User talk:Mrt3366/Archive 2

Barnstar!

 * Thank you dear. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better now. The pull thing confused me, I thought it was some sort of an innuendo. :) Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 14:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It means a lot coming from fowler . All's well that ends well! Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ends well??? Far from it, for some reason too many cooks spoil the broth comes to mind. That said, the gesture was a good one. It looked similar to sportsmen shaking hands after a competitive game. ;) Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 15:09, 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&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @CK, I am decently satisfied with the end-result and the overall experience. And there is no deadline anyway. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The template looks alright to me, let's wait for other editors to comment/oppose/revert. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 06:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please express this on the talk page of India since that is where it counts. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk back
-- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 07:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Suraj T  15:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012, Friendly Warning
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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that, thanks for notifying me anyway. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Images in the Economy section of India
Comment by at 16:05, 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)

September 2012
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 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&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. S M S  Talk 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Get off my back. Take the issue — if you like — to WP:CP. And let them decide. Don't harass me in this way. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello from your friendly neighbourhood stalker. It is actually a copyvio from http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/south/17-gm-device-guide-missiles-968. The best plan from SMS would be a friendly note explaining, and perhaps not a template, especially after the India ordeal. A bit of sensitivity might be in order here. Something like: "Hello darling bunny. If you encounter such text, google a sentence or two. If it comes up verbatim, it's best to keep it out of the article unless fixed. We really aren't allowed to restore it otherwise." (The "darling bunny" part would be optional.)


 * Stay cool, my friend, and consider taking a sabbatical with me from all this stuff. Come and help create some lovely undersea species articles. Best holiday from the fray ever. What do you think? It's a totally relaxing thing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it maybe a close paraphrasing. But why don't you help me with that paraphrasing? Sabbatical - you mean escape from all that's going on? If I wanted, I would have done it in a lot easier way. But thanks for the kind advise. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not close paraphrasing. Parts were straight up copy paste. When I see that, I remove the entire thing. So should you. We are totally within our rights to zap the content and walk away, period. We have no obligation to do a rewrite. Copyvio zap-and-walk is a service to the project. If others want to paraphrase, fine.
 * As for the sabbatical, yes, I mean getting away from the heat. I've ended up embroiled in talk page debates before too. It can really put one off editing. I don't want that to happen to you. Staying in the mainspace is a lot more fun, I think. You picked India, and massive changes. That's risky. Species articles are quiet, and non-controversial. The offer still stands. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A dear old friend has some fine images needing articles here. I'm sure he wouldn't mind if we pinched one or two. Do any strike your fancy? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems interesting. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very, and peaceful, and nobody will give you static. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "It was not close paraphrasing. Parts were straight up copy paste. When I see that, I remove the entire thing. So should you. ..We are totally within our rights to zap the content and walk away, period. ... Copyvio zap-and-walk is a service to the project." - It's your prerogative, agreed. But don't dignify your laziness by calling it a "service". What you do is not a service to anyone. It directly contravenes WP:PRESERVE. If you choose to delete something, when the problem is surmountable then that's outright lame. You're entitled to your view as long as you don't try to impose it on me. Keep that in mind. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The section below PRESERVE says: "Libel, nonsense, hoaxes, and vandalism should be completely removed, as should material that violates copyright and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published."


 * I was polite and trying to be helpful. You responded with a very rude edit.


 * I retract my offer. I want nothing further to do with you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:59, 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. Mrt 3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk back
-- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 08:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Images
Comment by at 14:11, 10 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)
 * Take a look now. Does it look alright? Looks fine to me now. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You wiped out the cities section but no worries. I'll fix it in a moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)
 * Kindly do so, I saw that. But I didn't know I wiped it out. I guess you did. I simply wiped out the rest of it. My net speed sucks. It might be better if you did it. Thank you. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Lem Villemin
[header change by Mrt3366] Comment by at 20:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) 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)
 * Whoa..hold on. You don't have to send messages to anyone to get it deleted. See Deletion policy. Feel free to continue the conversation here if you want. I see the article has been already tagged by with no article's entry. Did you tag it? My net is terribly slow, I will see what I can do to help.Since you admit that you're Lem Villemin I am obligated to inform you at this point that do not write about Lem Villemin unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia because your editing may reflect conflict of interest. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: It has a deletion entry. Comment there if you wish but cautiously remember the conflict of interest-part. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN, Talk:India, Talk:Caste etc.
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)
 * We're awaiting your opening statements (comments on the situation as you see it there). It's I think more important. Then comment here on that very page if you like. Same ad nauseam repetition of I don't like it-type comments. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added my opening comments. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 09:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have taken a look at those comments and generally agree with them. In any case, it would have made little sense to oppose images of urban India in the template even if India was 5% urbanized. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 10:34, 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)"


