User talk:Jujhar.pannu

O great God, grant me this boon, I should never waver from doing righteous deeds. I should never fear fighting the evil forces in the battle of life. Instead, let my self-confidence ensure my victory. In the heart of my heart, I should ever long, To sing thy praises like a Sikh. And when the hour of mortality of this body arrives, I should die fighting on the battle field with unbounded courage. (Swaiyya)

____

We, the devotees must tell our plight to the Lord, Without Him, the luxury of soft beds is agony The flask of drinks are like a cross, Pleasures of Palaces are like living among snakes if thou art away The goblet is poison and the cup a dagger. I would rather love this state with my beloved Lord, than live in the burning hell with strangers.

Babu Kunwar Singh

Maharaja Fateh Singh Bahadur

Raja Fateh Singh (1784-1837)

Nana Sahib

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Much as it pains me...

...I think the editor on the Operation Bluestar etc article is correct. We have to use Wikipedia standards regarding WP:COMMON in particular Common Name. We may wish to call the Sikhs Khalsa, but all WP:Reliable source describe them as Sikh Militants. Unfortunately we have to go along with that. JDiala, makes a good case. Remember the truth is the truth no matter how unpalatable it maybe. Thanks SH 08:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

They clearly are baptized Sikhs so that makes them represent the Khalsa. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Was every single one Baptised? Are you sure? Have you a reference that corroborates this? I can find several that refer to them as Sikh Militants. You have to get used to WP:COMMON . Thanks SH 18:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The baptized ones were in charge and I would say 80-90% were baptized, it was the Akal Takht so I dont know who else hangs around there rather than the Khalsa, Its not a big deal im not going to revert back or anything but if you want to pursue the argument further with me just for fun feel free to do so.. To keep things interesting I want to add that the Nihangs never were with Bhinderwale because they thought (their leaders decided) that Bhinderawale was doing good for the Sikhs but not the common people of India and Nihangs are there to serve the common people and keep them happy, just thought that was interesting. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Although this is not a forum I feel compeled to answer this. As someone around at the time of this and having lost relatives subsequently in the Pogrums I used to follow Bhindranwala. One of the reasons I covereted to Sikhism was just that, But I no longer do! Why you ask, because Bhindranwala was put in his position by the Congress. He was funded by them, and then turned on them. He is not the Saint everyone thinks he is. Far from it. The blame for all the troubles lies with Indira Gandhi and her Congress Party political maschinations. Thanks SH 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No Bhindrawale was put in his position as the leader of the Damdami Taksal by Kartar Singh Bhindranwale. People liked Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale because of his extensive lectures on Sikhi. He spent all of his time teaching and has a large audio library of kathas on various different banis' ie Jaap Sahib Japji Sahib, etc, Sikhs were treated horribly during the games in India and if it wasnt for Baba Jarnail Singh there is no way Sikhism would be how it is in its form today, Nirankaris and various other sects would have had the control of mainstream sikhi. There are a lot of lies about Bhniderwale but if you listen directly to his recordings you can tell what kind of Saint he was. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Revisionist nonsense. I was alive and in India at the time. It was all politics. I can see why you have a problem with WP:NPOV on Sikh related articles. The best sources of information are the BBC Radio 4 reports made at the time. Mark Tully has some very good reports. Thanks SH 17:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Conversation ended. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Do You Have a Problem With Grammar and English?

I've asked you this several times and you won't answer it. You made a complete hash of Spirituality in Sikhism, yet again. You made changes without discussing them. You've got to learn basic English skills before you you start editing here. You're standard of English in that article again turned it into a sort of joke article. Your terminoligy made no sense. The order of the subject made nosense. It did not even fit the definition of spirituality in the lede of the article. You really have to do better. Thanks SH 11:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Name one grammar or english mistake. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of incorrect prose. Poor structure. Nonsensical sentences. Want me to carry on? Thanks SH 10:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the use of specific words on Operation Blue Star article

Hi, I started discussion on the talk page regarding the use of specific words in the info box. I think we should discuss this case on the one place (talk page of article) rather than talk page(s) of individual editors. Hopefully, we will find solution via WP:Consensus. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jujhar.pannu. You have new messages at Vigyani's talk page.
Message added 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"See Also" rules

If you take a look at WP:ALSO (the part of the Manual of Style that talks about the See Also section), you'll see that we're not supposed to put any wikilink in that section that's already linked in the text. Since Sikhism in the very first sentence of the article, it can't also be put into See Also. I hope that explains the reasons why you're being reverted on Sikh. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the reply, I did update the page but in a more professional way now. I have noticed your edits on the Ranjit Singh page and I will in the near-late future also work on the Ranjit Singh page it as it needs a lot of layout formatting and I will follow the above and also use the Einstein page as a point of context to make it professionally, eg Biography super-section, Sikh rule super-section, etc. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guru Granth Sahib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian religions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Aryan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Damdami Taksal, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. We've been through this before. Stop adding poor grammar and English and over elaborate explanations. SH 11:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sorry there is no original research there, nor is there any grammar mistakes, and there are no elaborate definitions as they only fit the who what where and how (which is the minimum) so I have undid your reversion as you failed to provide a genuine reason. Thank you take care and enjoy ji. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Jujhar.pannu, I see that you and Sikh-history have engaged in a little bit of edit warring on Sikhism for some vaguely stated reasons. I would ask that this stop. I have added explicit citations to address that concern. As a general principle stripping out content simply because you have a concern is inappropriate, especially if citations are provided. If you have a concern, please discuss it and, preferably, provide alternative wording.

