User talk:Maayan pandithevan

Tirukkural
Thiruvalluvar cannot be atheist, as he mentions Iraivanadi, Aadhi bhagavan. He cannot be christian, as he mentions "Oozh"(prior birth deeds), Piravi perunkadal(re-birth) and vegetarianism(pulal unnaamai). He cannot be Jain, since he mentions "Avi soriyum Velvi(Yagna)", "Aravali Andhanan", "iruvinayum cheraa iraivan" The only God names he mentions are Thamarai Kannaan (God Krishna), Adiyalandhaan(God Vishnu - Vamanan), Thamarayinaal, Thiru, Seyyaval as Goddess Lakshmi [ref. Parimelazhagar urai]. Hence, there is no place to change its identity.

Thiruvalluvar must would have belonged to madurai region vaishnava kshathria(being a minister) as the books were handled by its first commentators, who were belonged to same area. Parimelazhagar (Names stands for God of Alagar Kovil), Pari perumal(God of alagar kovil), Kalingar (Kalinga krishna).

Kural also has the meaning "Vamana" (as referred by Nammalwar in Nalayira Divya prabandham).

Thiruppathisaram temple near Nagarkovil and Aranmula Parthasarathy temple in kerala, have the Vishnu deities in the name of Thirukkuralappan.

Barring above all concepts, thiruvalluvar himself shows his own identity by denoting God Vishnu on his Kural no. 1103 and Kural no. 610 and notes on Goddess lakshmi by Kural nos. 167, 617, 408, 519, 565, 568 and 616.

Hence, as the followers of Valluvar, we are not supposed to manipulate or over-change his straight forward own words from our concepts and need to follow "Therindhu Seyal vagai" and "Vaaimai". Changing or generalizing his identity are totally against him.

Thank you, Mayan Pandithevan


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Mayan. Please discuss this in the talk page of Tirukkural. Please feel free to add any info that you find with source. I've kept Tirukkural in my watch list and will keep correcting your additions. Do not forget to provide source for all that you add. Any unsourced material will be deleted by other senior editors/administrators. Thanks for your contributions. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sangam literature, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. ''Please note that competence is required when making changes to Wikipedia articles. If you have a difficulty writing in the English language, please consider making suggestions via the talk page (with supporting sources) or contributing to the Wikipedia project in your native language instead. Regards, '' Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Tamil Sangams Jim1138 (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Rama Aug 2016
, I noticed your edit warring with some other user in the article on Rama. I guess, you are having problem wiht the notion of citation. You cannot simply write 'according to Vaishnavam'. You need to produce some book, article for citation. For example, you can use the cited article for your purpose.

Just copy paste the above reference and it should suffice. Crawford88 (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that Hinduismtoday.com is not a reliable source and cannot be used to cite material in an article. Maayan pandithevan, while, as crawford88 suggests, you should learn how to cite sources (see WP:CITE, you definitely should read reliable sources first to see what constitutes a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 11:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that you've been doing this for a while so I've added the notice below. --regentspark (comment) 11:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And, it appears that you're doing this all over the place and using both your account, as well as an IP to insert unsourced text. You need to watch out or you're going to end up blocked. I should have given you a stronger warning below but, since I've already given you the weaker one, consider yourself lucky you've got some more rope. --regentspark (comment) 11:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , Why is HinduismToday not a reliable source? It satisfies every wikipedia standard for reliability. HT is a respected Hindu magazine and the author is a Hindu scholar. see WP:RS Crawford88 (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources should be independent and preferably academic. Regardless, and admittedly I'm only looking at this carefully now, I'm not sure why we need to include "supreme god in vaishnavism" in an article on Rama. Merely saying that Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu is more than enough because, presumably, the supremeness is indicated in the vishnu article. --regentspark (comment) 11:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not arguing about the necessity of the content (because of which I haven't involved myself in this edit war), but the citation is perfectly fine for encyclopediac purposes. There are numerous articles in wiki which cites HT. And what do you mean by academic source? This is not at all a criterion as specified in WP:RS. Crawford88 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Hello, I'm RegentsPark. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Rama, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. regentspark (comment) 11:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. ''It is clear that you are edit warring with no regard to any of our policies, across multiple articles, using this account and your ip 123.237.217.68

ANy further disruptive behavior will result in you being blocked.'' &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Take a break
Please stop editing for a while, and take time to go through the Wikipedia tutorial. You are copy-pasting same content into several articles without citing acceptable sources or adhering to the Wikipedia manual of style. utcursch &#124; talk 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the factual infos
Mr. Athmaram, i have seen you have deleted many articles added to the wiki. Based on your name and your comments on undo edition - it looks like you might have belonged or bounded by Smartha tradition thoughts of hinduism. you should understand clearly first, smartha tradition is only not hinduism. Years of years there was always domination from smartha tradition to other minority sects of hinduism, like Vaishnavism, Dvaitha etc.

I had provided enough proofs and then great scholars with the edit as reference, still those got undid. It shows the narrow mind of yours by doing it as unddo. We people felt wikipedia is reliable and neutral source that provide all the informations related to it. But when you go per only few views, it can be directly told that - wikipedia takes only few school thoughts and not all. Also it doesnot provide all the prooved informations related to it, but whichever they like.

The great scholars i had mentioned, Ramanujacharya, Madhwacharya, Alwars, Iskcon sampradayaas, Sangam pulavars, Valmiki all were not ignorant and you cannot simply ignore them and their thousands of books being a reference.

you cannot bury the truth forever in the world.

We understood about wikipedia. Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayan pandithevan (talk • contribs)


 * Nobody here has any problem with non-Smartha denominations (and no, I don't have anything to do with Smartha tradition).
 * The problem is that you're adding unsourced content to Wikipedia articles. Simply stating "According to traditional scriptures..." does not mean that you've provided a reference. A reference must be in form of a citation; see Citing sources. Otherwise, anyone can write "According to Ramanujacharya, the earth is flat", and then claim "I've provided Ramanujacharya as a reference".
 * A Wikipedia article is not similar to a blog post or a forum discussion - there are certain policies and guidelines that every contributor needs to abide by. Multiple editors have linked to these policies and guidelines in the messages above. You've been blocked for 72 hours by another administrator. Please spend this time to go through those links. utcursch &#124; talk 16:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)