User talk:Gurdas Singh atwal

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gurdas Singh atwal/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Gurdas Singh atwal! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gurdas Singh atwal/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gurdas Singh atwal/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 19)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Voorts was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: I am rejecting this draft because you have repeatedly resubmitted the draft without doing what the other reviewers have asked you to do. In particular, you need to review Wikipedia's style guidelines. Please take a look at the Manual of Style, especially the section on layout of articles.

voorts (talk/contributions) 16:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gurusinner/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Gurdas Singh atwal! Your additions to Mazhabi Sikh have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not disrupt. But the real facts and history with proper citation 203.76.178.202 (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gurdas Singh atwal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am new user of Wikipedia. I have edited the articles and pages that have to be omitted and need to be edited as they really contain wrong details and incomplete information, that may mislead the users of Wikipedia and for their research and knowledge. I have edited the articles while providing proper and genuine citations. But I think that have been not added correctly. All the citations and proofs are from genuine sites , books and even source. I have edited only that details which is plotted wrong in the article and page. But as I am new to Wikipedia and I am trying my best to learn the ways of interface that how it works and needed to be performed. So plz kindly, accept my appeal for unblock, as I have edited the true and genuine information on the pages and articles and trying my best to learn the protocol of the Wikipedia.Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, but do not address that with this request. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Appeal for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gurdas Singh atwal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes I have edited more than two accounts, and the details i have edited was genuine and reality based on proper research and genuine source, as the rules I have provided proper citation, references and links for it. But I don't know that it will be changed automatically to it's previous form, that's why I have edited them more than two times. The information I have edited is with proof. But I don't know how to edit properly, as I am new to Wikipedia editing. So plz it's a request that kindly, unblock my account. And my other account also.Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The point here is that you shouldn't be editing with multiple accounts, nor will both of them be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for unblock

{{unblock|reason= I have edited the articles and gave proper citations for it. The abusive sockpuppet eligation have implemented on me, but I have provided facts and proofs that have being given by historians and even they are certified by the various institutions of research, I accept that I have edited them by using my another account, because I don't know that , that editing should be done by only one account. Kindly accept my appeal for unblock and send me instructions for editing.[[User:Gurdas Singh atwal|Gurdas Singh atwal]] ([[User talk:Gurdas Singh atwal#top|talk]]) 14:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)}} Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You already had an open unblock request. It is abusive to have two simultaneous open unblock requests. Which one unblock request would you like to be reviewed? --Yamla (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for unblock

Accept the one which suit's you the most. Yamla g Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This is deeply inappropriate. YOU need to pick which one open unblock request you wish to be reviewed. If you don't pick one in your next edit, I will revoke talk page access from you due to WP:CIR concerns. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for unblock

{{unblock|reason= Then consider first one, as I am beginner and don't know the ways of Wikipedia. My source was genuine, and even from the Historians, but I am learning the ways of the Wikipedia.[[User:Gurdas Singh atwal|Gurdas Singh atwal]] ([[User talk:Gurdas Singh atwal#top|talk]]) 17:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)}} Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed two of your three open unblock requests. I expect, going forward, you will never again have multiple simultaneous open unblock requests on this page. You've been warned this is inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you sir Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I will try my best to do things by following rules of Wikipedia interface. And thank you sir for guiding and unblocking my account. Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

But I am still not able to edit my sandbox and other accounts which really need correction, kindly set my account as it was before. So I can edit them and make corrections, as wrong knowledge and facts are spreading that might lead to wrong ends. Kindly, unblock my account completely sir, so I can improve the pages and stop the spreading of plotted or fake information. Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This user abusively tried to continue evading their block by making a request over at User talk:Gurusinner. --Yamla (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually sir I have two accounts and both of them have being blocked. But seriously sir, I don't know why. And I haven't done anything. From my other account I have requested you that plz, unblock that account also sir. That account username- Gurusinner, is my another account sir. I have written this to inform that, that I have two accounts and I have requested a appeal from both of them sir. I don't know that only one single request might work for unblocking my account. Why my another account have been blocked as I have only created it to work more and at double articles. Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We've repeatedly pointed you to WP:SOCK. If you still don't understand why you are blocked by now then you lack sufficient competence to edit here. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- NitinMlk (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

- NitinMlk (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Mazhabi Sikh-related disruption

All you have done so far is to make a large-scale Mazhabi-related disruption at multiple articles by adding original research, unsourced content, fake refs, or poorly sourced content. Check my analysis of your edits at Talk:Battle of Saragarhi. You have done similar disruption in your remaining edits as well. In fact, you have mangled Mazhabi Sikh article beyond recognition. Any more of such caste-related disruption may lead to your topic ban – see the above two notifications by me.

