User talk:Peeta Singh

Your submission at Articles for creation: Partap Singh has been accepted

Partap Singh, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Gurmukhi script

Please stop your disruptive editing. I have not blocked you yet, because you're new and all. But it's simply inexcusable that you refuse to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines despite being given 9 warnings by 7 different users:

• Neutrality and verifiability - [1] by User:Yngvadottir
• Synthesis - [2] by User:Eperoton
• Copyvio - [3] by User:Ms Sarah Welch
• Removal of content - [4] by User:GSS-1987, [5] by User:MelbourneStar
• Addition of unsourced content - [6][7] by User:Apuldram, [8][9] by me

Wikipedia is not a place for your "Scythian script" theory (or any other original research). Learn to take your concerns to the article's talk page instead of removing sourced content. "Brahmic scripts" refers to the family of scripts derived from Brahmi: the article has a source that Gurmukhi is derived from Brahmi. utcursch | talk 02:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

thank you very much, I'll consider your advice. Peeta Singh (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sikhi

Kindly revert yourself on {{Sikhism sidebar}} as "Sikhism" is the conventional nomenclature used in the English language. Claiming that because "Sikhi" is used in scripture and thus should be the adopted nomenclature in the English language would constitute original research. Regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, Sikhi is also a conventional nomenclature used in the English language and there are sources to prove this claim. Thank you for asking kindly. Peeta Singh (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for being co-operative!

I would like to bring your attention to your categorisation of "Sikh/Sikhism" as a nationality as you've done on Category:Sikh male poets and Partap Singh (infobox under "nationality"). Is this WP:POV or do you perhaps have WP:RS that can establish Sikhism as a nationality/nation?

Regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

See Sikh nationality and Nirankari, Dr Maan Singh (1900s). Giani Partap Singh Ji. Darbar Printing Press. P.7

Peeta Singh (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How is that WP:RS? At best its WP:PRIMARY, at worst WP:FRINGE - albeit still unacceptable for such sweeping and controversial claims that you are trying to pass off as encyclopedic material. This place should not considered a place where we are in advocacy or are trying to validate a cause. I request that you please re-consult these policies and amend your edits/creations accordingly. Thank you and regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Salma Mahmoud, the source is written by multiple colleague of the Jathedar and contains two separate biographies. I've written everything available in the source from a NPOV. I have found more reliable sources and will defiantly update the article as soon as I get the opportunity. If your concerned, feel free contribute by improving or expanding the article from existing or other sources.

Before accusing me of "advocacy or trying to validate a cause" review my edits. In my edits, I've sincerely tried to improve articles from a NPOV. Peeta Singh (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Peeta Singh, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. Please note that, if you are reverted, you should discuss your edits on the talk page rather than engage in an edit war (please see WP:BRD. Also, please do not make personal attacks on any other editor. You could easily find yourself blocked for disruptive editing and/or making personal attacks. (I'll also post this on your talk page.) You've already been informed of the sanctions in place on India related articles so please note that if this pattern of disruptive editing continues, you will be sanctioned. --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect of Punjabi Language

• User Uanfala is trying to declare different Punjabi dialect as separate language. [10]
• He Cherry picks, Forum shops, Edit wars and ignores talk page consensus on western Punjabi different dialect talk pages.
• An RFC Saraiki is a Language has just concluded with no consensus. So you being a senior registered editor please restore pre dispute version of Saraiki dialect article [11].
• Also please make corrections to Hindko dialect and Potwari-Pahari dialect in same fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.69.203 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gurdev Singh Kaunke has been accepted

Gurdev Singh Kaunke, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

 sami  ^talk 19:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"Sikh" in the lead

With regards to your insertion "Sikh nationality" in biographies, I've already addressed you on this above. Please don't advocate for particular issues here and please consult WP:NOTOPINION. Provided the subject isn't closely related/involved with Sikh nationalism, the word "Indian" is enough per the conventions of WP:LEAD.

For purposes of the article Gurmukhi, sikhs.org isn't WP:RS that warrants it to be called a "Sikh alphabet" in the lead. No other writing systems have a religion attached to them in the lead.

Regarding both these matters, as per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - the articles should be reverted to the lead that was present for years before you started inserting the word "Sikh" into them.

When your edits are reverted, you seem to keep citing WP:NPOV - Could you please actually explain how your edits to the previous revision reinforced NPOV. Regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider your own advice on "Please don't advocate for particular issues here and please consult WP:NOTOPINION". Challenging the the idea of Sikh nationality without sufficient research [12], preventing the improvement of Wikipedia, so the term can not be used in the nationality section or in the lead of biographies [13]. I would like to emphasis that the word Indian is not appropriate for all cases. Do more research on Sikh nationalism, it is not a movement but "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory"; hence, the term Sikh would be considered more accurate and specific as a nationality for some biographies rather than Indian.

For Gurmukhi, there are two reliable sources alongside sikhs.org that warrant it to be called a "Sikh alphabet".

I use WP:NPOV in the context specified in the article "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".

Peeta Singh (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sikh nationalism and the people, events, etc. that are associated therewith can most certainly be discussed in an encyclopedic context within the scope of WP:RS that are WP:VERIFIABLE and preferably not WP:PRIMARY. To an extent, I do believe that you have created some well-written, balanced and informative articles on the topic but there are some small and subtle hints of POV coupled with policy misunderstanding; and that's why we're having this discussion - collaboration and consensus on the application of policy and precedent is the way forward, not WP:EDITWAR.

It has been mentioned that "Wikipedia can't state as a fact that there is a Sikh nation". It would be an insertion of fringe theories and giving undue emphasis on the standpoint of Sikh nationalists. Thus inserting "Sikh" as a nationality into the first sentences and infoboxes of biographies as well as categories is in contravention of the policies cited above.

