User talk:Shalimer/Archive01

March 2008

{{Help Me}} Somebody fix double re-direct in Deh Shiva Var Mohe ThanksAjjay (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems ok. If it is not list exactly where things should be directed if they are wrong I will try to help more. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

O ਕਿਦਾ ਵੀ ਅਜੇ ਕੀ ਹੋਯਾ ??? O user:90.196.3.244 ਕੀ ਗਾਲ eya --Spy89 (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

onu mai block kardita. jay o tainu phir thang karda mainu msg shadey ok --Spy89 (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

March 2008

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Spy89 in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to translate my old comments also, (which are in history)Ajjay (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. :-) You don't have to provide a translation for each word, by the way - one for each comment will do! Regards, Lofty. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Recently someone put up a claim that I was one of you sockpuppets. Seems people can get pretty nasty when they want to take someone out of the picture.

Gorkhali (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, no problem brother I got your back. What is the vandal up to???--Sikh khalsa (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look

on my talk-page, an IP spammed something depending you there. It would be kind if you could reply him. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. thanks for concernAjjay (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam vis a vis Sikhism

Firstly Islam and Sikhism are two different faiths, Islam does not recognise Sikh Gurus as Prophets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

so!Even Sikhism does not recognize muhammed as true messanger of god. sikhism rejects all most all tenets of islam. eg. no namaaz in SikhismAjjay (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if you feel thats the case put in in the article, why delete Islamic references when the title of the thread is "Islam & Sikhism" The idea is to state their ideological standpoints, not a biased one-sided show of one faith as you can read in the discussion section of the article.

Please discuss Islam & Sikhism on the correct discussion page

What??Ajjay (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of the bloodshed b/w the Islamic rulers and all the Gurus.

Even the battles are watered down to give the impression to the reader that the Mughals and Guru Gobind were parts of the same football team.

There is no mention that Sikhs cannot consume Halal food

Secondly, you mistake Muslims for Sufis, its like mistaking Buddhists for Sikhs just because both faith are dharmic in nature.

Reply to unsigned comment--I am not the author of article. Ok. So stop trying to harrass me as if i wrote the whole article. Feel free to change as long as you follow[1]ThanksAjjay (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ajjay, I've just seen your note on my talkpage about this, I'll updated the article accordingly. Regards, Pahari Sahib19:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

test message

This message is to see what happens to this text in relation to the page formatting on this page. The Transhumanist 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting trick

When you leave out the closing delimiter for a table "|}", it by default extends the table's formatting to the end of the page. The same thing applies to closing "divs" (</div>).

By the way, I'm glad you found the design elements at the WP:UPDC useful. The Transhumanist 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Islam and Sikhism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The current dispute arose because of disruptive edits by the anonymous user [2]. You should see his comments on my talk page.[3]. He wants to include wars between emperors of mughal india and sikhs, in the article. The article is about islam and sikhism and not about sikh and muslims politics. Further he added a lot of content in bigenning. The article originally started with introdution reading "Sikhism arose in a climate....." The first six lines were added later on by the anonymous ip address (one by me though), and do not reflect on realtionship, but contradictions (which is not the article theme/content).Kindly do the needful and revert the necessary content.Ajjay (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Even admins are not supposed to make significant edits to protected pages. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. If you establish a consensus for the edits you would like to make on the talk page, place {{editprotected}} there with the exact details of the edits and an admin will come along and change the page. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow that the second warning from a snr admin?

Reply to unsigned comment.

so!!! It is only a warning, and for helping not harrassing.OkAjjay (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Ajay, Would you like to help and contribute to an page that is supposed to be made its called, Insights into Sikhism. Its about an Jew named Hari Nam Singh Khalsa who became an Sikh and appears on T.V. everyday and pursues others. and the funny thing is he doesnt know how to speak Punjabi or Gurmukhi and has no idea of Punjabi Language perhaps you would be intrested in contributing heres an start [[4]]. --UNikesh (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is kundalini yoga ?????. Nice work he seems to be doing. About the article, i think it has nothing to do with insights to Sikhism, it more like a lifstyle issue. Thanks anyways Ajjay (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Ajay it about teachings in all fields about Sikhism. Its all in english though you know those white people who convert to Sikhism and only speak English or their own Language like Hibrew check it out Ajay the link is up --UNikesh (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to help! Sorry to disappoint you. Also i have an instinct that you are already member of wiki, and this account is just a sock, don't get upset, just a hunchAjjay (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

why??

You never warned the anonymous ip adress[5] for 3RR. He is the one who started it all [6]. Plus he removes /reverts reliable sourced material to add non-reliable sources. [7]. And i never indulged in vandalism. Ajjay (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from warning him. By the way, comments like this are not in order. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi no problem. Good job on catching the vanadalism - well done!--Sikh khalsa (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Singh

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. The article Singh has a long way to go before it can come anywhere close to being a featured article (FA) -- it's not comprehensive, and is often embroiled in edit wars. FAs have higher standards (see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria). utcursch | talk 06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Did you know (WP:DYK). But, WP:DYK accepts only new articles (from last 5 days), or the articles that have undergone major expansion (minimum fivefold expansion) in last 5 days. utcursch | talk 06:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Civilisation

Of course some Hindus are dumb just as some of my own white kin are dumb and I'm sure you would agree some Sikhs are dumb.

Now about Indian civilisation, or to be precise Indus Valley Civilisation I have been studying it for the last 10 years from their insights into abstract mathematics and astronomy to medicine or (correctly termed AyurVeda medicine) to Yoga which had later would have influences on Tai Chi and martial arts, so yes I am aware of Indology studies including its central core of spirituality. See David Frawley

reply

Your understanding would not change the basics of any sikh religious philosophy. Further Lord Shiva is mentioned, but not in the traditional Shaivism sense. All this about the traditions of sikhism sharing or being influenced by Shaivism or other traditions, are churned out by historians /philosophers of north america, who are too intelligent to see the difference between the two. If they could discard some ulterior influences, they would immediatly see the difference. As someone said, half knowledge is more dangerous than none at all.

Further you cannot change the truth, to suit the convience of the reader

And when i said great ancient indian civilization, i did not mean solely the Indus valley, there are too many . One is the the "Gupta Period" , which is known as "the golden period.

And i don't need the interpretation, of a convert yogic, of Sikh scriptures.

And just because you are a little more academically qualified, does not mean that you can pass judgements on others. They might be good in fields in which you are a zero.oKAjjay (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Ajjay, your insert "considered to be a revolutionary act" is a perfect statement. The Sikh Gurus including Guru Gobind Singh were some of the most intelligent human beings that ever lived e.g. higher than Nobel Prize winners like Einstein or even Newton because they tackled and answered the most fundamental question of life - "the meaning of life". What Einstein & Newton did was just as valuable in their fields. In short they were great wise thinkers and all great wise thinker are at least 10% revolutionary. Therefore, I think its fine. Well done. However, the tone of the article should stay within the wikipedia policy “write in a business like tone”.--Sikh khalsa (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, extra information, I have read the Guru Granth Sahib from beginning to end in Punjabi Gurmukhī (the Gurus Language). I am also a scientist (a physicist). I have to say the Guru Granth Sahib is one of the most, if not the most complex, deep texts ever written. More complicated that Einstein’s General Relativity or String Theory. Therefore, you must always remember when reading the Guru Granth Sahib you CAN'T take sentences out and used them without given the background sentences in the Chapter. A lot of these people who are not Sikh or can't understand the Guru Granth Sahib just take sentences out of the Guru Granth Sahib YOU CAN'T do this -you MUST read all of the chapter before you can make any point about the text. The Guru Granth Sahib is not a simple instruction manual, just like Einstein formulas/equations of General relativity are not a simple instruction manual - great care must be taken to judge and understand them accurately.--Sikh khalsa (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Please find a reliable source discussing that that was what the SC stated. According to the Tribune, the court, while "deciding a case of dispute dating back to 1928 declared the Guru Granth Sahib as a juristic person who can be a party to any case." If you have an alternative description, please bring it to the article talkpage where we can discuss wording. Relata refero (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gautham Singh

No, but I am glad somebody did. Honestly, its getting a bit annoying with all these POVs and "please show your references", yet they make no attempt to show any of their reference material......since it does not exist.

