User talk:Jujhar.pannu/Archive 1

The article Open Countenance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability. Generally wikipedia is not the place to display your artwork.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. blue520 14:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islam and Sikhism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahmad Shah (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) 11:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Khalsa#Unencyclopedic_tone. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not poetic or hagiographic descriptions of the topic. utcursch | talk 20:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree however that poem is clearly a quotation. Jujhar.pannu | talk 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has no relevance in the lead section. Large quotations should be avoided; we have a separate project for that: Wiki Quote. utcursch | talk 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I agree with you 100% so lets close that topic. On another note you seem to be Sehjdhari based on your profile picture, if you are a Sehjdahari I am curious to know if you can completely fight off the five evils, kaam, krodh, lob, moh, and hunkar without the help of the traditions of the Khalsa? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Jujhar, we are the nationals/subjects of the Khalsa. It is our duty to fight against any person who dilutes or tries to spread the mis-information about our beloved Guru/Leader/Nation i.e. Guru Khalsa. I know, there are some people who try to spread mis-information only in smaller chunks step-by-step (like slow pioson kills). But I also want to request something that your last edit is respect worthy i.e. "52 hukams" of 10th King. But I don't find them either in Dasam Granth or Sarab-Loh Granth. So, maybe they were documented something like Rehatnamas by Sikhs accompaining our beloved Sovereign-Guru. So, it is my suggestion to introduce a completely new page instead on them instead on this main article page.

For example: See how the people with vested instrests over a century have the changed the couplet (doha) sung after the Ardas "Aagya bhuyi Akal ki tabi chulayo panth, sub sikhan ko hukam hai Guru manyo Granth. Guru Khalsa ji manyo pragat Guran ki deh, jo mo ko milbo chahey khoj inhi mae len" This couplet can be found in Bhai Prahlad Singh's record of rehatnama at Nanded. And now, we sing "Aagya bhuyi Akal ki tabi chulayo panth, sub sikhan ko hukam hai Guru manyo Granth. Guru Granth ji manyo pragat Guran ki deh, jo Prabh ko milbo chahey khoj shabd mae len". This only shows the abbreations brought in by people for their vested interests during the past century. Khalsa has been always regarded as Guru Granth Sahib's deh (body), even the British documents accep that and always the remember the revolution brought in by the Khalsa during 1843 which the British decried the Khalsa as "Dangerous military democracy" and now for breaking us apart and our beloved Republic (i.e. the Khalsa) the paid preachers have started creating individual Khalsas. And men like Utcursch are creating fuss on this page by challenging the Guru status of the Khalsa. Of Teacher (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I’m glad you want to uphold the Khalsa. It is not people like Utcursch creating a fuss it is the actions of people like Utcursh that create a fuss as people are never bad only people can do bad actions. Before researching exact origins of the 52 Hukams I think we should improve the History of Sikhism page, Guru Nanak page especially detailed information on First Udasi, Second Udasi, etc.. ie who he visited and what he did while he was on the Udasi’s. It would be great if you could start that seva.