As you are only interested in caste and Sikh history, please only cite modern, scholarly sources for the caste – see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For Sikh history, you need to cite modern scholarship by historians. Also, please don't cite British Raj-era sources – see WP:RAJ. The self-published sources by non-historians are also unacceptable for historical details - see WP:SPS. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Your edit to Bhai Jiwan Singh has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. DanCherek (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. Despite getting warnings and explanations to not disrupt the articles with fake refs and unreliable sources, the first thing you did after your block's expiration was to repeat the same behaviour! In these edit, you added unreliable WP:UGC and Raj-era sources which don't even support the content added by you. Similarly, in this edit, you added an unreliable user-generated source and a self-published source for Sikh history. Your remaining two edits are also of a similar kind. Any further disruption may get you topic banned or blocked. Si please stop your disruption. NitinMlk (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• RegentsPark, this WP:NOTHERE user has disrupted this project in literally every main space edit so far. At the very least, there is an urgent need to stop them from disrupting Indian caste/history-related articles.

Among all other disruptions, they have also committed copyright violations in Mazhabi Sikh by copy-pasting a large amount of text from copyrighted sites. For example, this edit is copy-pasted from here (see here for details). Similarly, various parts of this edit are copy-pasted from multiple articles of sikhiwiki.org (for details, see here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.). So revision deletion may also be required here. Note that DanCherek REVDELed their similar copyvios recently. – NitinMlk (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The information I had amended was from geniune source. Research done by Dr. Ragini Sharma from Guru Kashi University Bathinda on the Topic Bhai Jiwan Singh ji. All the facts and data I had edited was published and approved by the Government of India. You have removed it twice. This is not good that Wikipedia is publishing only fake and uncomplicated information. I am trying my best to improve it, but you are removing it simultaneously. You can check the souce and books that I had put in citation. 124.253.187.174 (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I explained about that problematic edit before reverting it – see here. But I doubt you read it, as it already explained about the unpublished thesis from Shodhganga that you mentioned here. BTW, if you think this and this are improvements, then please do not try your best in the main space. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• RegentsPark, after all the explanations and warnings, they are still adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to promote Mazhabi/Rangreta Sikhs. In fact, they have yet to make a constructive edit in the main space. I have repeatedly explained about sourcing, but they have either WP:CIR issues or simply don't want to hear. - NitinMlk (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  All the data i have added and amended was from genuine source, Bachittar Natak of Guru Gobind Singh Ji himself, Shahid Bilas of Bhai Mani Singh Ji, Harbans Singh Ji book " Guru Gobind Singh Ji " Rangretian daa itihaas, Singh Sagar of Bhai Vir Singh Bal and many more sources with the quotes in Gurumukhi Language and exact page numbers, in all of them their was name of Bhai Jaita ( Baba Jiwan Singh Ji ) and clear mention of Rangreta and Mazhabi sikhs troops, he was the main general of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and all army of Sikhs use to work under him and Guru Gobind Singh Ji orders, but you have removed it. The dates of the wars are also written incorrect on the Wikipedia Pages and articles, parties of the war who have participated was also wrong in the Wikipedia source. I have tried to improve it but you have removed it again and again. Even you are not a sikh, without knowing the exact information you and your team is removing the content that i had amended. Clearly mentioning in the history that the wars was called the wars with Hillkings and their is no name of any Hill king in the battle of Nirmohgarh and Bajrur and their military generals, King Kirpal chand of Kangra had been killed in the Battle of Nirmogarh but no mention of him, General Hussaini of mughals was the main opposition of the war but no name of him . Stop making fun of Indian and Sikh history by promoting only higher and fake peoples, hiding the true warriors and their contribution, misprinting exact dates and giving improper and fake information with the help of Wikipedia. I have tried a lot to bring the real facts with proper historians books, research references but you are removing without knowing about it. Wikipedia pages are only promoting Jatts and Rajput warriors of the Indian history and even plotting other community warriors as their own warriors. Wikipedia is only promoting the high castes and varnas of the Indian history. Baba Deep Singh Ji was a Mazhabi Sikh, whole Punjab and Sikhism know about it but on wikipedia he had been written and shown as jat sikh, Battle of Saragarhi was fought by Sikh pioneer troops of the 36th (Sikh) Regiment of Bengal Infantry was formed in 1887 from the 36th Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry and the weapons which they had used were you very low standards, and we all know that the mazhabi sikh were only allowed to use inferior weapons in the British army ( From the Field Marshal Sir John Chapple Indian Army Collection ), and their is no gotras mentioned of the 21 sikhs of the battle, jatts always use their surname and gotras as their culture and traditions, but Wikipedia have duty of only representing the upper caste and varnas and even showing the fake information about the low caste and other warriors and their contribution in the Indain history. Portraying the other warriors as their own warriors and promoting the high caste for their own better image in the society. Hari Singh Nalwa was a Rangreta Sikh , portrayed as Khatri uppal, Akali Phula Singh Ji was a Mazhabi Sikh but mentioned as jatt sikh, Jassa singh alhuwalia was valmiki mazhabi sikh but he was mentioned as jatt sikh. So please stop spreading the fake information of fake historians without knowing the exact facts and sources and the real life incidents. I am so shocked that the dates of incidents and wars are also written wrong. Mazhabi sikh and Rangreta sikh are just written as sweepers , without knowing the history of Rangreta word and their ancestry, without providing the genuine sources or purans of Hindu text just portrayed them as sweeper and low caste, great work wiki. Wikipedia should be shamed of this act, fake work was written as pride on the articles and pages of Wikipedia and providing the real and genuine sources himself written by the person are plotted as fake, great, very nice of you. Bachittar natak guru gobind and Shahid bilas by mani singh, Shri Guru katha by bhai jaita, mazhabi Sikh DNA analysis report by historian karam singh and punjabi university of patiala, all have been used as citations and even internet archive site with open books had been used by me, but you and your Wikipedia team stated that as fake and not worthy sources. Shame on you all and your wikipedia team. Stop writing fake pages and publishing articles on the brave and historic last satnds, stop portraying the mazhbai sikh warriors and other communities warriors as only jatts and rajputs. If you don't know the real history or facts then stop publishing the fake and incomplete history and incidents of the Indians and Sikh warriors. Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned that there are a few factual errors and a few important points are missing in some battle-related articles. I will crosscheck the scholarly sources and will try to fix the details if needed. But we can only add details as per the modern scholarship. It's the work of historians to analyse primary sources and "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves". Regarding the rest of your post, this project is certainly not meant to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Finally, you have been informed multiple times already about reliable sources for the history/Caste/religion-related details. All of these contentious areas are covered under the discretionary sanctions, as I have already notified you last month in this and this post. So please avoid any further addition of poorly sourced or unsourced content lest you want to be topic banned from the South Asian history/Caste-related area or even blocked, as already noted by the admin today. – NitinMlk (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion (and warning)

