User talk:Saddhiyama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


United Nations[edit]

I have created a sub section here on "UN admits Sri Lanka civil war failure"; Please review.Sudar123 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Let Aleister live! Long live Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, Saddhiyama.

Thank you for responding. I wasn't logged in from this shared home computer, but I am now. (Same IP address.)

I believe that a mistake was made, and is continuing to be made. I would ask, what would the appropriate link be for Aleister Crowley? The truth is, one is linking an on-line encyclopedia to a more objective, more thorough encyclopedia -- when the subject is the man, A.C., at least. Similarly, the Wikipedia often references, quotes or incorporates whole paragraphs and sections from other specialized encyclopedias, such as the Britannica, the Catholic,or the Judaica.

I hope we can agree that the subject of the person Aleister Crowley will be of interest to users of Wikipedia, and that it would be a shame to leave his name un-linked. I think the question between us is whether the internal Wikipedia link best serves the users, or whether the external link is more accurate. The question is one of neutral, or neutral-ish, POV. Some subjects inspire strong passions and are difficult to be neutral about. Climate change and "creationism" are two examples where "teach the controversy" is inadequate . . .

Well. I was remembering some earlier incarnation of Wikipedia's A.C. article. Without reading the Talk page, but having just re-read the current article, I am glad to change my position and advocate linking A.C.'s name to Wikipedia's own A.C. article. I hope you don't mind if I go back and do so, at least for R.A.W.

Thank you for helping me come to this conclusion.

<{:)}> BaalShemRa (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Talk:Book[edit]

This is Chipperdude15. The US and Saudi Arabia did provide naval support for Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. That is why I put the US and Saudi Arabia in the infobox of the article Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. For proof, please read Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971. Thanks. (talk) 11:07, September 14 2013

Apologies for restoring your deletion . Brain not in gear and I saw it as Book not Talk:Book. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   14:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to me sometimes as well, especially when I engange in recent changes patrolling. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Tollund Man[edit]

Hello! Do you have an idea for the reasons for the ongoing vandalism of the article Tollund Man? When I go through the articles history of the last 600 to 700 edits more than half of them are of such kind. Is it because he is the most known bog body? --Bullenwächter (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably. I suspect that most of the vandalism come from school computers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote form Nick Kent, writer and early member of Sex Pistols[edit]

Here is a quote from a book that you would consider to be authorotative: Punk: The Whole Story, edited by Mark Blake. The book (as is so often the unfortunate case) says little about garage rock. But, in the first selection, well-known rock journalist and early member of the Sex Pistols and later London S.S. Nick Kent, says something you might find very interesting:

"For me, punk didn't sart in 1976: it started in 1971 when I first read US rock magazine Creem. The writer Dave Marsh claims he coined the phrase "punk rock" in a review he wrote for the magazine late '71 of a gig by ? & The Mysterions. But it was fellow Creem scribe Lester Bangs who really took the term and and created a whole aesthetic for it. For Bangs and his disciples, punk rock began in 1963 when Seattle quartet The Kingmen hit Number 1 stateside with the deliciously moronic Louie, Louie, grew with the influx of one hit wonders from the US mid-60's that Creem correspondent, Lenny Kaye paid fullsome tribute to with his influential 1972 album Nuggets... [1] Now you have it: an early member of the Sex Pistols expressing, not only the influence of garage rock on his band (early on they played songs such as "Steppin' Stone"), but also from where they derived the term "punk rock," quoted in an authorotative text. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a primary source, and it is not in any way authorative for the origin of punk rock, especially since our article have a good claim that it did not originate with the Sex Pistols, but in New York with the Ramones, Television, New York Dolls, Johnny Thunders etc. It is good source to support that some did have this view, as in "Nick Kent claims that he ... " etc, but it doesn't overrule the other sources, namely secondary mainstream sources that relates the traditional view of its origins. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka[edit]

User:Qwyrxian, an Administrator, I think in a border line violation of his Admin tools. He reverted the disputed content and then protecting the page with his own explanation on the talk page. Since I also once reverted the disputed content, I think, your opinion would be helpful on the talk page Sri Lanka.Sudar123 (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Habermass "hardly notable"[edit]

Hello, I'm quite frankly offended by the lack of basic research you have done on this. you could have at least youtubed him... -.-
btw: have you ever heard him speak? It is his most notable personal feature. A child could have noticed that there was "something" different about his speech.
fyi: it would be helpful if you checked the talk page in the'll even get a reference to the whole cleft-shabang Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to me to search for sources for claims that you make, especially not through such original research as you suggest. Add some reliable sources and then we can discuss whether such a category is viable. Until then it will be deleted on sight. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

4 tribes of Bavaria[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


What is "nazi crap"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand[edit]

You don't understand, that these articles are related. Aim of martial arts is to control over energy in body, and they (T'ai chi ch'uan, Qigong etc) use some mechanism like Sublimation (psychology), and that is topmost stage of martial arts - so-called "contactless fight" when one can defeat his enemy not by physical powers, but by use of metaphysical or psycological power (just like that words or mantras are used to heal someone, or religion also defeats death). And Kierkegard is a philosopher who also understood that there are different stage in religion/consciousness, that one first may like some external forms (ethics, aesthetics) and then later goes into religion, and thus he "sublimates" his energy and redirects it (just like in martial arts) into another direction - from destruction to creativity, and ultimately this leads to liberation of one from birth and death (Eastern martial arts talk widely of attaining immortality - that is their ultimate philosophy)... Qi Gong is also a similar subect, just like Tai Chi Quan. There are different martial arts systems, which are related to buddhism and/or taoism (you know Yin and yang?), so in this sense philosophy of Kierkegard is very close to what I say. To make it more clear you can also think of pressure points in accupuncture: one may know that there are points which are "fatal", and pressing them may lead to death, and on other hand there are some points on body pressing which leads to extension of life. But one who knows better about energy centers like chakras, prana etc can feel those points and aura, and use that knowledge to defeat enemy (especially in self-defence) without touching him physically... Well, it is a sacred/secret knowledge, if you don't like it, then you may live for some more millions of lifetimes in this world to understand... Good luck, atheist! [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Kick boxing[edit]