The code of conduct section would be incomplete without the 52 hukams or something similar at the moment it fits best there so trust me just leave it.. 52 Hukams are very easy to understand and a quick way to learn about what the Khalsa is all about. People come to the Khalsa page to read about the Khalsa so if someone does not want to read the 52 Hukams they can scroll through. But I feel well over 89% people of people will gain something by reading it, if theres merely a link to another page many people won’t see it and much less people will read it, however it fits nicely under the Khalsa code of conduct so why change it? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK!The pages on Sikh history needs to be improved tremendously. Of Teacher (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gurdwara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Langar (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) 09:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As far as my revert in the article Khalsa is concerned i did it by mistake, i think it other way, but now read the full article and i got it. Sorry for that. On the other hand, i don't agree with your position on Sikh e.g. Though the Sikhs are barely fifteen million. Except this remaining information is ok, but lead section is not perfect place for this info. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thats fine.. I apologize and forgive we all have different views. I dont have much of a problem of what you did there on the Sikh page but in regards to the numbers I think they were talking about the Sikhs in Punjab, India only but I dont know much about this topic. Only delete things as a very last resort I think its best to add both sides of the story and let the reader decide. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Jujhar, I think Wikiuser81 is right when he says: Khalsa is a collective body, so one can be only "member of the Khalsa" instead than "a Khalsa".Jacksinghsully (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that makes sense. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you have cited for the definition of Nation of the Sikhs is from the J D Cunningham's book and he doesn't use the word 'Panth'. Khalsa is itself a Panth. Panth means people or nation. e.g. The usage India Nation is improper and actual usage is Indian Nation. Therefore, the same logic applies to Sikh Panth, the Sikh Panth is the Khalsa. As also with the basic definition of Khalsa is concerned, a person/individual can become a member of the Khalsa and can't be Khalsa on their own. Khalsa is a collective body of all Amritdhar Sikhs and not an individual. e.g. again the usage an individual became India is incorrect, an individual can become only Indian. I hope this shall cease the argument.Wikiuser81 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Panth means people or nation." This is precisely why I used the sentence as most people do not know what the word ‘panth' means speakers unfamiliar with the term will not know the meaning. I am fine with the other edit but do note that you can say the Hindu Nation and Hindustan Nation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Punjab insurgency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi (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) 18:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jujhar. Thanks for you addition to all the Sikh articles, but the reference for Guru Gobind Singh ji's Hukamnama's needs to be better than this. That About.Sikhism reference is the same as the one from info-Sikh. I will try and find a proper book reference. You try as well. Thanks SH 10:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, where is the info-sikh link you describe? At the moment i don't believe it exists if it ever did.. I believe that Sukhmandir Khalsa wrote that article and if anything the info-Sikh link is copied from the about.com website and the about.com website is based on what is written on the walls of Gurdwara Paonta Sahib. I can upload a picture of the hukams in Paonta Sahib because its under free licencee if you would like. Just a question if you dont mind are you an amritdhari sikh? Do you doubt any of the hukams? If so which one(s). If you are able to see my point of view undo your edit yourself. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am an Amritdhari Sikh (not that that is relvant to Wikipedia), and yes I do believe in GUru Gobind Singh ji's Hukamnama's, but we must find WP:Reliable sources for the information here. If you add weblinks of such a crucial thing such as Hukamnama's then it can be challenged and not WP:Reliable and WP:Dubious, therefore if we can find proper sources from Sikh Theologans and Academics then that is good. A good example of hearsay and WP:OR is Damdami Taksals claim that they were set up by Guru Gobind Singh ji, but to my mind not one person or Sikh Theologan can back this up. Thanks SH 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing the Amritdhari page so it is relevant.. Please answer the questions I asked in the previous message above or I will update the page as you failed to back up your original statement about the info-sikh website furthermore you are ignoring the Balawindara Singh's reference I added. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's and Amritdhari page is irrelevant. All that matters is the source is WP:Reliable. If you insist on adding unreliable infrmation, you'll be warned then eventualy banned. Thanks SH 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have long known that all references must be WP:Reliable. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Damdami Taksal. Thank you. SH 20:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, thanks Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vaisakhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bhangra (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) 11:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at Vaisakhi. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing this website, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia (please see WP:NOT for further details). Thank you. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia. Theman244 (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how adding an image of Vaisakhi next to the Vaisakhi section counts as socializing. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not about one specific article. For example, there are many (too much) images in some articles and adding more images to it make no sense, but you can replace old image with new one (better than original). If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia and they may be used later. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try browsing wikipedia more eg type any big city name or see any fully featured article and see the number of images included, true only relevant images are good and replace old images if possible, but many of the articles I come across especially related to Sikh topics lack images or fail to give to complete picture and adding images helps readers understand what the topic is about. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read it carefully. Theman244 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read what carefully? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jujhar, on Diet in Sikhism you deleted some valid references. I've restored them. You cannot deleted them if you disagree withem. Thanks SH 13:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were not valid references I now removed the ones that didnt link up with the sentence they were used in. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You done a good job on Bhai Mani Singh article, but there are still some exist problems related to it. His exact year of birth is still unknown and as per various sources you put his birth year anywhere between 1662-1670. On the other hand, in the Service of Guru Har Rai section, you added Mani Singh was 13 years old, his father, Bhai Mai Das, took him to Guru Har Rai at Kiratpur to pay their homage, but Guru Har Rai passed away in the year 1661. This is impossible. If Guru Har Rai passed away in 1661 then how Bhai Mani Singh can be 13 years at the time of Guru Har Rai. If this is true then his date of birth should be around 1650. There is also contradiction in some other sections. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Translating the lunar based Bikrami Samvat can often cause different years and even different dates, one Bikram Samvat year is not 365 days but is close I assume and I have no clue how to translate them but im sure they can be done

Guru Har Rai died in:

Bikrami Samvat 1718

Bhai Mani Singh was born in:

Bikrami Samvat 1701

A point of interest if you wish to pursue is that Bhai Mani Singh died in Vikrami Samvat 1791

One other cool thing I found out is that the current Calendar Year 2013 is Vikram Samvat 2069-70.

http://www.omkarananda.ch/hl/kalender.pdf

We probably need to change the Guru Har Rai section maybe even mentioning the Bikram Samvat year in a note if necessary. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fellow editor, before you start making mass changes o an article which has taken the input of several editor who arrived at this WP:Consensus I suggest you check every reference in the article and look at the previous discussions. I've re-added the references you keep deleting and removed the shift in emphasis you added. Please don't start getting into an edit war. "maas maas moorakh jhagray!" Thanks SH 08:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I do not know which 'mass changes' you are referring to as I only wanted to change 3-4 lines. Nor is there a consensus made on those changes in the talk page.

