User talk:Fgpilot

The gist of my two "Edit wars"
Here is a gist of what I've been trying to say in what is being termed as edit wars:


 * 1) In the Mahabharata page, I've taken exception to the inclusion of a quote by Dio Chrysostom about Homer which is only obliquely (euphemistically called "Syncrestically") related to Mahabharata. And I've been trying to say that this is irrelevant. Before this, I've taken exception to the subtle "second class" citizenship offered to the epic by starting a sentence on the Mahabharata as, "As with Homeric studies..." I don't see what is so wrong about this effort to improve the tightness of the article.


 * 1) In the Indian English page, I've basically added a note about the increasing influence of American English spellings in India, while not exactly replacing the older British English terms. The examples are too obvious -- one quick look at some news papers will make this clear. No one (that I know of) has written a research paper yet, on this use of dual spellings in India (probably because people have much better things to do than fuss about spellings). But simply because there is no research paper on the use of both "program" and "programme" as valid spellings, does not make it automatically unsuitable for an encyclopedia. There are several readily available examples to make it close to a self-evident fact.

By what is considered the "normal" world-view of the lords of Wikipedia, I am definitely a dissenting voice. Although, I see myself not as a dissenter, but as someone who favours sanity over compliance with norms and imposition of one world-view as the "standard". In any case, there is a clear distinction between a dissenter and a vandal. And a fair arbitration in an edit war should take similar action against all warring parties, rather than just against the one who looks different. -- Fgpilot (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Mahabharata
Can you discuss on the article talk page, why you consider this to be a notable work on Mahabharata ? Abecedare (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at your past edits to the Mahabharata page, I see that they too directed at making the article compliant with due weight (for example, reducing lengthy discussion of Homerian epics), and not simply including everything that can be reliably sourced (which, in the case of MbH would be the equivalent of ~105 wikipedia articles). So I suppose, our recent debate on the article talk page rests more on one/both of our failure to express our own, or understand the other's, point, rather than an actual difference in editing practices. So there may be nothing fundamental for either of us to resolve or rethink, really. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Cheers. -- Fgpilot (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mahabharata. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh please! It is *my* edits that have been repeatedly reverted -- not the other way around. I can't understand this insistence on including references to a character that is not connected to the Mahabharata at all. Fgpilot (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Indian English. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Counting your IPs, you've already reverted four times &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If your argument is simply going to be that we missed blocking you last time, or that the last time your changes were accepted by consensus so this one must be too, you're going to find yourself remaining blocked. If you have actually read the policies given to you, you will understand.  The burden is on YOU to justify the edits, and right now the burden is on YOU to convince administrators to unblock you.  We're here because we understand policy: you're blocked (and remaining blocked) because you don't. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I never stated anything what you mean here. Besides, your argument is a clear case of "throwing the book" fallacy. Yes I have read the rules. And no matter how the rules are interpreted there is a basic element of fairness that needs to be adhered to. I am not obliged to convince the administrators to unblock me when I am not myself convinced that the people I am talking to are acting reasonably in the first place. Fgpilot (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a broader issue, but the immediate cause of your block appears to be that you added a paragraph to the article Indian English here, which was then reverted. You re-added it with an accusation that the editor who removed it was engaging in Sockpuppetry here. You added a reference, but the paragraph was removed again. You added it a third time here, and a fourth time here. You continued for a fifth time (the fourth revert) here. This is clearly a violation of WP:3RR, and constitutes an edit war - so the block appears valid, and I have accordingly declined your unblock request above. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This appears to me to be compliance with the rules in letter and not in spirit. Because, I've given specific reasons for each of the reverts, which have never been really addressed and nor were the edits desecrate in nature, constituting vandalism. But just to show that my intentions are meant to add value and not indulge in edit war, I will accept this block and return once the block period expires. However, I cannot promise any of these "changes in behaviour" that is being asked for, as I don't really understand what the problem is, and I myself have concerns about cartelization that have not been addressed adequately. Fgpilot (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear - I'm very emphatically not saying your edits were vandalism, nor do I agree or disagree with the content of those edits. You were blocked for edit warring, and I checked to see if edit warring occured - and it did. You were not removing obvious vandalism (such as offensive language), nor were you removing obvious BLP violations, and none of the other exceptions at WP:3RR seem to apply. Anyone involved in an edit war can offer reasons for their edits, and many of those reasons are sound. The disruption isn't the edit, or the content you were adding - the disruption is the reverting itself. Being right, if indeed you were right, doesn't change that. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I don't agree with the interpretation that the reverting itself was edit warring. The same kind of blanking out that I had previously done for the Mahabharata article was reverted with the comment that blanking out should be discussed first. Unfortunately, when I try to follow the same norm, it suddenly becomes unacceptable and I am told that one should revert before discussing. The only *legal* way for justifying the block is that I've reverted 3 or more times, which is very much compliance in letter and losing the spirit. -- Fgpilot (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, going by the above rule, SpacemanSpiff has reverted thrice too. Why is he not getting blocked? And there is a strange comment by one other user talking about "two people" (against one) asking for a citation. This emphasis on numbers rather than content of the edit, makes me suspect that it is perhaps the same person with two different handles. -- Fgpilot (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any confusion, but I'm still unclear about why this policy, which applies to every editor in almost every circumstance, does not apply to your edits? This comment, in particular, is problematic - if your edit is reverted, you need to discuss it, and I see no evidence that you did so. Whoever advised you previously should have been clearer, as they appear to have done you a disservice. I can't speak to SpacemanSpiff's edits, as I did not review them; had I been the blocking admin, maybe I would have blocked them as well, I don't know. It's possible that he did not get blocked because he only reverted twice; other editors reverted you as well, which should have been an indication that the edits were controversial. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, can you please be specific about that exactly in that comment is problematic? I've just expressed my concern, which I have done so here as well. In any case, this comment of mine was never referred to in connection to my blocking. It seems to have suddenly come up now and clearly it is not the primary reason why my account was blocked in the first place. -- Fgpilot (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You indicated that the WP:3RR policy did not apply to you. That was the confusion, apparently - because it very clearly does apply, and you were blocked for violating it. That was the problematic aspect of the comment to which I referred. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you notice, what I said was, the WP:3RR applies to SpacemanSpiff as well. And I still stand by what I've said earlier that it applies to my actions only in letter and not in the spirit of why the rule is put up in the first place. -- Fgpilot (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been increasingly getting convinced that Wikipedia is past its prime and going over the hill. The so-called wisdom of crowds doesn't really hold because most administrators here seem to have the maturity of a college kid (going by the threatening messages they send "if you keep doing this you will be blocked forever" and taking a narrow definition of edit war without making even a single effort to address my concerns). Basically it reaffirms my theory that competent folks don't have the time to maintain a Wikipedia page and semi-competent folks get a sense of power by pushing their weight around here. I'll be more than happy to be proved wrong in this theory; but this is the best belief I can adopt under these circumstances. -- Fgpilot (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an alternative belief you could adopt, which that Wikipedia has developed the rules against edit-warring for good reasons, and it's worth your time to follow them next time. Notice that you are not, despite this comment, "blocked forever."  You are blocked for two days. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Despite this comment," I'm not blocked forever -- just goes on to reaffirm the comment above that there is active muscling around and stifling of opinions that are different from the "norm". Welcome to mediocreville Wikipedia. -- Fgpilot (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you choose not to listen to the helpful suggestions of multiple others who have responded to you, that's your choice. Your block had zero to do with the content, only to do with your disruptive editing behavior of edit warring - a violation which was only made by you within the article.
 * The block served to stop the disruptive behavior and to encourage you to take a step back to learn and understand the reasons for the block so that you would, hopefully, in the future engage in constructive discussion instead of disruptive edit wars. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that I am not arguing against the rule system of Wikipedia itself, which I am sure is in place to serve its legitimate purposes. However, what I take exception to is the way the rules are used to quell what is essentially scholarly dissent. And conveniently, the focus is aimed at my so-called "disruptive behaviour," and when I point out to similar behaviour from others, it gets ignored. Do have a look above at another exchange I had had with an editor regarding Mahabharata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fgpilot#Re:Mahabharata) and it is quite evident that I'm quite cooperative with any editor who understands the reasons behind the edits and debates on the content rather than on some vaguely defined "disruptive behaviour". So yes, I did step back and understood the reasons behind the block -- which, essentially appears to be no more than an expression of power by semi-competent folks to quell dissent and a resistance to move away from their comfort zones. Sorry if that is not what you intended, but this is the best belief I can adopt given this experience. -- Fgpilot (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you escalate your comments on other editors further, I strongly suggest you read WP:NPA. Please comment on content, not contributors.  You are free to believe whatever you wish; but uncivil behavior is not productive.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * By the same token, please discuss the content of my dissent rather than this purported "uncivil behaviour" -- who is being uncivil here? -- Fgpilot (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me chime in here. Fgpilot, you are invited to dissent.  The place to dissent is on the article talk page.  Discuss your proposed changes, and argue for them.  If you had done that in lieu of repeatedly making them in the article content, you would not be blocked now.  Wikipedia invites dissent, and we encourage civil discussion with viewpoints from all sides.  What Wikipedia does not allow is attempts to repeatedly force through one's own version of an article by sheer force of being willing to do it over and over.  You may be right in terms of what you wish to add to the article.  Or maybe not.  But this block is not about stopping you from dissenting.  Dissent occurs at the article talk page.  This block is to stop disruption, which is what you were doing to the article content by repeatedly reinserting your own preferred text.  -- Jayron  32  05:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was not inserting my own "prefered text" but reverting a *complete blanking out* of my contents. The ones who blanked out my contents are invited to dissent, but as you say, the right place to dissent is the talk page -- not the article itself. -- Fgpilot (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you tested the rule yourself, so you're in a good position to have an opinion about its effectiveness. Did your strategy-repeatedly reverting- work?  Did it achieve your desired result of causing your content to remain, in a stable way, in the article?  No, it didn't.  I understand that you really think you ought to have been permitted simply because your version was the better version, but you saw for yourself how ineffective that strategy is- the other person can keep reverting just as long as you can. One reason for the rule against edit-warring is that it is completely ineffective- in the long run, it does nothing at all to change the encyclopedia.   But I don't have to persuade you to agree- when your block expires, you'll try something from WP:DISPUTE, and be pleased how much better it works- then you'll see for yourself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although- I just looked at the paragraph you want in the article for the first time- did you know that none of your sources actually discusses the subject of the paragraph? That paragraph would constitute original research as it is- if you decide to try to get consensus for adding it, you should include a source that actually discusses the use of American spellings in Indian English.  If no one but yourself has written about this yet, then Wikipedia can't be the first place to publish your observations- you should write a good article about it for publication at a magazine or a language journal instead. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and as I've mentioned earlier, I have no problems with the rules themselves. The lament is in the way the rules get used, which undermines the spirit of an open encyclopedia, and focuses attention on all tertiary issues rather than on the content itself. -- Fgpilot (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my justification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fgpilot#The_gist_of_my_two_.22Edit_wars.22) as to why the use of examples is not original research. The use of American English in India is too commonplace and too insignificant to be written as a research article. It is essentially common knowledge. -- Fgpilot (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, it isn't too hard to find sources verifying common knowlege- if nothing else, it appears in children's books and schoolbooks. If it's too insignificant to be written about in whole books about Indian English, though, it's probably not significant enough to write about in Wikipedia, either.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I will see if I can get some sources, but I disagree about the point being it insignificant enough to be written in Wikipedia. The reason is simple. In India things are not as organized as perhaps it is in the US about documenting and publishing aspects of daily life in explicit, formal means. Formal activity is relegated to tasks that are considered much more important and of priority (for instance, tackling poverty). But that does not mean that whatever is not documented is not significant at all. It is just not significant enough that someone would put money, time and resources behind it for formal recording. But it is significant enough that it affects daily life. A similar characteristic in a country like US will probably find itself documented somewhere and make its way to Wikipedia. -- Fgpilot (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

