Talk:Saini/myTalkArchive 1

Sansi-Sandhawalia/Comments

A tag has been placed on Sansi-Sandhawalia/Comments, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also want to move the page to EverythingWiki. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Lots42 (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Please do not move talk pages. Merely respond to them. The people who read and edit the page will see your comment. Thanks! --Smashville^BONK! 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see thanks...I am new to Wikipedia functionality . Don't delete my comments though...

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Saini. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Saini Migration - 2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Saini Migration - 2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjit Singh

Please be aware that edit warring [1] is disapproved of. In particular, be aware of WP:3RR.

Also, if you add notices to articles, such as [2],please read the notice you've added. In this case your notice referred to talk page discussion that clearly doesn't exist William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks for the note , sir. I am new to wikipedia and learning my way around it. Kindly check "Sikh Historian" from bullying others. I am adhering to accepted scholarly standards and backing up my edits with references from reputable sources.

I will soon get more familiar with rules. Kindly be patient.

All properly cited viewpoints should be presented about an issue. "Sikh Historian" is not allowing it to happen and accusing others of "vandalism" in high-handed manner. Kindly advise how to keep this article safe from people with caste-based agenda to suppress certain facts about such an important historical figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Scholar (talk • contribs)

Until you are familiar with the rules I would advise caution. Consider WP:1RR as a goal. People are generally patient with newcomers, but do not rely on it. Please also note that just as you object to allegations of "vandalism", SH probably objects to allegations of "bullying". Remember WP:CIVIL. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts, even here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your advice into consideration. Sikh Historian should have waited to discuss his point on the discussion board before removing my edits unceremoniously and accusing me of "vandalism" . He not only deleted my edits on the articles without discussion, which were backed with references, but he also deleted the important conversation threads on the discussion page to supress the facts.

Sorry I got a little desperate in the process with the "bullying" comment but kindly also remind him to be open to discussion in a scholarly manner and show the courtesy to others in allowing well-referenced edits as well. He removed my extremely well referenced edits without a discussion. Sorry I found that very rude.

--Internet Scholar (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem over the page/s is ongoing you might be interested in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page deletions

Hello, you probably did not know this, but on Wikipedia it is frowned upon to delete messages from talk pages, even if they are your own.

If you feel that something you said has become irrelevant it is more courteous to strike it through by enclosing the message with <s> and </s>

. This will strike out ~~your comment~~. For further information, please contact the talk page guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for this info. Please feel free to restore those messages. Most of them were written in a rude and attacking tone. So I felt they were not value-adding. But please feel free to restore them. Your point is well-taken.--Internet Scholar (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliatory {Notability} tagging

Hi Internet Scholar

I noted that you tagged as non-notable the article on the inventor Van Phillips that I happened to do some editing on. I would be interested to know your rationale for doing this—are there real notability concerns, or are you retaliating for my tagging of Mayya Singh Saini? I try to assume good faith, but the article that you chose to tag is referenced with lengthy articles elsewhere that have the subject as their main focus. Moreover, the article (unlike that of Mayya Singh Saini) has been materially edited by other editors.

Bongo matic 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongomatic,

I think you could have possibly used the same enthusiasm in explaining the reasons for the notability tag on Mayya singh Saini as showed in placing the tag absolutely without any intent of discussion.

We are constantly on watch for vandalism and if somebody just tags without any explanation, other editors are going to suspect bad faith even though that is not the real intent.

Mayya Singh's reference has just been posted. Once it gains more visibility it will attract more editors to contribute and expand it further for more depth.

Perhaps Sikh history does not touch you as much the field of prosthetics which does not touch anybody outside medical profession. Maybe Van Phillips is notable for you and not for many others like myself.

I am just trying to sensitize to the fact that the definition of notability would vary according to cultural and professinal group one belongs to.

I hope you would in future discuss the issues before tagging the articles. It appears a little discourteous and disrepectful to other editors when their contributions are tagged without the chance of any discussion.

Have a good day! I hope you got my point.--Internet Scholar (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sikh Encyclopedia covers Sikh-related topics with a lot of depth, probably with the goal of covering all Sikh-related knowledge, down to individual soldiers that made notable feats that appeared later mentioned on battle recountings. Wikipedia has different goals and it intends to cover only "notable" knowledge ("notable" as defined on WP:N, not as it's defined on the real world).

Since "notability" (as defined by WP:N) is such a complicated issue and has given so many problems with interpretations, there have been created several guidelines that help editors decide what is "notable" inside certain fields of knowledge (ideally, every field of knowledge will eventually have its own "notability" guideline). In this case, the "Wikiproject Military History" has created several guidelines to help editors decide on "notability" of military events like battles, sieges, warriors, etc. One of those guidelines helps to define the "notability" of individual military persons, as defined by wikipedia, using several easy-to-measure criteria. That guideline defines a certain minimal "notability" threshold, and this person doesn't appear to meet that threshold, that's all. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, its upto you to delete or retain that article but Mayya Singh Saini was much more than a "soldier" . He was associated with Indian freedom movement a. He is more aptly described as Sikh freedom-fighter and revolutionary than merely a 'soldier'. Bulk of his contributions happened after the war as an insurgent against East India Company. If he had been an insignificant soldier, he would not have made to the Sikh Encyclopedia which is edited a by a panel of authors with much superior academic credentials than the ameateur scholars who edit wikipedia (no disrespect for you intended) . I leave it upto you to make your decision which I will respect either way.

Just a last word. Kindly advise some over enthusiastic editors of Wikipedia to first discuss the issue before tagging any article. Otherwise , it appears a bit rude and discourteous.--Internet Scholar (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should cite the sources describing his actions as revolutionary, maybe they are notable enough to keep him (or, if the sources on the article already explain his actions, then add their explanations).

It's not up to me if the article is deleted, it's decided by an admin who makes a consensus decision based on what the commenters said.

I adviced Bongomatic to leave an explanation on the talk page if a tag gets reverted, but the {{Notability}} tag has a quite self-explanatory message, and Bongomatic already said on his edit summary that the article should be expanded[3]. I understand that you think that our notability guidelines are broken and that we should not follow them, but the current practice at wikipedia is following them. Deleting the tags does not make the problem disappear, it just delays it. Correct practice is first editing the article to try to fit wikipedia guidelines, and then removing the tag explaining why it's no longer applicable. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a tag is self-explanatory to you. For others there is no way to distinguish between vandalism and editorial discretion, unless a clear note is left on the Discussion page. The other editor wrote something on Discussion page only after engaging in an "edit-war". He could have used some courtesy in informing the original author via a personal note about the tag, so that he or she could have responded. Other than that and without any note on the Discussion page no intention to discuss is evident and suspicion of vandalism gain grounds. Kindly show more courtesy and consideration to other editors in future--Internet Scholar (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Mayya Singh Saini

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Mayya Singh Saini meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayya Singh Saini. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Enric Naval (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]