Thank you for your comments. From what I've seen recently and consistently on wikipedia, the amount of anti-Pakistan/Islam bias is quite obvious and though I haven't, for the most part, taken part in such discussions, I can see the implications; hence being burnt twice and social association rings out loud here too, possibly why I reacted as I did. You may argue, as you have, that I don't have the 'credentials' to be taken seriously, well, I won't argue as you are probably right, but will just say that my 'other' edits, largely, can be taken on their own merit, if people are willing to look past my society, of course. As for neutrality, no offence intended , but when people claim to be neutral but then paint everyone with the same brush, so as to speak, by explicitly mentioning 'society' when referring to individuals and even talk of 'security at airports', it's impossible not to see the funny side, though, I am sure, the 'editors' that belong to the 'society' being mentioned probably do not see the funny side, not any more, at least. Without mentioning Freud's projection, I would say the legitimate editors from this 'society', though few and far between these days, still being here is in itself a testament to their 'tolerance'.    

 I, myself, have been confronted with a fair share of overtly snidey comments recently from 'Indians', here on wikipedia, so, I assume, society works both ways, still, I try not to generalise simply based on 'society' or how I am 'told' to perceive matters, especially here, in the west. however, if recent wikipedia articles are anything to go by, the word 'neutrality' becomes, paradoxically, an oxymoron. I guess it's only natural that when you hear something long enough you start to believe it. However, thankfully, certain values remain resilient, even in the most turbulent of times.