Mkv22

Hello, Mkv22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted you again because there have been many discussions about genetics in caste articles and the consensus has always been that they should be avoided. I'll try to find you a link or two within the next 24 hours. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

A recent example is at Talk:Ezhava#Genetic_studies. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Caste system in India. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please see the thread below and do let me know or kindly clarify how this sanction can be formally appealed and removed. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkv22 (talk • contribs)

You have not been sanctioned. I have only alerted you that sanctions are applicable to all India-related topics, especially those having to do with the caste system. Admin Vanamonde93 has advised you about the conduct-related policies you need to follow to avoid sanctions. These include editing according to consensus among various editors, refraining from edit-warring, avoiding personal attacks etc. If you follow the policies, there will be no problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your kind response. I have also provided some clarifications regarding, what in good faith I believe, the validity of my edits and counters to the objections raised here. I have to admit that I feel that some of the messages here are threatening to me (purely my perception perhaps) and/or unnecessarily entangling me in statements which might be perceived as affecting the prestige of certain institutions or their publications. I would like to put it on record here that I have nothing to do with such comments.

Please refrain from such general statements involving third-parties on my "Talk" page and kindly be specific to my edits (the words, sentences and such therein and the Wikipedia rules that apply to them alone). I do not want to be seen as enabling or passively encouraging statements that affect others' or certain institutions' (i.e., third-parties) credibility. Many thanks!

Published genetics data on castes cannot be ignored

Some editors here who appear to be of not of the scientific background are reverting edits that cite published scientific research in highly reputed journals, such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

Who gives them the authority to judge on the scientific merit of published and accepted science research?

In all scientific journals a letter is a shorter research article (Nature, for example) and / or reanalysis of published data in the same journal (PNAS, for example). It is not an "opinion" and unqualified editors should refrain from making such defamatory statements here.

The paper in question is a highly doubtful source. It is obviously not a full research paper; it has just one page of prose, five sources, and no citations. In addition, no data is provided to support its only assertion; the table of generation times is tangential at best. The author appears to have only four citations to their name, and none of the others are on this particular topic. The paper in question is a response to a much better received paper, with very different conclusions: thus we cannot present the conclusions of this paper without describing those of the one it is reviewing. Finally, I do not think it is coincidence that the initials of the author whose article you are promoting match your username. If this is true, you have a conflict of interest in this dispute, and should not be adding your own papers as sources in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Highly doubtful source" -- This is defamatory of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. Is there an admin to control this kind of unsubstantiated statements here, please?

"...no citations..." -- This editor clearly does not appear to understand academic publishing standards in the sciences, particularly the PNAS. Most scientific journals, including PNAS, practises strict word count (not a word more) and the number of references for each section. Exceptions are granted rarely. How do Wikipedia editors, especially anonymous non-subject authorities, legally entitled to pass such subjective judgements of a journal's format and scientific credibility? Please define "sources", "citations" with respect to the published standards of the scientific journal under discussion here.

"...no data is provided..." Data is provided to the satisfaction of the scientific journal's peer-review and editorial practices. This, again, appears to be defamatory.

"...thus we cannot present the conclusions of this paper without describing those of the one it is reviewing." This paper, by the standards of the reputed scientific journal, alters the conclusions of the paper it re-analyses, "not" reviews. This conclusion has been accepted by the journal as final (according to its highest peer-review and editorial standards), as there has been no scientific objection or counter provided by the authors of the paper that this paper reanalyses. Is it not defamatory for anonymous Wikipedia editors to make its own "judgement calls" without having any authority, expertise and to make wrong claims with regards to citations, sources, etc?

Clearly, the anonymous Wikipedia editor appears to have no understanding of the scientific publication process, especially with regards to the scientific journal in question, let alone the scientific content of the paper.

I AM an administrator. I am not interested in getting into a long argument about scientific publishing. Read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI, and since you seem to be verging on making legal threats, WP:LEGAL as well. Then go the talk pages of the articles you are interested there, propose any changes you wish to make, and try to reach consensus. If you continue to throw around accusations, you are liable to end up blocked. Vanamonde (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

With due respects to you, I am not from PNAS.org and I am only pointing out the shortcomings of your statements. Many thanks for your various links above. Much appreciated.

Kindly also refer to WP:QUESTIONABLE and "Highly doubtful source" is clearly not applicable as an adjectival phrase or as a description or such for PNAS. I do not want to be appearing to be passively agreeing with such statements. Hence my clarifications. That is all. Thanks!

PNAS in general is fine; it is this specific paper, and the manner in which it is being used, that is questionable. I never suggested you were from PNAS: I am considering the possibility that you are the author of this paper, given that your username shares similarities with the author's name. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please write to PNAS with your scientific objections and request that this paper be withdrawn or retracted. It is not our job to pick and choose what we like or do not like, based either on professional or personal prejudices. In the scientific community, unless proven wrong or such, the results stand valid. We cannot be judges, I am afraid.