You will need some really strong sources to make any sort of connection between Søren Kierkegaard and kick boxing. It seems like you are currently engaging in original research. --Saddhiyama Why? He studied Eastern philosophy, and he was read by Japanese even before in English... He took a lot from Buddhism etc - can't you see it? Read: Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard: " Three stages of life: Stage One: Aesthetic, Stage Two: Ethical, Stage Three: Religious", and: "Kierkegaard and Eastern Philosophy Because Kierkegaard read Schopenhauer, and because Schopenhauer was heavily influenced by Eastern philosophy, it would seem that Kierkegaard would have shown an awareness of Eastern philosophy. ... Anyone who is familiar with such Asian traditions as Buddhist, Taoist, or Shinto philosophy, will quickly see the philosophical similarities that Kierkegaard shares with these traditions. These similarities perhaps explain the Japanese reception of Kierkegaard and the fact that Japanese awareness and translations of Kierkegaard were appearing at least 30 years before any English translations.[19] There is also extensive Japanese scholarship on Kierkegaard, a scholarship that interprets Kierkegaard's philosophy in terms of Asian thought.[20] This interpretation is understandable when one sees that Kierkegaard's central concerns of subjectivity, anxiety, freedom, despair, and self-deception, are also of central concern to Buddhism and, consequently, that there is nothing exclusively Christian about such concerns.[21] Both Kierkegaard and Zen Buddhism, for example, have seen the predicaments of existence in very similar ways.[22] A specific example of the similarities here can be seen in Purity of Heart where Kierkegaard describes the state of awareness that one must enter in order to partake of confession. Kierkegaard's description of this state is similar to the state of meditation described by Buddhist philosophers.[23] It is distinct, however, in that the aim of confession, for Kierkegaard, is "to center itself upon this relation to itself as an individual who is responsible to God" (cf. Kierkegaard, "Purity of Heart").[24] Kierkegaard aims to claim back the subject from the "crowd" mentality of Christendom (cf. Kierkegaard, "On the Dedication to 'That Single Individual' ")[25] and reaffirm the absolute responsibility to God, which is our telos (cf. Kierkegaard, "Fear and Trembling").[26] Kierkegaard's thought, as grounded in the Christian tradition ("Purity of Heart" begins "Father in heaven! What is a man without thee!"), while bearing similarities to Buddhist meditation, assumes the inability of the individual fully to grasp God and seeks to reclaim the individual for personal relationship with God, unmediated by the human "crowd", and so is at its foundation distinct from the foundation of Buddhist philosophies."

Here it is said that Kierkegard told more about God as He is west, because Christianity has different idea. Now, as for direct connection especially with kick-boxing or martial arts: yes it is here: Sublimation (psychology): "In psychology, sublimation is a mature type of defense mechanism where socially unacceptable impulses or idealizations are consciously transformed into socially acceptable actions or behaviour, possibly converting the initial impulse in the long term. Freud defines sublimation as the process of deflecting sexual instincts into acts of higher social valuation, being "an especially conspicuous feature of cultural development; it is what makes it possible for higher psychical activities, scientific, artistic or ideological, to play such an important part in civilised life".[1] Wade and Tavris present a similar view stating that sublimation is when displacement "serves a higher cultural or socially useful purpose, as in the creation of art or inventions."[2] Sublimation allows us to act out socially unacceptable impulses by converting them into a more acceptable form. Freud believed that sublimation was a sign of maturity (indeed, of civilization), allowing people to function normally in culturally acceptable ways."

If you think what could Kierkegard mean by first "Esthetical stage" - this can be related to all those misinterpretations in martial arts and spiritual systems when people would rather think religion is just for their personal esthetics, when they consider themselves as "gods". Then next goes ethical level. This is close to yoga system, when one first accepts idea of yama, niyama, asana, - that is control of the senses and brahmacarya, so he goes beyond level of Nirvana or impersonalism ("esthetical level"), and to level of ethics. Finally, when one attains top level of yoga - and goes into samadhi - he can see God (be that Buddha, Krishna, Jesus or who knows who else, maybe Allah or Yahweh...), and that is 3rd level in Kierkegard's philosophy - religion. And if we think of varnasrama system of India (we know that Buddhism came from India, and yoga with its mystic perfections and martial arts - also came from India) - there are four classes of men, including ksatriyas (warriors) and brahmanas (intellectual priests). But when we speak of Kierkegard and Kung-fu or Kick-boxing, or Tai-Chi-Quan or Qi-Gong, we see how Buddhist monks in Shaolin monastery practice celibacy: they redirect their sex impulse (because sex is passion, and ksatriya or warrior he is also in passion) into celibacy - they practice asanas (sit in lotus postures), practice control of senses and then meditation of which Kierkegard knew most probably from Schopenhauer), calling this stage - religion (level #3). So in this sense one slowly becomes more conscious of himself, knowing that he is not a body (and thinks less of personal esthetics), but a soul - thus thinks of self-realization and religion, connection with God. Finally, when he is disturbed by some wrong elements in society which are demoniac (grossly atheistic/materialistic), he uses his energy which he got from meditation to defeat enemy. He wins because in this fight winner is one who can go above passion, and rise to level of goodness, so int this way ksatriya or warrion can become brahmana. In this sense Kierkegard's philosophy can rise one from level of ksatriya (passion, see rajas) to level of brahmana(see: sattva), who is free from passion. And that allows him to enter into spiritual world and attain spiritual immortality... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia has no place for your original research. I recommend taking it to one of the numerous philosophy discussion forums that exist on the net. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Flashback Media Group[edit]

I have blocked for 24 hours, for edit warring and "original research". I have also posted a fairly long message to User talk:, attempting to make it clearer what the problems are. However, I think I should also point out that you have been edit warring there too. I am not blocking you, as there are several differences, such as the fact that you have been removing, rather than adding, unsourced content, the fact that you have made a smaller number of reverts than the anonymous editor, and the fact that you have not been warned. However, you need to bear in mind that being "right" is not a justification for edit warring, and you may yet be blocked if you continue. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I realise that, and I should have engaged in discussion already last night, unfortunately it was late and I put it off for later and just stuck to reversion. I have now tried starting a discussion regarding sources on the talk page. Hopefully it will prevent any further need for administrator intervention. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The fact that you have started a discussion on the article talk page is another point in your favour, even if you did not do so at the earliest moment. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Image on Reform and criticism section on United Nations[edit]

Civilians are being displaced in Northern Sri Lanka during the final months of the war. A review of UN action criticized the UN leadership, UN Security Council and top UN officials in Sri Lanka.

I have re-added the above image which is removed by User:Rich Farmbrough without edit summary on the Reform and criticism section on United Nations; since the image depicts one of the worst human tragedies human kind ever faced and reviewed by the UN itself its fault and found guilty.Sudar123 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ralf Miliband hated Britain[edit]

Adolph Miliband hated Great Britain.


Discordian: Episkopos[edit]

Hello sir, I respect you in so much that you maintain a groovy page full of hip esoteric references. I am known as Jay Bee over at google and can make a mean plate of nachos. Eris told me to edit the page and ad my name. Since it does not hurt anyone and I have no documentation to cite, it would be nice if you took it with good humor. Fnord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horned helmet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scandinavian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What attack?[edit]

"You miserable vomitous mass," is a quotation from The Princess Bride. And auto-reverting is a sin deserving of some suitable response. One step forward, one step back... let's not automatically take the one step back. (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where the line comes from, it is a personal attack regardless. And you haven't been "auto-reverted" nor accused of vandalism. It was in fact a real live human editor, who considered your edits good faith edits but still deemed them as questionable, since you didn't provide any edit summary. Please remember that next time, and please refrain from the personal attacks, even the ones you pick up from literature. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


I deleted section called "Secular women" because article Islam and secularism was too lengthy and the specific deleted article was a bit irrelevant, unnecessary and was not enough neutral. Neither women in Muslim world are more secular then men, nor men are more Islamist then women so there was no need for a special article. --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I did think the section was bordering some WP:SYNTH-issues as well, but since I don't really have any expertise in the subject it is nice to hear an explanation from an editor who does. Just please remember to use edit summaries in the future, it will probably alos prevent any misunderstandings about your edits if you do. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


Since you are doing such a great job here and seem to be quite informed about Danish history matters, may I ask you for help with a person named Carlson. This I know about him:

Carlson was the commander of some Danish warships anchoring off Greifswald in the winter of 1712/1713. It was the time of the Great Northern war, Sweden's Stenbock advanced westward and burned Danish Altona, which led Denmark's ally Peter the Great to instruct Menshikov to burn some Swedish-Pomeranian towns in revenge. Menshikov forwarded this order to Staff (a German in Russian service), who burned Gartz and Wolgast and prepared to burn Anklam, too. Carlson (DK) and Staff (RUS) both had their quarters at occupied Swedish Greifswald. When Staff was about to leave Greifswald to burn Anklam, Carlson urged him not to, and when Staff declined the plea, Carlson called him a 'murderous incendiary.' Staff fought a duel with Carlson on Greifswald's market square, and stabbed him to death. This upset the commander of Greifswald's occupation forces, Saisan (a Frenchman in Saxon service), who arrested Staff - Anklam was saved and (later) a street after was named after Carlson in remembrance (Carlsonstraße, still named so today).

What I can not find is any additional information about Carlson. First, Carlson looks "un-Danish" - was it Carlsen instead [2]? Second, what was his first name? Third, what was his rank - the German sources either title him commander ("Kommandeur," "Befehlshaber") or admiral; was he really an admiral? 4th, when exactly did he die - the German sources give either the 1st or 3rd April 1713 as the day of his death. And after all, when and where was he born, and what did he do before he came to Greifswald?

If you have access to Danish literature/sources that can help me with any of these questions, please let me know. Thank you for your time! Skäpperöd (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look into it and get back to you (some of the sources I have to get from the library, which may take a couple of days). It does sound more probable that his name was Carlsen, but then again you never know. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I have asked User:Viking1808 to assist in the search for information, since this is exactly the subject they specialise in. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a stub article on Swedish wikipedia for this officer Christian Thomesen Carl. A copy of the entry in T. A. Topsøe-Jensen og Emil Marquard (1935) “Officerer i den dansk-norske Søetat 1660-1814 og den danske Søetat 1814-1932“. has now been sent to Skäpperöd. I cannot find other references to Christian Thomesen Carl on a quick trawl of Danish sources. Viking1808 (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the name bit and for the help with the entry from the book! Strange that the name could deviate so much in the different sources. With the information you provided regarding the name I took a browse through the indexes for Personalhistorisk Tidsskrift 1880-1965 and found several entries for Chr. Thom. Carl, kommandør: 1914 issue, p. 169ff, 1915 issue, p. 196, 1918 issue, p. 25, 1920 issue, p. 24, 27 and the 1927 issue, p. 96. But since they are all published prior to the entry in the Topsøe-Jensen & Marquard work they probably don't contain anything important that isn't already mentioned there. The last major source that may contain some information is the 10-volume Bidrag til den store nordiske Krigs Historie by the Danish General Staff. There is a general index in the 10th volume. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I too am a little bit concerned that in Topsøe-Jensen/Marquard, the name is somehow mixed up with Christian Thomesen Sehested, but maybe it was fashionable to name children 'Christian Thomesen' at that time? The entry in Topsøe-Jensen/Marquard was written by JH Lützow, who was long dead by 1935 when the edition was published, so Topsøe-Jensen and Marquard likely took that entry from one of Lützow's collections. The content of that entry however leaves no doubt that Lützow's 'Christian Thomesen Carl' is the very 'Carlson' from the German sources, who in turn - as far as I have seen - never use 'Carl' or any first names (that's why I came here in the first place...)

The article references the Svensk uppslagsbok, Lund 1930, but I was not able to search its online (1955) edition. I will start an article here at asap. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

From Topsøe-Jensen's book again (volume II, pages 496-500), it is clear that Christen (nb spelling) Thomesen Sehested is not the same as our Kommandør Christian Thomesen Carl. Sehested was the highest ranking naval officer ( højstbefalende søofficier ) in the Duchies ( Hertugdommerne ) in that year but he still held command ved Rügen - and Kommandør Carl exercised command in his (ie Sehested's ) absence until his (ie Carl's) death on 29/3 1713. Sehested was born in 1664 and died in 1736. Not my period! (yet). Viking1808 (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did not suggest that Sehestedt and Carl(son) were the same person, just that Lützow might have mixed up their names somehow, given that Carl(son) was Sehested's substitute. Nevermind!
Christian Thomesen Carl is now a blue link. Thank you som much for your help. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


Please stop adding various (related) IPs to AIV if the IPs are not presently engaged in disruptive editing. There's no point in blocking an IP if the user has moved on to another IP. No action will be taken if there is no current activity. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am not quite sure what you are talking about. The vandalism edits of the two IPs I reported were as fresh as they could be at the time of reporting. And they were obviously the same person that had been constantly vandalising the same article for the past two days. The same IPs even.
And by the way thanks for finally giving an explanation for your removal of them from the AIV board. Usual procedure is that an admin provides a comment below the report until a second admin removes the reports. That way the editor who placed the report can see why no action was taken. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You reported the IPs more than 2 hours after their last edits. I'm not sure I understand "fresh as they could be". They were stale when they were reported. There is no value in reporting an IP to AIV if the IP isn't active at the time of the report unless it's not bouncing, persistently disruptive, and reasonably warned. RPP is the place to go in that situation. My mistake in this case for not adding the comment instead of removing - I generally do. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi, can you have a look on Aryan page. Someone is removing sourced contents.Rajkris (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

De derre Vikingene[edit]

Dav, mester,

thx for feedback.

- I'm new to wiki (as you can see from the abominable formatting of my writ); QED: I'm writing here because I still haven't figured out how to respond in the same section on the VA talk page  :-) (hints welcome) - I'm Norwegian, and will understand the occasional Danish term

In response to your response, I'd like to state that

- my motivation is to improve the article - what I tried to _do_ to improve it is to give input to the "when was the viking age" issue (vide the section "Merge "Vikings" and "Viking Age"?" on the talk page)

    - I see this not as OR, but as "metadiscussion" :-)
    - of course, the "World History as British History" is OR; or would have been,
      if I had proposed to include it in the article, which I don't and never would,
      because it is one man's opinion. (ALthough it's really really true ...:-)
          - The point of that point was that the question "when was the viking age"
            may never be answered; and, specifically, not if one is not aware of the
            historiographical confusion that I tried to analyze in my three points.

- The main point is perhaps that the article would be better with a little cleanup, primarily, IMHO, with a better disposition and headings to match the content of the sections; all of which can be done while not changing any of the content (so I'm not here to spread personal revelations from Odin). IOW, I don't see the need to consult historians re article cleanup.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I've read a lot of British History; I haven't (read some Norwegian and German, though). No, that impression is something I took away from lurking for many years on soc.history.medieval, where it only took on average 5 exchanges for any question of medieval history, culture or custom anywhere and at anytime, to end up in a discussion of 1066 and all that.

I am not a VA scholar, nor an experienced wikipedian, however, I'm usually good at structuring text (it's how I make my living). If that kind of input is not needed, I shall by all means keep out of the kitchen.

God helg!


Tron (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (Er det riktig sånn?)

