User talk:Ramanujamuni

Welcome
Ramanujamuni (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC) User Hari you are violating the neutrality of point of view of article, deleting information that matters.

User Warning
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

The former version of the Iyengar page have been reviewed by other experienced users, and they fall as valid under wikipedia norms. Better read wiki's referencing policies. Wikipedia only relies on valid sources rather than one's own opinion. If you feel that the given facts are not right, you may start your own blog in a website & give ur version. But here in wikipedia "online book sources, authored by neutral parties(esp' foreign authors) and published by renowned publishers" are deemed as 100% authentic under wiki' norms. Removing such valid tag references and giving "ur own theories without valid sources, & interpreting in ur own way" is extreme vandalism. To prove the existent version wrong, one has to provide "even more authentic online book sources by renowned authors & publishers". Also, regarding the order of subsects, the ordering is done as ordered by prominent historians & ethnographers as you can see in those online book references. Since may 2004(when this article was first edited by experienced editors), the order has been Vadakalai followed by thenkalai in this page, before a user named "padmavasantha" made unneccessary changes 2 days back by putting thenkalai first(the same time when you started making changes). Check here : Iyer.Here in the iyer page the subsect ordering starts with vadama & goes on. The same analogy is followed everywhere. While mentioning directions we start with north then end with south. The "stereotypic regular orthodox brahminical school" is always mentioned first as we see the same in the iyer page too, where the subsects start with vadama. Also valid references state that tengalai school is not like the regular brahminical community(as per the references), henceforth the ordering is such(2nd/later).

Finally, plz remember that you have indulged in repeated vandalism(as per wiki' norms) and had involved in repeated edit wars. Warnings had already been mentioned in the view history page, alongside the reverts. As per wiki's "user warning" criteria, this is the final warning after which "Report to AIV - administartor intervention against vandalism" will be filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ramanujamuni (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC) User Hari is repeatedly deleting any true and relevant information to the topic. This subsection of the good article as a result suffers from serious NOPV deficiency.

User Warning : Reminder again
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Inspite of warning you had been repeating "vandalism and continued edit war". I am supposed to give this warning too, before an aiv report. Please stop here or you may be blocked without further notice. Pg.365 of the G.S.Ghurye book certainly contains that specific statement. See properly. If you are not able to view the page, it is becoz you might have reached the viewing limit of that specific page in the book, as these online books are only for limited viewing, beyond which a specific user is barred from viewing the specific pages, if visited too much. The content from that page had also been verified by other experienced users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) For ur info', G.S.Ghurye is a highly renowned author and his work "Caste and Race in India" is a timeless classic, which is deemed authoritative by many ethnographers and museologists. Some terms like "sudra" are mentioned, becoz these books were published during the British Raj. The term was in legal usage by that time. Citing that as a factor is not valid to remove that source, as that work is considered as a timeless classic by ethnographers. The book also has proper "isbn number identification", and its contents are confirmed. Plz remember that article sources should be from neutral parties. The other statements which you had mentioned regarding "the count of vadakalai and thenkalai temples" etc, have no relevance in the "ethnicity-genetics..." section. It should rather be mentioned in the "Divya Desam" wiki' page. Even there, you should provide valid sources as reference from neutral parties; becoz controversial statements and statistical data need at least two or three valid sources from renowned ethnographers. Also, for ur additional info' the same source can be mentioned 2-3 times. It does not matter, because every line should have a reference. You cannot give one big paragraph and provide a source in the last line. References should be tagged with every sentence. There is nothing wrong in using same source how many ever times. Oh, plz read wiki's policies before editing, will you!?

I repeat that the existing version of the iyengar page was and is allowed to exist even after reviews from well experienced wiki' users. If the facts are not comfortable for you, nobody can help it. You may give your version in your own blog by starting one in the world wide web. But your changes are not valid in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

About deletion of your edits and NPOV policies.
What do you mean by accusing me of "deleting relevant contribution?" Do you even know what counts as a relevant contribution in wikipedia? Any sensitive statistical data needs valid sourcing (ie as valid as the online book sources,from renowned authors). The source should be from neutral parties or renowned authors, and the books should be published by renowned publications. The term "Sudra" was once a commonly used term(legal) when India was under the "British rule". This book was published by then, henceforth it contains such terms. But the book is a timeless classic, as considered by ethnographers. Citing such silly factors wont help remove the book's contents. Pg.365 of the book certainly contains that statement. Look properly without overlooking. But as these online books are only for limited viewing, some pages may not be visible to you, as you might have reached the viewing limits for that page. But the page certainly contains that exact statement. Valid isbn numbers are provided for that book, which is an additional confirmation for the contents. All i did was copy pasting from that reference source, and i had not given any of my own interpretaion. I'm an editor here for more than a year. Dont try to teach me rules. I've read them thoroughly. You first read wiki policies before beginning an edit, which itself would take about a week. Moreover all these sources were not provided by me. There were other editors too. The sources provided are valid. Rearding NPOV - All that done by me & the other experienced editors in this page are just "copy pasting of source contents" directly, without any own interpretation. Your false accusations may draw the attention of "registered admin' editors", which might also result in temporary blockage. You are not supposed to do own researches with the references, but should simply only copy paste them. If the facts provided are too uncomfortable for you or any of your people, it cannott be helped. A fact is a fact. All i can say is that ,i've only copy pasted from the reference, without my own POV. Careful before making false accusations. The other references "Weavers of coromandel, etc", certainly contain the exact statements that i had mentioned. Dont find blatant reasons for false accusations. I'm sure you didnot even look into the reference. You speak simply with regard to the heading of the books. I hereby end my discussion arguements finally. Action, certainly, will be taken without any prior notice if your vandalising edits continue. U've already received two lvl-4 warnings. If you want to point out or accuse me,start a seperate topic. Tampering with my warning message topic in the talk page that i've created is extremely mischievous. Careful. I need not even file a report. Your increasingly vandalising actions is making your login' eligible for deletion by wiki' admin'.Hari7478 (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
As I am not qualified to make any judgements as to the ongoing dispute you are engaged in regarding the article Iyengar, I have referred the matter to the Wikipedia administrators. Please consult this page: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Asav (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above report has been closed by fully protecting the article for two weeks. Please seek advice from more experienced contributors on how to resolve this dispute. It is not helpful for someone who appears to be a new Wikipedia editor to start out with a lot of conflict on a disputed article. Before doing so, you should try to become more familiar with our policies. If you have references to offer, provide a list of them at Talk:Iyengar and wait for others to reach consensus that they are appropriate. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Johnson
Dear Mr Johnson,

Thanks for the intervention. Even though I am new to wiki editing I am strong on the content topic. It will take me a few months, but I will make effort and learn the steps carefully.

The article in question has been made extremely inflammatory by removing the relevant sections.

As suggested by you I shall record my comments in the talk page.

Kindly bear with my me during my learning period as I highlighting the vengeful threating bias of certain editors. Kindly watch the edit history of the above editor Hari.

Thank you.

Ramanuja Muni

Ramanujamuni (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please go through this message with some patience. This is just a friendly note.
Thought this might be extremely helpful. Please go through this atleast, with some patience. It is in the form of Question & Answers, and not long boring paragraphs as my previous messages. The mistakes you did are also quoted alongside.

Q: What is the basis(basic policy) in Wikipedia editing? A: The basic policy of Wiki' editing is Verifiability, not truth -This is a link which you might check in detail. The short explanation is that, Wikipedia only relies on "Verifiability" from web "sources" compiled as "references"(with tags like in html), and attached at the end of each sentence in an article, in the form of "citation". Wikipedia is not concerned if the statements are true or not. Truth is a matter of the individual's perspective, which may vary from one to another. So "web sources attached as references, alongside each line in the article, in the form of citations" ,is what wikipedia needs. This is to check that the contribution of a user has been from another source in the 'net.

Q: What if you dont provide a reference source, citation? A: If you dont provide a source as reference, then any of your contribution will get deleted, regardless of how true your contribution is. Wiki' editors are not supposed to edit with their own knowledge or learnt information. Wiki' users should only add statements from other web sources by giving references. However valid and true your contributions might be, if you dont provide sources as references alongside a sentence in an article, your contribution will be deleted. The sources you provide must contain the statements you make in a wiki' article.

Q: What is a valid source for referencing in wikipedia and what is not a valid source? Sources that are Not Valid - Adding statements even by placing proper references, taken from blogs, discussion forums, one man maintained websites (if the person is a concerned party) are not allowed. Such statements will still be deleted.

