User talk:Vyaghradhataki

Welcome!

Hello, Vyaghradhataki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Thanks for registering. Please stop adding nonsense to the Chola history page. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 10:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Chola Dynasty:

Your recent edit to Chola Dynasty (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 10:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —EncMstr (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, racially motivated edits, such as those you made to Iyer, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to observe that your recent edits to Vadama are not in the least helpful, coming as they do with no references cited. Viewed without your own tinted, or rather, tainted, glasses, they constitute nothing short of vandalism. I must, at this juncture, request you to desist from such reprehensible activity in the future. If you entertain any serious doubts concerning the subject matter, I would appreciate it very highly if you could engage in a civilised discussion instead of going about with your random deletions. And for your information, the Nayaks were no doubt pagans from the Christian or Moslem perspective, but being patrons and devotees of almost all the major Hindu temples of South India, they cannot be deemed to be so in an article on a Hindu group. Neither can their administration or that of their Brahmin administrators be construed as non-extant, since well-attested records of their administrative reforms are available both from the archives of the British and of the Indian princes. Voltigeur (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vadama

At the very outset, allow me to clarify that neither does any editor, including myself, wish to block your contributions to Wikipedia, as long as they are genuine and supported with adequate proofs, nor do I have an urge to receive any such rants as you seem to think me desirous of.

Firstly, history is a process of change; dynasties rise and fall and so do empires. If you consider yourself a historian, and given your edit history, I have no doubt you do, it is entirely unjustified to identify any one empire, dynasty or king as good and others as evil. Each of them has made a contribution to the history of mankind and deserves to be recognised for the same, not unjustifiably vilified.

Secondly, mankind's history is one of a series of migrations. To characterise any one set of migrants as being of low character or as espousing underhand practices, just on the basis of their being migrants, strikes at the very root of history, because each individual is a product of the migration out of Africa that took place several millennia ago, and when you criticise a migrant you criticise yourself because you are one of them.

Thirdly, allow me to state that Wikipedia is not the place for original research, such as you have appeared to have undertaken into the antecedents of the Vadama, and your results are best reserved for more august fora. Perhaps you might find it interesting to factor into your research into Vadama immigration, that I at least am of a Vadama family who know their forefathers to the 12th century, and we have been Brahmins all through. Perhaps, you will also remember that Buddhism and Jainism had all but died out by the 9th century and that the only converts accepted as Brahmins into Hinduism from outside the Hindu fold were the Iranian priests in the 2nd century A.D., who were made members of the Kashyapa Gothra.

Fourthly, I do not know what would be your view of the fact that several of the very Pallava rulers you appear to venerate were Buddhists and Jains such as Mahendravarman I and Buddhavarman and that Raja Raja Chola himself made several significant contributions to the Buddhist establishments at Kanchipuram.

Lastly, concerning your sore criticism of immigrants, allow me to remind you that the Pallava emperors were themselves of Parthian descent, and thus not, the steeped in the blood Hindus, Tamils or Indians you consider them to be and that several of the later Chola Emperors often took South-East Asians for their consorts.

Let me conclude by saying that, while you are entirely welcome to call a spade a spade, your language must not be of a reviling nature unless justifable, and should the views you introduce be defamatory to the subject at hand, they should at least be borne up by published research, even your own, and not the unfounded notions you have used till date in defacing these pages. Voltigeur (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, you ought to realise that one cannot jump to conclusions about another's knowledge or perception, without first corroborating what the other says and this is just what we wish to avoid here. Were I to have taken the same view of your points, I should not have bothered to communicate.

Pallavan descent is not what the kings claim, but rather what research proves it to be. And you will find, were you to search even a little, that considerable research has gone into this question. There was no doubt a certain amount of intermingling of the Pallavas with the Cholas, and for that matter with most of the other South Indian dynasties. But if you were to seriously hold that they were the descendants of Drona and Ashwatthama, both mythogical figures with not a shred of historical evidence to support their existence, I must seriously doubt the value of your contributions. No doubt this can be included as a legend about the Pallavas, but certainly cannot be lent any credence as a fact.

I am as aware as you are, of the fact that conversion is not permitted into the sacerdotal caste, according to the tenets of Hinduism. Nevertheless, Gupta records of the second and third centuries indicate just such a permissible conversion of the Ahuran priests.

Saurashtrians claim to be menbers of not only the Vadama, but also of the Brahacharanam, Madhyama and Sankheti groups among many others. The only group they do not claim to belong to is the Ashtasahasram. If their claims were to be lent any credence, in spite of the weighty historical evidence against them (they first came only with the Serfojis of Tanjore), the Pandarams might as well be considered Hindu priests, a claim the Brahmins deny them, despite their long history of assisting in temples.

