User talk:Sikh 1

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Sikh 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SGGS on Meat[edit]

Thanks for your support of this page SGGS on Meat. --Hari Singh 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you said: "..... I've had a think about it's a good article because it conforms to orthodox Sikh teaching (over 400 years) so it good but.... If we allow this article then will have to allow a lot of other bad articles in to be fair and consistent. Therefore the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Therefore, I think part of it should be merged with the other article already mentioned. This article is good but if we keep it the price might be we have to let another 100 bad articles in to be fair and consistent. Be brave Hari Singh and say "lets part merge it with the other article" for the greater good and put it in wiki quote"

Well, these are the teachings of the Sikh Guru - They form 1430 pages only - So even if were to put all of them here, they would only take another maximum 1430 pages more on top of the 1,335,858 pages already here at Wikipedia - so the impact would not be huge. I don't think we would ever be putting so many here. Also, the SGGS is a special case as these are the actual writings of the all the Sikh Gurus written and recorded during their lives. Most other holy books appeared after the master had died.

Also, many articles appear on Wikipedia where many quotations appear and these are allowed – see Parables and 1000's of pages. So, why do we not allow them for Sikhism.

I don't have objections to merging, if that is the only option left - but I think that will create an issue with patrolling the article. I await your views? --Hari Singh 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support of the above article - we managed to save it from deletion with Waheguru's kirpa. I was surprised that while quotes from the Bible and other holy books are allowed, the SGGS is made an exception. I am trying to improve the article in line with guidance that I have from various users and hopefully, we will not face the same problems again. Many thanks again. --Hari Singh 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sikh-history[edit]

Hi, I agree with you. Unfortunately, due to personal commitment at Sikhiwiki.org and in real life, I am not able to deal with this matter at present. This user appears to just deal with the meat issue only and has made no attempt to help build Wikipedia or Sikhi on Wikipedia in any other area. I suggest that if you are familiar with any of the tools to deal with this person by contacting him directly or other means, please do so. I feel direct contact may be the best initial approach. Unfortunately, I believe that I may have had some dealing with this person at Sikhiwiki where he was very aggressive and was not prepared to provide any creditable references or any direct evidence.

He and a few others at the Sikh-History.com are bent on propagating their views without any backing from SGGS or other recorded evidence. A lot of the Sikh history is being twisted by these people at their site. They will go to any lengths to promote their views. For example, the Sakhi of Guru Gobind Singh and Madho Das (Banda Bahadar) has been twisted without any credible historical records been quoted or researched.

Unfortunately, I do not at present have the time to deal with these people but I think that their approach of promoting their views under the Sikhism banner is deplorable and needs to be restrained. All the views promoted by Sikhs must have a credible backing from SGGS or other renowned scholars like Bhai Gurdas and we must be able to check these references or translation. These people have at one point said that 4 translations of SGGS are wrong and their views are correct. I appreciate your concern and you have my support in dealing with this problem.

As I am not very active at Wikipedia at present, I would appreciate if you could leave a message at Sikhiwiki on my user page here or email to: asikh@msn.com. Many thanks. --01:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For you nice words on my talk page. I'm not going to be editing much on Wikipedia for about a month because I have school exams. Happy editing. Gizza^Chat ^© 05:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I'm doing good. You may want to look at List of Sikh soldiers and Sikhism in the United States if you have time.Bakaman _Bakatalk

Minor[edit]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, this is correct. Being involved in a content dispute does not entitle you to harrass the user with warnings of being banned. Please stop putting the warning on Sikh-history's talk page. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real warning[edit]

I'm going to go one step further. Because of your incivility in attempting to get Sikh-history blocked, and your disruption in continually spamming WP:ANI about it, plus your bad-faith warnings, you are blocked for 24 hours. During those 24 hours, I advise you to read over WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:V, and WP:NPOV to refresh yourself on our behavioral policies and our key content policies. In the future, engage in civil discussion in resolving your disputes. Mango juice^talk 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this warning. I am watching your edits. I unblocked you because I didn't think what you had done was worthy of a block, but you are not helping. Please stop accusing your fellow editors of trolling just because you don't agree with their view. You are clearly very knowledgeable about Sikh issues, and we do not want to lose knowledgeable editors, particularly in areas where we don't have as much expertise as we would like. However, carry on upsetting others, and disrupting, and I will reblock you myself. Take the advice Mangojuice gave you, and read the above policies. If there's any part of them you don't understand, please ask me via my talk page, and I will be happy to help. Regards, Proto::► 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Prohibitions[edit]

