Talk:Gur Sikh Temple

RE: Sikhiwiki

• Abbotsford Sikh Temple at sikhiwiki.org

I have a real issue with adding references and links to external wiki's. I am particularly concerned about Sikhiwiki which seems to be controlled by one or two individual, who seem to use it as a personal blog:

Here is a prime example of some of the policies going on there:

• http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Talk:Langar
• http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/Hari_singh

This wiki seems to be the personal possesion of this fellow?

Thanks--SH 14:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have a personal issue with sikhiwiki.org kindly keep that out of WP. If have a concrete issue with the linked article name it. Whether the wiki is controlled by one person or not doesn't really matter neither whether what kind of discussion he might have in that wiki, what matters here is whether its article on the temple on abbotsford is of a good quality or not and again if you have any issue with that article name them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:Bold. I have no personal issue with sikhiwiki and it does matter whether it is controlled by one person, becaus in the same way we do not allow Blogs or certain websites we would not entertain using such sites. What I suggest is rather than using poor sources like that, form your own article, for which I will assist. We have plenty of references. If you really have a problem with including this link then I suggest WP:Mediation Thanks --SH 11:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We do allow websites and blogs under external links, we do not allow them as sources (=references) unless they are written by noted expert on the topic in question. And before you quote guidelines I suggest you learn the difference between references and external links (since you still seem to mix them) and read the policies & guidelines concerning them. Btw you could/should have applied WP:AGF yourself and assumed that added the link for good reason.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I know the difference between external links and guidelines, and even with blogs it is very strict, see WP:NEWSBLOG. I would argue give the evidence WP:NOTRELIABLE. Thanks--SH 07:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you dont't, I was talking about the difference between external links and sources/references (not " external links and guidelines"). The guidelines/policy you keep citing are about sources/references. Entries under external links are not sources (as I've told you repeatedly) and still haven't given a single reason about what might be wrong with the gur sikh temple article in sikhweb. All you have argued so far in various ways, is that sikhiweb is not a reliable source, which we agree on anyway and again the sikhweb article was never used as a source, that's why it was placed under external links and not under references.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't think you have understood WP:ELYES. This pertains to external links. The reason for this is, that including external links may give the impression they are reliable and neutral, when clearly they are not (as in this case). See WP:ELNO. The guidlines are specific. Thanks --SH 17:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally after many attempts you've found at least the appropriate guideline. Now you'd need to explain to me where the article on the gur sikh temple in sikhweb is not "neutral and accurate" ( WP:ELYES point 3) and you also may take a look at WP:ELMAYBE point 4 which was the original rationale to include it. --Kmhkmh (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed you knew which section I was talking about as you had done many edits. I will be more clearer in the future. I don't need to explain as it is quite clear in WP:ELNO, see point 11 and 12.. Thanks--SH 08:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The emphasis is on normally to be avoided (and we have a good reason for an exception here, which I told from day one in the version history - it is an accurate extensive article on the temple and conzaining picture we don't have in common) and still like in what way the particular article is concerned. Is the article on the gur sikh article not stable? You still haven't explained why WP:ELMAYBE point 4 doesn't apply here and you still haven't explained regarding WP:ELYES point 3 where the article is not "neutral and accurate".

As an "editor with many edits" I have to say to me your approach like pretty much like WP:LAWYERING, you removed the links in question several times with false argument citing false guidelines. Also you've almost spammed the article with replacement links that somewhat violating the guideline you want to cite now. At least this guideline applies now and WP:ELNO 11 and 12 are at least (formally) arguable points here. However personally I still doubt whether you've understood the spirit and goal of this guideline at least you seem to avoid the specific questions I've asked you in regard to it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No we don't have an exception here.If you really feel strongley here about this then I suggest is WP:MEDIATION, as I can see from the comments like " false argument citing false guidelines" above there is no longer WP:AGF. The links provided from news sources have lots of pictures and information. Infact those very links exist on the article you wish to include. I have also offered to help you write this article, so I cannot see where WP:LAWYER comes into this. The same counter could be made to you. Thanks --SH 12:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"false argument citing false guidelines" is merely a factual observation, if you can't see that I suggest you reread the discussion carefully and pay attention to your claims regarding references.

The point of linking the sikhweb article on the gur sikh temple was to have one link providing access to pictures and other external sources, rather having long list of links in our article (a thing the external links guideline attempts to avoid). Nevermind that some of links you've added are of questionable quality and I have hard time how they would more reliable or informative than the sikhweb article.

You still haven't answered my questions regarding what the actual problem with the gur sikh article in sikhweb is. All I've gotten from the discussion so far that you dislike sikhweb and seem to have an issue with one of the admins (Hari Singh) there. --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now it's a WP:Personal Attack. Please do not engage me in conversation anymore. Thanks--SH 16:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A factual description is not a personal attack, but I agree that this discussion thread apparently has become increasingly unproductive and hostile, so there is no point in continuing it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)