 * Isn't this a neutral comment if not a support? Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 10:38, 9 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. 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? Mrt 3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea of a vote count was not a good one. Since this is not an RfC with an explicit support or oppose the vote counts are going to be subjective. Agree, regentspark wasn't opposed to the idea of a template per se. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 10:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Only and  are continuing to dismiss others' comment. No one else actually believes our proposal is bogus. I am simply upset that not enough number of editors are getting involved forthrightly.  Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not reply to Spiff's comment on Talk:India. Let that one go. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 12:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay if you say so. But where did I comment on him recently? Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't, Spiff's comments there were a bit vitriolic. I thought it best to let them slide. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 12:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have commented on that proposal. Among other things, it violates WP:ACCESS. I actually thought we had reached a compromise. I guess we still have a long way to go. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 14:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He peremptorily commands that "there is no agreement on an uncollapsed permanent template with images. Not even remotely. Time to close this DRN" ..like he is in charge of everything. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We were close to a compromise there, now we'll have to start from scratch again on Talk:India. I wonder if archived discussions of DRN can be used on talk pages as starting points for further discussions. In any case, I fail to see the point of DRN if a single editor can ask for closure of the whole process. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 15:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems okay, if there were width issues those could be tackled. I am afraid closure seems imminent now. Yes, lot of good work has been lost and we'll have to labour further. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 15:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have agreed to the collapsed template. We still have to discuss images and neutrality issues on the talk page, wasting all the effort on DRN seems pointless. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 15:58, 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. Mrt 3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work with the images. We have to persist at Talk:India till the article improves. As you said earlier, there is no deadline anyway. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 10:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to point out how many FA's have the template again and again. Volunteers there don't seem to get it. I am not going to be part of a process which can be hijacked by a single editor (volunteer or disputant). That is as detailed a reply as I can give right now. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 15:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN
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)
 * I explicitly wrote that it was a response to saravask's comment. Didn't you read that? Anyway, I duly note your advise. Thank you. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unclear if your DRN request has been resolved? Are you okay with modified consensus template or no template? Either way, a closing statement there, from you, would be constructive. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The best course for you would be to read the recent post by all, reflect and decide what would be best for the article within wikipedia guidelines. Then post whether you want "a collapsible template, with two images, reduced width, recolored, with images (rotating or not) chosen based on community consensus", or modified consensus template, or no template? Since the whole discussion is now very long, it would help if you re-summarize your reasoning as to how your selection from these three options will improve the article - this will help everyone understand you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have given a statement. Hopefully this will help others understand me better. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI-notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Mehra j Mir  '(Talk)  06:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy-pasted warning from mehraj's page(September 2012)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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.''  Mehra j Mir  '(Talk)  10:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Every one of my talk page stalkers be informed that this guy is just  copy-pasting the warning  I actually gave him. My edits are not "unexplained". I didn't remove any tags, I put them there, and I didn't restore any synthesis. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: DRN
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)
 * I do not wish to, or rather can not continue the discussion. It presently has gone to a dead end. You can close it, I am the one who filed the case, now I am formally abandoning it. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey
Comment by at 10:26, 13 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)
 * You've missed major "dramafests" and also colossally digressive discussions. But I missed you too. ;) Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the (#), bit busy these days with not so good work :-( --sarvajna (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can relate to your situation, Ratnakar. Don't you worry. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello
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)
 * Oh. This deflated my enthusiasm. Skimming some of your previous arguing has rather depressed me. --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get depressed because of my arguing please . Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of rollback
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 - TP 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not used rollback, as far as I can remember. I used either "undo" or "restore this version". I don't think you're being considerate. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Sir, I remember using twinkle. Hence I think you have made an honest mistake. I have not used "rollback" there. I used twinkle. There is a difference. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Restored
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)
 * I personally apologize for whatever trouble I caused. Forgive me if I've been rude and that goes for anyone I have interacted with throughout this discourse. Watch me I will not get involved unnecessarily in an edit war. Unremittingly criticize me on my talk page. Warn me! Trout me! I will try to be better. I am going to move on. You can watch my edits. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've intimated on Jimmy's page, you do better if you assume good faith on the part of the admin who removed them. If you choose to wait just a day, approach them with a calm and rational demeanor, you would probably have gotten them restored without the drama.  It's also a great way to earn the respect of your peers.  We all make mistakes, the key is to not compound them with yet more mistakes.  You might disagree with TParis, and likely half the admins wouldn't have have done what he did (but it was still within policy) but he is actually quite a reasonable and fair minded guy, if you take the time to get to know him.  It is fine to disagree, but when you are disagreeable, you mainly hurt yourself. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, Sir. I should be more agreeable. Duly noted. I appreciate your coming here and cautioning me. "you do better if you assume good faith on the part of the admin who removed them" - But do you really think there was anything left to faith anymore when the remover expressly snubbed my humble appeal by telling me that if he could remove twinkle with along with rollback, he would do it too? But I thank you for your protective concern. Please feel free to warn me if you see any misdemeanor wholly on my part. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I completely understand your frustration. I'm one of those admins that warns well before taking action almost always (vandals and socks excepted), so I don't usually run into these kinds of issues, and usually TP isn't so quick on the trigger.  Like I said, he is actually a reasonable guy once you get to know him and he isn't one to be abusive.  For the sake of argument, lets say this WAS a mistake on his part.  Still, the easiest solution is to calmly get a second opinion.  People ping me regularly for this.  If someone comes to my page (calmly and preferably one day+ later so everyone has cooled down) and says "Look, I was in the wrong to a degree, but I think the punishment is excessive for the crime" then I will happily go talk to the admin, who almost always will say "Go ahead if you want to", then I do.  My goal is always focused on two things: an easy solution, and no drama.  No admin savors taking away rights or pissing off editors.  We all do what we think is right, and there are very few black and white rules around here.  Often a day to cool down is enough to get everyone open minded again and resolve the issue without incident.  I had no choice but to support his authority to remove the tools, because policy is clear that he can.  I'm not interested in calling his judgement into question, since the policy allows this, so I only care about a fair solution in the end.  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.  You and I won't always agree (we didn't just the other day) but calm discussion usually fixes things.  And just a little patience.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:56, 12 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)

