There is rampant pro-western views enforced by users in Wikipedia articles. One simple example is the removal of contents from articles that are not western in nature. Take the case of military pages or that concerning eastern nations. Anything that's being said good in terms of facts or figures are being removed to and fudged facts and figures are enforced to ensure a pro-western point of view. This is not only done by a bunch of British users and admins but also by others from the western world. There is no discussion or arguement as such, just misuse of Admin powers to support vandals to vandalize the pages. One example is removal of Russia from the list of blue water navies, even though the consensus was to have it. It has not been reverted by the Admins who are in cahoots with vandals. Similar vandalism has been noticed in pages with regard to Indian armed forces, in which many information being removed. Take the case of the page of India. The GDP figures will always be from 2010. How many time you change it to 2011. This will get reverted but no Admins will correct it to the standard that's 2011 which is used in every other page of western nations. Take any military article, it starts with western viewpoint and ends with it. It do have images from western nations. Any attempt to change it to bring equality will get the user blocked. Then in British armed forces pages there are fudged facts and figures along with projection of Britain as a great power and a blue water Navy while the sources say otherwise. No one will be allowed to discuss this in a fair manner and the Admins misuse their powers to block those who try to make proper edits. No Consensus is the first and last weapon used by these people to block any edits even though they cannot defense their arguments with proper sources. To hide their acts, they even remove the discussion or talk page of the blocked user thereby saving themselves from scrutiny at a later time. All these kinds of dirty things are being played in Wikipedia.Coverauto (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply