User talk:Sukh/Archive 4

From May 2006 to June 2006

Sikh Confederacy
Sukh there has been some edits made by someone (ImpuMozhi) on the article which is not in line with historical records. I'm going to bring this article up to scratch. Can you keep an eye on it and prevent it from being changed by him. The article before he changed it was brief but accurate. For example he deleted the section where Afghan attacks on Amritsar were intended to destroy the Sikh faith. Ahmed Shah made a speech before his attack on Armitsar that he intended to destroy the Sikh faith. There is a lot of manipulation and misinformation by this guy (I could be wrong he might be a nice guy- I don't know). He's also try to infer that the Sikh Confederacy was a informal political entity, however each Sikh chief had clear boundaries (borders) that he operated in, the records where held at Armitsar (Guru Gobind Singh first formulated the first initial borders of the first barons. In addition, there was a military president chosen elected democratically in a council by each baron (There where clear RULE recorded in Sikh Confederacy that they had to operate in). He's made it like each Sikh chiefs (barons) were a warlords, they where Sikh nobles, with long prestigious family histories, some dating back hundreds of years. They set taxes for their subjects at very reasonable levels (as one British Army officer noted). They where the only thing in Punjab standing in the way of chaos and a TOTAL genocide by Afghan massacres and attacks. In the later stages the Sikh Confederacy was the ONLY political entity that the British negotiated with as equals on the sub-continent.

I have not yet made a judgement about him yet but his behaviour will and (his level of consultation with me will decide it).

-Sikh_scholar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh scholar (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, I'm a bit busy this weekend so I haven't got time to look into this issue right now. I will do in a couple of days time.  However, the first thing to do is discuss the issue on the talk page.  A cursory glance at the history doesn't suggest any bad intention so please do discuss it with the user. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks


Hi Sukhbhai - I'm very sorry to have disappointed your expectation in me, but it had become impossible for me to compromise my principles. I don't covet adminship at all, so it wasn't a difficult decision. However, I cannot tell you how greatly joyous I feel at the enthusiastic, wonderful support you expressed for me. I don't know how hard it will be to understand that your supports means extremely a lot to me. I thank you from my heart, and please let me know if I can ever be assistance or help in anything. Hold fast and tight on your RfA - I have a lot of faith. Rama&#39;s Arrow 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you will eventually be able to become an admin. Give it a few months and I will nominate you myself.  It's unfortunate that it's got to this point, but I suppose the whole thing is a learning experience.