Just to let you know
...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)
 * I saw and commented. He thinks posting RFC notice on random talk pages is canvassing. But WP:CANVASS itself says that it's perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. And since fowler doesn't read minds I presume, he is not in a position to judge what is canvassing unless it's blatant. Mr Dennis already cautioned me on his talk page, albeit he believes me, that I didn't have any malevolent intent. I didn't ask anybody specifically to "help me out" in a debate. I am actually far from a cliquish person. Although I think the power of co-operation is phenomenal, I don't like forming cabals. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment here while both of you were trying to resolve your differences ticked Fowler off. You'll notice that he mentioned this edit on Elockid's talk page and followed it up with this comment on his talk page. I can't read minds either, but it's reasonable to assume that your comments on AVC's talk page upset him. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 11:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * HAHAHA...Some guys never learn. Check how RP and fowler are trying to sabotage the discussion with their slighting humor (I don't know what else to call it) on RFC/City population templates. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RfC on Talk:India might not be a bad idea at all. ;) Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 12:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:India RFC may come when the time is ripe but for now I am focused on RFC/City population templates. I wanted to know and still want to know what people actually make of those templates in general. I mean, I wanted to know, am I being too pushy? I seriously feel, it would be better if there was more uniformity and consistency regarding the structure and presentation of information, among articles about Nations across wikipedia. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors are unlikely to support anything that will raise the standards of FA, it is hard enough as it is. A specific template and specific RfC question on Talk:India is the surest way to know what consensus is, IMO. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 12:08, 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)
 * When does the RfC end? I'll add my 2 cents before that. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  12:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have time, at least a Week or so. Anyways, the default duration of an RfC is 30 days. Oh and, I left a note on RP's talkpage, telling him/her what an incredible job (s)he is doing on the RFC discussions. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler has again put forward another arbitrary and — I must say — perplexing proposal on Talk:caste. I think we should not make it any more complicated and time-consuming than it already is. Now as it seems (I may be wrong though), it's one of fowler's many fortes (e.g. stonewalling, creating confusion, obfuscating, needlessly complicating things). That is what he has done in WP:DRN (which failed as you may know), Talk:India (see archive no 37 if you missed some), at least one RfC and whatever article or page he has edited lately. If he is not a quintessential example of an inveterate filibusterer, then I don't know what filibustering is. Yet, he has the nerve to claim that I am having hard time growing up as though he knows my age. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...highly intimate dispute resolution cracked me up, good one. It doesn't surprise me to see that you have resolved your issues with RP. He is as reasonable and neutral as admins get. What troubles me most about the new proposal on Talk:Caste is that older proposals (changes to lead, spinning out new articles etc.) were collapsed on the pretext that they were distracting from the RfC. It seems odd if not hypocritical to discuss a new proposal there, no matter how good it is. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  16:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is hypocritical. The charade of honesty can only go so far, you know. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What the heck is a Hindu India????? Is there an Islamic India too that is unheard of? This smells disgusting. Why is Fowler doing this? What is he trying to achieve? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If we follow this proposal through we'll end up with sections titled Hindu India and non–Hindu India. I guess that is what virtual Partition of India looks like. I'll wait for other editors to comment. I am a bit stuck up with something else currently. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  18:59, 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 have replied to your post at User talk:RegentsPark. Yes, contemporary context of caste in India needs to be given more space. I have argued for it in the discussion at Talk:Caste (in my 6 suggestions). Please also read Wikipedia talk:NPOV. clarified most of the doubts I had. Please note what they say about spinouts: ... it's an editorial judgment call how much text to retain in the main page, and I'm not sure that NPOV will be that useful in determining that, but it's certainly reasonable to argue that major topics should retain a reasonable amount of detail. I have been uncomfortable about determining exact content percentages for a variety of reasons. This reply only reinforces my inhibitions about supporting any such proposal, no matter what the percentages are. Besides, there are other ways to represent India's centrality to caste. I'll share my doubts and suggestions in some detail at Talk:Caste when I find the time. Cheers! Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  10:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with you. And Tryptofish is as reliable an editor as any other. And moreover,  fascistic  (as in needlessly strict) word-limit per section is actually quite far from warranted. It's better to use common sense (apparently some editors frown upon the usage of common sense) . I hate fascism. And I think Tryptofish is also alluding towards that common sense.
