User talk:MThekkumthala

Welcome!

Hello, MThekkumthala, 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) 03:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Haasan

Don't remove the Hindi name from the article. Tamil is provided as it is her mother tongue, Hindi as she made her debut there. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Shruti Haasan. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. How is it IDENTITY RAPE ??? As I said, she made her debut in HINDI, her mother is MAHARASHTRIAN. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Cinema

south indian film industry content redirected to cinema of India, all the info is provided in cinema of india, based on point of view, separate article is not required (Hiteccity (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

South Indian Film Industry

1. POV, Each indian film industry is individual in its own terms and have individual articles in wikipedia.
2. There is no single south indian film industry, Hindi film is also a part of revenue generation.
3. The gross revenues of each Indian film industry varies each year, Hindi Film Revenue in 2011 is higher.
4. There is no notability for this article, Instead it creates confusion and it not feasible to shift all the references and information from Cinema of India article.
5. Please obey the three revert rule.
6. The information in south indian film industry article is already provided in cinema of india article, please check it.

(GarylawyerNFA (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

sockpuppet investigation

Let the admin decide about sock puppetry. South Indian film industry article is not notable (GarylawyerNFA (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Dont spoil my user page

(GarylawyerNFA (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

explain why u think its notable, and come to consensus dont abuse other editors

(GarylawyerNFA (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Please remove ur sock puppet request concern and talk why u think south indian film industry article is notable, and come to consensus, do not abuse

(GarylawyerNFA (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

(GarylawyerNFA (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Brahmanism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Indo-Iranian and Pada

Vedism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Amsa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 1 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. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a misunderstanding

This dispute is pointless. If you knew how to read properly, you would realize that I am on your side. In fact, all of the evidence I have presented so far refutes the Indigenous Aryan theory. Why you can't see that is a mystery to me. English is obviously not your first language. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who is better in English, you or me.. try to understand the studies before editing nonsense.--MThekkumthala (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you've been consistently misinterpreting these studies suggests that your English is far worse. You should try understanding the evidence first before making sweeping revisions.Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on to you

I'm on to you as well. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sry im not gay. --MThekkumthala (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I call truce

OK, let's put an end to this, because I'm getting bored.

Let's compromise. How about we combine both points of view into both articles? Because we will be fighting for ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidharma7 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me what you want and I'll approve it, provided both points of view are represented. Fair enough? This is my final peace offering. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll even let you do the editing, as long as both views are mentioned, I have no problem. They will not be erased. Well? --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely nothing to support your POV.. that's why you are doomed to vandalize wp by disinformation campaigns. that's total desperation and is best cured by your resignment of wp activities. This is not the Pakistani parliament.. this is an encyclopedia..--MThekkumthala (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Dravidian peoples with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tgeairn (talk) 01:52, 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 01:59, 8 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).

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

Request reason:

i reverted a user, who inserted content to varous articles, which were not nearly backed by the sources. Talks on talkpages have revealed an arrogant editor, who reported again and again false information about the sources he had provided. A look at the wp:vandalism gives the information, that this behaviour is classified as sneaky vandalism. Maybe this explains why this editwar happened. I was thinking about protecting this website in good faith.--MThekkumthala (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No one is doubting your own good faith; that is not what this block is about. You are in a simple content dispute with at least three editors - I'm not even sure which one you are accusing of "sneaky vandalism". When your block expires, it would be best to resolve' the discussion on the article's talk page before engaging in any more reverts. Since you feel you are in the right, it should be a simple matter to convince the other good faith editors and gain a consensus for your changes. Kuru (talk) 03:30, 8 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.

You may want to read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Also, you've been at least as combative and appear to be supporting an agenda at least as much, if not moreso. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 8 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).

