User talk:Panthkhalsa
Welcome
Hi Panthkhalsa! 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!
Your edits
[edit]I'm reverting your edits to the articles like Hari Singh Nalwa, because they seem to consist of deliberate misinofrmation, original research and improper formatting.
- Hari Singh Nalwa -- please don't provide misleading edit summaries ("Added extra references and corrected wrong historical facts") -- you didn't not add a single reference. All the books mention that Hari Singh Nalwa was born in Gujranwala. If you've a reliable source for your statement that he was born in "Jammu Kashmir", please provide it. Again, these books state that he was born in an Uppal Khatri family -- please provide a source for your assertion that he was a "Narwa Mazhabi Sikh".
- Mazhabi -- please provide a reference for statements added by you ("The mazhabis enjoy high religious status in Sikhism", "The Mazhabis descend from Baba Jivan Singh Ji", "Historically it is known that the Mazbhis descend from Rajputs (Khasatryias)", "These mazbhis are considered to be the peoples from the Dravidan races captured in battle and enslaved by Aryan invaders on the Indian sub continent.". Also, please have a look at the wiki formatting and have a look at WP:INTRO.
- Bhai Mati Das -- can you please provide the quote where Bhai Gurdas writes that "Bhai Mati Das was a Mazhabi Sikh"? Books by multiple authors (Fauja Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Hari Ram Gupta, Gurbachan Singh Talib, O. P. Ralha etc.) state that he was a Mohyal.
Please take time to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. utcursch | talk 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you disagree with the above-mentioned authors/books, here's what the SGPC website has to say about Hari Singh Nalwa's birthplace: "He was born in 1781 at Gujranwala (now in Pakistan)". utcursch | talk 17:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
March 2009
[edit]
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Mazhabi. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. utcursch | talk 15:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Hari Singh Nalwa, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 15:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't create sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts. For the umpteenth time, have a look at Wikipedia:No original research, and find a reliable source. utcursch | talk 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. utcursch
Panthkhalsa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked by an admin who i feel is abusing his power as admin. The dispue runs on the following article of Bhai mati das. My stance with Bhai mati das:- It was stated originaly that Bhai Mati das was a moyal bhramin caste. This state ment was based apon a few sikh historians as reference. However- my stance on this matter; Bhai gurdas is a sikh historian who has stated that Bhai mati das is of Mazhabi linage. In the writings of Bhai Gurdas var 11 page 125 he writes "Perra Chandalia" which means Perra the street sweeper. This means that Bhai mati das cannot be from the brahman caste as stated by a few. Bhai gurdas is the original sikh historian who lived during the 17th century. He him self writ the first copy of the Guru Granth Sahib of the Sikhs.
What Utcursch has to say about it;He first claimed that i needed a valid reference
I pointed out that i had put Var 11 p125 as reference
He then states that ALL the books claim that he was a moyal brahmin.
Then i told him this is NOT the case and to read Bhai gurdas var 11 page 125
He then started to say that the quote "Perre Chandalia" is a miss interpretation.
I then explained the meaning to him. Chandal is a street sweeper and perra is a
street sweeper and this quote cannot be miss interperated in any way.
I then undo the edit he made to the article of Bhai Mati das as a moyal bhramin.
He then blocks me with out proving the var 11 p125 wrong.
My stance with Hari Singh Nalwa; i pointed out that in order for the article to be neutral he cannot state Hari singh nalwa is a Khatri. Becasue the Jatts and the mazhabis are also makeing valid claims, hence in order for neutrality of the article all claims would have to be stated. Not simply Hari Singh Nalwa was a khatri. This is challengable and will be challenged by the mazhabi and jatt communities. His version of the article is not neutral.
Read our conversations on the mazhabi talks page. If you read it you will see that he has made no attempt to educate himself but his plain ignorance is visable.
Fot the millionth time i have told him to take up the disputed issue up with the SGPC and the Akal Takhat, the governing body of the sikh religion, to settle this dispute. He has made no attempt and has just continued with a blind eye. If something is incorrect then of course i will edit. It angers me that he uses sikh writers who have been declaired wrong and invalid and have been dismissed by the SGPC as references. He himslef is not a sikh and i feel that he writes with a caste bias, look at his version of the Mazhabi article. He is responsible for many inaccuracies in his version of the article. His article is also very bare with no factual information worth while. I am actualy surprised he is admin, i am clearly not dealing with an educated man. Please just read our talk page on the Mazhabi article.
I would also like his position as admin to be reviewed please. I realy feel this man is not doing the correct job.
I would like my appeal to be handled by other editors whom are not involved on project india. I would preferibly like a well informed and educated learned sikh to look over this situation. White editors are also more than welcome.
Decline reason:
This is a content dispute, and you really really need to pay attention to what utcursch is saying and find reliable secondary sources that directly support your claims. Wikipedia holds independent secondary sources to be the gold standard for reliable information, even if Sikhs themselves put a lot of emphasis on original texts.
While I think this is a case where utcursch should have requested another admin to take action in the case, the action is justified so I will not overturn it. In fact, I've extended your block to indefinite for your legal threats made here, even in awareness of Wikipedia's policy about it. Mangojuicetalk 18:09, 12 March 2009 (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.
Kind regards to whom ever this concerns. Panthkhalsa (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem
[edit]Many of the secondary sources that utcursch is using are them selves disputed, and are subject to debate by both hired and independent historians. What one has to notice is that there are many different versions of accounts on history and in order for an article to be neutral as i believe you have this policy; all claims have to be stated. Fair enough, you are saying that secondary sources are nessesary,i agree, but these secondary sources cant be disputed them selves, and even if still used their disputed status must be addressed on the article, to inform readers. Panthkhalsa (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Panthkhalsa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Many of the secondary sources that utcursch is using are them selves disputed, and are subject to debate by both hired and independent historians. What one has to notice is that there are many different versions of accounts on history and in order for an article to be neutral as i believe you have this policy; all claims have to be stated. Fair enough, you are saying that secondary sources are nessesary,i agree, but these secondary sources cant be disputed them selves, and even if still used, their disputed status must be addressed on the article, to inform readers. Ok yes legal action is vialation of wiki policy, and i am wrong on that part,but Utcursch is also wrong for neutrality violations. Violations i am simply trying to address. The problem is that Utcursch is deleating my work before actualy letting me finish the actual article by adding references. If you view the history of mazhabi you will see what im talking about. I provided a very good reference "the dassam Granth translated by P.S. Sandhu" however he still sees a need to delete this peice of work with out even an explanation. He just simply undoes the work. If you read what he has written his brocken english is also apparent, i am not dealing with a man educated for this matter. All i ask is that you asign an admin who is fully compitent in the 'sikh' issue. Utcursch has no knowledge of this matter. Surely by assigning a sikh admin to over look this issue it will increase the quality of information on wiki, with out this unnessesary fighting with two parties who both think their right.
Decline reason:
Requests attacking others are not granted, see WP:NOTTHEM. Also, legal threats appear to remain outstanding, see WP:NLT. Sandstein 09:00, 14 March 2009 (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.