 * Thanks for your kind words about my RfA, but I'm thinking it's going to be quite a close call...! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism FA drive
Hi Sukh - I've started a peer review and begun work on making Sikhism an FA. I hope you'll have time to contribute - need your help badly! I'm sure you have better resources than almost anyone to use as references. Rama&#39;s Arrow 03:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is excellent news. There is sooo much work to be done!  I've just received my copy of Khuswant Singh's  "Illustrated History of the Sikhs" which will provide some good information and public domain pictures.  However, I've got exams the next two weeks so I won't be able to contribute much.  Please consider delaying any collaborative effort until then. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Best of luck for your exams! Yeah, sure I'll wait. I'm confident about your Rfa, don't worry. In my case, I would have been miserable if I had continued. I am feeling very good about what happened, so don't give any of this more thought. Rama&#39;s Arrow 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
It did not have consensus to promote but it was quite close with many people pointing out your great contributions. Try to self assess and look at which of the criticisms are valid, work to improve those and let the rest go. Personally I don't think the narrow editing range was a very legitimate problem, and the nomination was close enough that if you use edit summaries all the time, you'd likely succeed in a month or so. There is a forced edit summary tool somewhere if you wan to use that to get you in the habit. Good luck and keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 13:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel it was a very strong amount of support that you garnered, given the concentrated nature of your work. It is indeed the community's stupidity not to recognize your great admin-skills and the admin-class work that you already do, preferring instead to concentrate on an issue that has already been resolved. I thank you for accepting this challenge for WP - you could be ready again in less than a month becoz most of the objections don't stand now. I have great faith in you, so please keep up the great work. All the very best for your exams! Rama&#39;s Arrow 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support. I was thinking about thanking everyone who voted on my RfA but I don't have time at the moment because of my exams :(
 * It's interesting that the main issue was edit summaries - never knew that would be such a big issue. I've just found out there is an option in preferences that will alert you when you've not added an edit summary.  What a simple fix!  I look forward to working with you on Sikhism once my exams are over.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Next time....! Tyrenius 15:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll get a mop, bucket and keys soon enough, I'm sure. :)  Radio Kirk   talk to me  16:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are an excellent editor & I'm sure you will have no trouble becoming an admin in a month or two. --Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just keep using edit summaries and I'm sure you will become admin soon enough. Gsingh 22:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Sukh, I missed an opportunity to Vote for you. I am highly impressed by your contributions to Sikhism related articles and would love to see you as an admin soon. - Holy Ganga  talk [[Image:India flag 300.png|30px]] 08:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A small present
Mere Sukh Kakkee, tussii kaise ho jee? Aur Kee Gal hai? (I can talk a little Punjabi! All the best for exams., and a small present from me. Please move this from here, re-size, etc. and keep this anywhere as you wish. --Bhadani 15:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank Bhadani :) I will place this in my trophy cabinet! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA
If the worst that was said against you was that your edit-summary usage is low, there is cause for cheer. I daresay we shall see you an admin yet. Congratulations on that, and on Bhadaniji's barnstar! ImpuMozhi 16:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll get there, eventually. I have been keeping an eye on your contributions and I quite like your work. Just wait a couple of months. You are almost there, anyway :o) Asterion talk to me 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! :) Dlohcierekim 21:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries more often and you will have my support eventually.--Jusjih 12:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism FA drive
Hi Sukhbhai - are you done with exams and ready to work on the FA drive, or should we wait a bit longer? Lemme know, Rama&#39;s Arrow 02:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Btw, the second concern expressed on your RfA was "civility." I know you to be very civil, and consistently so even in articles chronically infected with edit wars and trolling. I always respect straight-shooting, but others stress a gentler approach even to problem users. Think about it, and know that the 70% approval (IMO, a consensus) is a strong approval of your determined work on Sikhism-related articles, and especially the quagmires like Khalistan, Bluestar etc. Rama&#39;s Arrow 02:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be done with my exams later on this week. I've made slight changes already to the article and written stuff on the talk page -  please take a look and make your comments.


 * In regards to the civility issue. I do believe I'm civil, but I have no time to waste with users who consider me an idiot :)  I may try again for adminship in a few months time (depending on what my situation is outside of Wikipedia!). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Hi,

just a quick note to say thanks. But to underline my wish that you don't play the Wiki POV game with me. The two most tiresome parts of the Wiki must be, a) the race to establish one's own POV and the NPOV and accuse another's contribtion as POV; and b) the use of " some / most " etc as a way of turning an article into a meaningless mush.

Ultimately the " some / most " route has to be POV unless hard statistics exist to back them up.

What is need is citable sources, I agree and you are not supplying them.

In a case such as this, life is made easier because the definition of what is and what is not " Sikh " is fairly clear and well established. Secularism would be definition disallow one from being Sikh. And so are we talking about Sikh definition. Are secular indidividuals from a Sikh background Sikh any more?

Are these that you refer to Sikh or secular and can one be both? ? [ A question for another book some time ... ]

What is your own personal interests in the topic?

195.82.106.244 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal interest in the topic is merely this: I watch most pages on Sikhism, and Homosexuality and Sikhism is one of them.  I agree with you that citations are needed, but I haven't actually written anything myself that needs citing.  I've merely toned down what you've written because that was uncited :).  I will continue this discussion on Talk:Homosexuality and Sikhism so we can have it all in one place. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll get there!!
Hi Sukh, I guess ImpuMozhi has summed up what I had to say in a very succinct manner. Keep up the good work and seek adminship after a coupla months. All the best. --Gurubrahma 04:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent
Hi! Hope your exams went fantastically! I'll start working on the article in a couple of hours. We need to spend this weekend building the article and formatting it. Check out What is a featured article? before you begin. Rama&#39;s Arrow 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sukhbhai - I've started making comments in the PRbox - please add your comments there. Can you please verify the Ten Gurus table? Also, I'll be starting the main revisions. Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've started adding some sources. Should we be commenting just on peer-review page or on the Sikhism talk page as well?  And yes, I'll verify the Gurus table. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sukhbhai, I'm sorry for the delay. I'll make the additions to Sikhism on Sunday, but I can't before then. Meanwhile, you go ahead as much as you can in revising the article. Rama&#39;s Arrow 02:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
I see you voted to oppose my RFA because I have little experiance. Please tell me that i can do to get your support in the future. Axiomm 13:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Your edit count is way way too small.  Most people have at least 3,000 edits before they become admins.  You've simply not contributed enough yet to be considered for adminship.  Please do carry on working, and maybe some day you'll become an admin! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Mr. Sukh, I did indeed get your message yesterday. Thanks for encouraging me. I will do as you say.

