User talk:BalanceRestored/Archive1

Indian caste system
The Indian caste system is the traditional system of social stratification on the Indian Subcontinent, in which social classes are defined by a number of endogamous, hereditary groups often termed as jātis or castes. The jātis are often classified among one of the four varnas or classes. Within a jāti there exist exogamous groups known as gotras, the lineage or clan of a person.

The following scored topic is not neutral. Can someone help me to understand the policy regarding neutrality? This sentence is probably hurting sentiments of many citizens from India and Indian Origin. This is a very contradictory statement. Below are objections/discussions raised by many important personalities with regards to Varna and Caste. These will help you understand what the topic is all about.

Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi's Different views about caste and varna WHO WERE THE SHUDRAS Mahatma Gandhi

Please see the meaning of Varna, Caste. Varna and Caste are entirely different. People's minds where physiologically made Bonsai with that very sentence. Sections of society where made stay away from education for decades on the name of caste. So, please help me to understand the policy of neutrality to keep this very sentence away from wikipedia at least.

Sections of society in India say

The jātis are often classified among one of the four varnas or classes.

and Sections of society will object the same.

Since the sentence is a not neutral let me know the policy regarding the neutrality.

helpme If a sentence is not neutral and for decades there is a controversy over this topic. Is there a policy with respect to neutrality as I read one. Please refer to the above details. Let me know if you need further clarification, simplification. I feel the above sentence needs to be either removed or changed so that the sentence does not pin any ones feelings. BalanceRestored 09:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy is at WP:NPOV. In all cases, it is best to present just the facts and to back them up with a reliable source.  When there are opposing viewpoints that should be represented, the policy states: When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.  Minority viewpoints can be presented, but should not be given undue weight.  Does that help? --Strangerer (Talk) 09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You might also want to bring this up on the talk page of Indian caste system, because I'm not Indian and I'm not at all knowledgeable about the topic. People on the talk page might be able to help this specific instance better than someone from the helpdesk could. --Strangerer (Talk) 09:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion
Edits with respect to the above sentence is still not conclusive. Will need to wait for more time. I will need to consider more important peoples opinion on this issue, or collect more importance evidence on the same. Also, I am still not clear with the WP:NPOV so, will need to spend more time to understand the same.

you said: "contribution you propose is not sufficiently constructive", please offer an explanation. I tried my best. For further editing I think I will need to contact other members and make use of other tools. I am learning. The help me editors tried their best, they have clearly accepted that they are not in a position to help me further. I don't think I can further edit that article only from the user talk page. Can someone assist me any further?. I am again sorry I do not know if I can use the unblock to convey this message. Please let me know what further is required to get myself unblocked. If you think I am still not trying my best to follow the rules, please let me know. As of now I am really sorry as I do not have any other ideas left with. I was asked to follow the rules and edit what I wanted to. I did try to follow the rules and edit as far as I can. I think I did what was the best. Now what further?? Also, this above set of line you proposed me to get unblocked is normally provided for people who ask for becoming administrator. I am a new user. Don't you think I demonstrated all my efforts to convey that I am trying my best to follow the rules and understand wikipedia better?. "Is BalanceRestored following the rules" is that not what you are trying to be sure about??. Again, please let me know if I am wrong any where. I will try to get that correct. If there is a way.. Let me know. I will try my best following that. Remember HELP Editors gave UP and I am too early to take decisions on my own after having seen these policies. That's the reason these edits where non conclusive. Again, I am not here to be unfriendly and be disruptive. But give me some time to use the discussions at the main article. I can only assure you that I now understand fully what to edit at the main page and what not to. I will edit the main article only if I am 100% sure that it requires an edit. I know for sure I was wrong now reading and being trough the policies. Again... is it ok, if you called my true painful efforts to follow the rules a "jumbled mess"??. and you will again block me if I aggravate.. is that right? What would you had done if you have a little kid and the kid brushed good colors on the canvas and it made no sense? did not all the top artist in the world start this way??? is that not an true attempt. I already told I am new.. I tried my best.. Don't you think that was a little discouraging?

I will unblock you under certain conditions. I am willing to do so because you seem to honestly understand you errors. The conditions would be: I will assume good faith if you are willing to work within these restrictions understanding they would be enforced with zero-tolerance, up to and including the reinstatement of your indefinite block. Please let me know if you will agree. Vassyana 17:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 1RR. You may only make one revert per article per day. All reverts must be accompanied by a polite explanation on the article's talk page.
 * 2) If consensus is against your view, that you will not continually push the issue.
 * 3) Your contributions must be verifiable in reliable sources.
 * 4) You will not disparage other editors, even if provoked. If someone is being uncivil, you could request sysop intervention from WP:AN/I.
 * 5) You will not edit from alternative accounts nor will you edit while logged out as an IP user.
 * 6) If you cannot resolve content conflicts through a reasonable amount of discussion, you will seek dispute resolution instead of continuing to debate the issue on talk pages.
 * 7) You will avoid any other behaviour that could be considered edit warring or disruptive.