• Hi. You need to get better sources. For example, rather than using Punjabi language books by Niranjan Aarfi, you might want to find journal articles that reference the same works. With a cursory search, I pulled up this and you might find more such articles. If you continue to add poor quality sources, you're going to end up blocked and none of the material you add will survive on Wikipedia. RegentsPark (comment) 04:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ishar Singh father of Akali Phula Singh, was in Nishania Misl ( Shaheedan misl ) proof. Page No 615, Article and Research on AKALI PHULA SINGH.

  https://www.scribd.com/document/580782431/Baba-Jiwan-Singh-Ji-English

  Nishania Misl consist of Khatri and Rangreta sikh warriors.

  https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69674/page/n181/mode/2up

  His father was in Nishania misl ( Shaheedan misl ), which belongs to only khatri and Rangreta sikhs. And no historians have ever written him as Jatt or khatri. They belong to poor sikh family ( Rangreta sikh ). No land and no other source for livelihood. Gurdas Singh atwal (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Warning

You're continuing to add sources that are not reliable and citing sources that don't support the content you're adding. Please note that these areas are covered by a contentious topics arbitration decision (see the note above) and that is your last warning and you will be topic banned from all articles related to Sikhs or Sikhism if you continue to add incorrect or unreliable sources. RegentsPark (comment) 15:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all he was Rangreta mazhabi sikh. Baba Deep Singh, Akali Phula Singh, Hari Singh Narua they all were mazhabi Rangreta sikh. And this is the reality. All jatt writers write him as Kumedaan and one of them wrote him as Uppal Khatri. You can easily see in the History of the current 3 articles I have mentioned above. In Sikhism all Sikhs are mentioned as Khatri. Because Sikhism never have the concept of Caste system. And I starting of it. No sikh warriors have been written or mentioned with caste. As that the fact that, always low caste people change their religion from one to another due to the evil practise of caste and discrimination. And I don't need to claim him as Rangreta mazhabi sikh as whole of Punjab knows that. I am just trying to correct the wrong information that your Wikipedia is spreading, as it makes dual conception and ideas. Father of Akali Phula Singh is from Nishaniya misl of Sikhism, and it only consist of Rangreta and Khatri Sikhs. And I am from moonak, near to the Village of Akali Phula Singh's birth place, and all says him as Mazhabi sikh Rangrete. And first of all Read the Book of Shamsher Singh historian and Naranjan Aarfi ji. And now I will mention proper page no. Of the books,

Ishar singh father of Akali phula Singh was from Nishaniya misl. And HA Rose and Denzil Ibbetson says as below

1. "The Nishaniya were the second misal of the Sangha of Sikh misals. This misal was the exemplar of the Khatriyas and the Ranghreta sikhs."

(A. Glossary of Tribes and Castes, Page 172 Part III)

And no person have written him as Jatt ever, because he was Mazhabi Rangreta sikh. Even Maha Raja Ranjit singh also feared of him due to the dominating power of Akal takht.

2. 2409:40D1:1008:2263:A43C:C9FF:FEDA:D858 (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Book name Trail of mul Raj. And trial of Gohdar singh mazhabi sikh Nihangs and Akali of that time were know as Mazhabi sikh Rangrete. Proofs

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Trial_of_Diwan_Mul_Raj_Governor_of_Multa.html?id=3zXDAQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

2. 2409:40D1:1008:2263:A43C:C9FF:FEDA:D858 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)