User talk:DrJGMD

I have come to the conclusion, since the determined wipeout of my correction of mistakes on wiki and offensive messages from more than one person calling my corrections "personal opinions and original research", that it is futile my attempting to clean up incorrect or false posts on wiki; my time is more worth than hunting up references for well known facts (such as Punjabis eat fresh green chillies with Pindi Chhole, KrishnaKamal is the name passion flower is known by in India, Raja is a Sanskrit word meaning king, caste names and otherwise epithets such as Raja are used by non Hindus, Torra Khan is a Muslim name or at least of Mongol origin, Badat is not a Hindu name and in fact sounds far more west or central Asian, Darwin's theory of evolution is no surprise to Hindu or India since it is parallel to Dashaavataara, Himaalaya being raised out of oceans has been forever known in ancient Indian Hindu tradition) and certainly creating such references by publishing is even more going out of the way to establish truth against published (and therefore more respectable for those that claim it is no use reasoning with them) citations of incorrect or worse matter on wiki. My time is worth more than these fights about establishing facts with a citation war with those that won't see and don't want reason or facts.

Nevertheless all those corrections I made - (Punjabis eat fresh green chillies with Pindi Chhole, KrishnaKamal is the name passion flower is known by in India, Raja is a Sanskrit word meaning king, caste names and otherwise epithets such as Raja are used by non Hindus, Torra Khan is a Muslim name or at least of Mongol origin, Badat is not a Hindu name and in fact sounds far more west or central Asian, Darwin's theory of evolution is no surprise to Hindu or India since it is parallel to Dashaavataara, Himaalaya being raised out of oceans has been forever known in ancient Indian Hindu tradition) are facts, whoever like it or not.

I am used to a world of science that requires facts, logic, reason, and evidence, which is not the same as references and citation. I was only attempting to contribute to wiki out of a sense of giving back but shall no longer do so, and if I do see something as atrociously wrong, incorrect or false as I have previously attempted to correct on the site, I shall report it anywhere else where people know better, and shall at the very least laugh, or at best take more appropriate action (mass protest? million references from thousands of postings? creating a better encyclopedia? whatever) that others with more time are capable of doing. If in the process wiki stands ridiculed before at least a large part of the world, the fault is entirely with those that prefer citations over facts and call facts without references "personal opinions and original research".

If original research were that easy we would all be nobel prize winners in respectable sciences, but are not, not all of us, are we! As for personal opinion, I would love to take credit for any of the above, since that would be a huge addition to personal credit - but no, those are facts known for well over my lifetime, and some (Dashaavataar, Himaalaya raised out of ocean being known in Indian legends) for well over more than a few millennia.

So no, thank you but it is nor personal opinion nor original research, none of my corrections of mistakes on wiki fit in that.

If I take credit for any of that, it would be theft of intellectual property that belongs to a whole nation, on par with some of the businesses in US attempting to patent facts known to (or names belonging to) India (properties of turmeric for one, name of Basmati for another) for centuries and more.

Such theft is only suited to those with no self respect.

I am reminded of the opening of Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra and tempted to say, bye, you citers, those that substitute references for facts and knowledge.

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Unsourced opinions are better discussed on article talk pages
I've reverted two of your edits and  because they appear more as personal opinions than content suitable for an encyclopedia article. It's best to discuss such matters on article talk pages, so editors can help determine what portions worth including in the article with proper sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, I have tried to correct the passion flower page but your undoing it is coming across as an imposition of an anti Indian colonial mindset. As I explained before, when a billion or more people know something, or use a name and not another, the used name is what ought to be posted as used by them, and not some other that might have a published reference but might be wrong all the same. As for reference one can publish something and then give that reference, that does not make it correct.

It is a fact that what you call passion flower is known is known as Krishna Kamal (spelling not relevant, pronunciation is relevant in India, scripts being precise about pronunciation) or Krsxhna Kamala or Krsxhnakamal in India, and rakhi flower is an invented name, not known in the various states I am familiar with; the invention seems to be simply in order to forego mention of name of Krishna, and hence heavily biased with an agenda. If wiki caters to anti Indian bias, I am not going to fight it on wiki. Needless to say it will do wiki more harm for being opposed to truth even without anyone correcting it in any way or taking any action, just as a child not corrected for lies will be damaged by removing any spoken corrections. Dr, J. G. 05:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I keep forgetting this since it is neither my occupation nor a common practice on internet; why not introduce the simple practice on wiki of a signature being automatic? After all one does log in or is logged in before one can edit; why the need for the ~ before someone can be identified?