1. The following line should not be in the Akal Takht ruling so the best place is to be in the intro:

Most of the religious educational organisations and sects of Sikhism—Damdami Taksal, Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Namdharis, Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha[5] and the 3HO[6]—believe that a Sikh should be meat-free.[5]

Note the word 'most' is used as comparison between sects and not the total people. It is hard to argue that more sects support meat eating or even a middle ground as the numbers add up heavily on restriction of meat and eggs, some other major Sikh educational organizations not mentioned include Akal Academy which has roughly over 83,000 members and in that organization meat is not allowed on premises. Even Nihang Singhs dont eat meat at restaurants etc, they only eat meat that they killed themselves and if the animal is killed in one stroke to avoid pain for the animal, I will add this too.

2. I dont know why you keep referring to ang 176 of Guru Granth Sahib there is no note of human being different or even plant equaling to rock on that reference. An on that same line The only distinction made is that between these and a human You also added a reference to a forum as a citation I'm sure you know better.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhai Mani Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anandpur (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) 23:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Diet In Sikhism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. I've tried to be civil but if you persist, I will issue further warnings which will lead to eventual blocking. Please adhere to WP:NPOV. SH 08:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now I understand the first point (from the Diet in Sikhism post) about why that sentence has a link in the Akal Takht section because of the sub heading you added now could you clear up point 2 as well. Point 2:

2. On ang 176 of Guru Granth Sahib there is no note of human being different or even plant equaling to rock on that reference. So im suggesting either removing the reference or finding a different ang. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Sikhism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stockton, Dal Khalsa and Khalsa College (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) 11:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable compromise answering my objections to previous edits. I go along with that. Cheers. Apuldram (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool, cheers. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Punjab, India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Darbar

Gurdaspur district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Maharaja Ranjit Singh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BRD: a bold edit was made, it was reverted, then you discuss at the Talk Page, where I already started a thread. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping clean this up! hgilbert (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, no worries! Jujhar.pannu (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kirtan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• [[File:[[File:Sikh Gurbani Shabad Kirtan with Tanti Saaz.ogg|thumb|A [[Punjabi (language)|Punjabi]] [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sikhism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shabad (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) 10:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jat people without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Your edit summary asks another user to check out WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not sure who are the "3 against 1" to whom you refer but I do strongly suggest that you read that policy yourself. Consensus is not a vote and policy-based reasons trump non-policy based reasons. Since the information is reliably source, it complies with policy regardless of how many people do not like it. Sitush (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wanted to add that line not remove it, my mistake. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I've done that once or twice! No worries. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Damdami Taksal, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SH 11:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Diet in Sikhism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SH 11:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'SH', Besides one paragraph that did not have citations from published material, which I now added, everything else did have citations. Please dont remove referenced content if you dont agree with it, if there is another view add that but dont remove content that you dont like. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your refernces fail Copy-Vio and WP:Reliable tests. It does not matter whether I like them or not, read WP:AGF. You're on your final warning, and you will be blocked. Thanks SH 08:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Damdami Taksal has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, it wont happen again. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Diet in Sikhism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The vesion of Diet in Sikhism we have reached is because of the input of several editor. If you persist on making disruptive edits I will be forced to take this issue further. SH 08:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kurta may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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(Click show ⇨)

The term '''kurta''' ({{lang-ur|{{Nastaliq|'''كُرتا'''}}}}), ({{lang-pa|ਕੁੜਤਾ}}}}), ({{lang-bn|কুর্তা}} (পাঞ্জাবী)), ([[Persian language|Persian]]:'''كُرتہ'''), ([[Hindi]]: कुरता, A '''kurta''' ({{lang-ur|{{Nastaliq|'''كُرتا'''}}}}), ({{lang-bn|কুর্তা}} (পাঞ্জাবী), [[Persian language|Persian]]:'''كُرتہ''', [[Hindi]]: कुरता, {{IPA- worn with loose-fitting [[paijama]] (''kurta-paijama''), loose-fitting [[shalwar]]s, semi-tight (loose from the waist to the knees, and tight from the calves to the ankles [[churidar]]s, or