I request that you restore my edits and engage in more productive editing.

Thanks.

-- MC

Re: DR

Hi, if you have a reason as to why his title should not be added and comes under WP:Honorifics then please add it to the discussion. I personally am not happy about adding him because I cannot see any ISBN reference, however, it was re-added for some reason. Please let me know if you have evidence. Thanks SH 13:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sikh History, In regards to adding the 'Dr.' in front of Dr. Harjinder Singh, I think it should just be Harjinder Singh as I believe Dr is a honorific as it appears in the honorifics article and honorific should not be used. In the wiki page it says "Other honorifics may denote the honored person’s occupation, for instance "Doctor", "Captain", "Coach", Officer, "Reverend..." Also on the WP:Honorifics it explicitly says . "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right , this come under WP:Credentials. Thanks for pointing that out. SH 19:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Painless Killing

You cannot add nonsensical terms like "painless killing" but you can add terms like "decapitation is deemed to be less painful of animal slaughter than other methods of killing". Thanks SH 19:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, well let me get back to you on this one sometime later. Thanks Jujhar.pannu (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sahib Singh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ({{lang-pa|ਪ੍ਰੋ. ਸਾਹਿਬ ਸਿੰਘ}},{{lang-hi|प्रोफ़ेसर साहिब सिंघ}}), 16 February 1892 - 29 October 1977) was a renowned [[Sikh]] academic who made a tremendous contribution to [[Sikh]] literature. He was

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Puran Singh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Sikhi Di Atma (ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦੀ ਆਤਮਾ [Spirit and Psyche of Sikhi)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Sikhism, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop adding flannel and non-superfolous jibberish to articles. The lede is meant to be a summary. Not a rendition of War and Peace writen in Pidgeon English. SH 19:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Nihang, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SH 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop distorting all the pages add me as one of the dozens or so fair playing users who have a problem with you on wikipedia. You remove much more over petty excuses and in turn always write a ton of false information, eg in your last revert on the Sikhism page look at all the things you took down, the concepts you completely deleted: Guru Arjan, the fifth Sikh Guru compiled the first of two renditions of the Guru Granth Sahib - many people are confused about this concept and is a major event in Sikhism so it obviously needs to be in the lead, community, inclusiveness and oneness of all humankind - you got sharing but you completely missed these ones, The fact that Sikhism is a spiritual, social, and political system of beliefs rather than just a spiritual system - again another core concept of the religion. Based on you edit history its clear your just playing games. If you want to change something or have a actual problem with an article TELL the user the problem rather than making lame "grammar" threats which don't hold true in any angle. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You clearly have a problem with WP:AGF as well as WP:Competance. See the WP:Manual of Style and WP:Lead. Your over bloated "lead"'s are not only poor grammatically but meander and make no sense. You are on your final warning. I suggest you take any issues with edits o the talk page rather than engaing in WP:Edit War. Take note of the following

1. "spiritual, social, and political" - summarised in Spiritual and Temporal (which is political/social) or "Sikhism considers spiritual life and secular life to be intertwined"
2. The writing of the grant is dealth with the main body.
3. "community, inclusiveness and oneness of all humankind" - summarised "in order to demonstrate the need to share and have equality between all people" and further by "Guru Nanak inspired people to earn an honest living without exploitation and also the need for meditation on God's name"

Thanks SH 10:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Sikhism, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. I suggest you read the above and familiarise yourself with the concept of lede. You obviously still have WP:COMPETENCE issues. SH 10:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Nihang, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your refrences still do not pass the WP:Verifiable test. SH 10:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a specific reason for reverting as I explained on the talk page of Sikhism also on the Nihang page those sources are WP:Verifiable as they are from an ISBN books.Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You have a history of quoting refrences out of context and "google refrencing". I tried to check those references and there was no reference to what you were asserting, hence why they are not WP:Verifiable, or WP:Reliable. Like I said, it's a question of WP:Competence with you. Thanks SH 21:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sikhism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SH 21:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nihang

Hello, I'm Sikh-history. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Nihang. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The bbc source is verifiable. Please stop censoring articles. SH 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see http://tinypic.com/r/2rotcnb/5, the Nihang origin from Baba Fateh Singh is clearly mentioned.. and Punjab University is also an accredited university so it too is WP:Reliable Jujhar.pannu (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a nippet. I cannot see the context in which it was written. It may well say "Some Nihangs accept Sahibzada ......as the founder of Nihangs, but this has been disproved". That, is the problem with "google referencing". SH 11:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

But it doesn't it clearly says what is exactly being implied. The sentence in the article says: "Nihangs are believed to have originated from Sahibzada Fateh Singh" and the citation says "Some Nihang Singhs accept their origin as being from Baba Fateh Singh". The are explicitly saying the same thing.

Secondly the Punjab University is also an accredited university so it too is WP:Reliable Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Nihang. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. SH 07:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Punjabi language. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for adding unsourced content with a misleading edit summary. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the other changes, which were re-ordering based on population and removing the link brackets of Pakistan the second time and also removal of a floating non linked reference in the "Writing systems" sub section. I will look into adding a reference for the South Africa and Malaysia, though I thought it was appropriate to add them because they showed higher significance in terms of Punjabi Speakers than Australia which was mentioned in the list. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Sikhism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SH 10:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sikhism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sangat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sikhism

Because of your past WP:Disruptive behaviour and issues with WP:OR and WP:Balance as well as WP:Competence, I would be grateful if you could discuss your ideas and edits at the WP:Sikhism talk page so that we can get WP:Consensus. We are just about making this joke article into something encyclopeadic, and you are again ,making it into an unreadable mess. Thanks SH 14:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm Sikh-history. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sikhism without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! SH 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Sikhism. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SH 11:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Sikhism, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please discuss any removal on the talk page SH 11:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jujhar.pannu. I am Diannaa and I am an adminitrator on this wiki. Some portions of this post were construed as a personal attack by User:Sikh-history as being a personal attack. In the future, please focus your talk page discussions strictly on the content and do not make posts that speculate on other people's motives or religious affiliation. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Nihang, you may be blocked from editing. SH 21:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sikhism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. You cannot removed valid refrences. See the talk page. This issue has been discussed previously. SH 17:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits....

Hello fellow editor, thanks for leaving a "false warning" on my page, I have deleted it. You will note I have found some of your edits quite amusing up until now, and put them down to WP:Competence. You could have easily been blocked despite your block evade tactics up until now, but my hope was you may learn some basic editing skills and become and asset to wikipedia. Instead you have chosen to persist with WP:OR and delete references that don't fit with "Fundementalist" Sikhism. If you persist with such a route I will take action and have you blocked. This is my final warning to you. Get with the programme. Learn some basic English, and stop making Wikipedia look like a grad paper from somebody from jove institutions like Lovely Professional University. Thanks SH 17:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report about Sikh-history (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. Please don't abuse warning templates as it's taken very seriously SH 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sikh-history. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Nihang that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SH 18:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Understanding or Lack of Understanding of English

I have noticed again your lack of understanding of English as it is your second language is hampering your editing abilities. Here is a basic lesson. On article Sikhism you have stated that "fighting oppression" is different from "restorative justice", however you are wrong . Restorative Justice can take the form of fighting oppressors, or restoring someones rights or another methid. In otherwords "fighting oppressors" is just one of many subsets of "restorative Justice". Please try and improve your English so that your WP:Competence improves. Googling references is not enough. Understanding context and meaning is more. Thanks SH 18:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jujhar.pannu. I am Diannaa and I am an adminitrator on this wiki. I noticed that most of your edit summaries and talk page posts characterise other people's edits as vandalism or disruption, even when it's just ordinary editing or when you are involved in a content dispute. For example, in this post when another editor asked for verification of sources. In the future, please focus your talk page discussions strictly on the content. Please consider improving your behaviour towards your fellow editors, or you could be blocked from editing. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to talk about the content but user would either change topic or say some complete nonsense as I will illustrate: when I told him to remove the topic sentence "Sikhism regards "Justice" and "Restorative Justice" as trumping any codes of moral order and it is the duty of the Khalsa to preserve this" because there is no reference to support this bold statement in terms of the trumping any codes of moral order part he replied "Present both or its WP:POV." He also uses numerous personal attacks for example he would call me a fundamentalist or mention some lovely institute nonsense further more he would say I have grammar issues and competence issues as perhaps a sly way to avoid talking about content. He has reported to numerous administrators mentioning this lack of writing skills and all of them disagreed with him. In fact the administrator Dbachmann replied "Nothing I would describe as "pidgeon" English, or that couldn't be fixed by minor copyediting here or there. Are you sure this isn't actually about content?"1 So it is not me who it is making it hard to talk about content. Please as an administrator I advice you to look at this with a fair view point if that's not too much to ask. Sincerely Jujhar.pannu (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact you do not understand "Restorative Justice" is the same as "fighting any means of oppression" are one and the same thing aptly demonstrates my point on WP:Competence. Also I suggest you try and read references fully before deleting them. Thanks SH 08:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've refered this and other issues to WP:Dispute Resolution. So before you start deleting and reverting, please try and engage. Thanks SH 09:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Sikh-history, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is my final warning on this matter, if you persist on adding false warnings on my talk page you will end up blocked. SH 08:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

regarding user "Sikh History "

sat sri akaal

User "Sikh History " was blocked yesterday from editing for one week .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpartaap11 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)