User talk:Thinkmaths

Welcome to Wikipedia, Thinkmaths! Thank you for your contributions. I am NeilN and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know why you think "saffron terror" is a controversial phrase. Please read the 2 Frontline articles cited in the body (Praveen Swami and Praful Bidwai). It is a perfectly normal term, and that is why it gained acceptance. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Is it not better than calling it a neologism? Anyways, doesn't this phrase has enough potential to generate a controversy?Thinkmaths (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism is precisely because why this page was created. The AfD discussion is judging it by the criteria for neologisms. So, you shouldn't remove that term. As for "controversy," the Hindutva people will make a controversy out of anything. I don't see any controversy among the reliable sources, do you? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: No, not at all. I thought calling it a neologism would further make it even more prone to deletion. And there are 10-12 year old documents indicating that it isn't a very recent phrase, that is why controversial seemed appropriate. So should I change it back.Thinkmaths (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it back to what it was in the morning. "Neologism" means a new phrase (made-up phrase) and it will stay that way unless and until it gets into common usage and makes its way into dictionaries. As long as a few specialists use it, it will continue as a neologism. As for controversy, please note that there is a criticism section that goes into the details. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I see. But then neologisms aren't allowed to be put up on wikipedia, right?Thinkmaths (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, there is no rule like that. Neologisms can have wiki pages if they are "notable". Both Vanamonde93 and NeilN have argued that this neologism is notable. The other side haven't really countered their argument. We have to wait and see what the admin decides. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Understood. Thank you.Thinkmaths (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Hey, Kautilya, this guy @AmritasyaPutra: is gossiping about me to the admins about me being a sock account of some person with whom I am not even related? What should I do? If I am thrown out of this discussion, I wouldn't be able to contribute through my polemics and the research I have done about Saffron terror by reading and archiving news articles plus my vote might also be taken down.Thinkmaths (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He thinks you are not a really person, but I am pretending to be you. Lol. I thought he was more intelligent than that! There is nothing to be done because the admin found that you are no such thing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--AmritasyaPutra^T 15:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Why so serious? I know that guy personally.Thinkmaths (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean to say you him personally and so you know your insult to be true, or you know him personally and he will be fine with it? The first is no excuse; the second may be, but you should remember that in a controversial topic area there will always be people hanging around just waiting to report you someplace. In any case, the PA is gone, and that is good. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Well, it is the first one and I only want any intellectually packed opinions in these matters. You have no idea about this guy.Thinkmaths (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda missing the point, friend. Attacks don't have to be inaccurate to be acceptable; they are unacceptable regardless. You may want to glance over WP:PA. Of course, there are plenty of people who fling accusations of personal attacks around far too liberally, but this was a fairly clear cut instance. In any case, stick to content, and call out behaviour if it is directly related; for instance, if an editor does not respond to a certain argument, tell them so. Don't go beyond that. transferring this to your talk page because it is not relevant at Afd. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:Fine, you are a veteran, so you would know better. By the way you are 'the citizen of the world', right? I want to be 'the citizen of the world' too and where do you live, do you move constantly from country to country?Thinkmaths (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I intend to remain anonymous here, but that's no help to you. Suffice to say that my ethnic heritage is complicated, and that I have also lived in many places. You seem to have at least avoided my first mistake; I adopted an Indian name as my first username (that of a friend, incidentally; well buried now), thinking it would get me taken more seriously when I edited those pages. Now I don't know if any of those other things are true for you, but it is certainly possible to become a global wikipedian, by which I mean an editor who can engage constructively in a wide range of topic areas. Outside of topics associated directly with the US or Europe, there are a lot of areas lacking in attention, possibly because the native languages there not English. Our coverage of sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, is poor. Don't stick to a single topic area; it will drive you nuts very quickly. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask; I've been here a bit; Neil is a real veteran, and either of us are happy to answer questions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Well, it seems you have seen and experienced a lot. I do not use my actual name almost anywhere because I am not so proud of my heritage and origins. I am a traveler too, I have moved around in the Subcontinent so much that I do not feel so connected to any particular place anymore. It would be far more exciting to give up my citizenship and become a World Citizen. But I agree, this whole Saffron terror thing is driving me nuts. I wrote the Hindi version of this same article on the Hindi wikipedia myself and because this page is considered for deletion, automatically that page will be deleted too if the deletion process goes far enough. All my research and effort will be in vain.Thinkmaths (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you're getting at. "World citizenship" is not a formal thing; it's just me saying "I do not identify with any single community." Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it isn't. But will it not be nice if there was such a thing! If I happen to become a very popular public intellectual in the future, then I am going to urge the UN to award global citizenship to people from various fields of science, arts, economics, humanism, law etc. so that these people can go around the world and spread their influence and knowledge around the world easily and then this world will surely become a much better place.Thinkmaths (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we can dream. I wish you luck with any such endeavour. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Well, I actually need that, because not everyone is going to be happy with this idea. I thank you anyway!Thinkmaths (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think the revolt you might feel for your country/society might be needed. It might be a necessary part of its cleansing and revival and you would be playing your part in its history. Are you sure you don't want to play that? As for the Saffron terror page, it is a crappy page anyway. I won't shed any tears if it gets deleted. But I have been working on a much better page here [1]. Please take a look. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Well, your article builds up in an interesting manner. But I would like more detail about the acts just like the way mecca masjid blast is explained in detail on the existing one. But if you have a good reason not to do so, then it is okay, but your article seems incomplete. I feel it is in a need of more subsections to make your article easily navigable.Thinkmaths (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure that the details of the incidents are that important. Remember that this article is about the phenomenon of "Hindutva terror." So, the incidents are only important so far as they support and substantiate the overall phenomenon. You can add details about the incidents later on, if you can find sources of the same high quality that the draft is currently based on. You don't want to stick in half-baked newspaper articles, and thereby give an entry point to the Hindutva people to fill it up with denials. (The incompleteness is because I haven't yet found enough links between Malegaon/Abhinav Bharat strand and Samjhauta/Mecca Masjid/Aseemanand strand. I don't want to make it disjointed.) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I see! Fine, then you can go ahead with it, however, I would still want more subsections to make the article easily navigable.Thinkmaths (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 08:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigyani: Oh, I am starting the edit war! Sorry ma'am, you and your ilk started this. So, take this message and post it on your talk page.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigyani: No, probs, I did it for you.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is below the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Thinkmaths reported by User:Vigyani (Result: ). Thank you.Thinkmaths (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Saffron terror shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Shrikanthv (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Saffron terror. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  slakr^\ talk / 09:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thinkmaths (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I shouldn't be blocked because I am not the one who is perverting the content of wikipedia for the sake of my make-believe sentiments about the country and the religion. I stay with what is true and justified. I do not have friends on wikipedia with whom I can avoid being blocked for edit-wars and still have edit-wars. There should also be provision to block those who involve in starting edit-wars. Thinkmaths (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not address the reason for your block. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.