Gorkhali (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

request

{{Help Me}}Recently i had come across a page, where you could find the IP address of a user, by entering his name in a box, and his IP could be known. Could someone direct me to that page. ThanksAjjay (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! You might be looking for Special:Checkuser, but you shouldn't have access to that - very few do. See the policy governing it here. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 10:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

oh ! OK !!Ajjay (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi friend

Hi friend, I removed "considered to be a revolutionary act" from the Guru Granth Sahib as there seems to be a lot of trouble makers asking for a cite. Now everyone in the 25 million Sikh community knows it was "a revolutionary act", you and me know it was a revolutionary act. However, there are a lot of non-sikhs or militant Atheists on this site who don't believe in anything or a reason why the Universe exists and are pushing their Atheists views so I removed it to prevent giving these trouble makers more ammunition. But, please dig a cite up for it, I am sure Khushwant Singh has written in one of his books exactly that statement. Moreover, there is a user pushing the view that the Guru Granth Sahib has to have no things in it that other scriptures don't have in their articles e.g. bible or koran. This is a false conclusion - every article is unique and should be written uniquely for that article. More specifically I am talking about the removal by a user on the section about Non sikh comments e.g nobel prize winner about the Guru Granth sahib just because there is not one in the others articles on scriptures. This is a false conclusion - every article is unique and should be written uniquely for that article.--Sikh khalsa (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi friend

My friend, the Guru Granth Sahib article should be your PRIORITY NUMBER ONE. Guru Granth Sahib = Sikhism. NO Guru Granth Sahib = NO SIKHISM. You should put it in your watchlist. This article should be your main focus on wikipedia. Get as many references and books written by Sikhs from Amritsar and the main centres of Sikhism in India on it. You should concentrate most of your effort on wikipedia on this article. This is more important than the Guru Gobind Singh article because it is our Guru and leader now. Remember the story when Guru Gobind Singh was going to make ascension at Nanded into heaven and his Sikhs said we will miss you. How will we live without you? Guru Gobind Singh replied by saying, "When you miss me and want to talk to me, read the Guru Granth Sahib. That is my personality, my soul and my mind in written form". I have a very busy life but I will help you as much as possible on this article. If this article is in good quality and protected from vandalism then Sikhism is OK. But if this article is changed, distorted or corrupted by people with a anti-Sikh agenda then Sikhism will be badly affected because this article appears Number ONE on a Google search. The Guru Granth Sahib article should be your PRIORITY NUMBER ONE. I have a very busy life but I will help you as much as possible on this article. Guru Granth Sahib = Sikhism. NO Guru Granth Sahib = NO SIKHISM.--Sikh khalsa (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Username

{{Help Me}}where can i place a request to change my username. ThanksAjjay (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username. :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :-) Ajjay (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guru Granth Sahib

Yeah I think that in-tag can come down. It's coming along nicely! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice work on it :-)Shalimer (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukhdev Singh Babbar

I see that you are active on Sikh-related pages, so I thought you might want to take a look at this. --vi5in^[talk] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Baba Deep Singh

I think I misunderstood something. I'll go get some sources and straighten out that point about his glorious death. :o) DBaba (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work - Well done!

Good work - Well done! so I award you these barnstars - enjoy you've earned it. Put and display these banstars on your front page.--Sikh historian (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Ajjay I'm awarding these barnstars for your tireless work on the Sikhism articles especially the Guru Granth Sahib article - its very important. Well done! you have done a top job.Sikh historian (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Ajjay I'm awarding these barnstars for your tireless work on the Sikhism articles especially the Guru Granth Sahib article - its very important. Well done! you have done a top job.Sikh historian (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Ajjay I'm awarding these barnstars for your tireless work on the Sikhism articles especially the Guru Granth Sahib article - its very important. Well done! you have done a top job.Sikh historian (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Citation Barnstar
		Ajjay I'm awarding these barnstars for your tireless work on the Sikhism articles especially the Guru Granth Sahib article - its very important. Well done! you have done a top job.Sikh historian (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think SGGS article needs semi-protection

