![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() |
The Bull by its Horns Barnstar |
Sometimes you just have to take the bull by its horns. Congratulations on doing that on the India page! Whether successfully or not. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
All very welcome. I absent-mindedly wrote pull because the jpeg image I have used is titled "Pulling the bull by its horns.jpg" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Corvette Grand Sport.jpg | I Think The Edit War's Over! |
I think i've solved the Edit War dispute on Talk: Kashmir Conflict because nobody has responded to my message yet. They must have realized that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Jayemd ( talk) 01:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC) |
-- Anbu121 ( talk me) 07:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Suraj T 15:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
This is a friendly warning. Your insertion of the cities template in the face of no consensus for it, not even remotely, is an example of edit warring. It is very different from the scenario referred to in the barnstar (I gave you) upstairs, in which there was an emerging consensus, and much less opposition. Please self-revert. Be warned that you can get blocked for attempting to override consensus.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk»
11:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mrt3366. The point that you made about the lack of images on modern India (on the countries talk page) resonated with me and this discussion ensued on Talk:India. Would you be interested in taking the lead on selecting images for the Economy section in the India article? You can look at the earlier image discussions to get some idea about the process. If yes, please open a new section on Talk:india. -- regentspark
regentspark ( comment) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Your addition to
GPS-aided geo-augmented navigation has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without
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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
SMS
Talk
15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Your politeness (partial but I won't say it was "fake") was based on an offer that wanted me to behave like an escapist, that's a highly offensive offer. Do not do that again. I didn't add "libel, nonsense, hoaxes, vandalism" or any of those. I suggest you get familiar with the actual definition of vandalism and copyright violation. Your comments were more of a discouraging distraction than something helpful.
"You responded with a very rude edit." - It's your opinion. Keep it to yourself or if you want report me to WP:AIV. Do not pester me here. I am already filled up to my neck. Leave me alone. I didn't ask for your help. I don't like your opinion. Now, if you will please excuse me/forgive me for being rude that would be great because I have got other more important things to deal with. Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 18:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Anbu121 ( talk me) 08:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you just make the changes? I don't want to wipe out the caption changes you made earlier. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
regentspark ( comment) 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[header change by Mrt3366]
how can i write you a message about "Lem Villemin" ? I am Lem Villemin, this information is bullshit. i would be thankful if you could delete that of wikipedia. best regards.
Lemboi27 ( talk) 20:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)It will take me some time to go through all those comments. It looks like I've missed a lot of action yesterday. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 08:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I generally approve of city templates. They aren't that large, and they give me a rough idea on whether the population is distributed throughout various areas or concentrated on a few major cities (if it's just one city, then that could just be said in prose for much less space). This article however covers is quite well with the current population density map, so there doesn't seem to be a strong lack of population information, although I note the demographics section is about half the size of the Economy section above and a quater of the size of the Culture section below. CMD (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is an expression of approval. Yet, fowler iniquitously listed his name as the editors who opposed the change. I changed it here.
Editors who oppose a template: Saravask, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Fowler&fowler, Editors who support a template: Mrt3366, CorrectKnowledge, Ratnakar.kulkarni, CMD, ApostleVonColorado, Steve and NULL.
|
He is inflating the numbers to make it seem his claim has weight. Even regentspark has not opposed it thoroughly. He listed him there too. is this not battleground mentality? Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I think Talk:India has become a putrid cesspool of prejudicial, tendentious and I-just-fucking-don't-like-it-and-will-never-like-it,-because-you-are-involved-type comments. Pardon my candour but the truth is, that's always been the problem with Indian subcontinent people. Too many sophists, swindlers, casuists who are superficially adept at looking educated. Until the time we're able to stringently discern genuineness from trickery/mockery, everything is pointless. Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Word of advice. If you're responding to another editor, and not the one directly above, please state so. It's awfully confusing if you don't mention them by name. ;) The way you worded your responses, you made me think that you were asserting that I made those arguments.-- SGCM (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 06:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits are unexplained, unhelpful. Your removal of tags and restoration of synthesis all adumbrates edit warring. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 10:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Requests cannot be withdrawn, but they can be closed. If the main parties of the dispute no longer express a desire to continue the discussion, then it can be closed.-- SGCM (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, how are you?. I was on vacation and returned today, saw the long discussion at DRN, felt sorry about the result. You did a great Job.-- sarvajna ( talk) 10:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
sarvajna ( talk) 10:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Further to the [deserved] praise I just left for you on my talk page, if you ever think of running for admin, please let me know. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed rollback privileges from your account because you've been misusing the tool on Kashmir conflict. You have used the tool in a content dispute here and here and reverted good faith edits here and here. Rollback is for vandalism only. It isn't to make it easier to undo ~20 edits that you disagree with.--v/r - T P 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Per my thoughts outlined on Jimbo's talk page, and TParis' willingness for me to do this even though he disagrees, I am restoring rollback. Mostly so everyone can find something else to argue about, but also because in my judgement, you are unlikely to misuse it. However, as noted there, TParis was well within policy to remove it, so this is not to be construed as "Mrt3366 was right and Tparis was wrong". Also, fair warning: to cover my own ass, if nothing else, I will probably remove it myself if I see you've edit warred somewhere, and if that happens, I don't imagine anyone will go to bat on this issue a second time. And yes, in my opinion, you were edit warring. Certainly not the worst edit war I've seen, but it was still multiple reverts in a content dispute without clear consensus first.
