User talk:Khalsaburg

Archived

Edits On Nihung
Thanks for the interesting links on the [Nihung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihang] article. Please use this this as a template for future edits, rather than adding POV. Note that video links are usually used as other reading rather reference. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict
This mesage is directed impartially at both user:Sikh-history and user:Khalsaburg:

Gentlemen; it seems abundantly clear that there are significant issues between you which are not going to be easy to mediate; and disagreement as to specific facts is in any case well beyond my level of knowledge. But what is very clear is that each of you is accusing the other of vandalism, and you both appear to be edit warring, and if you are not able to agree may I strongly suggest that you either henceforth ignore each other, or else proceed to dispute resolution. Having advised you, it would not now be proper for me to take further action, but I forsee another admin doing so unless you can reach an accomodation of some kind. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Go Ahead
Please make a formal report of me, and your removal of legitimate references with ISBN numbers will be exposed. Best of Luck. --Sikh-history (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Akhand Kirtani Jatha
Please remove your focus from the other editor, and wp:assume good faith. I will be encouraging the other editor in the edit war to do the same. Please stop the edit war immediately and discuss, instead, if you have a strong enough interest in the article.sinneed (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm finding certain peoples ISBN references rather Obfuscation which may explain why 'certain people' cannot provide internet links! Makes one wander? Does it not? Khalsaburg (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ISBN numbers and references are the basis of wikipedia. If you have a problem with that then I suggest sikhiwiki which caters to Sikh Extremists.--Sikh-history (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by "..and references" ????

Legitimate Refrences are NOT Concealment

 * Obfuscation is the concealment of meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret.. Having ISBN numbers is not concealement, it is actually making a source transparent. There are various online sources and at Universities where ISBN refrences can be typed in and quotations brought up. This is a 21st century medium used by people from intellectual and academic backgrounds. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Note:above comment was not signed.
 * How and can a book be "obfuscation"? If you feel a book is a poor reference, please don't delete it, but either present an opposing argument, or go to an appropriate discussion place and talk about it. No matter what your reasoning, please stop the edit warring AT ONCE. Please assume wp:good faith.  Each of you should stop calling one another vandals and PoV editors... each of you is pursuing an agenda.  Wikipedia in a formal way does not care which of you is right or wrong or even if you are BOTH wrong or right.  Simply present your text in a neutral way, citing things that are clearly in the source.  I would encourage you not to list an entire web site as a source... perhaps a short quote... or a quote in the source reference.  When someone sites a book, they should be able to provide a short quote, or a page number.  I have killed book references where a 1000 pages of book has been cited to cover a single fact... but that was rude of me.  Better simply to flag it and go to the talk page, then delete it if they won't provide the detail.sinneed (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

From my talk page: "Is that your IP above Sh ? Khalsaburg (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)" Please don't do this again on my talk page. Please focus on the content, not the authors.sinneed (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood me
Using ISBN when those pages do not contain any reference at all equates to obfuscation Khalsaburg (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to Sineed.

SH, please dont litter my talk page again Khalsaburg (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not obfuscation at all. It is quite legitimate to post ISBN numbers and quotations of books. An ISBN number is probably a stronger refrence since subsequent edition may result in the pages that refrences are on changing. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A Solution To sikh-history's problem

 * If its a blog site with your enite POV/contribution, there's not much point. Best wishes ! Khalsaburg (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a blog site, but you can test your POV with fellow Sikhs. If you are sure of your convictions you should not be affraid. They are all Amritdhari Sikh's there. Some are from the SGPC and various Jatha's. Try it. See what happens. --Sikh-history (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS YOUR BLOG/POV, (TRY NOT TO MISLEAD) this Khalsaburg (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Khalsaburg, Sikh-history. This is a message for both of you. I think it is a mistake to be arguing about what beliefs are right or wrong. At least, it is a mistake to do it on Wikipedia because it doesn't help improve any articles. It shouldn't matter that you each have your own views. Wikipedia is written by people with very many views. It isn't like Conservapedia where only people from a certain, controversial viewpoint are welcome. What is important is that people recognise that their personal views are not universally held, and not should they be promoted, and write their Wikipedia content in as neutral a way as possible, encompassing all mainstream views on a subject fairly. Can't you just agree to differ and proceed on that basis? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A Solution to Khalsaburg's problem

 * Khalsaburg, you can keep deleting my replies all you want but sooner or later you will have to face the mediation. NaielRegal is right, this is not Conservapedia. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please show examples of where I have vandalised your page? Or any other?
Please show me one instant where I have vandalised a page? --Sikh-history (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus on content, not on editors - warning.
"Question to you specifically on AKJ" If you want to discuss edits, please do.

"I can see some collusion with vandalism on your part." It is essential that you wp:assume good faith. I am certainly wrong some of the time. I never vandalize. Your behaviour is incivil, stop now. "collusion" - Wikipedia is a collective work. By that meaning, there certainly is.

"Unless you can answer me directly using the references that were airbrushed:" To paraphrase, I read that as"You are evil...unless you do what I want..." - this is not appropriate. Please discuss whatever change you are unhappy about. "airbrushed" - by using buzz words instead of actually discussing the change, you do not help.

Please focus on the content, not on the editors. If you remain fascinated by editors instead of the encyclopedia, as you seem to be now, you will continue to encounter, and cause, problems.

Please understand that is a formal warning. I am entitled to edit, and even to make errors, without being accused of vandalism. Please behave better.sinneed (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Strengthened and tightened wording at AKJ
I believe I have strengthened the wording, and removed some side issues and distracting comments from the "meat" section. Please check to be sure I have not introduced any factual errors or strayed from the sources. And as always, please edit freely, I am just another editor, like you, trying to make Wikipedia better. :) All the best. sinneed (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation
Informal Mediation has been requested on your recent edit war. Case page can be found here. Leujohn ( talk ) 05:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Mayalld (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Exposed
Look Khari/Khalsaburg, you are welcome to make counter allegations. Lets wait for the results. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppets
Excuse me. First of all, it is perfectly legal to edit from your IP (no excuse needed). Why are you making excuses for everything. Also, I have taken to account both sides to the argunemt. I still cannot find how you got your viewpoint. Your arguments... I can't see how it stands, but as for the message above, I will warn sikh-history about that. I hope as the case is closed that the bicering between you two will end. Leujohn ( talk ) 09:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got some serious reforming to do to be honest. First of all, removing a warning given to you means that the warning was acknowledged. I mena, what's the big deal about him removing a warning? PLEASE I BEG YOU WP:AGF!!! Leujohn  ( talk ) 12:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)