I think the Guru Granth Sahib article needs semi-protection like the Bible and Koran articles have semi protection. There is a lot of anon vandals destroying the hardwork everyone has put into the article. Try to contact a admin you know to get long term semi-protecion for this very important and vandal attracting article, like the Bible and Koran articles have semi protection.--Sikh historian (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Move your winning barnstars to your user page

Move your winning barnstars to your user page, it is wikipedian convention to display your winning barstars proudly. Enjoy them, regards--Sikh historian (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ajjay when taking a break from SGGS article

Ajjay when taking a break from SGGS article, I think it would be brillant if you wrote an article on the proposed selling of Guru Gobind Singh's Armour [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Please also view this video [13]. It could be written along the same parallels as Punjab plume controversy or any other better style.--Sikh historian (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for correcting my spelling mistake :)

Gorkhali (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Hey ! no need for thanks! well done.Shalimer (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		Gratitude Barnstar
		Thank you for the barnstar!

Thank you for the lovely barnstar. I'm not sure I earned it though, this time. I actually don't know about the descendants of Baba Deep Singh and I don't see much info on it. That edit I made was actually reverting a couple of messy earlier edits to restore what had stood previously. I may be wrong to have done it, though, now that I look back!

Here, take a look at this, and tell me if it makes more sense: [14]. Maybe I should restore that edit, and just clean it up? Because it seems even to have a citation, at the bottom, though that is not properly formatted either.

Cheers! DBaba (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bhindranwale

Heh, I didn't know you had a username change. Okay, so I did some checking and I found some of the refs were invalid. I have now removed those. I got Tully's book so I can look into the hyperactive and not intelligent bit. As for "martyr", see the last line of the lead. It says ". Some view him as a martyr who was fighting for the best interests of Sikhs, and others see him as a militant and extremist." I also plan on expanding the article in the coming weeks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bhindranwale

Yes actually, to put it simply I felt the new edition was misleading. There is no use trying to sideline the the most publicly known facts regarding Mr Bhindranwale. There are many sources that can be found specifically regarding him and militancy. Why is it I have a feeling that you will dispute further additions of cited material only regarding this facet of Bhindranwales personality?, discussion in the talk page would be appreciated before removals. Trips (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"After the assassination the 1984 anti-Sikh riots took place in Delhi where the main perpetrators were led by supporters of the Indian National Congress and the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty. The riots started on 1st November and continued till 3rd November 1984. The killings, that were not driven by any religious motives,[58] were led by activists and sympathizers of Indian National Congress. The first killing of a Sikh reported from east Delhi in the early hours of November 1. About 9 am, armed mobs took over the streets of Delhi and launched a massacre. Everywhere the first targets were Gurdwaras – to prevent Sikhs from collecting there and putting up a combined defence. The then Congress government was widely criticized for doing very little at the time, possibly acting as a conspirator, especially since voting lists were used to identify Sikh families. [59] The reactions seemed politically managed and confined to the Congress party .[60]", read closely, your to be expected POV shows as you refer to the 1984 riots as Hindu attacks on Sikhs, perhaps ignoring the fact that it was a Congress movement involving people from other religions as well, therefore not having to do with the Hindu religion, especially considering that some Hindu nationalists were out helping Sikhs to some level. Anyway I will attempt to put more sources concerning Mr Bhindranwales militant link, I hope the outcome is not predictable. Trips (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The sarcastic tone is not useful. Please do not take me for a fool by assuming that some passing mentions of Bhindranwale attributed to few persons equates to a perfectly accurate cited statement on the opening statement attributing Mr Bhindranwale as a militant leader. Trips (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, this is not a tit-for-tat childish game. You are perfectly welcome to add cited statements regarding Sankaracharya having possibly "persecuted Buddhists", it is known that Sankaracharya debated against Buddhism. However compare apples with apples, you are suggesting that Sankaracharyas "persecution of Buddhists" is anywhere near as well known as Bhindranwales militancy?. I'd like to ask you how the omission of one of Bhindranwales positions as a militant leader, relatively important by general view, is not misleading.Trips (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)