Please tell me how you can reconcile the Sikh Code of Conduct View http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html that Meat Eating is not banned in Sikhism with the view that Meat eating is strictly banned. I myself am a vegetarian Sikh, but I am not that pig headed to think that all Sikhs should follow my path, especially when Sikh Code of Conduct clearly states otherwise.--Sikh-history 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me of the discussion on Wikipedia[edit]

I have looked at Talk:Prohibitions in Sikhism and it is a situation which I am familiar with. The situation needs a united efforts by a group of Sikh to establish the true principles of Sikhism on Wikipedia. Please let me know how I can help. The page is protected until 8th so we have a few days to think.

The guy from Sikh History will not listen to reason and is not really concerned about Sikhism. He tried to spread this same anti-Sikhi dogma at Sikhiwiki and he was immediately banned. As Wikipedia is run by non-Sikhs, and most administrators are non-Sikhs and completely ignorant of Sikhi, the true position will be very difficult to maintain unless we have a united front. I do not log in at Wikipedia daily so please leave a message at Sikhiwiki. Many thanks. --Hari Singh 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that comment. I will speak to a few of my friends and come back to you. Unfortunately, the world is full of lunatics, Hari Singh 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with User:Sikh-history[edit]

I have a couple of comments on this dispute. I'm leaving this message to you and have left a similar one for Sikh-history. First of all, you need to stop calling names and attempting to undermine each other by ad hominem arguments. In other words, avoid comments like "fanatic who is trying to push his weird views," they aren't helpful. Make the first step, be civil and reasonable at all times and don't make personal attacks. Read up on the core Wikipedia content policies: it's by referring to those policies that edit disputes are best resolved. The core policies are verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. Also, if you have been editing from an IP address, it would be better if you logged in and claimed responsibility for all your edits.

Specifically in this dispute, I will be the first to admit that I don't know a lot about the subject, and am speaking from ignorance. Ironically, this puts me in a good position to judge, because the right kinds of arguments to use are the ones that would convince me, even someone who knows nothing about the subject. It seems to me that you have largely based your argument on the emphatic assertion that you are correct and that Sikh-history's argument itself is improper. While you are correct in calling some of the things Sikh-history has used as arguments original research, you should still try to do better in making your own point. In other words, while I haven't seen anything beyond an opinion from Sikh-history, I also haven't seen anything beyond an opinion from you.

What would convince me more (but still not enough) would be to see the same claims you are making reflected in published sources independent of yourself. If books about Sikhism reflect that the prohibition against meat is absolute, then at least I'll know that it's an opinion that has some level of support. (Note, though, that the core religious/law texts of Sikhism don't count as this kind of published source themselves: the verifiability policy expects information to come from secondary, not primary sources. What I'm talking about here is analysis of the texts that others have done and published.) However, it wouldn't really be good enough to only show scholarly support for the idea that meat-eating is forbidden, what's more important is to understand if Sikhs actually live their lives this way or embrace that idea.

Note that sources supporting your view have to be reliable ones. Ideally, we're talking about books or magazine articles (preferably printed ones, and preferably, in English). Less ideal would be online sources with some special authority -- if, say, there were an official website of Sikhism, or something. Sources that really can't be considered enough on their own are sources like websites with no special authority, blog or webforum posts, et cetera.

If you are right and the viewpoint that some meat-eating is allowed is a fringe viewpoint, it may be appropriate to not include that view at all, or at least to marginalize it in the article: See the neutral point of view policy, specifically the WP:NPOV#Undue weight section. Mango juice^talk 18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, let me say that my support of your argument earlier when Sikh-history posted that link, was the wrong sort of argument -- it doesn't really matter how we as individuals interpret the Sikh texts, but rather how they are interpreted by those who write about them. But going back to my counterargument, I did notice that the restriction specifically refers to Halal meat, not all meat, and my assumption that non-Halal meat would also be forbidden was based on an apparently incorrect assumption that Sikhism is an extension of Islam. You see, I really am pretty ignorant! :) But anyway, I hope my guidance will be useful in resolving the dispute. If, as you have been claiming, Sikh-history is trying to push a little-held point of view on Wikipedia, it will eventually become clear to outsiders. But it isn't clear now because you haven't supported your own arguements properly. Mango juice^talk 18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Committee request notification[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prohibitions in Sikhism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Yours,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]