Sources that are Valid- Books published & authored by renowned personalities uploaded in the internet are valid sources. Other common webistes are also good sources. Sources taken from online books & websites - the authors/editors of the sites should be third parties. For example, if someone has published a book consisting of sensitive issues like "ethnic origin of iyengars", then it should be from third parties(a non-iyengar). If the publishers of the online book/website are not renowned or if they are concerened parties, then additional references should be given for cross checks from third party authored sources. For example, G.S.Ghurye is a renowned author and his book is considered authentic by ethnographers and museologists. So statements taken from this book need no additional referencing. However the reference should be provided alongside each line.

Q: What is relevance in wikipedia? A: The contributions must be relevant to the sub topic under which it is written. In your case you had added statements about "The population count of vadakalai & tenkalai", "number of temples held by the two sects" ,etc,etc under the '''ethnicity,genetics & origin" section. These are irrelevant there. "Ethnicity, genetics and origin" should only contain facts about linguistic importance, racial origin & admixture(if any), practiced cultures indicating ethnic origins like kashmiri culture, etc.

Also "you never provided references for your contributions." Those statements were from "your own general knowledge", which is not allowed in wikipedia. Statements should be made from valid web sources, also by attaching the sources as references thereby. "No. of temples held by the subsects" should rather be mentioned in the divya desam page & not in iyengar page, esp' not under that subtopic. Also such sensitive data, comparative, controversial data about ethnic groups should be included in wiki' only if you provide sources as references. If not, your contribution will get deleted, however true it may be. '''No editing based on general knowledge. Editing in wiki' only based on online sources attached alongside statements as references, in the form of citations'''

Q: Why were your contrib's deleted? A: Because you never provided online references. Also you gave irrelevant info', not connected to that sub topic, as mentioned in the above answer. You edited based on your general knowledge, which is invalid in wiki'. You failed to provide sources as references. Also statistical data about "population count" and "temples managed" should be taken from & attached with reliable online sources as references, such as "govt surveys" etc. Also that was not connected to "ethnic & genetic origin".

Q: Why should my(hari7478) contrib's stay? A: My edits are valid under wiki' norms, regardless of whether it is agreeable for some group of ppl or not. I had provided online book sources as references and quoted from there. I also attached the sources in the form of references alongside. They are mostly from neutral party authors(non-iyengars, such as foreigners,north indians,lingayats etc). Additional references were added for cross checking except "Geoffrie oddie" & "G.S. ghurye" book data. Because these authors are renowned foreigners and their works are refered by museologists & ethnographers during researches. Even if the some pages are not available for viewing, isbn numbers for the books are added in the bottom of the iyengar article, which are confirmations about the authenticity. However you might rate these sources, these are valid third party sources - as classified by wikipedia.

Q: When, could you(ramanujamuni) delete my(hari7478) contributions & when, can your contrib's stay? A: If you provide statements from more number of authentic sources than mine, such as online book sources and other web sources by more renowned authors(should be third parties), which should contain statements like tengalai have not - amalgated or admixed or brought non-brahmins within their fold, then your contributions might stay. Even then it would be put as "While some believe like this(my contributions), others believe like that(your contributions)". Mine can be deleted only if you provide extremely authentic online book sources(from more famous authors), with many additional sources as reference for cross checking, than those i've provided. Until then my edits will stay, and your edits cannot.

Q: What about doctrinal & philosophical diff\erences?''' A: Those are already mentioned far down in the page under the another topic, and are not relevant in the genetic, ethnic section. They are mentioned from a famous classic "Castes & Tribes in southern India" by Edgar Thurston & other references. Allthough there is no online viewing, isbn numbers are provided for authenticity of the contenets, so that admin users check with it. It is the most famous work abt india as held by ethnographers. I have not provided all sources here. My contrib's are minimal while there were many users who had provided data.

Q: Your accusations about me A: 1. You accused me of providing same source multiple times. It is allowed. Because each sentence should have reference at its end, after a full stop. If four different sentences are taken from the same source, then the reference for the same source should be mentioned 4 different times alongside each line sentence's end. It is valid editing.

2. You accused me of suppressing contents. I didnot suppress the book page windows. The publishers of the books had only given snippet(reduced) viewing, and a common user cannot supress or expand. It shows you dont have any idea even about the internet. If every online book is given free viewing, then how will the publishers sell & make money? The supressed view was because of their providing & we cannot control it by expanding. It is the publishers doing. Not mine. Also even in the full page views, i did not mention everything, but only handpicked some selective statementsa because, only they are relevant(as mentioned under relevance question) under the section "ethnicity, genetic & origin". Other statements dont deserve a place under that sub topic.