Regards, Rajat Ghai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajatjghai (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mr. Sukh. I have made some recent edits to the Sikhism article. Have a look and suggest changes. I would also suggest that two snaps, one of Guru Nanak and the other of Guru Gobind, at the beginning of the article should suit it fine. Do tell me your views on the matter. Thanks. Rajatjghai 21:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, your edits are great! I'm slowly working my way down the article, so I haven't really edited the bits you've worked on.  We definately need pictures of the gurus, but they need to be 'free' (i.e. released in the public domain or released under a free licence by the author).  Are you certain about the licensing terms of these pictures?


 * As part of our attempt to get the article to featured status, we need lots of references. Do you have any books on Sikhism that we can use as references?  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have taken these pictures from the articles on the two Gurus from Wikipedia itself. The new snap of the Khanda is also on Wikipedia. I suppose they should have a free license. But I will check nevertheless. Rajatjghai 00:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some issues
Hi Sukhbhai - I need your opinion on a couple of points that we should prolly try to make clear during the FA drive. One question is the relationship of Sikhism with Hinduism. I'm sure you're aware of historical accounts of how the Sikh order came up to defend Hindus against Muslim pogroms, especially in the Punjab-Kashmir area. There are also accounts of traditions in the Punjab where the eldest son of a Hindu family became a Sikh to join the Khalsa and protect the faith and community from Muslim oppression.

While most consider Sikhism a separate religion, there are some historians and writers (and politicians, i.e. the RSS) who assert that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. My question to you is - I consider all this important to discuss here, but how shall we go about it? What does Khushwant Singh's book say on these issues? Rama&#39;s Arrow 02:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no denying that Hinduism and Sikhism are closely linked (Sikhism is afterall classified in most scholarly literature as a Dharmic religion along with Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). Indeed, all the Sikh gurus were from Hindu families and most Sikh converts were originally Hindus.  However, from the point of view of most Sikhs, they tend to respect all other religous beliefs but do not consider Sikhism as a sect of Hinduism.  Most Sikhs consider Sikhism no more a part Hinduism then Christianity is a part of Islam and Islam is a part of Christianity.  People get increasingly confused when reading Sikh scripture (Dasam Granth especially) with references to Hindu avatars.


 * Khushwant Singh considers himself an agnostic from a Sikh background. He keeps his Sikh atire as part of his identity:


 * "Khushwant Singh: When I was in England as a student, socialism was much talked about among us. We read and discussed Bertrand Russell and attended lectures by Harold J. Laski. I have not retained many socialistic ideas, but I am still an agnostic.
 * "J.S.T.: You are a non-believer, yet you spent a night at Bangla Sahib gurdwara to seek the Guru's support during a difficult time in your personal life when your wife had threatened to leave you.
 * "K.S.: This is one of those things - a contradiction. It was an emotional issue for me. I was born and raised in a Sikh family. I still keep my beard and turban and identify myself with the Sikh community. "


 * That being said, Khushwant Singh believes that Sikhs are merely kesh-dari Hindus:


 * "Sikhs are kes-dhari Hindus. Their religious source is Hinduism. Sikhism is a tradition developed within Hinduism. Guru Granth Sahib reflects Vedantic philosophy and Japji Sahib is based on the Upanishads. "


 * I think in the article there needs to be a section on such issues. We can present both sides of the story, but we will need a separate article to discuss it in depth.  Maybe a section on "Sikhism as a syncretic religion" or something similar? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sukh - I'm sorry but I have to postpone my participation till Thursday. I'm really sorry - will definitely come through by Thursday. Please carry on and do your best - you can rely on me after Wednesday. Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