I'm not quite aware of what You discuss here, but I just want to point out that English soures about the vikinger only cover their history of them. I agree that the article needs merging and restruction Boeing720 (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Danish Naval Information - missing links[edit]

Hi Saddhiyama - can you have a look at Acad Ronin's talk page for information on the above. Viking1808 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being late in replying, but my computer died on me, and I am in the process of installing and configuring my new one right now. I will get back to you as soon as I can (later today or tomorrow). --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


Yes, this is indeed a shared IP adress. Hundreds of people come here five days a week. However, I do not plan on editing this site so I don't plan on creating an account. You may block this address if somebody at this place is deliberately vandalizing this site because I do not plan on doing anything here. Oh, and one last thing: this is a school so a school block is likely needed. (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


I'm new here. The edits I made to the 'Nicolas Sarkozy' page.. I was in the process of changing them back. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfribbs (talkcontribs) 20:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mfribbs. Please don't do it again. If you need to test out how editing works you can do it at the Sandbox. Anyway, if you have decided to make constructive edits to Wikipedia you are more than welcome, I will give you a welcome message on your talk page with lots of interesting links for you to check out. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Best wishes, mfribbs. p.s. -- Oh, and also could you please tell me why I can't edit most pages? I'm assuming it's because I am a 'new user', and if so, could you please tell me how I can get out of that user status? Mfribbs (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)mfribbs

It is perhaps becuase the articles are semi-protected, and you need to be autoconfirmed in order to be able to edit them. This means that your account need to be more than four days old and have made at least (non-reverted) 10 edits before you are allowed to edit such articles. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Would it help if I told you that the pages that I can't edit on are major articles, such as famous people, large corporations, etc.? Mfribbs (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected articles should have a lockpad icon in the upper right corner, as you can see on the Socialism article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. This lockpad usually appears on major articles, though, correct? Mfribbs (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

More frequently than smaller ones, yes, since the major subjects generate more traffic and thus also potentially more disruptive edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Goodbye. Mfribbs (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


I'm sorry if id did not clarify the question of "Stettin" in detail at the article abot "Swedish Pomerania", sorry to have not mentioned that Stettin is the German name aswell. But the main issue is that the city was not known as "Szscecin" (or simular) at the time in question. And I did not state that Stettin wasn't a German name aswell. Sorry for unconviniouces. Boeing720 (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wanted: French English Editor[edit]

Hi Saddhiyama - can you perhaps help? The new stub article Jean de Kindelan‎, which is an offshoot off Evacuation of the La Romana Division from Denmark, now has a link to a seven page dossier in French for his Legion d'Honneur award. Do you know of any French/English editor with an interest in this field who might help to expand the stub? I have no French whatsoever! Thanks in advance. Viking1808 (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but despite having had two years of French in high school (way) back in the day, my knowledge of French has never moved beyond what must be called the most rudimentary. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Definitely an interesting document, and the link as well. The level of digitalisation of the French National Archives is very admirable. I wish the Danish archives had achieved such levels completeness in getting important documents on the net. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson is a New Age spiritual leader, fix it back up please[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, good to meet you. As for Bob Wilson, please google/bing "Robert Anton Wilson" and "New Age" and you will have lots of references. Many "new age" (and it is a mish-mash of beliefs, some very stupid, others working with human consciousness) bookstores, publishers, and individuals consider Wilson one of the major heralders of an openness and interest in various topics which are defined as New Age, and then he adds to those topics. The "23 phenomena" which is new age but not likely worthy of the template was started by Wilson, as was the upsurge in interest in the illuminati, in personal reality (which is likely the hallmark of the "new age" - again, a varied term - in that people are realizing that they "see" the world in their heads, that they choose different points of view to experience, and that no two personal "universes" are alike (even to the perceived dimension of a room). Wilson brought that informaiton forward, as he did the psychological and real-world implications of quantum mechanics, of Leary's information, and dozens of other "new age" topics. So in terms of "fixing it" from the IP, maybe you can consider fixing it back. Thanks. Randy Kryn 10:52 20 March 2013 (UTC)
As I have read most of his work I am quite familiar with Robert Anton Wilson, thank you very much. As per WP:BURDEN you are going to have to provide a reliable source that explicitly states that he is "new age" leader before he can be included in that list. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see the problem, and it may have started with the IP's header in this section. The term used on the template is "Proponent" not leader. Proponents are people who move forward information and agree with a certain subject, in this case New Age topics (which are varied and, as I attempt to define in my post above, much looser in defintion than other easily pin-downable subjects). Can you agree that Wilson is a proponent from your reading of his material? The case can be made that he is a leader, but that is not the template's purpose. I would like to remove some of the other people on the template, but that term proponent keeps them stuck there - and I don't think changing it to "leader" would work either as that is a loose term as well (nobody is elected to serve as a New Age leader, although if a mock election were held, Wilson would probably be one of the major candidates!). Does this define my inclusion of his name a bit further? Thanks. Randy Kryn 11:12 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Just at random (of the names I didn't recognize), look at Leonard Orr. Very unsourced page, claims to have "met 12 immortals" (or something), prominent in rebirthing (Hubbard and Reich worked on that material decades before this fellow). So we have him as a proponent. The names I added contributed to either the formation of what is defined as the "New Age" (or Aquarian Age) or to the topics it revolves around. I didn't include Hubbard, as that would be too controversial for some, but he likely belongs there in terms of expanding the scope of human potential techniques and wide usage (Werner Erhard stole from his work, as did Paul Twitchell - I don't know if either of them are on the template but they could be - oh, in looking the spelling of Erhard's name up I just found out that he died [EDIT:Nope, still alive], I didn't know that). It would be fun to actually work with you on the template if you'd like, we could bump around thoughts and discussion of the individuals and topics. Randy Kryn 11:35 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, another reason for what may be the mix up. I saw on the Robert Anton Wilson article that an IP listed Wilson as a "New age spiritual leader" which even I would agree was inaccurate. Wilson would agree that's inaccurate! He was a writer, and a proponent, but not a spiritual leader. He'd have kicked the butt of that IP. Anyway, maybe that clears up where the original OP of this section was looking at, and then moved his finding over to the template, which has nothing to do with spiritual leading or following. Thanks once again (as you can see, I'm long-winded sometimes when interesting topics evolve). Randy Kryn 12:04 20 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I take it from your silence that it's okay to put Robert Anton Wilson back onto the template, due to the fact that the misunderstanding was that he was a "Spiritual Leader" when the template says "Proponent", which he obviously was. So thanks, and it was good meeting you. Randy Kryn 14:45 22 March, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I have been a bit busy with other matters in the mean time to divest myself in this discussion. I don't agree to his inclusion in that template unless there is a specific sourced statement to the fact that he is a "New Age proponent" in the article itself as per Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt if almost any of the "proponents" listed could be sourced under those exact words. It's a word used as a definition for people who have initiated or strongly advocated "new age" principles, techniques, or philosophies. If Wilson is not a proponent, then he is an "influence". During research for this section I've found that some people believe Carl Rogers was the "father of the new age", something I've only heard of Edgar Cayce. So Rogers should probably find inclusion on the template. For individuals then, how about if that section is divided into "proponents" and "Individually influenced" - which seems in some ways similar but in others more inclusive. Would that work? And please give advice on the Carl Rogers inclusion. I've included Werner Erhard, per my research during this discussion, although he seems to me to have lifted Hubbard's material on purpose without giving him proper credit. Randy Kryn 14:57 22 March, 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable proposal. As Robert Anton Wilson of course was heavily into the New Age universe, I have never found any comments of wholesale appreciation or advocation of the concept in general from him. I of course did do some research myself in order to see if I could find sources that would back up a claim of him either being a leader or proponent of New Age, and one of the first things that pops up in Google is this interview with him, where he describes himself as being "some kind of antibody in the New Age movement" and "a spiritual anarchist", which fits far more perfectly with your proposed "individually influenced" characterisation than any of the previous two.
I am unfortunately not familiar enough with Carl Rogers to give any qualified opinion, but I think it is important to remember that Wikipedia:Verifiability still applies to categories and templates. So it would be safest to find some weighty sources that connects him with the New Age movement before making any decisions about inclusion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right, Wilson may object himself to being named a "proponent", as I'm sure that many of the topics seen as "new age" would just have seemed foolish to him. It's too bad the term covers so much nonsense as well as what could be called work and research on human consciousness, which is what I consider "new age". On Wilson defining himself, in one of his books he calls himself, if I remember right, a "agnostic mystic". So I'll take him off again if you haven't already. So the "Individually influenced" section may work - wait, how about just renaming the entire "Proponent" section "Individually influenced"? I was thinking two sections, but that seems much more inclusive although only noted people should be listed (or the thing could be expanded by hundreds of names, and every Tom, Dick, and Swami would be included). This would leave room for a slight expansion of people like Carl Rogers and a few others, but not, as I mention, into the dozens. And this is intruding on your time again, so please take your time with any of this. Randy Kryn 15:39 22 March, 2013 (UTC)
That is actually an even better proposal, and I think it would fit much better with the eclectism that covers the term New Age movement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Just got back from a wikipedia-hiatus. "Too much work and not enough play makes..." (edit p.s. Yikes! I just looked at the template and some IP has added like 40 names. Will have to clean that up later.) Randy Kryn 13:08 30 March 2013 (UTC)