 * If the discussion on RP's talk is taken to talk:caste, it will inevitably be pounced upon by some of the more zealous editors, if you know what I mean (not including RP though), for initiating another tiring session of consecutive twaddles. I also said on RP's talk that the failures of a society/culture doesn't vindicate the concealment of the present day scenario or the achievements is not how we should work here. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't get in over your head (essay)
Comment by at 04:54, 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)
 * Thank you again, I can fully connect with the scrupulous frustration, relevant hopelessness and disgust which inaugurated that wonderful essay. BTW, the comment there was a heartfelt one. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendly advice
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&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am looking to get blocked who told you that? Where is the diff? Are you communicating outside of Wikipedia (usage of multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia)? Do you know that is a violation of Wikipedia policy (wiki-policy on multiple accounts does not allow that)? If this is what you call friendliness then I think I better stick with my perception of you as a person. "I know a great deal more about India (both ancient and modern) than you have any clue" - maybe, maybe not. You talk about politeness yet only seek to belittle people whom you have a discord with. Are you always this jocular? Keeping your self-serving grandiloquence aside, the more important question is whatever information you think you have about India, are they enough and is your conclusion the only there can be? Or, do you think nobody else knows more than you do? "Otherwise, you will soon be gone, whether forcibly or voluntarily." — Are you an astrologer now? You shouldn't forget that the sole fact that you've more experience on Wikipedia than me, doesn't mean you're superior to me; circumstances change. Oh you have imposed far too many advices and protocols for my liking, let me directly give you one in return, quit being so haughty and for goodness' sake stop babbling so much about how great a scholar you are. I don't think you know a great deal about India. You're pretentious, exceedingly megalomaniacal and, more than anything else, you're an extremely egotistic person. FTR, I tried to bring our wiki-interaction to normalcy, you simply bit the hand of friendship which I extended. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "imply that I'm ‘fascistic,’ " —— enough with your damn silly politics, Mr Fowler, I didn't say you are a fascist. I said, "fascistic (as in needlessly strict) word-limit per section is actually quite far from warranted" - don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope of Caste article
Comment by at 09:57, 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)
 * It's required for neutrality, you know. I agree with you, don't get me wrong. And I would like to keep this discussion (between you and me) out of talk:caste because, if taken to talk:caste, it is more than likely to cause another time-killing, pointless and spiral imbroglio. It will, more importantly, be seen as an excuse for further obfuscation of the issue. Having said that, only mentioning the failures of a society/culture and nothing about the present day scenario or the achievements is not the way to go. Here I wrote the following in response to a similar statement: I don't necessarily disagree with the statement. You do have a point. I think, that is my point also to some extent, if not wholly. Yes, I admit, the nature of discrimination has changed drastically. The real caste system is reduced to a psychological discernment with not much practical impact or significance today. We should not forget that there is a sort of reverse discrimination against the so-called "higher caste" today (references:
 * Devanesan Nesiah. Discrimination With Reason? The Policy of Reservations in the United States, India and Malaysia. 1997. Oxford University Press.
 * Excess reservation will cause reverse discrimination, cautions Supreme Court and more)
 * We, if neutral about this, should not neglect to mention the following things:
 * All sorts of initiatives (e.g. reservation et al) that Indian Government have taken up to abolish the discrimination based on caste. And the abuses of those laws.
 * The initiatives Hindu Leaders/Activists have taken to reform the system.
 * The progress (e.g. modern status) so far in bringing equality.
 * The last but not the least, reverse discrimination in present-day India juxtaposed with Politics behind it.
 * I hope I am clear now. Thank you.P.S. if I sound inherently bogus or "an obsessively tendentious editor" to you, then I beg your pardon in advance. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)