Questioning the validity of the papers in a journal contests the validity of the contents of the journal, of which the journal is comprised of, and effectively the journal itself. So it should be presented to the appropriate authority of the journal for the right action if you genuinely believe there is an issue. I request you to kindly take the necessary steps towards resolving that with the journal itself.

By the way, I am aware of the standards prescribed herein, WP:SELFCITE. Your citations referring me to the various rules and regulations of Wikipedia have been extremely useful. Much appreciated. Many thanks!

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding some parts of WP:RS. Some forms of sources are generally considered reliable: this does not mean that they are reliable under all circumstances. We are required to be thorough in determining the reliability of any given source. Furthermore, we do not present all reliable sources in the lede of an article. WP:NPOV requires us to present all perspectives in reliable sources, duly weighted. Even if this paper was reliable, presenting it as you did would be a violation of NPOV; because there are other sources, of equal or better quality, that contradict it. This is a problem of undue weight, which is exactly when citing your own publications becomes inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not misunderstanding anything. Please cite the "other sources, of equal or better quality, that contradict it." Then we can discuss. If it should be in the lead of an article / page is a different matter. Kindly do not mix up things.

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

On what basis are you promoting religious evangelism in Wikipedia? How can you put an image with a cross on a country? What rule of Wikipedia allows that?

Wikipedia does not promote or discriminate against any religion in any country. The picture does nothing more than visually symbolize the subject of "Christianity in India". I don't know why you're assigning some sort of complex hidden meaning to it, but that "meaning" is fabricated by you and has no basis in reality. The image is meaningless. Swarm ♠ 21:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is the exact symbolism the evangelical and proselytising campaign called "India for christ" uses. Please tell me, when that is a fact, how the image can be meaningless?

I was about to post on ANI, but as User:Swarm has closed that thread, I'll post here instead.

Regarding the image on the template: your edit to remove the image had no edit summary. Wikipedia has a process called WP:BRD: Be Bold, Revert, Discuss. You've boldly edited the template (without a proper edit summary), and you've been reverted. The next step is discussing it at Template talk:Indian Christianity. There was a discussion back in 2008 about the use of the image, but I think a reasonable discussion can be had about whether that particular image on that particular template rises to the point of being promotional of Christianity. Before we can conclude that, it'd be sensible to ask whether other similar templates use that kind of imagery. I can't say I've seen similar images used elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what policies we really have when it comes to sidebar navboxes like Template:Indian Christianity. You are welcome to start a discussion on it on Template talk:Indian Christianity though, but it would be best if you could assume good faith if you do so.

Regarding User:LeoFrank's reversion of your edit on Madurai Adheenam, well, it'd be good if he could provide an explanation for that revert, especially as it involves modification of a non-English footnote. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks! Please note that I have also provided, now, an English translation for the academic reference in Tamil.

Regarding User:LeoFrank and his repeated reversion of my edits at Grantha_script is violative of this rule – "   Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. " Can you please take action or do you advise me to go to the Noticeboard? Please advise. Grantha script and the bible has nothing to do with each other. Grantha script is an ancient script used to write Sanskrit. Can you please help check such christian-fundamentalist-like anti-scientific attitude on Wikipedia? Many thanks.

Actually, reviewing your edits, edit summaries like this are definitely unacceptable. There's nothing wrong with questioning the use of imagery in a template, but suggesting that someone putting an image in a navbox is an apologist for colonial oppression is not a productive way to start that discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

No sir, you are a contributor at Wikipedia. You very well know the history and fate of the native Americans, Australians, many peoples of Africa and Asia. Do you know that the papal order "awarding" the lands to the east and west to the various Christian nations of Europe is still not revoked?

That apart this is a fact: It is the exact symbolism the evangelical and proselytising campaign called "India for christ" uses.

Please tell me, when that is a fact, and when an avowedly christian "catholic" admin / user reverts the removal of the image without leaving any comment/feedback, what should one reasonably assume? Many thanks!

Mkv, the image has an obvious meaning: cross symbolising Christianity and the India map meaning India. It is quite an apt pictorial representation of "Christianity in India". I don't see why there should be any controversy about it. I think you are going OTT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that it cannot be agreed to for the following reason at the bare minimum, amongst others: This is the exact symbolism the evangelical and proselytising campaign called "India for christ" uses. Please tell me, when that is a fact, how when that is the case it is "OTT"? Also, kindly see the above points from global history that I have cited. Many thanks!

"OTT" = over the top. I'm not seeing "India for Christ" using that symbol anywhere on their website.

If we had a template for Hinduism in Brazil, would Aum written inside the outline of Brazil be proselytism for Hinduism, or a reasonable symbol? If we had a template for Judaism in China, would a Star of David inside an outline of China be proselytism for Judaism, or a reasonable symbol? If we had a template for Wicca in Saudi Arabia, would a pentagram inside the outline of Saudi Arabia be proselytism for Wicca, or a reasonable symbol? These symbols take the most obvious symbol for a religion and put them in the most obvious placement to represent "in" in relation to the most obvious symbol for a geographic location.

Everyone else here, of any religion (or lack thereof), would say that the above examples would be fine. They would also suspect that if you disagreed, it would be because you want to remain consistent with your argument rather than consistent with logic.