India Basher
it's up for AFD.--Dangerous-Boy 02:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Audio Pronunciation
Hi Sukh, I have created the following files on your request: I have tried to spell them as you have written. Although I'm not certain that the pronunciation is right (after all I am South Indian!). In case of any problem feel free to contact me & I will make the necessary changes. Also you are welcome to contact me for any future such work. Cheers. Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ['sɪk'kʰiː] (ਸਿੱਖੀ, सिक्खी, sikkhī)
 * ['siːkɪz(ə)m] (seekism)
 * ['sɪkɪz(ə)m] (sikism)


 * They all sound pretty good to me. I'll add them to the article.  Thanks and great work! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Indic
It's about time. was wondering what happened. There's a lot of issues to resolve such as when do use urdu for the Hindi movies and muslim actors and which script to use for geographic articles.--Dangerous-Boy 18:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism
Hi Sukh and Rama's Arrow,

It is great to know that you are both working to make the Sikhism article of featured article calibre. If there is anything I can help with, please do not hesitate to ask – and thank you for the opportunity to give some input. I have had a quick look and the article looks quite good – I will have a better look in the next few days and make my comments in more detail on the talk page on Sikhism.

Just my initial thoughts and to make the article broad in its coverage - I believe some of the revolutionary ideas of our Gurus don't seem to appear in any detail:


 * More on the beliefs & practise, ie:


 * Equality of women – back in the 1500's - that pretty outstanding – don't you think? – see article Women in Sikhism


 * Equality of castes/race including the "untouchables" - when the rest of the world was trading in slaves.


 * Concept of Langar as propelled by the second & third guru; Etc


 * Personally I would prefer less history - but I will leave that to you or may be look at this point later.

Hey, you are doing a Great job - Keep up the good work!! --Hari Singh 00:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are all really great issues. I'll post up the info on the Sikhism talk page and carry on there. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Upgrades
Hi Sukhbhai - I'm in process of re-organizing the article - the scriptures, history and Sikhs are done. Please keep an eye on my edits and lemme know if there are any issues. Rama&#39;s Arrow 01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have finished most of the data additions on my end, as well as completed the basic formatting. The article looks good, but please add any more information you can about religious traditions, Sikh peoples and philosophy. History is stable and should not be added to becoz then it will be oversized. Now copyediting remains the prime task.


 * Please check for errors and comprehensiveness - the latter is important. Does the article cover all aspects of Sikhism? Rama&#39;s Arrow 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how fast the article can take shape. I've basically finished working on intro, history and scripture (nearly) and I will concentrate on the rest soon.


 * I think it covers most of what needs to be covered although not all (it's difficult to decide what to put in and what to take out!). If you take a look at the New Layout section on the talk page, it shows what should be in the article.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To the finish line
In order for the article to be comprehensive, the following questions need to be answered:


 * 1) After the death of the last guru, who provided religious and spiritual leadership to the community? Who does that today (i.e. SGPC)?
 * 2) What is the Sikh priestly order? Who is responsible for individual gurudwaras?
 * 3) Observations - rites of initiation (very prominent one, needs proper description), birth, marriage and death, festivals celebrated.
 * 4) Connection with Hinduism - I've worked to clarify the philosophical link of Sikhism with Hindu philosophy, but there are practical life connections that need explaining. I.e, (1) What place does Hindu mythology and Gods such as Rama have in Sikh life and theology, as the pic suggests that Sikhs celebrate Diwali? (2) What about the tradition that the first male child of every Hindu Punjabi family became a Sikh to protect the religion and community? Here, Khushwant Singh's comment that Sikhs are kesh Hindus needs explanation.
 * 5) Social reform in society - Nanak's new order brought major social changes in the Punjab, with the elimination of caste distinctions and Hindu-Muslim rivalry amongst the believing communities. What exactly are these principles? needs a sub-section in "Philosophy and teachings."
 * 6) Sikhs, Observances - somehow I feel that these two sections are not complete. There needs to be more information on Sikh traditions, culture, family values and religious adherence.


 * Okay, I'll move these issues onto the talk page so we can discuss them with peer input. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On a personal note
I was amazed upon reading Geoffrey Parrinder's description of Nanak's teaching - it is simply beautiful and fantastic - on how close it is to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita! There may be some differences in interpretation and detail, but the core message - the balance of worldy and religious duties, true spiritual and inward devotion and meditation, seeking spiritual union with God - is identical! It is as if Nanak was speaking the Gita!