3. The contributions of mine are direct interpretations from the articles without any own research. They were also reviewed by other experienced users, long back & they have allowed it to stay (although there were slight changes, that they did). If the facts are too uncomfortable or unagreeable for you or any specific group, it cant be helped. A fact is a fact. Also ,i've provided the references alongside each sentence. However you might rate them, only they stand as valid under wiki' norms. Please learn wiki' policies first, about source article authenticity.

Comment: I've provided proper explanation for everything in an orderly manner. Now plz think of your violations. Vandalism 1 : Wikipedia's basic policy is Verifiability, not truth. Your policy is just opposite like (Truth-in your own perspective and not verifiability). You never provided any source as reference. Vandalism 2 : You removed existing "source-references". However you might rate them, as per wiki - they are "online book sources from either famous authors, or third party authors". You removed them & falsely accused them without valid proof from your side.(Only, if you provide an even more authentic online book sources or any other reliable web sources would have been valid proof on your side).This is another vandalism. Vandalism 3 : You contributed info' without providing ref' sources that should be more authentic than mine(authenticity as defined by wiki' policies). You contributed based on your General knowledge, which is not allowed in wiki'(however true it may be). Only verifiability matters here. This is why i gave warnings. It is normal to give them, before going for a report.

Conclusion:I'll be out of this tussle very soon, as i've planned to refer this thing to highly experienced (more exp' than mine) wiki' users, who have complete knowledge about iyengars. Those users had also won accolades & barnstars for their good editing, from wiki' administration. Soon i'll ask them to take over this article (You have my word). But they will tell you the same as i did. Those users have seen my edits, and have allowed them to exist over the past 7 months(as it is now in its current form). Anyhow you may try to sort it with them. This will happen soon. You will then know, if my edits are valid or not. Even if not today immediately, I'll refer to them very soon.

You should not have any more doubts. Even if you do, it might be because you might have skipped some info' here. Go through it again & again. I will post this same message in the discussion page of the Iyengar article. Also plz remember that this is not the only article were i'm editing. I edit in a wide range of articles. But it is obvious that you came into wiki', for this purpose(egregious edits - as defined by wiki' rules), as you were too uncomfortable with the contents. Such one tick pony ids, created for such purposes only, sometimes might be brought for scrutiny (under scrutiny by wiki' admin'). Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My last reply to you, about the previous warring & disputes.

 * If a web article says "there is no aryan migration into india", then it should be mentioned in the "India" page or some other corresponding page in relevance. That data cannot be relevant here. Also, aryans need not necessarily be migrants. Aryans are also believed to have originated in north india. Check this wiki' article link - Out of India Theory. A notable proponent for this was Friedrich Schlegel (1772–1829). Please check this too - Āryāvarta. Aryavarta (abode of aryans) was referred to the region above vindhya mountains (north india), since ancient times. The word "Arya" itself is a sanskrit word of north indian origin. So aryans are also possibly believed to be north indians by origin. Also i've provided sources to prove that poet kamba referred to vadakalai as prakrit & tengalai as tamil, during his times,indicating that vadakalai once spoke prakrit. Prakrit is officially classified as a language under the Indo-aryan language family, & so are all north indian languages classified (officially). Please check the indo-aryan article in wiki'. Hence "Ethno linguistics" are also involved here. So your claim about "no invasion, proved from hyderabad labs, etc" need not necessarily contradict my contributions.


 * Also did those labs in hyderbabad(as mentioned by you) run extensive genetic tests on both iyengars?? Do those results mention about the two iyengar subsects(subsects in specific) anywhere?? Again, are they subsect specific?? If not, then it cant be relevant here. Even if there had been a general test run on iyengars, who knows about the subsects that were tested?? The tested individuals could have completely belonged to one specific subsect. Who would know?? Whatever, that is of no relevance here in this page. As mentioned, it belongs to the aryan article, or "india" article. Also , plz bear in mind about the out of india theory article , that i've mentioned above. So, yet again a mistake from you.


 * You had again deliberately misquoted in his above message, about a source. The authors of those sources have not called vadakalai as usurpers. The author says "Tengalais consider vadakalai people as usurpers and insurgents". The author only explains the "tengalai's stand about vadakalais". So, it is not the author's opinion. Also, that source had mentioned about "some court-case involving a british judge", i agree. But that was with regard to a one "Srirangam temple administration issue" only. So, it can only be mentioned in the srirangam temple wiki article. It does not belong here. Definitely not relevant in the ethnicity section, or even in this article.


 * That specific part of the source "about dominance by tengalai sect" only describes about control & dominance(about administration) in srirangam temple (due to their high population in that area), and not in general. Also, I had already mentioned in my previous message that, statistical data needs authentic verification from govt surveys. First of all, temples - need not necessarily mean "divya desa temples". Many newly built temples are there now, which are controlled by vadakalai sect. Also ,temple administrations frequently change (like vadakalais taking over a former tengalai temple & vice versa). This is why, you need to provide recent govt' surveys or other authentic surveys for cross checking, while contributing statistical data. However temples controlled & population count have nothing to do in the "ethnicity section".


 * Next comes the issue, about population count. What have they got to do in the "ethnicity & genetic section"?? How many times am i going to explain?? You are just toying around. I had already provided sources for non-brahminical presence within tengalais. Well, the tengalai sect have been more social & less orthodox(corresponding to brahminical customs)- well sourced. The popularity of tengalai sampradaya among subordinate classes(non-brahmins) of tamils was known. Now again what has that got to do in the "ethnicity section"? Check the next point plz. It is an important continuation of this point.


 * Have provided a link-source regarding "author:Kathleen gough"'s article in that section, which clearly mentions "vadakalai are ranked above tengalais." It is an authentic cambridge university publication, from a famous author. It should not be removed. I included that source alongside the first line in the ethnicity section(describing about the presence of the two subsects in the order)in the Iyengar page. I still never mentioned that line explicitly. I only added that source, for proving the presence of the two subsects in the order.

 Now everything had been well explained here, by me. No more arguements please.
 * Plz understand the term "relevance" in wikipedia. Also, there might be some areas which even i might not agree with. But still i allow those info' to stay, because i stick to the wiki' norm of "reliable verifiability". And I'm rather only providing additional references from here on. I dont want to contribute further data, as i feel the article is already sufficient. I'm only going to provide sources in addition.

You never stuck to one specific complaint. You kept on changing your complaints time & again. So, please watch it. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * About your complaints and his former edits.

Thengalai Iyyengars and their Guru Parampara Maliciously Defamed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyengar#Thengalai_Iyyengars_and_their_Guru_Parampara_Maliciously_Defamed.

Open letter to Wiki administrators I am new to wiki as a content editor. I am quite sound on the subject matter to which I am contributing. But I am in the process of learning the wiki editing procedures and policies. Knowing the robustness of wiki I am pretty sure many of them quite common sense procedures and can be picked up as we grow in the system. One editor has virtually hijacked the topic called Iyengar and his deep rooted bias seems to be against the Thengalai Iyengars. Thengalai Iyengars are Vaishnavaites who follow the Guru Pramapara, chant 4000 divya prabhandam and alwar pasuram which are in tamil language. These Pasurams are over 1200 years old and the divya desam temples in which these chantings happen even older. Of the 108 Divya Desam temples more than 71 follow the Thengalai sampradhya. A cursory look at the temple links and Thengalai Thiruman mark will reveal the same. It is open data and verifiable fact. The 25 temples from Kerala and North India have their own traditions which is neither Thengalai nor Vadagalai. The Thengalai also have 8 matts or centres with Gurus established from the days of Sri Manavala Mamunigal. This is also a verifiable fact. Our beloved editor is preventing the addition of the content relevant to Thengalai Sampradhaya with remarks irrelevant. Where as he is putting only information which is not even worth the footnote when you consider them in full perspective. Now he wants the article locked for extended period so that the incorrect information can be preserved. Let me illustrate it with an example everyone understands. Holocaust was an event in which millions of people suffered. Let us say someone hijacks the topic on Holocaust and provides only information such as Holocaust was a false, over rated event. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury you know very well such conspiracy theories exist on the net. Some of them may even have some weird group, academician justifying it. My argument is Holocaust conspiracy theories can at the best be a foot note the main article. But it cannot be the only information on the topic of Holocaust. The editor user Hari has ensured that by deleting all the relevant information. Or another example – a wiki article about the Presidents of America instead of providing information fully relevant it is only about some presidents who were indicted in scandals or tried for impeachment. Our editor has provided the same link from different websites over and over concerning Lingayats or some Christian tribals who converted who are less than 1% of the population in concern and highlighted it as if it is the main news. He has reinforced the use references from 60 years back from colonial days which looked down upon the use of local language of tamil, heaping smears on respected religious heads and gurus and has incorrect information such as only murugan was worshipped in Tamil books, As if all Christians were converted to Brahmins and vice versa. When details of vaishnava worship in tamil grammar and sangam literature are provided to counter the same he deletes them as irrelevant. Then there is a quote about the genetic composition of vadagalais from Andhra. That is again a very small 2% of the total iyyengar population since bulk of them live in Tamil Nadu. Our editor is well versed with wiki procedures and ensures that they are followed. But the content in the article is similar to the examples I have outlined above. You don’t have to take my word for it. I am sure you have SMEs and you will be able to refer other material. But he is damaging the trust fibre on which wiki operates. He has to be put on the watch list immediately and his edits and articles reviewed to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. PS: I am still learning the different talk procedures but knowing the robustness of wiki system please read my request in the spirit of truth and wiki. I am meaning threat implied by Mr Hari "U've already received two lvl-4 warnings.Careful. I need not even file a report. Your increasingly vandalising actions is making your login' eligible for deletion by wiki' admin Ramanuja 03:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why there is a POV issue in the ethinicity subsections.Registering a complaint on 3rd March 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyengar#Why_there_is_a_POV_issue_in_the_ethinicity_subsections.Registering_a_complaint_on_3rd_March_2011.