Moreover, you can't cite primary sources to substantiate sweepingly POV-charged and fringe claims, one can in the same way consult the literature of Punjabi nationalism, Indian nationalism or Hindu nationalism to substantiate that Sikhs are a mere sub-denomination among the respective nation; Clearly it will be a chaotic situation that is why such claims are not on Wikipedia.

The sources you're referring to in Gurmukhi do not in any way conclude that Gurmukhi is a Sikh alphabet. However they do note that it as a alphabet predominantly used by Sikhs as opposed to Shahmukhi - which is clearly mentioned in the lead paragraph. Note how in the Shahmukhi article it doesn't introduce the subject as a "Muslim alphabet" but rather as "a Perso-Arabic alphabet used by Muslims in Punjab to write the Punjabi language".

Regarding WP:NPOV, quoting the policy is useless if there isn't any substantiation to it. Please explain how inserting "Sikh" into the leads of articles, whilst intentionally removing the word "Indian" that had been there for years, is something that promotes the objectives of the policy.

@RegentsPark and Doug Weller: Lastly, I want to ping these admins for consultation on your additions of "Sikh" into Gurmukhi and into biographies (that of various Punjabi artists and religious figures) as a nationality. I feel that despite explaining that Wikipedia isn't a place to expressly declare a "Sikh nation", this dialogue is just going back and fourth without bearing fruits.

Thanks & regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't give Sikh nationality to a BLP. You would need reliable sources making that claim. And you say "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"." But that's exactly what you haven't been doing. As I wrote at Talk:Sikh " Sources for a Sikh nation need to discuss a Sikh nation. An American Congressman is not a reliable source for this. Nation and migration can be used to discuss Sikh nationalism, but not in this way. The author isn't claiming there is a Sikh nation, he's reporting claims by others. And using it as a source for the statement that it may be regarded as a nation without pointing out that the author also says "To make their case, however, Sikh nationalist rhetori cians are perforce required to ignore or explain away such uncomfortable facts as coresidence and intermarriage with Punjabi Hindus, the existence of Sindhispeaking Sikhs and EuroAmerican Sikh converts, and long standing caste, regional, and sectarian differences among Sikhs.7 The entire thrust of such nationalist rhetoric, with its neady bounded and differenti ated social units, flies in the face of much that we know about the social history of Punjab over the past five centuries. Nevertheless, given that nationalist discourse has become a dominant political discourse of the contemporary world, it is hardly surprising that Sikhs might represent themselves in its terms to advance their claims." is a violation of NPOV. I don't think you understand NPOV. The same goes for the rest of the academic sources. There is clearly something called Sikh nationalism and claims that Sikhs are a nation, but that needs to be framed as a discussion. And you absolutely should not use a snippet. Again, snippets have no context - what this shows is simply that there are these arguments - maybe the next sentence shows that others disagree, and you'd have to include that to represent the source fairly" Using a snippet obviously isn't fulling representing the source. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Sikh nationality, it is important to consider all views on the Sikh nationality before coming to any conclusions. Being Sikh myself, I have heard the term Sikh Qaum (literally: Sikh Nation) at various Sikh events; therefore, i'm certain that it is not a fringe theory. The term must have more behind it, so I recommend that all users do more research on the topic before sweeping it based on "Wikipedia can't state as a fact that there is a Sikh nation". I will also research the topic and present my findings.

Further, leaving aside the Sikh nationality and Punjabi nationality matter, if Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality is relevant to the subject's notability then it will be mentioned in the lead. I have notices such cases in Punjabi and Sikh related articles.

Salma Mahmoud, about the Gurmukhi script, see the new sources. Regarding your note about Shahmukhi, you need to understand that the Gurmukhi alphabet was standardized by the second Guru himself specifically for the Sikhs.[14] Yes, other communities use it (and they are welcome) but that doesn't change the fact that Gurmukhi is a Sikh script. On the other hand, Shahmukhi literally "from the King's mouth" was not standardize by a Muslim Guru for his Muslim disciples.

My goal is to improve Wikipedia, even if I have to challenge material that has been published for years.

Regards, Peeta Singh (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Peeta Singh, if you feel the material needs to be changed and you're getting push back from other editors, please see WP:DR on how to proceed. Edit warring on the article will result in blocks followed by sanctions and bans. --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a fringe theory. And no one doubts that there is such a think as Sikh nationalism and that many Sikhs believe in/want a Sikh nation and consider Punjab to be one. It's how we write about it that counts. By the way, I removed the original research using a dictionary that was in the English article. It was added in 2007 as an IP's only edit. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Punjabi cinema into List of Punjabi films of the 1930s. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, thank you for the insight, i'll definitely consider your advice and try getting into an habit of "disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page". Peeta Singh (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from Sikh and Punjabi related articles pages (changed 2016-12-12; I meant pages), broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is.

You have been sanctioned for tendentious editing, pushing a nationalist agenda, and ignoring information about Wikipedia's policies from experienced editors and administrators.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia: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. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

AE appeal

This is a notification that your AE appeal here is now closed as declined. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Violation of your topic ban

This is a violation of your topic ban. Note that you are banned from editing on the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, per what Bishonen had imposed and has been upheld at WP:AE. Any further such edits will result in blocks, including the possibility of an indefinite block. —SpacemanSpiff 08:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Sikhs in Punjabi Cinema for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Sikhs in Punjabi Cinema is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sikhs in Punjabi Cinema until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of an Arbitration enforcement topic ban, you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

. —SpacemanSpiff 07:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

DRN

Please visit dispute resolution notice board and participate a debate on saraiki dialect of Punjabi language which is poorly written by Uanfala as a separate language ignored RFC decided consensus. AksheKumar (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)