User talk:S a narasimhan

Contributions to Iyengar
Hello Sir, Thanks for your contributions to Iyengar page. You seem to have some radical points as opposed to people who generally contribute to the article. Though there may be some truth in your contributions, apparently Wikipedia only holds fact. So expect people who have perpendicular views to what you had written to come and delete what you have written. I am writing this to make you aware of this world. What you must do is go deep into the subject you had written, collect material references(read published history books, journals) and substantiate your point if someone deletes them / counter argues.Read WP:REF for more details on referencing. Please also go through the above set of links to know what Wikipedia is about and how it is written. Please let me know if you have any questions. PS: Am no subject matter expert on Iyengar, origin etc.  Srikanth (Logic)  18:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User Warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Your edits are identified as vandalism under wikipedia's norms, as you had deleted existing sources & most of your contributions were unsourced. Even the sources you provided where from Iyengar websites(especially from thenkalai websites) which are not accepted for referencing with regard to controversial & sensitive data, as such data need referencing from neutral party sources.

Your vandalizing edits and some instructions are listed here: 1. You had deleted existing contents that were well sourced. Those sources were highly authentic(from renowned authors & publications, university publications, govt' publications, etc). 2. Your contributions were completely sourceless in your first edit, and now mostly sourceless in your last edit. The section is about "Ethnicity & Genetics". "An individual revering another" has no relevance in that section or in the whole article. Please learn what is relevance to a topic in wikipedia. Also you had provided "sources from concerened party websites" for a sensitive data. Such data would need neutral party sources(non-Iyengar sources in this case) & additional sources for cross checking. Even if you could provide them, you have no authority do delete the existing sources. 3. In the philosophy section, you had evidently violated wiki' npov policies. Your line "Thus the tenkalai sampradayam can be stated as the true inheritor of Ramanujacharya" is a high level violation of wiki' npov policies. And, you hadnt provided sources for any of your contributions in that section. Info' about Ramanand belongs to the "Ramanand wiki' page" and not here. Again please learn what relevance means. By the way, Wikipedia's prime policy is Verifiability, not truth.

Some facts might not be favourably disposed towards an individual or a group of people. If you are one of that kind, then, this is not the place to impose your views and theories. To do that, you may start your own blog and give your own version. But wikipedia is not the place for that. In the case of "Sensitive & controversial data", sources should be "univ' publications, govt publications, renowned neutral party author, a foreign author etc. Extremely controversial ones need additional sources for cross checking, in case the author is not so famous. References from blogs, discussion forums, etc are clearly prohibited. The sources you provide must contain the statements you make in a wiki' article. If you provide statements from more number of authentic sources than the existing ones, such as online book sources and other web sources by more renowned authors(third party sources, govt sources, famous non-indian authors, multiple sources from renowned non-iyengar authors), 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)". The existing version can be changed only if you provide extremely authentic online book sources(from more famous authors), with many additional sources as reference for cross checking, than those that exist presently. Until then the current edits will stay, and your edits cannot. Remember that wiki's prime policy is Verifiability, not truth. If you repeatedly indulge in such vandalising reverts, then your actions will be informed immediately in the "arbitrators notice". And stop experimenting in main page, and dont include polemics there. Hari7478 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

User Warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

You are accused of vandalism, for removing source materials & evident hounding.

I'm not making any claims here. Do you even know anything about wiki' editing?? The prime policy is "Verifiable, not truth". Every one of my contributions are well sourced with neutral party sources(Govt' publications, university publications, aqdditional neutral party sources for cross checking) etc. What is biased here?? Everything is well sourced. And when did i malign any sampradaya?? Did I use any abusive phrase? Absolutely not. If the facts are too unacceptable for you, i cannot help it. I'm an experienced editor here, and i'm working on a wide range of global articles. You happen to be a one tick pony who had started with an all out warring.

By the way, wikipedia avoids tertiary sources(another wiki page as a source is avoided). Please try to understand what is relevance in wikipedia. Info' on Ramananda has no relevance in an iyengar page. Evident violation of npov when you mentioned "Thenkalai Iyengars are the true inheritors". Check these links here. They say otherwise, and they are neutral party sources.Check here

Your arguements are baseless. Again i'm insisting that this is wikipedia. Govt' sources, univ' publications, renowned foreign authors & their publications are too authentic to be omitted from here. A "concerned party source" is never considered as reliable under wiki' norms. I've well explained the facts here. Go through it again. First, read wiki's verifiability policies. One more vandalism might lead to a legal misadventure here. Hari7478 (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My last message to you, regardig your edits
Reply to your message: Consensus is reached only for: 1.Same sources with different interpretations from users. 2.When the user who makes counter claims, provided similar(govt, renowned univ’, famous author) sources to make counter claims. "Making a deal", or concluding "out of empathy" is not called - consensus.