Cheers. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"My goal here isn't to correct you, but to help you and give you some ideas on how to deal with admin disputes in the future"—Okay, I defer to your seniority and experience on wikipedia. I will follow the approach you're proposing. And also I fully get the message you are conveying. I believe you, I am sure, TParis is quite the reasonable and fair minded guy you say he is. I never doubted his sincerity(heartfelt confession). I was wrong in some ways, perhaps quixotic to some extent and for that, I have already apologized. And for the record, I didn't intend to create "drama". But nevertheless, TParis's punitive action - to me at least - felt dramatic. I am an ardent believer of "ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving wikipedia" message. But I will change my stance. I know you said "it isn't a catchall to just ignore rules". Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 14:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
...an editor has asked for you to be placed under discretionary sanctions (see this). Please feel free to delete this message, I won't mind it. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 08:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Not talking about raising "the standards" here that will need a separate discussion. Here I am mainly focused on the question are these templates inherently useless? I mean, do they add anything to the article or not? Because many have in past claimed that they don't actually add anything to the article and how much of an "eyesore" they are. That's the argument I want to settle first there. By the way your comment will be welcome there even if you say "no they don't add anything". Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 12:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You know Fowler as well as I know, if not better. He is simply trying to muddy the water and then he will blame somebody else for the consequences of his inanity. That is what he has done all along. Stirring things up happens to be one of his specialities.
I was behoved to tell this, the caste-based discrimination in India is as good as dead and the Government of India brought in many legislative changes ( Law of reservation for minority groups esp. dalits, proscription against the practice of untouchability, etc) which has helped, and is playing a major role, in destroying the idea of discrimination based on caste. This whole casteist business has got nothing to do with the core tenets of Hinduism. If we discuss caste in religious terms this will trigger a whole new stream of debates on theology.
BTW, Hindu culture is not outside of Indian culture. We should not gloss over the social initiatives that the Government and other Hindu activists have taken. We ought to adduce at least some of the preachings and endeavours of Hindu leaders (e.g. Mahatma Gandhi, Swamy Vivekananda, Dayanand Saraswati, etc and, in present day, Subramanian Swamy et al). None of the tertiary sources (that fowler himself cherry-picked) say that casteism is unique to Hinduism or India. Then why this unwarranted bias? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw your comment here and I have to say, I was touched. I'm glad to know that I was able to do something on here to help another editor, even indirectly.
Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 04:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Let me suggest in friendly manner, but also in a blunt manner, that if you continue your combative high-jinks on talk pages, you're looking to get blocked. Let me also suggest politely that I know a great deal more about India (both ancient and modern) than you have any clue. Before you shoot your mouth off again with calling me anti-Hindu, anti-India or imply that I'm "fascistic," read the first seven (and the last two) sections of Indian mathematics, which I wrote some five years ago, especially the Oral Tradition and Written Transmission sections.
It is true that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit and its remarkable growth has been sustained by new users, but it is also true that Wikipedia is built by adding content. That takes work, not theatrics. My friendly advice to you is to pick some topic of your liking and work on small untrafficked pages, where you can add content in peace, and gradually gain confidence. Otherwise, you will soon be gone, whether forcibly or voluntarily. I'm not looking to have a conversation with you, let alone an argument; you can take my advice or leave it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not very sure about the need to include about the steps that goverment is taking or has taken in reducing the caste discrimination in the caste article. The article would just explains the caste system in India. However my point is when we are having a section called India we should also mention about the caste system in other religions among Indians. -- sarvajna ( talk) 09:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() |
The Bull by its Horns Barnstar |
Sometimes you just have to take the bull by its horns. Congratulations on doing that on the India page! Whether successfully or not. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
All very welcome. I absent-mindedly wrote pull because the jpeg image I have used is titled "Pulling the bull by its horns.jpg" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Corvette Grand Sport.jpg | I Think The Edit War's Over! |
I think i've solved the Edit War dispute on Talk: Kashmir Conflict because nobody has responded to my message yet. They must have realized that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Jayemd ( talk) 01:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC) |
-- Anbu121 ( talk me) 07:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Suraj T 15:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.