Also, as I've noted at WP:ANI: You need to realize that you've got a pretty obvious bias against Christianity and against Christian users. While you are entitled to your opinion regarding Christianity, you are are being illogically disruptive when it comes to topics relating to Christianity. While you are entitled to your opinion regarding Christians, this site operates on civil behavior and the assumption of good faith, which you are not demonstrating to anyone you can accuse of being a Christian. If I see one more incident where you are disruptive or uncivil because of your attitude toward any belief system, you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. Please mind your logic. Does Christianity in Pakistan, Bangladesh or any other non-Christian country's corresponding page have such a template? Please show by example and data, before threatening to block me.

2. Did I state anything that is not a provable empirical fact of history? On what basis mentioning of facts become "not civil". WHat kind of Talk / debate is this? Please clarify. Show what I wrote was not factual and used abusive language, please.

3. By the way, by putting OTT within quotes I was openly wondering what was over the top there, not that I did not get what it stood for. If I did not get it, I would have put a query mark (like "OTT?"). Thanks anyway.

Many thans in advance for your kind clarifications.

Mkv22 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Grantha script. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please stop reverting to fabricated documents

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. – Please stop using fabricated documents or post 19th-century artificial "fancy" knock-offs as examples. Please do not revert edits based on this basic criteria. Please stop reverting to fabricated documents. Mkv22 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Section title is self explanatory. Zchrykng (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's perhaps self-explanatory, but not very helpful. @Mkv22: to sign your posts please add "~~~~" at the end, and that will be automatically converted to your username and timestamp when you save. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mkv22: Sorry, I was being overly snippy and less than helpful. Zchrykng (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The consensus at AN/I is that your presence here is more disruptive to the project than constructive for it. In your small number of edits, you've breached many of our rules, including the core content policies, and the Fourth Pillar of Wikipedia, in addition to a ton of lesser rules and norms. Your response at ANI, standing behind the disruption you've caused and demanding that we spend more time accommodating you, shows me that you cannot be reasoned with. Swarm ♠ 19:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. Apologies to have to repeat myself. Not even US or Canada or other Christian countries pages' / pages' templates have a map of those countries with a christian corss over it. So are other non-Christian countries like Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh or anything I could check. Check out Christianity_in_Malaysia, for example. Why is that?

Why single out India?

2. For want of a better example, I am quoting from the Indian Penal Code (Please do not assume everything that is not to your agreement is confrontational). Section 52 of The Indian Penal Code. “Good faith”.—Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.

3. Please look at the people, and their own openly professed religion (say in their user page or such). Why should people of a certain belief create it and add it to Wikipedia template in mid-2016? Why were a certain people of the said faith revert my editing and warn me of blocking even at the first instance? Why?

Does this sound in good faith to you sir?

Being cooperative does not mean I have to be submissive to anybody. Wikipedia is a public asset, under a public trust, supported by the public donations. I too have donated to Wikipedia. Shall I produce the receipts, if you do not believe?

4. Somebody here said they did not find an image of the same nature on "India for Christ" website or something like that. Shall I post pictures from the on-the-ground campaign of the group? I am firm, I will be firm. I have a valid opinion. I am not a regular contributor, yes. So my approach might not be exactly as you expect. However, did I ever use language even as impolite as any that have been posted by admins here?

Please clarify.

5. Fact is a fact, whether you like it or not. This is "not" a forum for political correctness, is it? Of course, as long as the language is civil.

Shall we have this kindly resolved, please. At least provide a reasonable response to the above valid questions. if you find them not valid, do kindly state so, against each one of them. At least we will know where each one of us stands on this.

6. The same user(s) who reverted my template edit and even in the first instance (knowing that I am a sparse user of editing facility?), again reverted my edit on the Grantha_script and few other completely neutral edits. What is the relationship between the bible and an ancient Indic Sanskrit Grantha script? Is it appropriate to use a bible verse to showcase the script? How would anybody justify this? Please clarify.

CONSCIENCE AND FAIRNESS? You may not like my viewpoint, but you cannot deny the facts I put forth. Please be fair and honest.

Many thanks!

User:Tom Morris User:Swarm

Mkv22 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I don't feel like wasting time on a Christianity-hating POV-pusher who isn't here to build an encyclopaedia, only to further his own agenda, but I do feel I should correct you when it comes to what Wikipedia as such is and isn't: Wikipedia is not a "public asset under a public trust", but owned by a charitable foundation, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, and donating to Wikipedia does not buy you the right to post whatever you want here, as you seem to believe. Everyone who edits here has to abide by the rules that apply here, no matter how much money they donate... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Have the civility to respond to my point-by-point issues raised above. Mind your language, please. Stating facts is not hating anything. Perhaps you are projecting your own hate on others. It is a public charitable foundation, not a private charitable foundation. And, is providing a public service. So my description is not off the mark. The POV I was making is not that I bought any right. It is to show that I respect Wikipedia, in spite of its shortcomings. Please do not imagine things and extrapolate your hate or thoughts on to others. Many thanks!

Mkv22 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply