User talk:Able562

About your edits in the Iyengar page.
First of all, a comparative study must be made by the "genealogy team" and results from a clear comparative study must be mentioned in the source. As per your source, only some tech' stat's(only understood by the lab team but not by commoners) were provided. But you had defined/explained the ydna haplotypes as mentioned in other wiki' articles(a tertiary source), but not mentioned/compared in the source you provided. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH. By the way, your first edit regarding "autosomal dna" had no relevance in the iyengar page, but in the tamil brahmin article. The source as a whole(sengupta...) belongs here - Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia. Normally a comparative study on origin/ethnicity/genetics in a regular article can be based on the English people page.

By the way, your comments in my talk page do violate wikiquette. Don't do it again. You may delete this message once you've read it, if you want to. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your comments in my talk page
But a comparison is made by the source's author w.r.t rhesus(d)+ bet' vadakalai & punjabis. In the source you provided, the team of genealogists never made a comparative study but simply diplayed the test results as a statistical list. Although you linked the ydna haplotypes to their corresponding wiki' pages and defined them based on those wiki' page explanations, it cannot be taken as a comparison. For example A=B, B is highly found in C, therefore A=C is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH and is termed as original research. Although you didn't directly mention it, that is what is inferred. Moreover wiki' sources are considered tertiary. The comparative study should have been made by the author in the source you had provided, and they should've given an easily understandable conclusion. Otherwise it cannot be understood by viewers, but only by experts in genealogy. And that's why i directed you to the other wiki' page(Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia). I didn't advise you to dedicate a whole seciton for one group. But you can make it constructive by contributing info' about every indian ethnic group that is mentioned in your source.

Moreover you can't compare info' from two different sources, which will be termed "Original Research from disjoint sources". By the way, the spreadsheet could be created by a single person, and it is not taken from/endorsed by an official site dealing with genealogy. Hope you get the point here.

About 2-3 years back when i was a beginner, my edits too were reverted and i was advised to read "wiki' relevance, no original research & contiguous verifiability policies". It would take months for one to get familiar with wiki' policies. Thank You. Happy Editing.

Also sricharanam is a corrupt usage of srichurnam. It itself is not synonymous to thiruman. Sri(laskhmi)+churnam(powder) denotes the central line(yellow/red) while thiruman is the white U shaped outer mark. Thiruman+srichurnam together makes the srivaishnava tilak(urdhva pundra). If someone in wiki' had wrongly created a page named sricharanam, by giving a wrong explanation, it can't be helped. The page itself does not cite sources. It is not "thiruman or sricharanam" but thiruman+srichurnam = Iyengar tilaka(urdhva pundra). If you're not an expert in the subject, then you might want to be careful with the edits. I've renamed the sricharanam page to "srivaishnava urdhva pundra" which is most apt and removed the howlers. Hari7478 (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)