At this point, this observation is purely original research as I don't have Parrinder actually comparing the Gita with Nanak. But it is a wonderful revelation to me. Rama&#39;s Arrow 19:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * :) That's good to know. Unfortunately I've never read the Bhagavad Gita (mind you, I've only ever read very small bits of the Guru Granth Sahib either) so I can't really comment, but I'll take your word for it! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism and Sikhism
Hi Mr. Sukh. I just read the latest draft that you have prepared for the Sikhism article. You have done a very commendable job indeed. I also went through the discussion. About Rama&#39;s Arrow suggestions for the article to include a broad purview about the relationship between Hinduism and Sikhism, I would like to mention that there is an article titled "Hinduism and Sikh Panth" in the Hinduism series. However, it should be noted that the article is very skeletal in nature and gives very sketchy details. What I would suggest is that this article be developed further and put in as the main article under a separate heading in the Sikhism article, titled "Hinduism and Sikhism". This main article can be followed by a brief but very informative summary on the relationship between the two faiths in the past five hundred years ever since Sikhism's birth. Regards. Rajatjghai 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your praise! If there is anything that is missing or needs expanding please either add it or discuss on the talk page.  Yes, I've seen that page too, and you're right it is sketchy.  Unfortunately, I've got at least two other projects that I must work on before I can concentrate on this (Indic transliteration conventions for Wikipedia and the Khalistan page) so I can't contribute to it yet.  Do you have the expertise to write about it?  If so, please do add to it!  Hopefully, Rama's Arrow will also be able to add to it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Sikhism article
Sure Sukh, I shall do it in a day or two - I promise. --Bhadani 13:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent, and thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pogrom
I hope you don't mind my alteration of the "pogrom" sentence - that sentence gave the impression that there was a state-sanctioned action of mass murder and displacement of Sikhs, which is not true (even though the Congress was responsible). Also, hundreds of Hindus also died in the violence. Rama&#39;s Arrow 14:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No I don't mind (I don't think it was me who changed in the first place). However, I do think it is an apt description (at least in literature, see: ).  Incidentally, a pogrom does not suggest that the government itself organised the riots.  However, I agree with you that it wasn't "state-sanctioned action of mass murder and displacement of Sikhs" because that would be genocide (which imho it was not).  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

translation
Hi Sukh, a translation request: Could you add the Punjabi translation to: commons:Template:Nazi symbol? Thanks, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My ability to write Punjabi is completely self-taught so I don't have the competency (yet at least) to do such a technical translation. My comprehension and reading is much better, but being able to write is something very different!  I'll see if I can get someone else to do it. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Punjabi map
Please see if this map is what you wanted: Image:Punjab map.svg. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  11:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I'll take a closer look soon; I've had a very long weekend so sorry for the delay. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FA drive
Hi Sukh - I must leave the project for a while. The gear and steering wheel are in your hands, but you should use the aid of masters like Sundar, Saravask, Nichalp and Taxman to finish up the drive. I think its like 95% done, and I'm very confident it'll succeed - you've done tremendous work! - all the best. Rama&#39;s Arrow 16:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll be back soon and sorry for my late reply. I plan on adding some more information, and doing copyediting by the end of this week.  After that I'll put it up for FA.
 * I'm thankful for your contributions and I look forward to working with you on other articles in the future! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

IPA pronounciation request
Hey Sukh. Do you know how to write "Ladakh" in IPA pronounciation notation. It would be a useful addition to the article. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey. I'm not very good with this IPA thingie, but according to the Devanagari version of the name(which is laddāḵẖ in Latin), it should be ,  or .  I would actually go with the first one I think ('.' indicates syllable break). Hope that helps. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nazi symbol
I will definitely try. Rajatjghai 07:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can't read or write it, do it in Latin or Devanagari and I'll convert it. Thanks! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

kakars
Hi Sukh,

Thanks for your message. I will get the pictures done in the next few days & upload them. I hope things are going well with the Sikhism article. It looks pretty good to me!!! --Hari Singh 23:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I look forward to it! ਧੰਨਵਾਦ :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have uploaded some images - please look at them and tell me what you think. Also I have not uploaded a picture of Kesh - do want to volunteer and I will take your Picture!! (lol) or any other suggestions? --Hari Singh 15:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pictures are excellent - actually, they would be very useful on Wikipedia commons so I would like to upload them there. Is it possible to dual licence them under a Creative Commons licence?  (see  for details of the licences, and Image_copyright_tag for the ones acceptable on Wikipedia).  The least restrictive one would be best.  If you need help choosing one, please get in touch.  As you've uploaded the photos, you will need to add the appropriate template tags to the uploaded file page.


