User talk:Bodhidharma7

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Dalit appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Trusilver 03:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What gives? I always reference my sources, so your accusation is unwarranted. I try to be as objective as my (verifiable and academic) sources allow me. Bodhidharma7

Bodh

Dear bodhi, zhivotovksy method is not a failed method by any means. http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v56/n8/full/jhg201164a.html as you can see the method gave accurate date with the archaeologic migrations of red indians to americas. About balanovosky paper you have to know linguistics is only reliable if it have a written record and STR process is very variable and unique event polymorphism is most standard though expensive. As for the I.e/I.a migrations it is a theory not a fact proven by archaeology, ancient skeletons or by any written ethics!. (u can see it in my talk page) So have a good time.Nirjhara (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==R1a1 and Aryans==

http://archives.chikyu.ac.jp/archives/AnnualReport/Viewer.do?prkbn=P&id=15&jekbn=E Dear bodhi, thanks for bringing neutrality on R1a wiki. As you can see the Farmana skeletons DNA will b announced at this years end. So, 1. If R1a1 is found from the skeletons(2600-2000 b.c) then... The Vedic ness of IVC will be proved! And AMT will be dead(in genetics). 2. If not found then the academics will get its 1st undisputable milestone. And on ANI ASI admixture paper well its clear it started to rise after the IVC/ISC came to an end but the question is, 1. Is it was IVC or ISC? So, we have to wait few months to know the satya, sorry to load your page but i thought it was needed. gd tms. Nirjhara (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You appear to be involved in an edit war with Gaura79 (talk · contribs) on Out of India theory. Please take up a discussion of your differences on the talk page rather than continually reverting each others' edits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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) 14:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Bodhidharma7, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kanatonian (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem to be involved in many articles all at once. You are better off inmy opinion to improve say Dravidian people or Dravidian language to let's say Good article (GA quality scale). Your efforts will be appreciated by the whole world. :) Kanatonian (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You eat the Elephant, one piece at a time, you have the energy, you have the sources now you need a strategy and you need more than you to get it done and then maintain it. :) Kanatonian (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Hi

Dear bodhi, http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms.html If you think the I.A.M is historically documented then you can check this article and analys it and I have added Times of India interview of Thangaraj in Reconstructing section in G.A.S.A i dont know why a leading authors remarks are baseless because it was published in a news paper! And please have a point to point talk before it gets vanished and fix the last reference which showing is in blocks. gd tms and happy diwali(dipavali)Nirjhara (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't use any of that. In that article I want nothing else except hard evidence in the form of scientific reports. Websites and newspapers are not allowed. If you disagree, you must take it up with Andrew. But I think I'm going to have to be adamant this time.

BTW, I'm erasing the changes you made. You must use the talk page first before doing anything.

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC) well, about Lal its a point to point speech of a clinicall archaeologist dealing with archaeology of BMAC and others and i think he made his conclusions clear scientifically! And that is archaeologic documents on Aryan migration is futile and made up! and have no reliable or certain evidence.(If you read it with clean mind you will understand and yes its a bit long but a detailed speech) Ok i will talk with andrew with the thangaraj comment approvation but again it is unfortunate to not have his comment of a study where he had a good share as a leading co-author.Nirjhara (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your efforts at improving the Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia Sodabottle (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC and Aryans

Dear bodhi, even BBC have found the notion of "invasion" as out dated and agreed to an indigenous development to be a possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_1.shtml gd tms. Nirjhara (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should read your own sources carefully:

There are two sources of knowledge about this ancient period - language and archaeology - and we can make two comments about them. Firstly, the language of vedic culture was vedic Sanskrit, which is related to other languages in the Indo-European language group. This suggests that Indo-European speakers had a common linguistic origin known by scholars as Proto-Indo-European.

Secondly, there does seem to be archaeological continuity in the subcontinent from the Neolithic period. The history of this period is therefore complex. One of the key problems is that no horse remains have been found in the Indus Valley but in the Veda the horse sacrifice is central. The debate is ongoing.

