User talk:99.51.223.161

Google Books search direct link - no good for wp:RS by itself

I was afraid of this The links to the searches age out. It is essential to actually cite the book (especially name and ISBN if possible)... the link is great in terms of immediate information, but it won't last.- sinneed (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this kind note. Since you have more knowledge on how to fix this issue, would you please fix any (any one) of my google book links, I will take it as an example so that I could fix the remaining ones. Thanks in advance --99.51.223.161 (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope.- sinneed (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Mahmood, Cynthia Keppley (1997). Fighting for Faith and Nation: Dialogues with Sikh Militants (illustrated ed.). University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 314. ISBN 9780812215922.- sinneed (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sinneed, It was really helping. I will start fixing google book references next week (atleast the ones which I have added so far). Also, if you need some help in fixing google books links in some other articles as well, please let me know. If time permit, I will be more than happy to help improving articles. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't go through killing the sources.

If you feel you must cut, then please cut to the talk page for possible inclusion.

I ask you to instead flag the usage you doubt with {{fact|date=July 2009|This source is controlled by KPS Gill}} and/or {{dubious|date=July 2009|This source is controlled by KPS Gill}} or similar. Killing sources is harsh.- sinneed (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Unfortunately, I have just cut one reference. I will follow your advice and keep moving them to the talk pages. Thanks. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And I will keep restoring them.- sinneed (talk)

Why would you violate wp:npov? Do you want Sikhs to add all Khalistani mouth pieces/references as well. There could only be 1 rule and NOT 2. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would I indeed? I have no plan to do so, and restoring *A SOURCE* has nothing whatever to do with content. There are not 2 rules but thousands. This is not a prisoner exchange, and it is not swap meet.- sinneed (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources - need your help

Clearly you have found a requirement that sources, rather than content, must meet wp:POV. I fear I am unable to find that requirement. Please help me by providing a quote, or at least a section heading that contains the information. I see you repeatedly deleting a source for a bit of text which you say is not disputed, and I see no reason for that repeated removal of a source. It is a wp:primary source, and therefore must be used wisely, but quite appropriate for a business listing its executive qualifications.- sinneed (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, you will be blocked from editing. Do not introduce factual errors. The exact quote is available on line, linked right there in the article, and that is not it. Do not do this again. - sinneed (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You wrote ...

On another editor's talk page, you wrote:

Thanks for sumarizing the remarks on Talk: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill today. It appears that you did not have any bad intentions since you summarized remarks of all of the involved parties and regardless of their opinions.

If it was me, then I would have created a brand new section .. like "Everybody, please summarize your remarks", or "Every body, please vote"... something like that ....By doing this, you can avoid comming into any conflict with different editors. Again, Thanks for your kind contribution on Talk: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill--99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is no voting in Wikipedia, it is not a democracy. There is a process sometimes called "!vote", but it is much more formal and is for when the discussion is complete and it is time to decide.- sinneed (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• The "everybody please summarize your remarks" would have been greeted by me with "Absolutely NOT!", and strong encouragement for everyone to speak freely and fully.- sinneed (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed this does show that difference. Please reconsider your approach, and focus on the content, rather than the posters.- sinneed (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all clearly have a PoV

This was needless unpleasantness.

Please, again, Please read and understand wp:talk, and Focus on the content, not the poster.

Clearly both you and Wikireader have strong feelings about this individual. I clearly have strong feelings about Wikipedia. Berating me for it on an article talk page, as berating WR for it there, or berating your there for it, is against wp:talk, and unkind. It also makes it difficult to reach wp:consensus.- sinneed (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Interference

"eventhugh I did not like your intereference"

I must tell you that what you areappear to be referring to as interference is at the core of Wikipedia. Just below each "save page" button is: "Please note:

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images. See our policies and guidelines for more information on editing."

I assure you I will continue to "interfere" in each article that interests me.- sinneed (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to your editing articles and related talk pages. I was referring to your following my personal message to a third respected wiki editor and your un-asked opinion on it...on my talk page. I wont care if you say Hello, Hi , Thanks, sorry .. bla blah blah to any other wiki editors. I wont interfere. I will only concentrate on improving articles and article talk pages and NOT on whats happening between you and others. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page you posted on, you may be able, if you study carefully, to see that I had warned that anon editor, and thus have the page on watch, in case the editor has a question, or becomes problematic. In this case, I saw the editor being misled by another editor I have recently warned. I came here to caution you again. I assure you that is not interference, and I don't see anything in my behaviour here that I plan to change.- sinneed (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bit of humor... you were replying to me on that talk page... so... erm... no.- sinneed (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So, to explain the wiki etiquette to you: it would have been a bit unkind for me simply to reply as above on the other editor's talk page. Thus, I replied to you (you were replying to me... see... a conversation) here, rather than on the other editor's page. If you don't want to correspond to me... that is... if you think my replying is "interference", please don't start a conversation.- sinneed (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A source, but not for content I was adding

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). - sinneed (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I wish to point to the "...honest mistakes..." part.- sinneed (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not restore your deleted post on my talk page. It belongs nowhere in Wikipedia. It is a borderline attack. I truly TRULY do not care that you don't wp:LIKE my edits. I will not make yours. Your behaviour is unacceptable, and if you don't improve, you will be unable to edit.- sinneed (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove your focus from me entirely.

"I can email it to Sinneed if he could provide me his email address" - No. If you wish to send me an email, you may do so through Wikipedia. You will not have my email address, but I will then have yours. But please don't. - Pointless - My opinion does not matter. The published statements of wp:RS do. - Wrong focus - Focus on the content, not the editors. - sinneed (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Monkey and vandal41

Wikireader41 and Yellowmonkey are working closely together along with Hkelkar in protecting articles indefinately and preserving there Hindutva edits and pro indian edits your attempts of talking to the monkey is futile he has already blocked the article just wait and gather evidence against the monkey as i am and then we can get him removed cheers 86.151.123.110 (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)