Also, the distinction between referencing published material versus citing well known facts or names is just that - the former can be wrong, incorrect, false, while the latter can be published and referenced but is silly to require and worse to expunge for lack of reference. Dr, J. G. 05:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gilgit. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ''You might well feel that what you wrote is unbiased but as long as it has no reliable sources, it is original research. Green Giant (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)'' Green Giant (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Green Giant, if I find a wiki page saying that Russia is smaller than Mexico and correct it, and you call it a personal opinion, guess who would be wrong. What I had corrected were mistakes on pages of wiki and there was neither personal opinion nor original research, but merely extremely well known stuff. In contrast the uncorrected (or the now newly correction wiped out) version comes across as biased with an agenda pro something and anti something else. If I find where to post this for your specific attention, I shall.Dr, J. G. 05:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is pointless trying to reason with me using such examples. You are no different to the hundreds of misguided editors who come to Wikipedia thinking they have to defend a particular point of view. Look at your talkpage and tell me you understood why User:Ronz left that message in January? From the edits you have made, it appears you have still not understood what you are supposed to do on Wikipedia. It is irrelevant whether you or I think one thing is true and another is false. On Wikipedia, what matters is that we follow three very simple rules and some additional guidelines. For your benefit, the three rules are:
 * WP:NPOV - neutral point of view
 * WP:RS - reliable sources
 * WP:V - verifiability
 * Please click on each of those links and have a good read of them. So many of your edits have been focussed on getting the "Indian point of view" across that you have lost sight of these three rules. Every time you have edited with words like this:

The fact of Himaalaya (and the general region thereof) being raised out of ocean is known to science and hence the rest of the world only now, but was for ever known in India, and is part of Hindu legends, as the story about churning of oceans.
 * you have expressed a personal opinion i.e. going against NPOV. You should only add such statements if you can provide a reliable source which uses these words but in so many of your edits you have failed to provide any reliable sources to back up your claims.


 * The bottom line is that we do not want the Indian, Pakistani, Chinese or even American point of view - we want unbiased information cited from reliable sources, without commentary from editors. Green Giant (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gilgit. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ''You might well feel that what you wrote is unbiased but as long as it has no reliable sources, it is original research. Green Giant (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)'' Green Giant (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Green Giant, if I find a wiki page saying that Russia is smaller than Mexico and correct it, and you call it a personal opinion, guess who would be wrong. What I had corrected were mistakes on pages of wiki and there was neither personal opinion nor original research, but merely extremely well known stuff. In contrast the uncorrected (or the now newly correction wiped out) version comes across as biased with an agenda pro something and anti something else.

To be specific about the Gilgit page you refer to, Badat is not known as a Hindu name anywhere I heard of in over half a century (the closest name Badrutt is Swiss) while the word Badat itself is closer to West Asian; Sri or Shri is used by most Indian cultures and is not restricted to Hindu, and Hindu or Indian origin or Sanskrit names are indeed used not only by Buddhist but also by regular churchgoing Christian people and are sometimes common to Muslims names as well (Sameer, Neelam, and may more names are common to both); Raja is a word of Indian, Sanskrit origin, meaning King; the epithet Raja is indeed used in muslims of Indian origin, either as an epithet or as a name (as it was on the Gilgit page "Raja Torra Khan", Khan making it clear it is most likely a Muslim and in any case a Mongol ancestry origin person); and the whole page going on about a Hindu being cannibal is likely to offend a billion people and a nation (not that you or wiki could care less) when in reality Hindus are ridiculed mostly for being vegetarians or nearly so in most of the world, and forced to eat meat by various deceptions (you will find references in newspapers or by talking to people about this).

But if you wish to keep the offensive bits along with the incorrect, false, etcetera, only for the question of references - please keep up. I am sure there are plenty of references for all sorts of untrue things.

If I find where to post this for your specific attention, I shall post it there. Your talk page has no clear way to post a message or a reply, and wiki seems to lack a reply button.

Dr, J. G. 05:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed pointless to reason with you or anyone who has the attitude of "it does not matter what is true or known, it only matters if you can cite".

Nevertheless, both Darwin's evolution and Himaalaya being raised out of ocean are ancient legends in Hindu tradition and forever known to India, whether you like it or not. Talk to anyone in India. Dr, J. G. 06:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"You might well feel that what you wrote is unbiased but as long as it has no reliable sources, it is original research"

If original research were that cheap we would all be Einstein. Few are, and it takes more than lack of citation to claim or prove something is original research. If you were in science you might know this.

Folk knowledge, legends, commonly known facts are neither personal opinions nor original research.

Ignoring and going on wiping out what is commonly known in a nation of a billion, and continuing to insist on incorrect statements, is a stance of careless or deliberate offense.