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC) boy you are a character. 1. Rig-vedic horses had 34 ribs and there is no mention that people rode horses in the literature. 2. There is no evidence that there ever was a PIE language though scholars worship that, funny isn't it? Gd tms.Nirjhara (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you trying to tell me? That quote is from the source you gave to me. What? You don't read your own sources? --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No just saying both the views are alive.Nirjhara (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV Edits

Listen bud, POV writing is a violation of guidelines. If you want to claim something, please refer to the talk page first. Second, you must understand that Australoids have different physical features when compared to Dravidic speakers. There maybe some genetic mixture in South India, just as all of India to varying degrees, however that does not make them "Australoid". There are sources that have claimed Dravidian speakers to be a Caucasoid group, and there are sources that claim they are Australoid. There are also sources that have said they are a mixture "Veddoid". If you want to make a POV claim, please create your own article. If you continue with this POV behavior, you will be blocked. Thank You. (Tamilan101 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

if there are different theories appearing in good sources then we should mention all of them, not try to pick a winner.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talk pages to find wordings which mention all notable theories. Everyone should avoid deleting mention of theories that they do not like--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has the tendency to misuse sources. There shouldn't be any personal message in articles on the basis of some studies. That's called original research per wikipedia rules and not allowed here.--MThekkumthala (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MThekkumthala and Tamilan101: Don't you dare come on here and threaten me, because you find certain information to be politically inconvenient. If you can't use a talk page like everyone else, then you have no business editing anything here. And stop posting the warnings you've received on your talk pages here as they will be deleted in future. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise all of you to start using the talk pages of the articles, and stop, really force yourselves to stop, doing any simple reverts or deletions for the time being. Get your position clear on the article talk page and respond to the position of others. Right now you all look bad, because none of you are giving evidence of trying to understand each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 05:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Indo-Aryan migration shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Peopling of India shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring report

I have filed a report concering the edit-warring between you and User:Tamilan101, it can be found here. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case filed against you on edit warring noticeboard by me too! --MThekkumthala (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Historical definitions of races in India with this edit. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you, Techman224^Talk 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, sir, I am the one under attack here. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

persistant misreporting of Sources

{{ Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --MThekkumthala (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The Helpful One 02:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

On Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a very specific meaning defined at WP:VANDAL. None of the recent edits on Dravidian people appear to meet any of these definitions. Content disputes are never vandalism. Even if the other users are POV pushing as some have claimed, that's still not vandalism. Vandalism always means doing something to intentionally make Wikipedia worse, like blanking whole articles or adding sentences like "Qwyrxian smells funny" into articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot to mention that calling good faith edits vandalism is considered to be a form of personal attack, and thus not allowed. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced statements is not a good faith edit. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The Helpful One 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop edit warring and start discussing changes on Talk pages. Please calm down and have a civilised discussion before making any further changes. Do not make personal attacks against each other, and if you edit war again, you will be blocked without further warning. The Helpful One 23:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bodhidharma7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Actually, none of this is really fair. Let me outline the reasons 1. It was MThekkumathala and a number of his compatriots who aggressively initiated this current edit war by ganging up on me and not using a talk page to resolve differences. 2. I have repeatedly tried to make concessions with these individuals and have sought other editors for conflict resolution (such as Andrew Lancaster), all to no avail. 3. I have even sought page protection in order to facilitate conflict resolution, all to no avail, with me being unjustly blamed as the guilty party by overzealous and hasty editors. 4. All of my edits have actually been restorations of older versions which were up for months, not politically and racially motivated edits made on the spur of the moment. It was the other individuals who actively deleted the material presented, which was both sourced and empirically verifiable mind you, for purely political and racial reasons. 5. MThekkumathala and co. have tried to censor me, by substituting easily verifiable academic sources with their own nonverifiable personal opinions, an egregious offense on their part. 6. I know I may have said some things, but it was all in the service of preserving the academic integrity of wikipedia as a viable source of information. So, with nothing further ado, I recommend that this punishment be removed or at the very least, substantially mitigated. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't about guilty. If editors are just reverting each other, that does nothing towards improving Wikipedia. You need to work with other editors, or failing that, follow the process outlined at WP:DR to resolve your disagreements. You knew this was going to happen. The block expires in a week, please don't do the same thing again then. Prodego ^talk 23:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notification

Hello. This message is to notify you that you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. The thread is Dravidians: Caucasoids or Australoids?. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]