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are falling into the trap of most religious based editor here forgetting that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and not a mouth piece for religious institutions. We have strict guidlines, here and I fear you still do not understand WP:Reliable. I have seen many religious based editors banned here, and it looks as if you are extremly close to one. If you are in doubt I suggest you discuss or add things to the talk pages. Many pages here have reached a stage here because of WP:Consensus. So when an editor like you re-adds the same information that had previously been deleted it gets tedious. I suggest you take a good hard look at your sources and whether the are Copy-Edits. I am reviewing your sources and references to ensure they meet WP:Reliable. You also need to read WP:Weasel. Thanks SH 08:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, SH I have done nothing wrong. If you want to blame me for anything without any concrete evidence it is only going to make you look foolish. I am open to discussion from specific examples from you anytime but stating that all my edits aren't WP:Reliable and all the pages I have edited have been previously discussed on a WP:Consensus is very unscholarly, rude, and noneffective. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you just don't seem to get it. Read WP:Fringe. I don't have to blame or prove anything. The onus is on you to use WP:Reliable. If you cannot see that, then Wikipideia is not for you. ThanksSH 06:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit lost please tell me where I used an unreliable source? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you appear to be doing is doing Google searches for references. So if I enter a couple of words for something I am looking for I will find it, but the source may not necessarily corroborate what it is I am trying to prove. I've said on my talk page, you must digest and read literature and see whether it is relevant to the section. Also note Wikipedia is an English encyclopaedia, so you must put the English name, and if you wish Punjabi next to it. Also your command of English and grammar is very poor. You must improve that ThanksSH 07:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to use references and I always read the text before placing the reference. I have never placed a reference that wasn't relevant to the section ever. I only have put Punjabi text on Wikpedia pages under the two valid circumstances:

• In the native language section of an infobox eg. Rupnagar district infobox because that is what that section is for, see the Russian district, Central Federal District for an sample of this.
• If an article is named after a non-English noun or something not that does not naturally occur in English eg. Khalsa here using the native name and the IPA pronunciation are common throughout the English wikipedia and proven helpful in seeing the spelling of the term amongst other things.

"You really need to watch your grammar and english use. Your overly long use of wording, when a few words will make the same point need to be worked on.. " SH Writing to the point means including all the important information and at certain times certain information may not be important to you but important to others so in this case it shouldn't be excluded. This is not a grammar mistake but a style of writing and yes I try to be as concise as possible. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sikh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maharaja Ranjit Singh (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) 11:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Diet in Sikhism, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. SH 07:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Sikh-history, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your message on my talk page or your sarcastic refrence to me as professor is neither warranted nor worthy of wikipedia editors. I've given you enough chances hoping you would stop this behaviour. If you persist you will find yourself blocked from editing. SH 07:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was earnestly trying to be nice. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean earnest or honest? Thanks SH 00:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Diet in Sikhism, you may be blocked from editing. Theman244 (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Damdami Taksal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SH 01:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jujhar.pannu reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: ). Thank you. SH 01:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its impossible for me to be blocked without any proof of unfair reverting as with the two reverts I made I added rationale in the talk pages. On the other hand it is you that is being unfair in not discussing the content rather avoiding the discussion you tend to attack the user and blame how the content is written eg grammer or various non-related WP: violations which I clearly know and have proved to you on various accounts that I did not violate those same violations you keep accusing me. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Damdami Taksal, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. SH 19:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Damdami Taksal, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. SH 19:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fellow editor, you really need to improve your English and Grammar. Several of your articles have been brought to my attention. I do not have the time or inclination to change all your edits and the attrotious grammar and English use. Read WP:Manual of style. I stress again, this is an encyclopedia not a religious text. Thanks SH 20:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you add your own interpretations to a referenced section be sure to read the reference first to make sure your new content doesn't contradict the reference. You made 3 changes on the Spirituality page, leaving the referenced lines having nothing to do with what you added. Also God doesnt have a name in Sikhism so you dont need to include Waheguru 3 times it is already mentioned once and that is enough. According to the reference the goal isnt to recite waheguru but it is to remember god also waheguru isnt even mention there. I Don't know why you are wasting times doing minor edits on these pages when pages like the Sikh guru's, not including Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, are immensely incomplete perhaps you can take that up while I take up something else instead of focusing on revising the same pages (which no one else has complained about. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately for you, I'm probably the most knowlegable wikipedian here on Sikh issues, and I can tell when people are pushing a WP:POV and using wikipedia search references. Let's just analyse for one second what you are saying on Spirituality. If you are saying God dwells in all creatures, then do we become like Hindu's and start worshipping, cow's , monkey's and rat's? I should know because I grew up in a Hindu family. One of the reasons why I converted to Sikhism was, although we acknowledge God has created everything and permeates through all, it is only conscious in humans, hence why only humans are capable of achieving union with Akal Purakh. Otherwise we are nothing but long haired bearded Vaishnavites. Also what about Shakti and Bhaghti? Miri Piri? No mention of the link between the Temporal of the Spiritual. Why do you think we have Harmandhir Sahib and Akal Takht? One is for Spirtual and one is for Temporal. Also read WP:Common. I intend to start making articles clearer on Sikhism on wikipedia again rather than teh joke articles most of them are, so please don't try and force me off pages. Instead of trying to be obstructive, why don't you try and learn. I'm in my 60's and have a wealth of experience and knowledge. Thanks SH 07:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is what the reference says Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]