Please do not add wp:Original Research to contentious articles such as Sikh Extremism.

On my talk page, you wrote:

Can you explain why on the Terry Milewski article it states "However, the WSO did not identify any factual errors in the broadcast." Thats what I added to the article as it is correct, relevant and appears on the article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid Fairy (talk • contribs) 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I didn't add it, so I have no idea.

"Thats what I added to the article as it is correct, relevant and appears on the article page." It conflicts with the source next to it. If you have a different source that disagrees, you might re-add the content, citing the source.- sinneed (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This change you made is here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Milewski&diff=prev&oldid=291045047 is not warranted, if something does not occur it does not need a citation. If the WSO could identify any factual errors they would have. They did rebuff his words, but did not identify anything incorrect wrt media stories. I will place a link.

You have basically altered the original TM article's information which I used to further enhance the information on the secondary SE article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid Fairy (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I fear I find your arguments specious, and in the wrong place. Please discuss the article changes at the article.- sinneed (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see wp:v. A negative statement most certainly requires a citation.- sinneed (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=State+Publication+10321&go=Go

Sineed, the link you have deleted is used in various other points in wikipedia, will you be removing those too as you did on the Terry Milewski site ?

It is possible that, if you read the wp:edit summary associated with the edit, you might find the answer to your concern, if any. Your question, as asked, has no answer and no clear meaning.- sinneed (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a simple yes or no answer, is State Publication 10321 relevant ? This is Government information. Y / N ?

I have no idea. If it is relevant, it should certainly be cited. I placed a citation to it at state.gov in Sikh extremism. It is not appropriate to use the Milnet copy, not an wp:RS:

• 1997 Global Terrorism: Appendix B-Background Information on Terrorist Groups

I hope this helps. - sinneed (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people would accuse you of unwarranted censorship, but I wouldn't!

Anyway you may (or may not) be aware of Sikh Extremist activities in Vienna yesterday ? I suspect you will deny that its not 'Extremist' because the word 'Extremist' is not mentioned even though two people nearly died in Austria. There may well be another link in Wikipedia regarding this story by now which I think should be titled 'Sikh Extremism' in Europe. Let me know you objections beforehand.

Here's a link that might help you, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8066783.stm

• At the moment, the main problem with the article is the issue of neutrality. This is difficult to establish because of the controversial nature of the topic, and the problem has been compounded by the Conflict of interest between various editors. The best thing to do is to discuss the problem on the article talk page and try and acheive a compromise over the highlighted issues. -Binary TSO ^???

I will not discuss article edits on my talk page with you.

YOU STATE ON YOUR TALK PAGE:

Pot calling the kettle black ? Morbid Fairy (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an offensive, racist saying, that has no place here. Do not do it again.- sinneed (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a racist saying Pot calling the kettle black Morbid Fairy (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your level on the English Language is questionable if you cannot understand simple idioms and phrases ? Morbid Fairy (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The pot would then be hypocritical to insult the kettle's color, since both are black with soot."

Using the color of my skin as an insult is wp:incivil. Stop now.- sinneed (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a saying or idiom describing hypocritical attitudes, what you seem to be insinuating is irrelevant, but that doesn't surprise me - officially or otherwise - Morbid Fairy (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your misquoting me. Please either include the entire 4-line quote or omit it. This is a request for courtesy, as I think you are free to mislead on your talk page if you choose to do so, but you are misleading. - sinneed (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As my edit summary states, my intent was to COPY the section to the talk page for possible inclusion... leaving it in. However, it appears I hit <ctrl>x instead of <ctrl>c. I apologize for this error.- sinneed (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It had not even occurred to me that Sikh Extremism was not listed at Religious Terrorism.- sinneed (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, I am duplicating this note at both of your talk pages. If you wish to discuss it further, please do so at my talk page. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's background here with which I'm pretty obviously unfamiliar. So I need to make clear that my opinion is not related to the nature of the content in the article or the appropriateness of disputed material. However, Wikipedia's copyright policies are very clear that we must not use copyrighted text on Wikipedia unless we do it in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline, and this means that we can use brief quotations under circumstances if they are clearly marked with quotation marks. Any other use of copyrighted material, unless we have explicit permission to license it under GFDL (and, soon, CC-BY-SA) is a violation of policy. If you can quote or revise copyrighted material, User:Morbid Fairy, then you must. Otherwise, we can't use it. If If you have questions about this policy, please let me know.

User:Sinneed, if you encounter problems in the future with a contributor restoring copyrighted text to an article after it has been removed, then you certainly may take them to the copyvio board, but it moves slowly; usually, an admin does not even the listing for a week. When you have a contributor who is restoring copyrighted text to an article after it has been removed and does not stop even after receiving a warning ({{uw-copyright}} is a good one, as it includes a link to the policy and a block advisory), then WP:ANI is probably the place to go so that he or she may be stopped immediately from violating copyright policy.

In this case, I hope that this information will be sufficient to take care of the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- sinneed (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rest assured I will remove any facts that I find that I feel don't belong. And no, 0 warnings.- sinneed (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, I will add relative information, if you delete it Morbid Fairy (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if it is not relevant, I will delete it again.- sinneed (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Morbid.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- sinneed (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Morbid Fairy (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually agreeing with the User talk:Timberframe who incidentally notices the same levels of vandalism by user talk:sikh-history, I hope you will see the same without resorting to any POV Morbid Fairy (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.- sinneed (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please redact this part of your remark at once: "...who claims to be a scholar but has objectives rather than history mainly vandalism caste and food..."

There is no excuse for making such an attack on any editor. Focus on the edits, not the person.- sinneed (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rest assured that I do not focus on you.- sinneed (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

really? then why are you following me like a little kid when i make comments on talk pages and not even on sikh terrorism ?? Morbid Fairy (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your focus from me, and place it on the content. I assure you that my focus is on the content of Wikipedia that catches my interest.- sinneed (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YOUTUBE. There is no ban on using YouTube links in a Wikipedia article, but copyright is the major concern. Generally speaking, text based links from a reliable source are best.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian

Please ignore any incorrect information from certain users on the youtube talk page Morbid Fairy (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look up Paranoia I suppose there may be a relationship between Paranoia and Fanaticism Morbid Fairy (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please be careful to ensure that your edit comments reflect accurately what your edits did. For example here you capitalised "Indian" and wikilinked "terrorist", yet your edit summary says "Punctuation and noteable additional information" - I don't see any additional notable information in the edit. Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on my talk page -- Timberframe (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you object to Jats being refered to as? Sudra, Vaisya or Rajput? Sudra^[1] Vaishya^[2]?--Sikh-history (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read main article on Udham Singh Kamboj, before reverting edits. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.punjabi.net/forum/showthread.php?p=37978

I agree with you RS is a total twat, and let me know about your final interpretation of the vagina monologues lol Morbid Fairy (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use my own quotes, at least be original sheeesh !!!

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satanoid for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the []. McKinseies (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]