User talk:Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa
Welcome
Hi Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa! welcome to Wikipedia!
Be bold in editing pages and don't let others scare you off! To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp.
|
Here are some links that you might find useful:
|
You can contribute in many ways
|
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. If you need help, you can drop a note on my talk page or use Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. You can also type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia! utcursch | talk 07:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Editing issues
Sorry, I've been away - holiday and other more pressing stuff. I'm happy to work with you on this article, but unexplained blanking of critical discussion by an editor with a major conflict of interest - like this - is a very quick way of heading towards a block.
Can I remind you that references require that the cited statement(s) actually source what the article says? For instance: [1]
One of Yogi Bhajan's significant impacts on popular culture has been his use of the word "great." In the 1960s and 70s, before the proliferation of the ubiquitous smiley and "Have a nice day!" Yogi Bhajan never settled for "nice." He counseled greatness. He encouraged greatness. He expected greatness in his students, no less
Where is this actually sourced in the cited quote?
Yogi Bhajan, The Teachings of Yogi Bhajan, Pomona, California, 1977, quotation #1: "When the little me has recognized the big me and the little i has recognized the big I, oneness is achieved. And when one knows that one is the one and one knows everything is one, then what is there it find? It is only when we think that I am and everything else is everything else that we have to find something." p. 105; quotation #2: "Live as royal saints. Nobody shall walk over you, but nobody who needs you shall be deprived of your strength." p. 104.
It's fine to quote that second paragraph. But not to paraphase it into something completely dissimilar like the first.
And frankly this is the problem with the whole edit. For instance:
In 1969, Yogi Bhajan established the 3HO (Healthy, Happy, Holy Organization) Foundation to further his missionary work. It served his premise that every human possessed the birthright to be healthy, happy and holy. It was only a matter of unlearning one set of habits and replacing it with a kinder, more uplifting routine.
The citation you gave here supports the quote about birthright, but says nothing at all about "unlearning one set of habits and replacing it with a kinder, more uplifting routine".
Plus, really, you're not providing reliable sources. "Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Welcome back. I appreciate your critical outlook. The material I erased was slanderous and offensive - and hardly objective, if objectivity is what we are looking for.
It is difficult to cite exact word-for-word quotes of someone who has lectured as profusely as Yogi Bhajan. There is not easy source or way of searching for these quotes.
I have done the best I can and will revisit from time to time, but for the moment, I have done the best I can. There is a lot of 3rd party referencing there now that wasn't there before. Then again, I happen to a) teach the teachings of Yogi Bhajan, having studied his teachings for some 36 years. My students cite me as a reliable authority on this subject matter; b) be the guy he asked to write his biography and for that reason I am possibly better versed on his life than anyone else you will find.
Do I have a personal interest here? Kind of, but really I just want the truth to be represented. There is no personal stake in this, any more than you have a stake other than your admirable dedication to the truth. Am I objective? Who is objective? I have seen the redwood forest and now I write about it. Can anyone who has seen the redwoods remain objective? I leave that with you to decide. Thanks again. talk
Articles for deletion nomination of Third Sikh Holocaust 1984
I have nominated Third Sikh Holocaust 1984, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Sikh Holocaust 1984. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am following the discussion with interest. Will contribute or possibly edit the article as time allows. I thought the footnotes were extensive and authoritative enough. It happens Sikhs don't control the major media outlets in India or elsewhere so their story - the afflictions visited on them are less than well known. In writing the article, I had hoped to shed some light on them. (talk)
The article you created was just deleted?
|
The article you created was just deleted? | |||
| All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now: | ||||
|
Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy.
Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted.
If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong. |
Ikip (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry they deleted your article
This appears to be the location were they do much of their plotting, wonder if you were aware of this group.
Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics
Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Sikh_Holocausts
In my opinion them doing this is a violation of WP:CANVAS, basically they got all their little cronies to come into the deletion discussion, and rigged the vote.
User_talk:YellowMonkey blocked User:TeamQuaternion, to prevent him from further participation in the deletion discussion.
Next they deleted arguments from the deletion discussion itself. Have a look at the edit history they took out TeamQuaternion's last comment after they blocked him?
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_Sikh_Holocaust_1984
Anyway my mother always taught me that cheaters never win in the end.GHALOOGHAARAA (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest first reviewing this rule.
Then ask yourself, if between your article and the the 1984_anti-Sikh_riots this rule is being violated.
To be honest I think the answer is yes. These two articles have wildly differing points of view.
Then have a look at this article that was created by combining the two articles.
User_talk:Guru_Fatha_Singh_Khalsa/sand
I would suggest that you paste this article back into 1984_anti-Sikh_riots, replacing the existing article.
Those people are making some weird argument about copy right violations right now that is so technical that even I don't understand it. To be honest it sounds to me like they are making a legal threat WP:THREAT, but at this point I am assuming good faith WP:AGF
One more thing, Wikipeida rules are so convoluted that some people think that who ever knows the rules best wins, but it is not true. One of the five pillars of wikipedia is WP:IAR
GHALOOGHAARAA (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I invite you to join the Sikh project!
All you have to do is click on the link below and add your name to the list, then you will have 40 new friends who think pretty much like you to help you!
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sikhism#Participants
Thanks for all this! Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Really happy to see that you got your good article online.
Looked at your new user page! Followed the link, really glad to see that your writings are online some place! The really deserve to be.
Looks to me like Sikh wiki is written from a Sikh point of view, and that is not a bad thing. Hope you are still studying the Wikipedia principle of WP:NPOV. Please don't get discouraged with Wikipedia I think you have a great deal to offer, and writings is Wikipedia rank a lot higher in the search engines than other places. However, search engines keep track of clicks, and as more and more people read your writings where every you put them, I am sure you writing skill will be recognized where ever you put it.
There is another really good writer that maybe you should be aware of, who wrote:
Well he mostly wrote it, others edited as well. He is also being attacked for not having a neutral point of view. His article was also put up for deletion. I am right now going to read the deletion discussion but I really get the feeling that the only reason it did not get deleted is because he know how to use the Sikh project group to get people to come in and vote for his side. I don't know this for a fact, and this is entirely speculation on my part. I am investigating further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHALOOGHAARAA (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. I found the site you mention to be interesting and well-informed. By the way, how does one use a project group to get people to come in and vote for one's side? Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Is the Holocaust Unique (book), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Is the Holocaust Unique? (book). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. See my comments on the talk page of this article. Deb (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of 1984 ghallooghaaraa
An article that you have been involved in editing, 1984 ghallooghaaraa, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1984 ghallooghaaraa. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Soman (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Please make your self familiar with the wikipedia policies to overcome any challenges .... good work... good contribution to wikipedia... thanks DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe your article has extremely good historical information. Go and vote (keep/delete etc) for your article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1984 ghallooghaaraa. You must defend your article if you believe it is a good improvement of this great pedia. DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)