User talk:JSR/Archive 1

Welcome!

Welcome...

Hello, South Block, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure

It is my pleasure to welcome you to Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the site. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JSR

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the India WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Please participate in any of our descendant workgroups that might interest you.
The project has a bimonthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered in its entirety, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every India article in Wikipedia.
Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian inventions

It may difficult to emanate, but it seems List of Chinese inventions includes many details regarding the first description of the invention in historical writing (example: "The winnowing fan was first described during the Tang Dynasty (618–907) by Yan Shigu (581–645)"). Furthermore, this list includes the name of the inventor and also multiple references to back up specific statements. For the missing fields (astronomy, physics, etc.), I recommend you find a book with the title "subject in India" or something like that. Books, like The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Rule in India by Baber, might offer more insight into Indian inventions in general. I also suggest you leave a message on the project talk page of WikiProject India and/or contact other Indian editors, who might be knowledgeable of other inventions you haven't yet covered on the list. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is here. However, it's a general template modified for use in various scenarios (read the template documentation). If I were to add India (Republic of India), that wouldn't just show up in History of science and technology in India, but also in all other articles the template is used in. So, I don't think the template without screwing up the template. Sorry, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:Hindu-arabic1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hindu-arabic1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate user name

Kindly note that your user name is misleading and requires to be changes as per WP:IU as your name indicates that you represents the South Block which houses a number of offices of the Government of India. Accordingly, please contact a bureaucrat to change your user name at the earliest. --Bhadani (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia![reply]

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: misleading as it indicates as if you represents the South Block. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. --Bhadani (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead. Thanks & Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:2 rupee coin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2 rupee coin.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page History of Indian Science and Technology worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TestEditBot (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartography of India

Dbachmann has a long history of editing Indian articles, so I wouldn't say he's uninformed about the topic. However, I think he shouldn't have been so quick to think that the article was written by a jingoist. I think the manner in which you have handled the dispute so far is exemplary, and all I can suggest is that you keep discussing the issues with Dbachmann in a civil manner. Hopefully, the dispute will be resolved in a timely manner. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar from Bhadani

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Exceptional Newcomer Award, presented on 19th August, 2008, by Bhadani to JSR for his value addition to the Project. Bhadani (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work so far, JSR. I've been busy with some other articles, so I might not get a chance to look at your articles for a few days. Regards, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian media

Hi, I saw your extensive edits on Indian media. Just a few quick points. The Raju reference is cryptic to say the least. Who? is raju. i'm relatively well read about the Indian media, But i must say that this is a new book for me. Secondly, the quotes are wholly out of date. e.g. TOI circulation (currently 3 million+ (see List of newspapers in the world by circulation) and other stats on the print media. Finally, I feel, that there are too many quotes. It would be fantastic if you could rewrite the article taking information from the sources, rather than quoting directly. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You let me know what quotes you need. I have access to some stats for Print, Internet and TV and with a little effort I can get some for Radio as well. Unfortunately they are also not online. But I can definitely help you with those. Can you quote the book in the Raju footnote? Usually, I quote the book, page and then the author. (maybe u can look it up on Google books. Makes an irrefutable argument) Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the messages. Of course i shall read, as soon as get some time. Very busy :(--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. you don't nee to ask me for permission for anything :)ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little recognition for your work on Indian Science and Technology

		The India Star
		For your significant contribution to improving the article Science and technology in the Republic of India, this is little token to say you've done the hardwork not a lot of others were prepared to put in. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

Just a word from my own perspective, perhaps you may want to shift a bit from attributions to figureheads, especially political figureheads, eg, Nehru, sice these may be interpreted as biased to Government accounts. Also, the works of NRIs, where the work was done in the foreign institutions and patronage may not really be seen as Indian. You have focussed on technological. Let me just mention, Indian biological sciences, especially upto late 1980s had a significant weight, Ubiquinone being one such field. I know its hard, without any extensive coverage in standard literature, nontheless, you've done the hardwork, keeo it up. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopsital edits

Hello JSR - I noted that in the course of these edits, you removed quite a bit of referenced, on-topic material without an explanation or visible cause. I assume that you simply did so by accident, rather than intention - but please be careful that this doesn't happen! Regards, Ingolfson (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that material contradicts the very respectable Encyclopedia Britannica. And that material might not necessarily be true as the ISBN or the quotes are really not available. Not to mention that the material I removed was kinda NPOV and that spoils he whole 'neutrality' thing ('there are historians who strictly dispute the claim that Ashoka built any hospitals at all'— who are these people and who sees them and why don't they get heard on Britannica? who writes 'ancient Asia' and why am I hearing from 'The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments'?).

I won't bet that the material is undisputed. Anyways, the quote I provided was better than the material given and hence renders the material useless. Piercey & Scarborough are better than 'The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments' on any given day.

Regards, JSR (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From 'The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments':

I have been assured that history 101 textbooks in North America routinely make the same claim. This assertion continues to be repeated and propagated in many books and websites. There is absolutely no evidence for these A´sokan hospitals, in A´soka’s inscriptions or elsewhere. They are ghosts, and we need to exorcise them.

One of those '101 textbooks' Finger, Stanley (2001). Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Explorations Into Brain Function. US: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195146948. states that one of the edicts of Ashoka (272 - 231 BCE) reads: "Everywhere King Piyadasi (Asoka) erected two kinds of hospitals, hospitals for people and hospitals for animals. Where there were no healing herbs for people and animals, he ordered that they be bought and planted."

I have replaced the singularly poor research of 'The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments' by Piercey & Scarborough (2008).

JSR (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you are a bit unsure in how Wikipedia approaches these cases. Please read my answer on my page. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done :-) JSR (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this discussion onto the Talk:Hospital page - should really be held there. Regards Ingolfson (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good move (pun intented) :-) JSR (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian agriculture

Sure will give it a look. Just gimme a bit of time, trying to get India House to FA :) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across the Agriculture in India article. I was very, very surprised. Excellent job! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for improving so many basic articles on India. And really sorry for not being able to manage adequate time to read all the great works. Will try to read soon :) Cheers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I am hardly active in Wikipedia these days, due to shortage of time :( Yes, of course i shall read the articles. One thing that i just happened to notice while glancing through those articles is the conspicuous usage of several boxes. I have forgotten if there is any guideline limiting the over-use of such boxes, but definitely boxes are not that common. Actually over-usage of boxes may bias the reader, and lure them towards the content of the boxes (which may be good for really important points, but over-usage seems to undermine that very function of the boxes). You can consult the style guidelines (I am really out-of-touch with most guidelines, sorry if i said something wrong). Cheers!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. About your editing style though, read these comments whenever you have the time. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 11:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmi script

Quote: "The earliest literature is of a sacred character and dates from about 1400 BC"

Are you telling me that you're using a single character, which may or may not represent a written word (let alone lacking an entire script which does not appear until the 3rd century BC), to justify the possible existence of entire books written in the 2nd millennium BC and early 1st millennium BC? Aside from the possible use of a script by the much more ancient Indus Valley Civilization (which had nothing to do with the civilization in Ashoka's time), a solid and confirmed corpus of a writing system does not appear in South Asia until the 3rd century BC. Even if these entire books were part of an oral tradition predating the 3rd century BC, you still have no archaeological evidence of writing before the 3rd century BC, hence you cannot claim that any of these books are older than the 3rd century BC. It's as simple as that, there was not even writing in India before that point, and only shards of graffiti to suggest that there was. Therefore this knee-jerk reaction of yours in removing my material and then reverting my edits is completely unsubstantiated. By boldly making these claims about Indian books older than the 3rd century BC without any archaeological evidence whatsoever (with Charles Leslie even asserting 4th century AD!), you are setting yourself up for such criticism and scrutiny. Unlike your "evidence" (which is merely speculation), the book found in China DATES TO THE 3RD CENTURY BC. You can't put any amount of spin on that.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that "Even if these entire books were part of an oral tradition predating the 3rd century BC, you still have no archaeological evidence of writing before the 3rd century BC, hence you cannot claim that any of these books are older than the 3rd century BC. It's as simple as that, there was not even writing in India before that point, and only shards of graffiti to suggest that there was." you limit it to archaeological evidence and archaeological evidence only. PericlesofAthens, that's not done.

Scholars may employ other methods; Philology being one of them. If scholars of India hold that Indian literature predates Ashoka then that's it. Just because every Chinese book did not survive and Indians wrote on perishable material does not mean that their Literary Canon has to viewed from a narrow viewpoint of radiocarbon dating of surviving scripts. Indian literature is older than Ashoka's edicts whether you believe it or not. Do you want me to bring you sources on this?

