereotypes of Sikhs"
Can you prove this ? Who gave you the authority to proclaim that the Sardarji jokes began as jokes made on Sikhs, and not on Sardars. Which one is more accurate description ? THINK before responding please, although that seems like expecting too much based on what I have experienced so far. Js82 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
ARBIPA notification
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Js82, please note that you are required to read and follow all Misplaced Pages policies. Otherwise you can be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. It is unfortunate that you have removed my welcome message, which had links to the relevant policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)