separation barriers[edit]

i am quite surprised by your recent edits on the separation barrier page. as you are well aware, we are in the middle of a discussion on the topic, both on the talk page and on the OR notice board page. i think it is disruptive to be edit warring in the middle of discussion, instead of waiting for a conclusion. please self-revert your edits. thank you.Soosim (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have replied at the talk page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I am really confused. You made several revisions to the article, but isn't it under a WP:1RR restriction? GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see why you're confused: It stands for "1 revert rule", not "1 revision rule". --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

notification of edit warring and disruptive behavior on separation barrier article[edit]

i have started a discussion regarding your editing on the separation barrier article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Soosim Soosim (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Attacks on this page[edit]

(1) See my response to you, which I accidentally left on someone else's talk page. (2) I've blocked the predator missiles user, revdelled everything I can think of, and emailed it to Oversight for further suppression. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I appreciate it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


I would apreciate it if you did not accuse me of vandalism over a simple and obvious typo as you did regarding my edits to the Fronde page. It's rude and silly.Nwrnr (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry. It was just that both figures were wrong so I honestly thought it was a deliberate disruptive edit. I have stricken the warning. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for removing it. I'll try to type more carefully in future.Nwrnr (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of WP:AN discussion[edit]

Hello Saddhiyama, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN#Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan. Appreciate your input, thanks! Zad68 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This really your only account?[edit]

You should be asking yourself the question you put on my talk page. Since you, Dougweller, and Prioryman, all at the same time came to defend the utter vandalism that you've been doing on the Cyrus cylinder entry. Disregarding the other links you put on my page which of course you also have broken on top of the outrages vandalism you have done on the Cyrus pages: WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed PROD on Bond No. 9[edit]

I removed the PROD on Bond No. 9. The previous version was fairly awful, but I found coverage of it in several sources. I'm not entirely sold on the article, but it was enough to make me remove the PROD. You might want to take a look at it and if you think it still fails notability guidelines, you can always take it to AfD. It was just enough to where I thought it rakes the borderline of notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a rather impressive array of reliable sources you have found, so I agree with you that the article now seems to be notable (I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject). My main concern was that it was created by an editor who very likely had some commercial interests in it one way or another, but you have turned it into an acceptable stub, removing any worries on that part. Good work. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User you had blocked[edit]

Can you take a look at Demographics of atheism, he's back and I don't want to look like I'm pushing a POV because I did substantial requested work on the lede and sorted the sections but his edits got mixed with mine. Is there a way to just revert them all and block the ip permanently? Lycurgus (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on reliable source noticeboard?[edit]

Hi Saddhiyama, you've edited on the reliable source noticeboard recently, and I'm wondering if I could convince you to share your thoughts on the Ferenc Szaniszlo section? It's long enough (or maybe ambiguous enough) that I'm afraid contributing editors might ignore it... so anyway I thought I'd ask. If you know impartial people who could help, that'd be great too. best, -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Separation of church and ctate[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Saddhiyama. You have new messages at Talk:Separation of church and state.
Message added 02:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thorvald Madsen[edit]

Since you are Danish, I translated this today from the Danish version. Can you help in wikifying and find some reference for it and Vilhelm Herman Oluf Madsen, his father. The latter article was unreferenced from 2008 till today until I added a book reference. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added references to their respective articles in the first and second edition of the Danish Biographical Dictionary as well as a monography on the weapons system invented by Vilhelm Herman Oluf Madsen and an English book that contains a lengthy biography on Thorvald Madsen. I've done some minor wikifying on Thorvald Madsen as well, but not much was needed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

SPI investigation into Albert Pyun socks[edit]

I wondering your thoughts on opening an SPI into multiple IP's I feel are Albert Pyun. He is constantly adding self promotion items to Albert Pyun in an attempt to write an autobiography. I notice on one of his socks User talk: you warned him of this. The following IP's I believe to be him:

User: User: User:

Readyforanderson 03:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Recent revision.[edit]

Hello, Saddhiyama. I couldn't help but notice a revision you made, Could you please add source? Thank you, Planetary ChaosTalk 11:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Planetary Chaos Redux

I reverted the removal of the section because the editor who removed it did so with an incorrect copyvio claim (it was the book which had copied the Wikipedia article). I have not made any judgement regarding the validity of the text. You are more than welcome to challenge the section on the talk page, and if no sources are to be found, then delete it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
(sorry) And it is already in common use at hundereds of historical articles in English Wikipedia. Boeing720 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that the Albert Pyun page is no longer protected:[edit]

Pyun has returned spamming the page with non-encyclopedic, self-promotional fluff. Readyforanderson (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

About "The Concise Encyklopædia of Wold Hoistory"[edit]

Hello , Saddihiyama (not the most easy to remember the exact spelling of; og min tastatur trænger også til at udskiftes). Anyway, "The Concise Encyclopædia of World History" it's a foliant size work written by proffesors and lectiers of several British universities, edited by John Bowle. (the word "tertiary" came from the misinterpreted fact that Bowle edited the work of others). Why it was spelled with "æ" in 1958, I can only guess. Didn't the "Æ"-letter come from Roman Latin ? The two later editions use "e" instead. It was printed in all English speaking nations of the world and in India, as far as I can see. Perhaps my editing-phrase was clumsy, but I can assure You that it isn't "obscure". It's re-edited by John Bowle in 1971 and is still available for instance at Also later editions exist - is from 1995. The reason that I have the 1958 edition in my possesion, is that my mother edjucated herself to become a teacher in the subjecs of "Swedish" and "History" when I was a kid (I borne in 1964). She gave me some of her edjucational litterature, when my parents moved in 2005. She's now retired. But it is a work of highest possible academical level. Doubt if Commons alouds a picture, but if You doubt me, please just wright to and I will send You a photo of the book (including the Æ in the title). If possible I do also suggest that You participate a bit more at the talk page of Nazism. I say this since You have rejected edits by both me and others. I øvrigt synes jeg at Skåne og måske Blekinge skal genforenes med Danmark, København er i hvert fald "min Hovedstad". Med bedste hilsner (selv hvis De har andere synspunkter) Pontus Eriksson, Landskrona, Skåne, gamle Østdanmark. Boeing720 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is also written by the foremost experts in the field, but it is still a tertiary source. I suggest you read WP:Tertiary sources (and follows the links) to acquaint yourself with the expression and learn why it is a problematic source to use for exceptional claims. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
But Encyclopedia Britannia isn't for edjucational use as The Concise Encyklop-e/æ-dia is. It's not tertiary, I was wrong. Boeing720 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional monarchy[edit]


you can find my reply to your edit in the article Constitutional monarchy on the talk page. --Bahrmatt (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Please see the talk page of the page on Voltaire where i have created a new section for discussing your recent revert. Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Londinium was the latin translation of London[edit]

The Roman language was latin. The city was founded by the Romans. I also looked this up on google translate.Bjoh249 (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it doesn't make much sense to write about the name as a translation, since it was its real name. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but it is still translated to London. It is written like there was a whole other settlement there before London came along, but it has been the same settlement since its founding by the Romans.Bjoh249 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

imperialism in asia[edit]

What is "disruptive editing" ? i removed historically wrong photo. you should study true history. you don't asian history at all. you are not a east asian. if you contend this photo is true, you should prove this photo is true. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, if you remove something from an article, please provide a reason in the Wikipedia:edit summary, since we can't read your mind in order to know the reason for the deletion. Secondly, you don't have to be East Asian or from a specific country in order to edit certain articles, anyone can edit as long as they follow Wikipedia:Policies. Thirdly, the picture and the image text is taken from page 263 of the book The Passing of Korea which is considered a reliable source, and thus perfectly acceptable in the article. If you have a problem with it, please discuss this on the talk page of the article in question. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


Trophy.png Dear
My article editing is being reverted everytime. What is the reason? Please reply, I want yo contribute to wikipedia. TheBoom102 (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I have left you a Welcome message with some links that hopefully explains why your current edits have been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you follow the links and adhere to the policies explained in them, there is a good chance that your edits will not be removed in the future. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Aryan for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what the TALK PAGE!! is for.It is becoming quite clear to other administrators whats going on here,,please stop deleting my work,,you have no valid reason to do this.--Waterman0201 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a sock puppet investigation about you, since it is painfully obvious that you are yet another sock of indefinitely blocked user Redbranch1984. Feel free to comment there. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence quotient edits[edit]

I see you have a good source at hand. (I have the same source at hand.) Let's discuss how to use that source to improve the article on the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder/ History of Human Rights[edit]

Why do you keep reverting everything back to controversial passages that agree with your own personal views? What are your qualifications on the study of the ancient Near East, if I may ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrino (talkcontribs) 05:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to these edits from February, I merely reverted your unexplained blanking of sourced statements (a deletion made without any edit summary). A blanking that was exactly the same as numerous Iranian IPs have made with a clear intention of removing information they don't like (see WP:BOOMERANG). The statements are mentioning of notable scholars in the field questioning the now mostly abandonded view that the Cylinder is a precursor to human rights. Your request for my qualifications reveals a severe misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is about. We judge edits here, not editors. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


Sorry about that. I was trying to fix the wording of, not realizing that that edit had been made August 12, and that fixing it reverting subsequent edits. Nightscream (talk)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to European English 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:
  • ], Gibraltar, and the overseas British military base of [[Akrotiri and Dhekelia]] in Cyprus (while Cyprus may or may not be regarded as geographical part of Europe.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


May I know what this is? [3] -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The cover of that book is copyrighted material which cannot be used except with the consent of the copyright holders. There are some exceptions according to American fair use legislation, for example if it is used as an illustration in an article about that specific version of the book, or perhaps the publisher(?), but I am afraid it would not be deemed fair use in connection with an article about the ancient text itself. There is simply no pressing issue that makes use of a non-free image in that article necessary. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


Replied at Talk:Hinduism and other religions. Justicejayant (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Hinduism and other religions". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 10:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your warning[edit]

I believe user deleted your warning (and all his others). I've spent a lot of time cleaning up after him. Thanks. Richard Apple (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

They do have a right to delete warnings, but it does mean that they acknowledged them, so it doesn't cancel the warnings in any way. This IP seems rather static, making a lot of edits, some legit, but all of them with bad spelling, grammar and editing. And a good deal of them are not legit, as the one I reversed where they deleted reliably sourced content on personal opinion. So if they make any further trouble they are still very liable to the consequences of disruption if it should happen. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Old edit to Sikh[edit]

Hi. At this diff, you reverted an edit that correctly removed a reported population of 2 Sikhs in Turkey. The relevant section heading of the Infobox is "Regions with significant populations". I don't think 2 qualifies, the cite is apparently bogus, and significant research has failed to turn up any count of Sikhs in Turkey among many recent censuses by different organizations. It's been (IMO correctly) removed again. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. However if you look at the diff you will see that they also removed the information about Malaysia in the same edit, providing no explanation for that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm an academic[edit]

I know about those subjects more than all those poeple that wrote there (Great Power article) all together.They know better Wikipedia symbols or small things,but i know the main things.I'm sorry.It's a very low level article.Please at the beginning of the presentation of "Italy " article restore "main" before the words middle power and cite the G7 as well close the G8.Italy could be followed if it is presented in a low profile. (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Any legitimate concerns about the article should be posted at its discussion page, where it is much likely that any editors interested in the subject will read it. And you may very well be a specialist on the subject, I wouldn't know, but at least then it should be easy for you to find some reliable secondary sources. I am afraid we cannot accept original research, that is conclusions made on the interpretation of two unrelated sources. So any definitions about great power status has to be taken from sources that specifically defines individual countries as such. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tons of sources but i don't know how posting them.Please remember to restore what i wrote upon on Italy presentation article.Italy is in the G7 and is a "main middle power".Somebody deleted the words "main" and G7.I tell you this because i warned about the low level profile used to describe Italy.I warned italian authorities too because in "Italy " article page are rapresented all main Symbols of Italy whose ranking and prestige in the world must be respected.So do not only stop in talking, restore also what was right. (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of books banned by governments 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:
  • html |title=Canadian group urges U.S. booksellers to ban hate material |work=CNET|date=2000-04-13)|accessdate=October 21, 2011 }}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Newspaper circulation 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:
  • The 2010 ''Indian Readership Survey'' findings<ref>[</ref> shows that the largest read local language newspapers

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barry Lyndon 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:
  • }</ref> Director [[Martin Scorsese]] has cited ''Barry Lyndon'' as his favorite Kubrick film.<ref>[ Kubrick Coirner - Scorsese on Kubric: "I’m not sure if I

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Representative democracy[edit]

Hi Saddhiyama,

concerning the revision of the clause "democracy": I referenced Aristotle because in that particular chapter of Politics he discusses some contradictions between voting officeholders (a current representative democracy practice) and having a democratic governance. Actually, he advocates that voting officials is an oligarchical practice, while he suggests lottery as the democratic approach. I'll change the wording so this reference does not sound contradictory in the scope of "current" practices and resubmit.