JSR (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot to ask this: What are your views on India's literature beginning at the time of Ashoka doing in leprosy ? Should you not place that in literature of India or Ashoka? JSR (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, philology would be a good method to determine an older origin, but how old? You can't seriously date something with a great amount of accuracy using philology, especially since we have no records in India predating the 3rd century BC which could explain to us the changes and evolution of the Indian language, slang, dialects, word definitions, etc. Also, bringing up the Edicts of Ashoka is entirely relevant to the leprosy article. Why? Because you are making the claim that the Sushruta Samhita was written in India at a time which scholars assert India had no written system. This completely contradicts the claim that the book is confirmed to be as old as the 6th century BC. Besides, it's not like I included some mile-long dissertation on this fact; I added a single sentence about the Brahmi script, and without using any scholar to refute this, you have removed cited scholarly material without proper justification.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have actually written that: "You can't seriously date something with a great amount of accuracy using philology, especially since we have no records in India predating the 3rd century BC which could explain to us the changes and evolution of the Indian language, slang, dialects, word definitions, etc." when historians have done just that. Linguistics deals with Indian language and word definitions and the work of western scholars on historical linguistic reconstruction of Indian literature in India has been extraordinary. The material that you cited on Indian literature—again in leprosy, an unrelated article and subject in which Richard Salomon (2003) has no expertise—is being used by you to equate the oldest surviving records as the origin—in other words improper synthesis. Also, will you do the same for every book in China that is dated by scholars to be older than the radiocarbon dating of the oldest surviving copy?

Another question that I almost forgot to ask you is that: Does Richard Salomon (2003) deal with lerosy in particular or is he there because you want to make a statement on the literature of India and you want to do it in the Wikipedia article on leprosy?

Also, quit revert warring. Let your reasoning do the talking. No one will believe what you write about India's literature being 2300 years old no matter what you write in the Wikipedia article on leprosy. The section of China remains untouched by me because I add on India and don't attack other countries—as you seem to be doing. I can cite something about script in China and dating of China's texts but general claims do not belong here and I feel that I should not attack other counties when dealing with India's inventions. Try to do the same for your edit pattern.

Let the line go Pericles. It doesn't belong in leprosy. I request you to please remove it or allow me to. We both have bigger problems than a misplaced text (which I'm going to take as well intentioned) to take care of. Things like this happen but lets just move on to bigger issues shall we? We have better and bigger things to worry about than needlessly engage each other in a futile bout of discussions and edits.

JSR (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have attacked other countries?? Show me where I have "attacked" India (if that's what you mean). What, by adding a single sentence about the Brahmi script?? You have a strange notion of what an attack is. You do bring up a legitimate point about Richard Salamon not making any reference to leprosy, but does he have to? In order for this sentence to be relevant to that article (in regards to the dating of the Sushruta Samhita)?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack: "any excavated evidence for writing in India that may predate these Edicts (such as graffiti on pottery shards from Sri Lanka that may date to the 4th century BC) are controversial and their dating ambiguous." Archaeological evidence for origins of literature when scholars have already dated Indian literature to the Indo-European Vedas, Ayurveda texts and such.

All the same don't get all worked up over one sentence. Both the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Cambridge Encyclopedia date the Samhita to the 6th century BCE automatically trumping any claim of no literature existing if archaeology doesn't yield anything.

Listen to me: misplaced text no big deal. Let it go already. You still have to make a single contribution to an article today other than leprosy and my talk page and the same goes for me.

JSR (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, can we delete redundant text on the origins of literature with respect to leprosy and do real things here? I JSR (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the strongest point of your argument is the fact that Richard Salomon did not mention leprosy. However, what he has to say about a written system has everything to do with the leprosy article's assertion about the correct date of the Sushruta Samhita. That is the heart of the matter. Thus, something indirectly mentioned in his book suddenly becomes a direct concern for this article on leprosy. I don't know how to make that any more clear. Anyways, I've responded on my page to other comments of yours, please look there. India obviously had a strong oral tradition before Ashoka's reign; even the Greeks write of the skilled orators and their canny ability of memorization of long speeches when visiting the kingdoms of northern India in the 4th century BC. However, from what I've read, what the Greeks didn't mention at that time was anything about a native writing system; not until the 3rd century BC.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JSR/Selected Contributions --> Nice work! I especially like the Indian maritime history article. Although this article, History of metallurgy in the Indian subcontinent, is rather short, it is pretty bad ass. Very cool stuff.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and 3RR

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia and removing sourced information from the article, this intend to remove info which you don't like are disgusting. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This once I will assume good faith and not become aggressive as you clearly are becoming. Don't adopt animosity and be civil towards other people. You don't have any knowledge about the cited source and you have just copied it from Pericles but are pushing it around like you know it and have read it. Next time you bring that source around in surgery related articles be sure to quote directly from it and what relation it has with respect to surgery. You are new and I will assume good faith just this once. You will be banned for a longer duration of time if you persist in vandalizing articles. Such actions against someone who doesn't want to be bothered invite greater scrutiny of your own Wikipedia edits and pattern. Let it go and stay away from vandalism. Don't make a big deal or stick to your guns. Don't take politeness to be weakness and stop bothering me without sources or actual knowledge.JSR (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JSR, your reply here does not help the process of reconciliation. Anpersonalaccount's edits were not vandalism, and threatening that he will be blocked/banned is not helpful. Furthermore, let's keep this discussion on-topic; from WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After much trolling, user: Anpersonalaccount was blocked for something he wrongly accused others of. He continued to undo edits made by other people on the only place he could, his talk page. [1][2] JSR (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda changes

