Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:47, 18 October 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Js82! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Human3015 knock knock • 22:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Misplaced Pages The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi CushionMail!! You're invited: learn how to edit Misplaced Pages in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Misplaced Pages Adventure This message was delivered by Human3015 knock knock • 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Sikhism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN 16:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please undo your last change and wait for feedback. If you do not, I will block you for edit warring. --NeilN 23:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

user: NeilN Thank you for your message. Whose feedback should I be waiting for? I already messaged the last user Savonneux, and he thought the readability could be improved, which is what I have focused on.

Please let me know.

Js82 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors who are reverting your change. Please undo with your next edit. --NeilN 23:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you've undone your change. Please refrain from editing the article for the next 24 hours. --NeilN 23:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Guru Nanak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Babar

Sikhism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Langar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hindu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• persons professing any of these religions: ], ], ] or ]).<ref> Article 25:''"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Guru Granth Sahib page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sikhism page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

I see you are continuing to insert copyrighted text into articles, adding material you know is disputed without getting any kind of consensus, and irrelevant soapboxing. Can you explain why you think you should not be blocked from editing or topic banned from Indian religion articles? --NeilN 13:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Neil, I do not understand this. Since our last interaction, I do not understand where I have "continued to insert copyrighted text", or "added disputed material". I have rather been engaging in talk page discussions everywhere, rather than warring on the article. The soapboxing you refer to is an honest attempt (on the talk page, I did not even touch the article) to understand why the lead of the article has been written the way it is. It is leading to some healthy debate I would say. I would respond in detail on the other page to all the allegations. If you would like to provide more details in the meantime, please do so. Js82 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Disputed material, copyrighted text removed by DeCausa. --NeilN 17:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Responded in detail, on Spaceman Spiff talk page. Js82 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

• This ranting at User talk:SpacemanSpiff has to stop. Now it will for at least a week. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Neil, as per your advice, I responded to all the charges in detail, and the result is I am blocked for a week ? Can you comment on this ?

And what I'm writing is classified as an attack, but what Mr. Spaceman is doing (false allegations, as proved; and "you are wasting time") is not personal attacks and harassment ? Js82 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

These are Mr. Spaceman's statements:

"this may not be the place for you to edit." "you are now wasting the time of multiple people."

These are personal attacks or not ? Coming from a so-called admin ?

Js82 (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• He's not a "so-called admin"; Spiff is a certified admin. If I combine all these sneers and snarky comments and insults with the battleground attitude noted by other editors (see the comment by User:Ms Sarah Welch which follows yours) there's enough for a block. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I respect your judgement. I do not intend to contest the block you have imposed on me. But please do remark on

"this may not be the place for you to edit."

"you are now wasting the time of multiple people."

Are these not personal attacks, deviating from a civil debate ? Are these worthy of a certified admin ?

It is also amazing that you and everyone is consistently ignoring the fact that Mr. Spaceman keeps bringing false and misleading allegations, which have been exposed on that page. Does no one here have the honesty and the guts to even discuss an admin's actions, especially when there blatant lies have been completely laid bare ?

I hope, for the sake of Misplaced Pages, that someone would actually respond to these issues ! Js82 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything--I just haven't looked at those supposed "allegations". On those two remarks, what can I say? Maybe you are wasting time--I've spent some time on this matter already. I have not looked at your edits, the edits that caused three or four editors to have to respond and act, so I can't judge if this is or is not the place for you to edit. But personal attacks they are not.

You can challenge this block, if you like, or you can request an unblock--if you do, if you like to be unblocked, I urge you to make some kind of statement that says you'll not make personal attacks and that you will attempt to treat Misplaced Pages as something other than a battleground. Regards, Drmies (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not describe your hypothesis on why he made those comments. The question is whether those comments constitute a personal attack or not (just like what I said has been deemed to constitute a personal attack, irrespective of why I said it.)

As to whether I am wasting others' time, I did not start all this. I was asked to justify my edits by an admin (Neil), based on an instigation from Mr. Spaceman. It was me who wasted my time giving a detailed explanation, and while doing so, also completely exposed the misleading tactics that Mr. Spaceman employs. Instead of responding to that, he says, "not a place for you" (--> get out), "you are wasting people's time" (way to respond for a "admin" whose own lies have been completely exposed). If you or Neil really want to ensure a just proceeding , I urge you to simply ask Mr. Spaceman to respond on the issue. (As of now, I have no interest in getting unblocked. I'm better off staying away from this harassment and hounding). Js82 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Let's be clear, I have been here as an admin who blocked you and your IP for edit warring and evading your block as well as personal attacks. Right from the start, multiple editors have tried to reasonably describe to you what the problems are with your editing , , and many more. Yet all you've done is deleted those notes and gone back to the same disruptive behavior. As someone who has not involved in the area, it is quite obvious to me that your behavior is clearly disruptive and that you are wasting the time and effort of multiple editors in this crusade of yours. The fact that you don't think any of your behavior is problematic is just part of the problem. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You call this clear ? No, this is not clear. Firstly, you keep going back to my behavior from the very first few days I joined here. This is what Misplaced Pages suggests, it seems, especially for admins like you, if only you read it:

"Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Misplaced Pages:Do not bite the newcomers."

Unfortunately, you are still biting, hounding and harassing me for those first few days.

Secondly, you continue to evade the fact that you made baseless and misleading allegations, as has been clearly demonstrated on your talk page discussion. I have asked you four times now to explain how and why you cited the Guru Gobind Singh talk page as evidence of my disruptive editing. It is insane that, in your ulterior motive of getting me banned, you can go to any length and just randomly make stuff up. What hope does a common editor have here, if this is the level to which an Admin can stoop ? Js82 (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: , @NeilN: I would like to request unblock. I regret the use of my uncivilized language in one of the posts, and also realize that one of my posts gave multiple editors an impression that this was a warground. I would be careful. Is there anywhere else that this message needs to be posted ? Can you please process the unblock ? Js82 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Js82, type {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} and give your reasoning. Someone (who's not me or Spiff) will come by. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

CushionMail (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I regret the use of my uncivilized language in one of the posts, and also realize that one of my posts gave multiple editors an impression that this was a warground. I would be careful. Js82 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

User's responses to in this thread leave me with little hope that they will ameliorate the problems for which they were originally blocked. Karl Dickman  06:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Drmies: , @NeilN: , @Utcursch: Can I ask one of you to please look into the unblock request ? Does not serve much purpose if it is processed only towards the end of the block period. Thanks. Js82 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere a recognition of our consensus policy and an acknowledgment that disputes may not always go your way. Also, I am unlikely to vacate a Drmies block without their input. --NeilN 00:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I believe the block was imposed because one of my posts was taken to be a personal attack. Drmies also alluded that one of my posts seemed like war path. Hence, I acknowledged those in my response. Since you are asking, as a Misplaced Pages editor, I have no hesitation in recognizing the consensus policy. Js82 (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, as a fellow-editor, I thought a week-long block was a bit harsh. But I notice that the discussion with Ms Sarah Welch below shows no change of approach. There is still no understanding of reliable sourcing, but a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. How long can we go on with our hand-holding if the user refuses to mature? - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you kindly stop this holier-than-thou attitude of yours ? Are you an admin by the way ? I would only like to respond to admin comments here. Please stop bombarding this page. Ms Sarah Welsh was already instructed by an admin to stop her unwarranted and unnecessary bombarding, and so it should be with you. Js82 (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Prophet , revelations

@Ms Sarah Welch: I see that you are on a massive spree to undo and revert many of the changes I made. You are especially focusing on removal of Prophet and revelation words. Before doing so, it would have been appreciated if you could kindly do a simple google scholar search on related terms. Here, for example is one search for "Prophet Nanak:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=prophet+nanak&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

As you can see, there are numerous results for this very simple search. Also, some of the references already included in most of the articles already allude to the word Prophet, which is why I did not explicitly cite newer references. See for example this source, which is almost included in all the articles that you are undoing:

http://sgpc.net/ten-guru-sahibs/

Sikh Guru="the descent of divine guidance to mankind" = Prophet. Many of the other pages here explicitly use the word Prophets as well.

I am pointing out this source since it is already in most of the articles. As I said, a simple Google scholar search reveals tens of other references, if you are interested.

So, again, kindly refrain from your mass editing everywhere.

And also, I note that in your edit summaries, you are consistently pointing out "now blocked JS82". What has this got to do with the edit summary. Kindly keep the debate civil and non-personal.

Js82 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And if you want, I can give you tens of references from the Guru Granth Sahib also, where Guru Nanak himself states that he is delivering the divine word. (--> Prophet.) Js82 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Actually, it would be appreciated if you actually went ahead and undid your changes related to the Prophet and revelation aspects. If you have any concerns, please let me know. I'm pinging @DeCausa: as well. DeCausa, apologies to bothering you, but thought you might be interested since you have been engaging in some constructive discussion on the Sikhism page. If you are not interested in my pings, sorry about that, I would not do it any further. Js82 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: Have you read WP:RS and WP:HISTRS? Why do you consider sgpc.net, blogs, advocacy websites, opinion pieces, SPS, etc acceptable quality sources for wikipedia? The content needs also to be widely accepted scholarship, and non-WP:FRINGE. I reverted your edits that were poorly sourced or not at all supported by the source. Do you have peer reviewed scholarly reliable sources to back up any changes you propose for reinstatement? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: To your comment, "if you want, I can give you references from the Guru Granth Sahib also, where Guru Nanak himself states that he is delivering the divine word." That wouldn't work. You need secondary or tertiary scholarly sources as well that translate / interpret it that way, even when quoting WP:PRIMARY. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: That is not an issue. I can find tens of several scholarly publications or books citing these facts. I already did show you some directly from Google Scholar references above, that use the word Prophet for Guru Nanak. I believe if you wanted, you could use any of those, rather than continuing further with your massive editing spree.

Also, I would expect some sort of decency and careful use of language from you, as these are sensitive issues. I notice on one of your comments, you mentioned " The "Prophet" Thing " , not a very civilized terminology.

I also see that you have been removing all my edits blindly now, most of which were based from SGPC. I don't know if it counts as a "reliable" source to you or not, but it does represent the unanimous voice and views of 25 million Sikh people. So dismissing that as a non-serious, or fringe view, seems a bit far-fetched to me. Js82 (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: Please stop this vague "I believe if you wanted, you could use any of those" lectures, and WP:FORUM-y "Unanimous voice of 25 million Sikh people" claims. Instead of forum style lecturing of what I could use or not use, or alleging a blog or website is unanimous voice, it is your responsibility to identify specific reliable source(s) with page numbers that support the content you want reinstated. If something is so universally accepted, you should have no trouble in identifying peer reviewed scholarly sources with page numbers. When you do so, I will reconsider. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would provide the detailed refs when I get a chance. I guess I could have asked "Can you please do that", since I already gave you a link to many scholarly works, whose title itself refers to Guru Nanak as a Prophet. Please do note that it is also the responsibility of each and every editor to present comprehensive information, rather than only reporting what they know about the subject. In other words, the onus is on all of us to provide an accurate description, not just on me. I believe a Wiki editor must have a researcher's inquisitive attitude, to actually go and figure out, rather than "When you find it, I will consider": not an inquisitive mind's approach, I must say. Also, we are trying to build consensus here, rather than me pleading and you considering the case. So, again, please be courteous.

And I do reiterate that the SGPC website is not just any other blog. It is information coming from the central Sikh religious body. While it may be a primary source (if I understand the terminology correctly), classifying it as just another blog and website, and removing all the sourced content, is likely not the correct approach. Js82 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: Take your time. Multiple admins and several wiki editors have linked you to verifiability page. In case you missed the first few sentences in WP:BURDEN section of that page, it reads, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." To respect this policy, you must provide detailed refs.

In scholarly religious studies, the terms "prophet" and "revelations" have specific meanings. For exceptional claims such as these in Sikhism, you must provide exceptional citations, that is peer reviewed WP:RS sources. Your citation must "directly support" that exceptional claim, that conclusion. SGPC-style websites with unknown, unclear or questionable editorial oversight are unacceptable for wikipedia. There are quality publications on Sikhism, several published by Oxford University Press, Princeton University Press and others, as well as peer reviewed journals on Sikh-related studies. I encourage you to present citations and summaries from such sources. Frankly, your past edits have been disruptive, you have repeatedly taken a battleground approach to attempts by other wiki editors to question your edits or to collaborating with you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

(ps)... As you dig for reliable sources, note that words may have multiple meanings. The relevant meaning depends on the context. For various meanings of prophet see this. You must check if your source means "one who utters divinely inspired revelations, believed to have come from God", or "one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight", or "an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group", or etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

(ps2)... See page 104 of HS Singha (2009), The Encyclopedia of Sikhism, Hemkunt Press, ISBN 978-8170103011. The discussion explains the theory of incarnation in Hinduism and Buddhism, then the concept of Prophet in Islam. The discussion then states, "Sikhism does not subscribe to the theory of incarnation or the concept of prophethood. But it has a pivotal concept of Guru. He is not an incarnation of God, not even a prophet. He is an illumined soul." So, now a tertiary source on Sikhism is directly denying your prophet-related OR. The burden on you now is to provide stronger and multiple reliable scholarly sources for "Prophet, Revelation and other claims in Sikhism". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop bombarding my page. I will respond on the article talk page, when possible. I already have several references. Js82 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: please don't edit another editor's text. See WP:TALKO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I had just changed your bold face. Anyway, just for the record here, since you are shouting and emphasizing what you found, I am going to provide (only) one source.

According to David A. Weintraub, Religions and Extraterrestrial Life, How Will We Deal With It, Springer, "According to Sikh religious beliefs, Guru Nanak brought and delivered the word of God to Earth ..." " These ten human Prophets and spiritual teachers established the Sikh religion .." "...the Word of God (the words of Guru Granth Sahib) ... now enshrined for all future times in the form of the written word "

From "Sikhism: Its Philosophy and History"Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh."Guru Nanak says, “O Lalo, I express what the Lord conveys to me to speak.” The other Gurus also emphasize the same truth, “Nanak says the word of Truth. He expresses only the Truth; it is time to convey the Truth.” “I have recited Thy Name only when You made me say it.” “I have no voice of my own; all that I have said, is His Command.” “Guru’s words are divine nectar; these quench all spiritual thirst.”56 “Consider the bani of the satguru the words of Truth. O Sikhs, it is the Lord who makes me convey them.” “The Word is the Guru; my consciousness is the follower and listening to the ineffable account of the Lord, I remain untainted by maya." ..

If I am not forgetting, I believe one of the tertiary sources I had included in my edits on Sikhism already did clearly indicate "Word of God in permanent form", which also you took out on your massive apparently blind undo hunt.

I will not respond further to you here. You can keep making whatever changes you want, wherever you want. Clearly, your knowledge of Sikhism and Sikh Gurus is quite limited, and you only seem intent on proving whatever POV you hold, rather than being open to learning more. Js82 (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Here it is, quoted directly from Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, that I had referenced exactly when mentioning word of God

"The Granth presides over all congregations and represents the word of God in permanent form". You are just blindly reverting everything.

Js82 (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: David Weintraub is not a religion scholar. He is an astronomer, and the book you reference is on extraterrestrial life and aliens. This book is not RS for Sikhism-related wiki articles. As suggested by @SpacemanSpiff, I will post my comments on the talk page of relevant articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and personal attacks

@Js82: While reviewing your edits in several articles, I see a pattern of disruption and unsourced or non-RS content addition. I have so far reviewed the following articles: Hindu, Sikhism, Guru Gobind Singh, Guru Arjan and Guru Tegh Bahadur. You have edit warred and not addressed the reliable sourcing issue. Per WP:BRD, you must get consensus before adding the content back in. Please respect this community agreed guideline.