IAM
"The phonetic organization of consonants and vowels, phonetic spelling, and the many other commonalities that bind all of India's syllabic scripts weakens the entire linguistic premise of the Aryan invasion theory”. This a nonsensical argument because it is about how scripts developed. That tells us nothing about language origins. Languages are not learned by reading scripts. They are learned from childhood orally. IE languages were passed on through speech, obviously, before there were any scripts. Even the Vedas were passed on by being memorised before scripts were ever used. The book by Anvita Abbi on Semantic Universals in Indian Languages does not, as far as I can see make claims that in any way resemble what you stated.

To answer to your earlier question, “if the worldiq.com article was written by you, how come it has a section on Alternative theories and not the Wikipedia article?” We used to have an article called Aryan Invasion Theory that discussed the history of theories, ideological usages and alternative theories. But this was thought to be too unwieldy, and to lump together too many separate issues. So now we have several separate articles on the various different theories about language, race etc. The original article was first retitled then redirected, but the history of it can still be read. We have: Indo-Aryan migration, Armenian hypothesis, Anatolian hypothesis, Kurgan hypothesis, Out of India theory, Indigenous Aryans, Aryan race, Nordic race. There is also a whole article on Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. The Indo-European topics template (right) links the major ones. Paul B (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The origins of language and script are often intertwined, so it is not all that nonsensical. Besides, separating between language acquisition and the evolution of scripts says nothing about the theory of invasion or migration. The connection of scripts to Aryan invasion theory is given by D D Kosambi (who as far as I know, did not proclaim any political agenda -- in fact, Hindu nationalism did not even exist in 1966 when he died). Abbi's book is about Indian languages per se. It is good that major other theories are described in the Indo-European topics template; it would be good to have it referred to in the text. Just one question -- so how does the Out of India theory relate to Indigenous Aryans theory?  -- Fgpilot (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The orgins of language and script are very very rarely intertwined, especially since we are talking about pre-literate cultures, so yes, it's utterly nonsensical. That's separate from migration patterns, for sure, but as soon as you accept the basic genealogy model of IE then you have to believe that speakers expanded from somewhere and languages evolved separately as they separated from eachother. Hindu nationalism certainly existed in 1966. It existed ever since the WW2 years when disputes arose between Islamic and Hindu factions within Congress and in the precursors of the RSS. The difference between "Out of India" and "Indigenous Aryans" is that "Out of India" states that India (usually either the Indus Valley or Gangetic plain) is the Urheimat of Indo-European, and thus the home of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. "Indigenous Aryans" states that the Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian subgroup evolved in India. "Indigenous Aryans" is consistent with Paleolithic Continuity Theory and possibly Anatolian hypothesis.
 * The only reference to Kosambi in the blog article has nothing whatever to do with scripts. The blog says "As Kosambi convincingly points out in his Introduction to Indian History, many of India's Brahmins rose from 'Hinduised' tribes that earlier practised animism or totem worship, or prayed to various fertility gods and/or goddesses, or revered fertility symbols such as the linga (phallus) or the yoni (vagina). A majority of these Hinduised tribes retained many elements of their older forms of worship, and several Brahmin gotra (clan) names are derived from non-Aryan clan totems and other tribal associations". No-one disputes this, though its rather crudely expressed, and it's entirely consistent with the standard Aryan migration model. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The blog referred to is a blog about the works of D D Kosambi. So everything in that blog is about the works of Kosambi. Also, Kosambi was known to be a socialist sympathizer -- almost diametrically opposed to the ideologies of RSS. RSS did exist in 1966, but not the Hindutva agenda practised by BJP, which was a non-entity in 1966. I'm not even sure whether BJP existed in 1966, afaik, it was born in the late 1970s after splitting from Janata party. In any case, the political leanings of authors are immaterial to the argumentation. As stated before, the other camp also ascribe similar political conspiracy theories to the Aryan invasion historians. And going down this path will lead nowhere and make us no wiser.


 * I also don't agree that we are talking about pre-literate cultures. On the one hand we view them as too primitive to have even invented language script, and on the other we compare Vedic philosophies to modern day quantum and relativity theories (Capra, Sagan, Bohm, Schroedinger, etc. have all stated some inspiration from vedic literature in developing quantum theories). -- Fgpilot (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging South Asia and Indian Subcontinent
The [merger discussion] is getting nowhere due to lack of participation. Since you had shown interest in the past, will you take a look at the discussion? Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see this request in time. Looks like the thread is closed alrady. Fgpilot (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)