Rgds /Giorgos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgos pkls (talkcontribs) 11:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Mentioning Aristotle is certainly relevant since his critique of democracy was one of the leading ideas in political thought until the early modern period. But it is problematic to bunch him together with modern critics, since in between we have had the development of modern representative democracy which Aristotle of course cannot have commented on. So it is much appreciated that his critic is singled out and elaborated distinct from the cited modern critics. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of books banned by governments, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unknown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Saddhiyama - apologies for posting links that are considered spam ... I thought that they provide additional, original information beyond what was in the articles, but I understand from your deletes that they don't meet the Wikipedia's requirements. All the best. Jan morovic (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wind Turbine entry[edit]


The Wind Turbine entry is a mess. I cannot clean it up, but I thought to add some useful information on top of it.

AweCrosswind (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your good intentions, however it is considered conflict of interest if an editor adds sources that comes from a group which the editor is affiliated or close to. You are more than welcome to add information to the article, but please make sure to add reliable secondary sources from a third party which you are not affiliated or close to. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


Very well, I understand removing the portion of my edit which added unsourced statements. I will find a source when I have the time and update it. However, why did you revert my entire edit? I also REMOVED an obviously biased and completely unsourced paragraph, as well as changed some of the biased language to more neutral language. (For example, I changed "advertising is increasingly invading public spaces" to "advertising is increasingly common in public spaces") (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please remember WP:AGF[edit]

Re this edit summary [4] please do not label edits as vandalism that aren't. Both the IP's and my edit summaries were quite clear in what was being done and neither edit vandalized the article. Yes, the IP misread the sentence and I did the same when examining the edit but mistakes do not constitute vandalism. I know that you are a long time editor with WikiP's best interest. I think that you should grant that others have that as well. As I am sure that this message will not make you happy please feel free to remove it. MarnetteD | Talk 20:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have seen a T-shirt with that reads "Let's eat mom" - "Let's eat, mom" - "punctuation saves lives" -
That is the mistake that the IP made. I hope that this will give you a grin before you remove this message MarnetteD | Talk 21:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I (for once, check my oontribs) didn't take the time to inspect the origin of an erronous edit and I did erronously assume it was vandalism. I apologise for my misleading edit summary. Your objection was completely justified, and as such I will leave it here for archiving (I have a personal policy of only deleting outright vandalism and harrasment from my talk page). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and your understanding. It is appreciated. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 23:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin[edit]

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Figure between Christopher and Euphemia[edit]

Can you tell us what you know about this Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Euphemia of Pomerania and Christopher II of Denmark?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually know nothing about it (but thanks for making me aware of all these very interesting historical medieval sites, which has given me great ideas for local sightseeing trips when vacation time comes around next summer), but I did some Google searching of the Danish language sites and hopefully came up with something that is useful. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Vikings (TV series) - reversion of obvious anomalies.[edit]

So what was sufficiently original and not obvious / verifiability in that paragraph to deserve a reversion?

If it's supporting screenshots you're after then they exist on numerous sites, but their inclusion would obviously violate copyright, a parody defence probably won't wash e.g.

If you're after a couple of references, explaining why a welsh slate roof sitting on a building supposedly erected on a baltic Island before the Vikings reached the principality, or the material was adopted for roofing, telegraph poles, silver sprayed nylon clothing, float glass paned windows, shinny black chromium tanned leather / biker pants, epoxy sealed horn beakers....... are all anomalous for a supposedly 8th century production, then I'm sure I can add something in a few min's. (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer the latter. You will need reliable secondary sources that specifically mentions the series and the ahistorical things to be found in it. We can't as editors point out flaws like that ourselves, even though they may seem glaringly obvious, since that violates the verifiability policies and of course not least WP:OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions[edit]

Ref your message to Please check the wikipedia article Jerusalem where this text is used.

According to the Biblical tradition, King David established the city as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple.

This is much more accurate, and I do not understand why it would not be used at Abrahamic religions as well. The correct name is the United Kingdom, not just the word Israel. Israel was only one of the two kingdoms that united. Please self revert, or provide a better reason for your revert to a less helpful, less accurate text. (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your help on ANI - It's much appreciated,

It's nice to know there's people like yourself on here that do help others out so thank you :)
Kindest Regards, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghanaian people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Netaji edit in Dictators page[edit]

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was not a dictator and is not considered one by either Indian or Western media. I hail from Bose's own city, and I have never come across any book or authoritative document in which he has been described as a 'dictator'. He never got the chance to dictate. He was a freedom fighter, and he went missing before India even got its independence. Hope this answers the edit. I should have have mentioned it in the edit summary. THank you so much :D Abhiroop de(talk)

Thank you for the explanation. The entry was sourced with an reliable source, however as it lacked a page number it was unclear whether the source actually supported the claim of Bose being a dictator or just sourced the historical events described in his entry. So I will let your deletion stand. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Uruguay 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:
  • list|86% [[White Latin American|White]]|4% [[Mestizo]]|9% [[Afro-Uruguayan|Black and Mulatto]]|<1% [[Amerindian]]}}
  • growing, sale and smoking of cannabis has been made legal in Uruguay on December 10th 2013. <ref>[ BBC, "Uruguay becomes first nation to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey buddy. I removed the "Study" portion of Egalitarianism because said study does not refer to Egalitarianism. I'll go ahead and put that in the summary now. THanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion re IIPM[edit]

There is another discussion re that article at, in case you're interested in participating. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Polish sources[edit]

Polish sources are perfectly fine, there is no rule against their use. If you require a translation it can be provided.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is. WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". For general claims like that which has plenty of English language sources, English language sources are preferred. There is simply no need to use a Polish source for general statements about Fredericks rule. Polish sources are only preferable for subjects that lack English language sources, like perhaps specifics regarding Poland during his time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As you confirm non-English sources are allowed. As to rest, it's your personal opinion that this is just your view, there is no rule banning Polish sources, and as Frederick is part of Polish history, certain aspects of his rule over Poland are vital and sourced by Polish sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the policy once more without the Polish agenda tunnelvision. There are plenty of English language sources for general information about Fredericks rule, thus Polish sources are not acceptable for such things as general claims about his religious policies. For his particular activities in Poland and regarding Poles, sure, there may be specific details that will need Polish sources, but in general no. Also, you fail to deliver English translations, and in many instances don't even provide a quotation of your Polish sources, although that is required by policy. I may go through the additions of you and your and your tag-team partner in the near future and clean up the biased, Polish sourced mess you have left. But I will let it rest for now, as it is Christmas. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Polish sources by history experts on Frederick and his rule are perfectly acceptable as sources for his policies, just as Spanish, Chinese or Bulgarian ones. Nationality plays no role here. Quotations can be requested, but aren't obligatory and aren't required by the policy. The very fact that you claim out of hand that Polish sources are "biased" and "mess" seems to indicate you have a particular POV, since there are numerous German language sources in that article that weren't provided with quotes.In any case if you want to ask for quote, feel free to do so and it will be gladly provided.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

Roadster 2.5 windmills trimmed.jpg A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No original research[edit]

Please stop adding original research--Islamize (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm Anup. I noticed that you are apparently engaged in an edit ward at Women in Islam. I'll request you to participate in the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page to reach a consensus. Happy editing. Regards, AnupMehra 01:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Police State[edit]

Dear Saddhiyama, After adding to the page "Police State," you sent me a warning telling me I was vandalising Wikipedia. The addition may have gone against your personal point of view, but because you disagree with something does not make it vandalism. The addition may have lacked references, or had similar or perhaps trivial issues, but the idea added insight and breadth to an article that as it is takes an incredibly American-patriot point of view. The United States fits all the descriptions that the page outlines to define a police state, so its inclusion is not only pertinent, but important. As a rookie Wikipedia user, maybe you could help me constructively start a discussion on the matter, rather than unhelpfully branding me a vandal and threatening to block my account. I look forward to your prompt reply, Xto_999

Xto 999 (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You added your own unsourced point of view and edit warred over it when it was reverted. That qualifies as disruptive editing. Your rant above is still nothing but unsourced soapboxing. I don't particularly care to introduce you to all the rules you should have learnt long ago, since you have been editing here for 4 years. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, by replying so angrily to my reasonable and polite message, you have proved to me you are simply an angry and closed minded person in general, and I actually have done nothing wrong. I hope at some point before you die you realise that your external negative attitude and aggressive actions only really negatively affect you and not the rest of the world. Maybe then you will find peace. Xto 999 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your extrapolation is as astute as the edit to the article (which is to say not very). --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Historicity of Jesus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Historicity of Jesus, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Do not change the meanig of other users words[edit]

Reverted good faith edits by Suksesi (talk): No "some scientists" don't. Some particular individuals do, but WP:UNDUE----I am not saying scientists do but some hypothesis do.Do not change the meaning of my words! Suksesi

Sorry for the misquote in my reversion. But you are using an unreliable source for a fringe theory, phrased as it was a real scientific hypothesis, which it isn't. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up after User: I must be doing something right to get that reaction. I have my suspicions as to which named account that IP is. Meters (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, all part of the job. I noticed that User:Conboy456, who was also getting some of the spam from the IP account, is a suspiciously behaving account, with nothing but disruptive edits under their belt as well. I considered filing an sockpuppet investigation concerning them and the vandalising IP, but decided on not bothering with that and just waiting for them to step over the line one last time before taking them to AIV instead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
He's my most likely culprit. Meters (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Winston Churchill[edit]

Best not to go slapping "cautions" like that on the person whose comments happen to be the longest because he is replying carefully to other people's nonsense. I am not in the habit of initiating discussions for the sake of initiating discussions. I do, however, in between more serious writing, often reply to poorly-informed comments by others, as that is often better than leaving such comments uncorrected. If you take the trouble to read that thread more closely you will see that my first comment there, and every one since, was to reply to other editors, including one who has talked a great deal of ill-informed nonsense (punctuated only by insistence that my replies were "treating it as a forum") and deleted correct information from the article based on his own conjectures rather than consulting a book, and edit-warred about it when I corrected him (and is still doing so, but one can't fight every fool all the time).Paulturtle (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Those discussions which you were replying to had died down several days ago, and none of them were about improving the article. You replied to both of them, so I left you a message to refrain from continuing that discussion. It doesn't matter whether you were replying to other editors. The entire discussion had nothing to do with improving the article. All of the editors participating in those discussions were using the talk page as a forum, you just happen to be the last one replying to them. If you have any specific suggestions regarding improving the article I suggest you start a new discussion on the talk page, where you present the specific improvements in detail, complete with reliable sources to back up those suggestions. Wikipedia doesn't care about the personal interpretation of historical events by individual editors, because none of us constitute reliable sources. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

CSIO link[edit]

The ACORD link is geographically specific too. That organization is all about the United States. So why does ACORD link get on insurance page, and CSIO link doesn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Geography is only one concern (I refer to Wikipedia:See also for the guidelines regarding the "See also" lists), the main concern is brevity and conciseness of the "See also" list. The current list included in the Insurance article has many problems, and does indeed need a pruning, however that is not a valid argument for adding more links of the same nature. I have removed the link to ACORD, as the link was already included in the main article text, and thus does not warrant inclusion in the "See also"-list (as per the linked guideline). --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


You stated that the 50,000,000 number is fringe, and therefore not worthy to be in the article. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. While I can certainly see where you are coming from, I have seen many protestants, muslims, etc cite these figures and I think it is notable enough to at least mention, as many still believe these numbers. Big foot, UFO's, creationism, etc, all have articles on wikipedia. I think Plaisted's numbers, which are a summary of numerous protestant historical documents, are worthy enough to be mentioned. Many quote these numbers as fact to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackgateamericanindian (talkcontribs) 15:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't stat that the number is fringe. I claim that the guy and his website is fringe, the figure may very well be as well, but the discussion is about the person and the source not the technicality of figures. Please go to the talk page of the article and make your case, and refrain from readding the section again (as per WP:BRD). Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I added the section back before you said this, sorry. I can take it off if you would like, until we get this situated. I agree with you in that the section should be primarily about the number, not Plaisted. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I added a section on the inquisition article talk page. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

your warning is returned to you[edit]

you have already reverted three times, you should open a section and talk before reverting. I 'm a very positive person who believe in consensus and change not in forcing people.Aubmn (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No consensus is needed in order to remove uncited claims. Anyway I urge you to go to WP:ANI where I have posted regarding your dubious sock puppetry practices. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No consensus is needed for anything but it is the Wikipedia Spirit, I 'm a very positive person ready to go to compromise to have consensus, You were told by me and another editor to go to the talk page after each revert yet you persisted in your revert 3 times breaking Wikipedia rules, this has been told to Administrators, second I think you used sock puppetry two days ago when you tried to change the article. But if you want to be positive, I' m ready to work with you, we can withdraw your two complains and be positive contributors working together on a common paragraph, I already replied on the talk page MA, thank you.Aubmn (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Normans article.[edit]

I've read your comment with great attention, and found that your position is in contradiction of Wikipedia policy. Please refer to the talk page of the Normans article for details. Thank you. 2A02:1810:519:9E00:D824:116D:B084:DBF2 (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Caste based Edit Wars[edit]

Hey Saddhiyama, this is Rabtman. I'm curious to know as if you have had problems with the user Sitush a while ago who tried to attack Upper caste pages in the Hindu Varna system? Rabt man (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Saddhiyama. 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)

Do NOT remove talk page comments[edit]

You recently removed my whole-paragraph comment from Talk:Dictator. This is a flagrant breach of WP:TPO. In your edit summary, you claimed that I was breaking the WP:SOAPBOX rule. I dispute this but, even if it were true, WP:TPO does not permit this as justification for removing comments from talk pages. ( (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

WP:FORUM. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You are mischaracterising my contribution to Talk:Dictator. I was participating in the existing discussion as to whether the US president should be included in the article; I wasn't merely complaining about him for the sake of it. Again, even if you were right in accusing me of breaking WP:SOAPBOX or WP:FORUM, deleting talk page comments is a serious, disruptive action that isn't justified by either of those rules.( (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
No it isn't. Removing disruptive and off topic additions to talk pages are perfectly legitimate, and since you have yourself acknowledged that your addition was indeed off topic and disruptive, your insistence on keeping your comment suggests a serious amount of bad faith. Also I would advice that you refrain from using sockpuppets to reinstate your comment on the talk page. It will not help your case at all, in fact it only serves to underline the disruptive nature of your editing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • ^ [N.Kent, selection "Punk Rock Year Zero" as appears in Punk: The Whole Story. ed. M. Blake. 2006 Mojo Magazine, 2006. Dorling Kindersley Limited]