Allow me to state that I never expected any diplomatic tact, only human civility. Lastly, please be careful where you leave a message in future - the talk-page is meant for that purpose, not the user-page. Voltigeur (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my last message, I had stated that I expect no more than human civility from you and since that does not appear to be forthcoming, perhaps it would not be out of place to let you know that you are not the only one to know Latin, though you use it abominably. Perhaps, in future, you ought to label your edits Cave Canum, instead of terming them 'changes'. Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo. Voltigeur (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Voltigeur#Vyaghradhataki. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborating on Wikipedia

Dear Vyaghradhataki, your editing style borders on disruption. Instead of engaging in a revert war, please work with others in agreeing on the proper contents of articles and whether it is neutral and balanced. Also, please be diligent in providing an edit summary describing the purpose and/or your reasoning for every main space edit so others can understand what you're doing. In particular, for the article Iyer you have violated the spirit of the three-revert rule and are now subject to being blocked. Please work out your differences with the other editors on the article's talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Vandalism

The edits that you made to Bharatiya Janata Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatiya_Janata_Party&oldid=208519062) are considered to be vandalism. Please refrain from doing so, or I will have to report you. Shovon (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism, such as the edit you made to Bharatiya Janata Party, continues, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop your continuous vandalism or I will have to report you to be considered for blocking Shovon (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —EncMstr (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned before to collaborate, and you have not made any change in your disruptive editing pattern. When this 3 day block expires, you will be free to edit again. If you continue to edit without seeking consensus—or at least explain in edit summaries what you are doing—you will be blocked for disruption with increasingly long blocks. —EncMstr (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism, such as the edit you made to Bharatiya Janata Party, continues, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop your continuous vandalism or I will have to report you to be considered for blocking The moment your other ID has been blocked, you have come back with your original ID to deface the article. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a place to voice your opinion. For that, you can start your blog. Reporting you for Vandalism again, and will ask for indefinite ban this time. Shovon (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comments

Well, Iyer is an article which has been accorded GA status, i.e. it has passed through an elaborate review process. And one of the main criterias required for selection as a good article is that the article must adhere to neutral point of view. It is indeed strange to find that there is someone who accuses the article of harboring a pro-Brahmin bias. And Wikipedia is not a place where people could post anything. See WP:NOT. I have no problems about anti-Brahmin content in the article. But then, unless you add necessary citations, the additions you make are a violation of both WP:OR and WP:Unreferenced. Wikipedia does not accept unreferenced content even if it were the truth. And I also advise you to have a look at WP:CIVIL. You have earlier made personal attacks on Voltigeur's talkpage calling him "foolish". Such personal attacks are not in right spirit. I advise you to have a look at the rules and rectify things before it is too late. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for expressing opinions on the contents of an article you have the talkpage of the article for the same purpose. Opinions are not to be expressed in Wikipedia article -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 13:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comments you've expressed in the article Vadama, I've moved them to the talk page where they belong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vadama&diff=209899439&oldid=197513749 -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 13:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your comments on BJP

My dear friend, I am not infringing on your rights by reverting your unreferenced and baseless additions to the article BJP. For my supposed pro-BJP stance, please refer to the edit history of the article. I am quoting your next comment, "It is also not some thing like an orkut or an internet mailing community. I certainly wish that wikipedia not be used by partisan groups to conduct malicious propoganda and spresd lies." I sincerely hope that you understand the meaning of what you have written. And your last comment takes the cake, "I have taken this up with wikipedia top heads an also with international security agencies for an alleged manipulation." May I know the names of the International Security Agencies? Lastly, I would like to request you to contribute to the Wikipedia in a positive way, rather than posting totally bogus material. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is not Shovon Malik. As for my political inclination goes, I am equidistant from all the Major as well as fringe political parties in India. I do not vote (because I think that's a waste of time, given the present Indian political scenario) and neither I have a Voter ID card. So you can be rest assured that I am not trying to push any POV material for the BJP. But at the same time, I would not like anything derogatory (ofcourse, unreferenced) or any personal opinion to be published against any person, group or institution by anyone on Wikipedia. This goes for BJP or for DMK, AIADMK, PMK or whatever political group you sympathise with. Hope I have made myself clear. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message Re: Deletion of Sholiyar

The Iyer community is acknowledged to exist by everybody, saving you. If you so doubt its existence please feel free to cite you information on that account. I have had nothing to do with the deletion tag placed on the page on Sholiyar, though given its contents it appears to be unnaturally confused, convoluted, and, certainly deserving a complete re-working. Lastly, please refrain from spewing threats and invective, and as I have had occasion to say before, learn the virtues of human civility. As the saying goes, "The dogs bark, but the caravan passes on". Voltigeur (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption for which you have warned repeatedly.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —EncMstr (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you obviously evaded your block with sock puppet Kaadavarkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), your block has been extended to three months. Further socpuppetry will result in indefinite block and possibly outright banning. Please stop. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Vyaghradhataki for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 14:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been extended to indefinite for continued evasion. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sree mrida for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Shovon (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vyaghradhataki for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]