In your case, you’ve clearly disapproved of "source material" contents, calling them biased. I'm repeating: '''Wikepedia does not want to know whether you recognize the source or not(it does not matter). Government publications, renowned university publications, famous non-iyengar & non-indian foreign authors’ books, is what wiki’ needs for referencing, wrt sensitive data. If some user disapproves of such source contents, and calls it unacceptable, it does not become challenged, but only the user must learn the basics of wiki' editing, while consensus is reached for the above conditions that i had mentioned.''' I'm repeating this , as this is all that matters here, and nothing else. You had started with an all out disruption, without even knowing the "abcd" about wikipedia editing. Such incidents had happened in the past, where some users(with a little more experience than you) have made such similar counter edits, but still my edits have stayed, and some senior editors have allowed it to stay, after reviewing it, as they are well sourced. That is everything, that matters here. And, i'm not the only one who contributed info' in those sections. And this is not the only article where i'm editing. I edit in a wide range of articles for more that 1.5 years.

Another "user:koft" had also reverted your edits. I'm sure he's not even indian. But he is definitely someone who knows wiki's verifiability policies. This is not about "What one individual holds to be true". Wiki' editing is all about "Verifiablity". If i didnt revert your edits, then somebody else would have. They need not neccesarily be indian editors, but they can make reverts, as they strongly stick to wiki policy of Verifiability, not truth. This is it.

By the way, this is not a social networking site, to get know each other. And it took me 6 long months to learn wiki' editing policies. Users, who start of with an all out disruption, are certainly brought under scrutiny, if vandalism is repeated. Hari7478 (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My reply to you, regarding your false accusations - "multiple id" comments.
Just because two or more users reverted your edits, it does not mean that the same user has multiple ids. You are warned of false accusations on other users. User:Koft and User:Antiuser are foreign editors who have nothing to do with pages regarding "Indian castes". Check their contributions. If have doubts, you are free to request for a "check user" on my Id. Then you'll know the truth. But thinking so, it is you, i suspect, who had clearly used another ip 121.245.0.155 to make disruptive edit warring. Have already reported your actions in the appropriate places. Stop accusing others falsely, or i might have to take up the issue very seriousely. Please dont judge others like yourself. Hari7478 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand Daniel. But i'm giving a reason here as to why i reported about "user:sa narasimhan" in the notice board. This user had started with an all out warring, and disruptive edits. "User: S a narasimhan" constantly removed source contents, and contributed unsourced info', and other info' not relevant to the article's sections. The sources are highly authentic (Governement sources, famous university publications, etc) which the user had removed, because it was too uncomfortable for him. He says that he doesnt agree with the source contents, and is calling for discussion and consensus, based on "empathy" or "a deal", i guess. He had clearly disapproved of wiki's prime policies including "Verifiability, not truth", and is asking me to discuss about methods to edit, which are not allowed in wiki'. However i've adequately explained everything to him. Now the iyenar page itself is placed under semi-protection. Hari7478 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet again a vandalising edit by you.
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. When you removed the "kashmirian origin" info', why did you contribute unsourced data, again, as you always do?? So. which source is supporting that?? Again a srivaishnava source?? And, a debate is opened before making a controversial edit, not after that. Persistent vandalism again. By the way, as i mentioend earlier, sourced materials, is what matter. The neutral party source says "Munitraya culture" is kahsmirian. That will be it. Will take up the issue seriousely. You should have discussed and then contributed, rather than making the unsourced edit, then discussing.Repeated vandsalism. For your kind information, the genetic tgest was taken from vadakalais of kurnool district(which incorporates ahobilam, andhra pradesh), who are from ahobila mutt. Where does the source say that, only munitrayas or mutt people were tested?? And who considers oen superior or inferior to the other. Do you even have any source for any of your claims?? And who said mutt people use tamil, and that munitrayas dont??

Although "user:s a narasimhan" called for discussion and consensus earlier, he never kept up to his word, as he contributed unsourced, and a highly vandalising edit that is again sourceless, and has partially misinterpreted source contents. All the geneteic tests on "Vadakalai Iyengars" were taken from kurnool district(incorporating ahobilam), and the individuals are all believed to be from ahobila mutt. Before even reaching consensus or a discussion, "s a narasimhan" again made an edit of high level vandalism due to which the page is given full protection. Will file a report again. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello S a narasimhan,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 09:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)