 * I will add this to the main Sikhism article now. Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with a picture of Kes, because I don't keep it myself!  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For reference, the upload list is here: . Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments and your help. If there are any improvements possible, please let me know. I will work on the Kesh kakaar by possibly using my nephew as a subject as soon as he gets back from Swindon. I am not sure about the licensing requirements but having read your references, it appears that (which I have already put on the images) and  "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License" seems appropriate. I have upload to the common section - I hope this is OK!! --Hari Singh 02:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is excellent. I look forward to any future images!  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Sukh

thanks for the Barnstar. Much appreciated. I'm very committed to the WP project and would hate to see it undermined by these POV pushers. Cheers - Parthi 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Harimandir Sahib
Hi, I had a question regarding the Harimandir Sahib page, a user is saying the name should be Hari Mandir Sahib, but the SPGC calls it the Harimandir Sahib, I'm not sure if there's a wikipedia policy that we can refer to. I personally think that it should be Harimandir Sahib as that is the official name, what do you think? (See the discussion page on the Harimandir sahib for details of topic, Thanks Gsingh 21:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll reply on the Harimandir Sahib talk page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hullo, Mr. Sukh.

Thank you so much for the Barnstar. I only hope I am able to win more in the future. Regards. Rajatjghai 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Punjabi Link Spam
Hello,

I posted a link to http://www.sikhism.com/books/titlepages/panjabiprimer.htm in http://en.wikipedia.org on the Punjabi page. You then removed it as "link spam". How is a link to Punjabi Primer on the Punjabi page link spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.248 (talk • contribs)


 * Ah, okay. I've left it in now.  Most anonymous link additions tend to be spam, so I'm skeptical normally.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have been observing these pages for the few recent days and I agree there are large numbers of links posted of questionable quality. I will register before posting anymore links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.248 (talk • contribs)

Old Version
Sukh,

I just checked out the Sikhism page after a long while, and was kind of shocked to see all the changes. I understand your efforts to make the page more in line with other pages, but in all your heavy editing, you took out a lot of what made the original page great.

I am a practicing Sikh in graduate school in the midwest. I recieve questions about Sikhism every day of my life. I found that the original page, what it was in May, 2006, was an excellent reference to which I could direct the curious. It was written from a perspective that made it easily accessible to those who want a basic understanding of Sikhi's tenets. For instance, the now omitted "Religious Philosphy" subheading was quite excellent, and very pointedly answered many questions by those who know nothing of Sikhi. There is nothing on the new page that addresses these points. In fact, there is very little discussion of general beliefs - in a clear, concise manner - on the new page at all. And these general beliefs are what the page should be highlighting before it gets down into the nitty gritty that you seem to most enjoy discussing.

Another qualm I have is the emphasis on the word "God." It shows up in just about every other sentence, in what I find to be an extremely dense explanation of Sikhi's evolution and beliefs. The problem I have with the frequency of it's use is that the very definition of God is not dilineated from the Abrahamic defnition of God, which how most readers at Wikipedia will immediately associate the term. After studying Sikhism somewhat extensivly, reading interpretations of Baani since i was a kid, I find that God in Sikhi, while in line with mool mantar, is more similar to how Buddhism defnies the abstract sense of truth. This is the very essense of the Dharmic religions - not the personified, vengeful image of God common in the West. However, when most Sikhs dont understand this, I think it will be very difficult for Westerners to make that dilineation unless it is laid out in front of them....very clearly.

ANYWAYS - i appreciate your efforts, but to be perfectly frank, I think this new page is quite dense. While it is excellent to have the information there, sourced out and all, I will not use this as a point of reference for friends who have no understanding or knowledge of Sikhi. And I am sad that I lost that source.

So, my two suggestions? Please try to include a simplified and bullet-pointed "religious philosphy" section, and please cut down on the over use of the word "God."

Best, simar

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.73.175.42 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Simar. Thanks for your comments.  I like to keep general comments on the article on the talk page at Talk:Sikhism.  Please see that for my reply.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)