This is a friendly warning. Your insertion of the cities template in the face of no consensus for it, not even remotely, is an example of edit warring. It is very different from the scenario referred to in the barnstar (I gave you) upstairs, in which there was an emerging consensus, and much less opposition. Please self-revert. Be warned that you can get blocked for attempting to override consensus.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk»
11:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mrt3366. The point that you made about the lack of images on modern India (on the countries talk page) resonated with me and this discussion ensued on Talk:India. Would you be interested in taking the lead on selecting images for the Economy section in the India article? You can look at the earlier image discussions to get some idea about the process. If yes, please open a new section on Talk:india. -- regentspark
regentspark ( comment) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Your addition to
GPS-aided geo-augmented navigation has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without
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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
SMS
Talk
15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Your politeness (partial but I won't say it was "fake") was based on an offer that wanted me to behave like an escapist, that's a highly offensive offer. Do not do that again. I didn't add "libel, nonsense, hoaxes, vandalism" or any of those. I suggest you get familiar with the actual definition of vandalism and copyright violation. Your comments were more of a discouraging distraction than something helpful.
"You responded with a very rude edit." - It's your opinion. Keep it to yourself or if you want report me to WP:AIV. Do not pester me here. I am already filled up to my neck. Leave me alone. I didn't ask for your help. I don't like your opinion. Now, if you will please excuse me/forgive me for being rude that would be great because I have got other more important things to deal with. Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 18:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Anbu121 ( talk me) 08:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you just make the changes? I don't want to wipe out the caption changes you made earlier. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
regentspark ( comment) 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[header change by Mrt3366]
how can i write you a message about "Lem Villemin" ? I am Lem Villemin, this information is bullshit. i would be thankful if you could delete that of wikipedia. best regards.
Lemboi27 ( talk) 20:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)It will take me some time to go through all those comments. It looks like I've missed a lot of action yesterday. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 08:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I generally approve of city templates. They aren't that large, and they give me a rough idea on whether the population is distributed throughout various areas or concentrated on a few major cities (if it's just one city, then that could just be said in prose for much less space). This article however covers is quite well with the current population density map, so there doesn't seem to be a strong lack of population information, although I note the demographics section is about half the size of the Economy section above and a quater of the size of the Culture section below. CMD (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is an expression of approval. Yet, fowler iniquitously listed his name as the editors who opposed the change. I changed it here.
Editors who oppose a template: Saravask, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Fowler&fowler, Editors who support a template: Mrt3366, CorrectKnowledge, Ratnakar.kulkarni, CMD, ApostleVonColorado, Steve and NULL.
|
He is inflating the numbers to make it seem his claim has weight. Even regentspark has not opposed it thoroughly. He listed him there too. is this not battleground mentality? Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I think Talk:India has become a putrid cesspool of prejudicial, tendentious and I-just-fucking-don't-like-it-and-will-never-like-it,-because-you-are-involved-type comments. Pardon my candour but the truth is, that's always been the problem with Indian subcontinent people. Too many sophists, swindlers, casuists who are superficially adept at looking educated. Until the time we're able to stringently discern genuineness from trickery/mockery, everything is pointless. Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Word of advice. If you're responding to another editor, and not the one directly above, please state so. It's awfully confusing if you don't mention them by name. ;) The way you worded your responses, you made me think that you were asserting that I made those arguments.-- SGCM (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 06:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits are unexplained, unhelpful. Your removal of tags and restoration of synthesis all adumbrates edit warring. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 10:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Requests cannot be withdrawn, but they can be closed. If the main parties of the dispute no longer express a desire to continue the discussion, then it can be closed.-- SGCM (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, how are you?. I was on vacation and returned today, saw the long discussion at DRN, felt sorry about the result. You did a great Job.-- sarvajna ( talk) 10:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
sarvajna ( talk) 10:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Further to the [deserved] praise I just left for you on my talk page, if you ever think of running for admin, please let me know. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed rollback privileges from your account because you've been misusing the tool on Kashmir conflict. You have used the tool in a content dispute here and here and reverted good faith edits here and here. Rollback is for vandalism only. It isn't to make it easier to undo ~20 edits that you disagree with.--v/r - T P 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Per my thoughts outlined on Jimbo's talk page, and TParis' willingness for me to do this even though he disagrees, I am restoring rollback. Mostly so everyone can find something else to argue about, but also because in my judgement, you are unlikely to misuse it. However, as noted there, TParis was well within policy to remove it, so this is not to be construed as "Mrt3366 was right and Tparis was wrong". Also, fair warning: to cover my own ass, if nothing else, I will probably remove it myself if I see you've edit warred somewhere, and if that happens, I don't imagine anyone will go to bat on this issue a second time. And yes, in my opinion, you were edit warring. Certainly not the worst edit war I've seen, but it was still multiple reverts in a content dispute without clear consensus first.
Cheers. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"My goal here isn't to correct you, but to help you and give you some ideas on how to deal with admin disputes in the future"—Okay, I defer to your seniority and experience on wikipedia. I will follow the approach you're proposing. And also I fully get the message you are conveying. I believe you, I am sure, TParis is quite the reasonable and fair minded guy you say he is. I never doubted his sincerity(heartfelt confession). I was wrong in some ways, perhaps quixotic to some extent and for that, I have already apologized. And for the record, I didn't intend to create "drama". But nevertheless, TParis's punitive action - to me at least - felt dramatic. I am an ardent believer of "ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving wikipedia" message. But I will change my stance. I know you said "it isn't a catchall to just ignore rules". Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 14:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
...an editor has asked for you to be placed under discretionary sanctions (see this). Please feel free to delete this message, I won't mind it. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 08:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Not talking about raising "the standards" here that will need a separate discussion. Here I am mainly focused on the question are these templates inherently useless? I mean, do they add anything to the article or not? Because many have in past claimed that they don't actually add anything to the article and how much of an "eyesore" they are. That's the argument I want to settle first there. By the way your comment will be welcome there even if you say "no they don't add anything". Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 12:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You know Fowler as well as I know, if not better. He is simply trying to muddy the water and then he will blame somebody else for the consequences of his inanity. That is what he has done all along. Stirring things up happens to be one of his specialities.
I was behoved to tell this, the caste-based discrimination in India is as good as dead and the Government of India brought in many legislative changes ( Law of reservation for minority groups esp. dalits, proscription against the practice of untouchability, etc) which has helped, and is playing a major role, in destroying the idea of discrimination based on caste. This whole casteist business has got nothing to do with the core tenets of Hinduism. If we discuss caste in religious terms this will trigger a whole new stream of debates on theology.
BTW, Hindu culture is not outside of Indian culture. We should not gloss over the social initiatives that the Government and other Hindu activists have taken. We ought to adduce at least some of the preachings and endeavours of Hindu leaders (e.g. Mahatma Gandhi, Swamy Vivekananda, Dayanand Saraswati, etc and, in present day, Subramanian Swamy et al). None of the tertiary sources (that fowler himself cherry-picked) say that casteism is unique to Hinduism or India. Then why this unwarranted bias? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw your comment here and I have to say, I was touched. I'm glad to know that I was able to do something on here to help another editor, even indirectly.
Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 04:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Let me suggest in friendly manner, but also in a blunt manner, that if you continue your combative high-jinks on talk pages, you're looking to get blocked. Let me also suggest politely that I know a great deal more about India (both ancient and modern) than you have any clue. Before you shoot your mouth off again with calling me anti-Hindu, anti-India or imply that I'm "fascistic," read the first seven (and the last two) sections of Indian mathematics, which I wrote some five years ago, especially the Oral Tradition and Written Transmission sections.
It is true that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit and its remarkable growth has been sustained by new users, but it is also true that Wikipedia is built by adding content. That takes work, not theatrics. My friendly advice to you is to pick some topic of your liking and work on small untrafficked pages, where you can add content in peace, and gradually gain confidence. Otherwise, you will soon be gone, whether forcibly or voluntarily. I'm not looking to have a conversation with you, let alone an argument; you can take my advice or leave it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not very sure about the need to include about the steps that goverment is taking or has taken in reducing the caste discrimination in the caste article. The article would just explains the caste system in India. However my point is when we are having a section called India we should also mention about the caste system in other religions among Indians. -- sarvajna ( talk) 09:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)