Why there is a POV issue in the ethinicity subsections.Registering a complaint on 3rd March 2011.

The article confuses the term Sri Vaishnava (one who practices SriVaishnavam or those who are followers of Vishnu) which is a sampradhya aka a religious tradition or religious sect with Iyyengars a term with caste connotations which is more used in the context of Brahmin. The sources have been virtually quoted out of context as if to indicate Tenkalai iyyengars have been evolved out of admixiture. This is patently false and shows a confusion for the term Sri Vaishnava vs. Iyyengars. The various ethnic group quoted as Tenkalai non brahmans do not represent the core group. This is where the POV issue comes, because the very same historical sources speak of Tengalai as the dominant group controlling all existing temples and vadagalais as usurpers attempting to wrest control in various temple, and Vadagalais as appealing to the British for clemency and protection as they are numerically weak and oppressed. If they were the original srivaishnavas such meek representations do not come into picture. Also regarding higher D alle ( google search shows aHigh frequency of the D allele of the ACE gene in Arabic populations) - please dont imply next the vadagalais are of Mediterranean descent. As recently as last year the Institute in Hyderabad clearly brought out a report saying the genes proves there are no aryan migration, only two sets one about 60,000 years ago and another around 40,000 years ago. Everyone is of indigenous descent.I can get the links, I need to learn the referencing procedures. This article therefore fails to meet the NPOV requirement badly. Also my reply to the warring editor - verifiability not truth means no original work - please do not take as to provide inaccurate pointers or clearly not truth perspective. Since I am not so well versed in the Wiki processes and have been badly scarred at the very entry into editing at wiki I am not taking chances. I will learn slowly, the correct process to edit, include reference. It will take time with my other commitments. TILL then I am recording my view that POV issue persists. I am appealing to senior editors or administrators to help me navigate the maze of wiki processes and get the above issue sorted. It is going to take me some time to read, absorb and work through them. And my dear friends I dont intend to be a one tick pony. Srivaishnavam is my core strength and I intent to work in this area. Ramanuja 03:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi Ramanuja

I would not claim to be a guru but I will be pleased to help in any way I can.

The most important thing is that material has references from reliable secondary sources and is not original research. If you mean this edit the editor has given an edit summary as removing unreferenced and irrellevant stuff. If you are acting in good faith there is no reason why you cannot copy some of the original text from the page history old versions and paste it back in with suitable references added. It is best to click the discussion tab for the article and explain on the article talk page why you are doing it. If other editors revert your work without going to the talk page they will be at fault for not arguing their case there. If there are valid sources with conflicting views we try to cover the differing views giving them due weight. Above all be polite and stay calm, and things will work out ok in time.--Charles (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2011 (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 could 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I never removed your talk page discussions from there. It was rather archived or moved by BOT, or admin' users. It happens.
I did not delete your talk page discussions. It was archived by BOT and admin' users. Check my contributions. I never removed your opinions from here. It was archived by a one "MiszaBot"(an auto-bot wiki function). Stop your false accusations; and i'm suspecting that you might be trying to take advantage of disruptive situations in the page. Hari7478 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)