User talk:Stonemountainfox

Welcome!
Hello, Stonemountainfox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Himachal Pradesh. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! IM3847 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Hello, I'm Mahensingha. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rajput have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MahenSingha (Talk) 19:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rajput without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please 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. Sitush (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spaceman spiff
It's disappointing that the custodian of the Rajput page is clearly one with an agenda. Your "Editors" inspire no faith, and removed valuable cultural information that was not only not offensive to any castes, it did not fail to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". I'm not going to talk of my editorial experience but I fail to see how my perfectly civil addition was against standards of behaviour, or did not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. If the purpose of Wikipedia is against Indian upper castes, then you're no longer an encyclopedia. I will share this experience around the world so everyone knows your cabal of editors uses your ignorance of the topic to push their own agendas. At the end of it what you're doing is suppressing fact. Please refrain from removing cited content in the future or we will need a press campaign to establish how you are now more a tool for crude propaganda. There has to be a way you make money, of course. I would've appreciated an explanation of what I did wrong except "offend the guy we made in charge of content on your people". Regardless, there was clearly more insight in my edits than your Editor was aware of, and so he just deleted everything he didn't know of. Try crowdsourcing this info like Wikipedia was supposed to. Clearly it's not an open encyclopedia when it comes to issues you don't agree with. It's just a website where, just like any other website, it's a small bunch of people that decides what the facts are, and it's not open. This is why we don't allow the use of Wikipedia as a credible resource, your editors influencing the truth is a lot more dangerous to our knowledge and people than an open encyclopedia anyone could correct. It's not even consensus any more, it's the opinion of some unknown guy with unknown motivations with blanket power to decide what is supposed to be the fact. That you think one of your people knows everything about this topic is actually parochial, because the whole reason you need this law is because you'd be hard-pressed to find an expert on the diverse knowledge that goes into this (not just history but also genetics), and if you think the people themselves cannot agree on something, it's contrary to the pursuit of knowledge to arbitrarily choose a person who can be an authority on something too muddy for your concept (open encyclopedia). That an editor and not a fellow user removed my edits is indication that the whole "open encyclopedia" idea is false. Clearly you are not really on the side of free information if it interferes with the agendas of your people. I don't know if you care about the experience of users but this turned one of them against you. And this is a guy who supports free information and thought Wikipedia could be updated by us all and was not run by privileged individuals who told us what to believe. I mean I put effort and research into my changes, and my work was reverted not because of a fellow user, but someone on top. Defeats the whole purpose of an open encyclopedia. I don't know the credentials of this individual, which makes the insult to truth even worse. So you're an open encyclopedia, except when it comes to Indians, according to this law. We can't be trusted? Great approach to Indians, explains the anti-India approach of your editors. Extremely disappointing (look up when I created my profile), and your callous cookie cutter responses with the least bit of empathy but lots of threats have really left me wondering about what Wikipedia's philosophy really is. I mean I cannot appeal the errors of your editors to someone more knowledgeable, and instead of an explanation get a "these guys decide the truth that's the law when it comes to your people we are not an open encyclopedia when it comes to people with Indian castes deal with it or we will ban you." It's definitely not an open encyclopedia, and most certainly not for Indians. Perhaps the world should know this, but perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place because your Editors will just silence us. And then their superiors will threaten me without actually bothering to understand the topic, of course your average user is a fool who must have been in the wrong. Stonemountainfox (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush
Hi Sitush!

The content takes a practice from a very small region and makes it sound like the word Rajput was used in that manner everywhere they used the word. Please go through the source.

Anyway I just changed it because I saw an error. Thanks for letting me know how to do this going forward. Stonemountainfox (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)