I applaud you for his efforts to improve the article. Your enthusiasm for contribution should not be diminished. However, wholescale replacing of an article created but multiple editors does not fit with the spirit of wiki collaboration and is probably not the best way to proceed. It was probably not your intent, but it can been seen as antagonistic as well.

Why not make several proposals for discussion, maybe discuss even the wholescale replacement of the article, and proceed from there? It might be useful to put this to comment from the WP community as well.

Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 13:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk pages

Per WP:BLANKING, An editor has every right to remove any material from his/her user talk page. Keep that in mind for the future. If you see Anpersonalaccount or anyone else revert your user talk notice, do not undo their edit. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out but that's not really the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is why does he revert war and become uncivil to those who have been more than amicable to him? Following his block I placed a message on his page and that's when he even reverted that message. My comments are meant more to highlight his general pattern than to keep my message on his talk page. Thanks and regards, JSR (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently busy with my work, but just for a note. I had face those who were more amicable than you, frankly I not interested in them. Your "amicable“ isn't the reason for me to be uncivil with you, even though a Tamil nationalist like you does makes me feel annoying, is more on the soft language you used on an admin talk page and the wrongly assuming as well, but that's your own general pattern. I think the heart of the issue was that I am unable to provide more ref in the meantime, however I still would try, given if I had more time on Wikipedia. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anpersonalaccount,

I'm a North Indian and not a Tamil. Read any of edits from my move of 'List of Indian/Hindu inventions' to 'List of Indian inventions' to my clamping down of nationalist text here, practically my whole contributions list.

Do nationalist editors of India make edits like this ? If anything I have been working on India related articles to present the scholarly point of view, not the god-kings and yogis that the nationalists want to bring.

I also offered my help to you on China related articles and offered to make a template for List of Chinese inventions. Would a nationalist of India do that? You replied by a barrage of verbal abuses and revert warring to me, which, in a muted sense, is visible even in your latest message to me.

The reason for conflict is that you produced a source you never had and did that on an article that you could understand little about. I understand that a new editor may have his misgivings about the Wikipedia project's working and how the editors consistently demand others to produce their sources. I understand that upto this point your main contributions have been on the talk page or the 'undo' button. Wikipedia is more than a chat-room or a revert-battle ground you know. I also understand that you find peace in calling me a 'Tamil nationalist' and thinking that all your actions are justified by name-calling—no matter how untrue.

Listen, conflict brings nothing. I offer my friendship to you from this moment on because you're new and can do with my vote of confidence and help. I reaffirm once again that if you need help dealing in Chinese articles then leave me a message on my talk page. I'll help you by supplying you information (sources) and advice. Don't respond quickly and take your time. Conflict with you keeps me and you from editing articles and makes a bad chatroom out of Wikipedia. I would be happier to have you as a friend and help you with some material (by providing it if I can, I work for a newspaper) than to have you abusing me and you being blocked for revert warring (which sours the general Wiki atmosphere).

Good day and regards, JSR (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, things happen when someone jumps into Wiki too quickly. I spent one month here and there on Wiki (mostly my user page and the wp:sandbox before I started editing). Lets forget the past. I don't want any more souring of both our Wiki experiences by trivial unpleasantness. I will even go as far as to say that when you need help on some article on Chinese science than message me then I'll try and help you but make sure to be civil and talk before you edit (also focus on sources). JSR (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JSR, I am pretty sure that you're a resonable person, sorry for calling you a Tamil earlier. However, in my opinion and what I thought was that a source shouldn't be removed in a way with no reason at all, you didn't provide a reason under edit summary at first. I hope you do understand what I did earlier, even though it might look uncivil to you. I am not interested on keeping my edits over that article at all, since Indian topics isn't my field, although I do understand some of them, all I think was that is pretty unfair to remove a source like this, that's all. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source did not deal with medicine and that's when I asked you to quote and produce it. Anyway, water under the bridge now. I just want you to know that whatever happened is in the past. I'm here to help if you need my help on China articles (I hope you improve a lot of them and I will help in whatever way I can). I assure you that there are many people in India who are fascinated by China and its magnificent history. I will be happy to be of service to China articles. Thank you and regards [(working right now :-)], JSR (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]