User talk:Peeta Singh: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:59, 23 November 2016

Welcome!

Hello, Peeta Singh, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Yngvadottir – Yngvadottir (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Yngvadottir (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peeta Singh! I'm happy to see you have started off straight away expanding and otherwise improving articles. However, I recommend you look at our policies, especially those of neutrality and verifiability. Since we are a general encyclopedia—we aim to cover every subject, for every reader (in the case of this version of Wikipedia, every reader who wants to read in English)—we present the information as far as possible neutrally and with cited sources. Please consider the need for sources and for summarizing what they say neutrally. I've given you links above to those and otherf policies here, as well as to places to ask for information or help; as it says, you can also feel free to message me on my talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peeta Singh, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Peeta Singh! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jathedars of Buddha Dal

Hello Peeta Singh,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jathedars of Buddha Dal for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. 1900toni (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello, I'm GSS-1987. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jathedar without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GSS (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Punjab, India and Punjab (region) etc were reverted because they were unsourced, unexplained and disruptive. You must provide verifiable, reliable sources that support your edits. Otherwise they will be reverted as original research. In particular, you must not in several articles change Punjab to Panjab or Khalistan or add the Sikh flag. Please first discuss any such proposed change on the talk page of the article and do not make the change without consensus. Apuldram (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More advice. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~). In some of your edits of Talk:Guru Nanak you omitted to do this. When your omission was corrected by SineBot, you deleted the correction and inserted a different name. This may identify you as a sockpuppet and get you blocked on Wikipedia (like you have been blocked on Wikimedia). You don't want that, so please remember to sign your name correctly. Apuldram (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Shahid

Hi. I've reverted your additions to Shahid because they appeared to violate WP:SYNTH. The article is not about martyrdom in general, but about the term shahid. If it plays a significant role in Sikhism, this usage has to be explicitly supported by RSs. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you have sources that discuss martyrdom in Sikhism but don't mention the term shahid, this material would be appropriate for Martyrdom in Sikhism and Martyr#Sikhism instead of Shahid. Eperoton (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio caution: do not upload non-free images and insert them into wiki articles

@Peeta Singh: Welcome to wikipedia. Please do not upload Copyvio images and insert them into wikipedia articles, as you did in the Bhai Gurdas article here. You have already been blocked from wikimedia commons for persistent copyvio on images. Please review wiki's policies on copyright violations. If you need clarifications about wiki's copyvio policies, please contact WP:TEAHOUSE. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gurdev Singh Kaunke

The article Gurdev Singh Kaunke has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 14:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Professor Darshan Singh

The article Professor Darshan Singh has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GSS (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Partap Singh

Hello Peeta Singh,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Partap Singh for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdev Singh Kaunke

Hello there, I wanted to inform you that I have moved one of your article Gurdev Singh Kaunke to Draft:Gurdev Singh Kaunke because the article was not ready for mainspace. Please improve your article in draftspace and once you feel the article is ready please submit it for review by adding {{subst:submit}} on the top of your draft. If you need any help you can always ask me on my talk page. Thank you – If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|GSS-1987}} to your message, and signing it. GSS (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at the Help Desk

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that in this edit to Jathedar of Akal Takht, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Your edits to Bhai Gurdas‎ were reverted because they were unsourced and unexplained. You must provide verifiable, reliable sources that support your edits. Otherwise they will be reverted as original research. You were advised about the need for this in October.
.Also, please remember to fill in the Edit summary to inform other editors what you have done. Apuldram (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

November 2016

Hello, I'm Utcursch. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gurmukhi alphabet, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. utcursch | talk 03:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not a place to add your original research and pseudo-history, such as "Scytho-Punjabi". At least four other users have already requested not to add unsourced content. Please go through those messages, and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. utcursch | talk 04:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Indo-Scythians. utcursch | talk 04:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning, because you have already been given 5 notices requesting you not to add unsourced content. utcursch | talk 04:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please take some time to read the numerous policies and guidelines that people have posted on your talk page above.

[1] This parameter is for "Official language in...". Punjabi is not an official language in Canada.
[2] See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context - we do not emphasize religion / ethnicity in the lead, unless it's directly relevant to the article (e.g. for a religious leader).

Also, accusing others of having "hidden agenda to Indianize the article" will get you blocked for personal attacks. utcursch | talk 07:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear utcursch, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, it is merely an observation and feeling. For me it's an personal attacks on me. For instance, even with proper referencing you made it your duty to remove the official status of the Punjabi language in Canada from the the Punjabi language article. Moreover, your probably finding ways to remove the Punjabis#Punjabi nationality section permanently too.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, says "In most modern-day" how does this apply to (e.g. for a religious leaders) that lived when the region was not united as one big country? "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." How can the religion be separated from a "religious" leader? What about if the persons fame is due to his/her ethnic and religious nation? Lets get more specific, what if a person refers to himself/herself as a Punjabi or Sikh in their work but on Wikipedia they're stated part of some other community. How is that in anyway correct?

Don't give me the threat of blocking my account; go ahead, shut me down. My question is how many of us will be blocked to dilute the content?

Peeta Singh (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source you provided to prove that Punjab has an "official status" in Canada. Even if we ignore the fact that it is not an acceptable source, the page does not even mention the word "official". It states that Punjabi-speaking MPs form the third largest linguistic group in the Canadian parliament after English and French speakers. This has nothing to do with an official status. Canada has only two official languages: English and French.

Regarding Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, we're talking about your edits to the article Simran Kaur Mundi, not any religious leader or a historical figure who was born when Republic of India did not exist. The lead of our article on Kylie Minogue does not read "She is an English-Irish Judeo-Christian singer". It reads something like "She is an Australian singer". Same goes for Simran Kaur Mundi. If you do not like these conventions, please feel free to start a request for comment to request a change.

As for the your last sentence ("how many of us..."), I'm not sure what you mean by "us" (Sikh, Punjabi, or Australian). But let me point this out: Among the other users who have left you warnings about adding unsourced content in the past month, there is at least one Sikh, at least one Punjabi, and at least one Australian. No one here is persecuting you because of your ethnic, linguistic, religious or residential background. All of them have only gripe with you: you are adding false, unsourced information.

Wikipedia is not a battleground, or a platform to glorify your language, religion, or ethnicity. Contributing verifiable and neutral content to topics related to your language, religion and ethnicity is OK. Adding false claims ("Punjabi has an official status in Canada") or original research ("Scytho-Punjabi") is not OK. utcursch | talk 17:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I think these types of conflicts can be avoided if users converse in the talk section before removing content. Moreover, my agenda is not to glorify any language, religion, or ethnicity. Previously, I've added information that has been kept hidden from these articles. This is not glorifying but editing information that should be included. There are sources that imply that Punjabis which include the Jatts are of Scythian descend. [3]. Maybe rather than using the term "Scytho-Punjabi", I should have used "Sikh-Scythians" as termed at sikharchives.com; however, it is not correct to disregard the relationship between the Punjabis and Scythians just because I used the term "Scytho-Punjabi". Here are links that link the Scythians to Punjabis [4], [5], [6]

Secondly rather than removing Canada from the "official status" section in the Punjabi language article, you should have implied that the source was not adequate. Here are sources that definitely have the words official and Punjabi: [7] [8]

In my last sentence ("how many of us..."), I was talking about "us" the editors of Wikipedia. If i'm not getting blocked, I suggest that your ("at least one Sikh, at least one Punjabi, and at least one Australian") colleagues have an conversation with me before deleting the content in the future. Peeta Singh (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) Regarding the first paragraph in your response, the protocol we follow is WP:BRD. The revert usually describes the rationale for revertion in the edit summary. If that doesn't satisfy you, the onus is on you to open a talk page discussion and convince the reverter as well as any other involved editors that you have valid verifiable content.

I am also a bit annoyed with your practice of giving random URL's as sources. While providing any sources is better than none, we are interested in reliable sources. You need to give full citations, including author, title, publisher, and date. And we expect that you would have done your homework by checking that they are reliable. If you continue providing spurious sources (web sites, blogs, op-eds. non-scholarly books etc.), eventually it will be considered disruptive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bite (WP:DNB) the newcomers, expressing our annoyance with their approach, or sitting on a high pedestal and "advising them to do their homework". To quote: "We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing". So let's not template the newcomers left right and center, including with scary looking ARBIPAs.

As for the source, I do not see what else the user could have provided in this case. Seems to me that the decision on having Punjabi as the 3rd "official" language in Canadian Parliament is quite recent, so we cannot expect scholarly citations for this. The news articles being provided clearly mention the "official" tag. So what's the cause of your annoyance ? Js82 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Js82 Thank you. Peeta Singh (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peeta Singh (and Js82), self-published blogs are not reliable sources (again, if you have not read that page, please do).

A blog post on indiatimes.com or storypick.com is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. According to Government of Canada, there are only two official languages: English and French. If you still insist otherwise, please start a new thread at Talk:Canada, so that other users can participate in the discussion.

Similarly, Sikharchives.com is not an acceptable source. In peer-reviewed scholarly / academic sources, there is no such thing as "Sikh Scythians". The books linked by you do not mention this term either. They refer to the colonial-era speculative theory about Jats, Rajputs, Gurjars etc. being descended from Indo-Scythians. This theory was propagated by British writers like Cunningham, Tod etc. (as the linked books state), and is considered obsolete by several modern critics. It has been discussed on Wikipedia several times in the past (for example, see Talk:Jat people/Archive 5#Indo-Scythian Descent). If you want to restart that discussion, please start a new thread at Talk:Jat people.

Irrespective of whether that theory is obsolete or not, your claims that Punjabi is derived from "Scythian languages" or that Gurumukhi originates from "Scythian" script are just plain wrong. The Punjab region might have seen genetic inflow from Indo-Scythians, Indo-Greeks, Persians, Turks, Kushans and a hell lot of other groups. If we use the term "related" very loosely, we can link the different Punjabi tribes and castes to nearly all these groups. But, the Punjabi identity is primarily linguistic, and Punjabi is an Indo-Aryan language (unlike Scythian, which is an Indo-Iranian language). Again, if you insist on emphasizing this "Scythian" bit, please start a new thread on the respective article talk pages, so that other users can participate. utcursch | talk 03:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

utcursch, One could put forward a similar argument for Indo-Aryan. We go with the sources that exist, and there are sources suggesting that the Jatt people, therefore, some Punjabi people are the descendants of Scythians. Why is this being hidden from the public?

Regarding Gurmukhi script, being a person who can read and write Gurmukhi, Looking at the script from the Scythian languages article, I can roughly recognize the following Gurmukhi characters: ਨ, ਓ, ਮ, ਵੇ, ਸੇ, ਘ, ਨੀ, ਪ, ਰੇ, ਞ, ਝ, ਦ and many others.

I roughly recognized two characters from Ashoka pillar in the Brahmi script article: ਰ, ਹ and maybe a few others if they're flipped around

The only Gurmukhi characters I recognized in the Gupta script were: ਤ, ਮ, ਘ, ਸ

Now how can Gurmukhi originate from Brahmi script and Gupta script when most of the characters look similar to the Scythian script. Moreover it seems as the Brahmi script and Gupta script have been influenced by the Scythian script.

Also I would like to point out that there aren't any reliable sources or to be more specific any source in the article apart from the assumption that ("Gurmukhī is similar to Brahmi scripts").

Now this raises a big question, why are users of Indian origin deceiving the public?

Peeta Singh (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image you're referring to depicts Khotanese script, which is descended from Brahmi (see this document, page 3).

Also, I'd advise you to read Wikipedia:No original research, as have three others before me (on this talk page, above). And if you still believe that you're right, please start a new discussion on the relevant articles' talk page, so that others can participate (as they've done at Talk:Canada).

Finally, like I've said before, comments like "users of Indian origin deceiving the public" will not get you fans here. utcursch | talk 06:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What ever the script is called, it should be mentioned in the Gurmukhi article and more research needs to be done and correct information needs to be entered. Peeta Singh (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that 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.

Template:Z33 Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 - [9] by User:Yngvadottir
Synthesis - [10] by User:Eperoton
Copyvio - [11] by User:Ms Sarah Welch
Removal of content - [12] by User:GSS-1987, [13] by User:MelbourneStar
Addition of unsourced content - [14][15] by User:Apuldram, [16][17] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jathedar (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Jathedar (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Sikhs in Cinema of Panjab

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of Sikhs in Cinema of Panjab requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and 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.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saraiki dialect of Punjabi Language

User Uanfala is trying to declare different Punjabi dialect as separate language. [18]
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 [19].
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)[reply]

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Peeta Singh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 [20], preventing the improvement of Wikipedia, so the term can not be used in the nationality section or in the lead of biographies [21]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 is 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)[reply]

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.[22] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision as of 13:35, 23 November 2016 edit Peeta Singh (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,352 edits →‎"Sikh" in the lead ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:59, 23 November 2016 edit undo RegentsPark (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 44,420 edits →‎"Sikh" in the lead: comment Next edit →
Line 401:		Line 401:

	:Regards, [[User:Peeta Singh\|Peeta Singh]] ([[User talk:Peeta Singh#top\|talk]]) 13:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)		:Regards, [[User:Peeta Singh\|Peeta Singh]] ([[User talk:Peeta Singh#top\|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. --[[User:RegentsPark\|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark\|comment]])</small> 14:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)