You are also repetitively engaging in personal attacks, such as above, and here. On that talk page you wrote, against another[REDACTED] contributor, "I find your claims ridiculous and hilarious. Are you a scholar on Guru Granth Sahib and the Sikh Gurus ? You are so immature and childish, I even feel sympathy for your many times. Please go and read the Guru Granth Sahib first, and then come back and discuss with me." This is not appropriate. Please don't repeat. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Does this account need to be served with an ARBIPA warning? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Js82 has already received the ARBIPA notification several months ago . - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The language I used there is regrettable. I got carried away. Although please note that the way one addresses another editor also sometimes depends on the personal relationship people share. With the editor in question, I did somehow feel comfortable using that language, as I did not believe he would feel offended. He may have actually felt offended (I am not sure), but he did not follow up and call it a personal attack. This still does not justify my words, and as I said, they are regretted, and I do apologize to the editor if it hurt them. Js82 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: I have reverted your edits in Guru Nanak article too, and notice that there you have had the same pattern of problems on its talk page, this time with another editor @Apuldram. Please note that I have carefully reviewed each of your edits in that article, starting with the edit time stamped 09:58, 22 August 2015‎ Js82 (talk | contribs), and then restored the page to the version before your edits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: I have reverted your edits to Guru Har Krishan as well. Same reasons. I have kept one change you made, but added a source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop bombarding my page with your persistent messages like this. You are also now misleading people by just selectively pulling out content. I had replied to Apuldram's above message as follows, to which he did not further respond. And I am also waiting to have my editorial privileges back, subsequent to which I can respond on the article talk pages to each and every point you are making.

"Next, The SGPC article I refer to is currently reference number 2. Most of what I added has been alluded to in various parts of the article. I can add citations to each and every sentence I added, but I believe that makes for poor reading. ("Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article"). If you have any concerns, let me know."

Picking out only selective talk page material is completely dishonest.

All I asked you in one of the above messages is to stop your massive editing and undo spree, but unfortunately you are not heeding the request. It is up to you. Most of my edits were based from SGPC, which you keep ignoring as a non-reliable source, without actually realizing that the importance of SGPC. "It is directly elected by an electorate of the Sikh Nation, male and female above 18 years of age who are registered as voters under the provisions of Sikh Gurdwara Act 1925." So SGPC is akin to the Sikh parliament, and completely dismissing it off all the while as just another website is completely unreasonable. You are not co-operating at all. Js82 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

ps I notice that you have taken out Apuldram's message you were quoting, to which I had responded. Probably you actually now read the talk page discussion completely. As before, I can only request you to stop this seemingly blind mission to undo whatever I did. Please be respectful of other people and their contributions. Js82 (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Js82: I just trimmed my message, to avoid a wall of text. Given your edits have the same pattern of problems, it may be easier if we discuss your edits here, on one page. On Prophet, Revelations, SGPC, etc in Sikh articles, see section above, particular page 104 of the tertiary source I just provided. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No edit wars again

@Js82: Please do not start edit wars again, as you did here and here in last 24 hours, where you deleted reliable sources such as those published by Oxford University Press, as that is disruptive. Your comments, suggestions and contributions to the article are welcome, but let us try a consensus approach on Talk:Sikhism instead of summary delete of content and reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Ms Sarah Welch. The "uncivilized behavior" is at your side. See her talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. VictoriaGrayson 21:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks and hostile lectures on article talk page

@Js82: This was hostile, a personal attack and inappropriate use of Sikhism talk page under WP:TPNO. Casting aspersions and making accusations without edit diffs, as you did there and attacking everyone in this post where you called a group of respected and long term[REDACTED] contributors to India and Indian religions-related articles a "despicable mob", is neither just nor constructive. I have responded to your latest on Sikhism article's talk page here.

This is a repeat of your past behavior, for which you were cautioned before, which @Apuldram another[REDACTED] editor found hostile here (bottom of the section posted on 18:31, 18 September 2015). You accepted it as your error and apologized then, but you are repeating your behavior. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Js82, I agree with Ms Sarah Welch. Your language was polite but the message was patronising. Please try to collaborate with other editors rather than wage wars. We are here to build a Misplaced Pages together! - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree too. I was hesitating to start a new thread here, but I'm glad Ms Sarah Welch did so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sikhism article

Hi Js82, I have noticed you asking for admin intervention in an edit summary . But it doesn't work that way. You need to first engage the other editor in a talk page discussion to talk about the issues. If it appears that there is an irreconcilable dispute then other editors or admins may get invoved. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic banned from edits in any namespace and any pages related to Indian religions, broadly construed. This sanction is applicable for a period of six months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBIPA#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. —SpacemanSpiff 04:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)