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

Request reason:

I have no problem with stopping reverting at all or quitting WP. The problem is, that the particular user misreports his own sources constanstantly at the talkpage of the article.. how can you discuss with someone like that for let's say 20 hours without having to consult a mental asylum? How could I give a good faith assesment to such an editor? If you want to know, which guy I'm talking about, it is User:Bodhidharma7. He edited thus far only in some topics with the same core subjects about ANI=Aryans and ASI=Dravidians=Australoids: Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia, ‎Dravidian peoples,etc.. He began some months ago demoralizing other editors with the same tactical behaviour, just as he's trying it with me now. The reeult is this editwar, cause I didn't let him play this game further. Rather I go to hell with him. I know, this sounds a bit extreme, but extreme behaviour demands an extreme reaction. If you need to block me, do it. I know my fight is not your fight.--MThekkumthala (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're still missing the point: it does not matter whether you're right or not, edit warring is never permitted. The intent of this brief block is to get you to stop those actions, and let you read/understand the dispute resolution process, so that you may apply it to your future editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:18, 8 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.

Let's see... In Dravidian peoples, he added:

"Indians are classified by modern anthropologists as belonging to one of four different morphological or ethno-racial subtypes, although these generally overlap because of admixture: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito," citing a source which says "All the four major morphological types—Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito are present in the Indian population"... That checks out and is in no way misrepresentation of sources. The source also meets the reliable source guidelines
"Dravidians are generally classified as members of the Proto-Australoid or Australoid race" citinga source which says "Since in the current ethnohistoric literature the terms Caucasoid and Proto-Australoid are commonly used to indicate Indo-Aryan and Dravidian ancestry, in this paper we will use the terminology of Caucasoid for Indo-Aryan and Proto-Australoid for Dravidian interchangeably"... Although the page requires an account with the Wiley Online Library, that is no reason to exclude the source.
"In one study, southern Indian Dravidians clustered genetically with Tamils, a socially endogamous, predominantly Dravidian-speaking Australoid group" citing a source which says "Population groups inhabiting Tamil Nadu have the distinction of belonging to the Dravidian linguistic family and are predominantly of Australoid ethnicity"... That does group them together.

He has provided sources. All you did on the talk page was start off accusing him of POV editing without providing any evidence, and tell him that the sources did not support his statements, even though there is no sane and intelligent way to interpret those sources as not supporting his additions. (Heck, I'm having trouble coming up with insane and unintelligent ways to interpret those sources as not supporting his additions).

Please quote the portion of the sources which shows that he is misinterpreting them, or you will not appear dishonest the next time you say that stuff. As it is, you have presented no evidence, and his sources appear to check out. Starting off with baseless accusations is not discussion which will help the encyclopedia.

Rather than cite reliable sources which actually countered what he cited, you cited a screen play as if it had any relevance, which is ridiculous, a few older (outdated) and politically motivated sources which run counter to all work outside of India.

There are other changes of yours are concerning:

Bodhidharma7 added one portion saying "Because of admixture between Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid racial groups, one cannot speak of a biologically separate "Dravidian race" distinct from non-Dravidians on the Indian subcontinent" citing a source which says "historical gene flow into India has contributed to a considerable obliteration of genetic histories of contemporary populations so that there is at present no clear congruence of genetic and geographical or sociocultural affinities." That matches the source. You changed it to "Upper castes of North India have genetically more in common with Central Asian/West Eurasian populations than South Indian upper castes, who are more similar to East Asians," eliminating the Australoid portion or the connection to Dravidian peoples. That was misrepresentation of sources on your part, not his.
Bodhidharma7 added one portion saying that "The intermingling of ANI's and ASI's happened in the same period as the ANI's first appeared, 1,200-3,500 years ago, which roughly coincides with the Indo-Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent," citing

a source which (when the correct link is loaded) says "Our analyses suggest that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent." You removed "In the same period as the ANI's first appeared," as if the ANIs were not Indo-Aryan (which you changed to Aryan). Bodhidharma7's edit was more in line with the sources, yours curiously left out odd bits of information.

This, combined with your statement at WP:AN/EW: "To be proud to be a Dravidian means also being solidary with fellow Dravidians in their fight against darkness in persona of Bodhidarma and his Aryan fellowship" really only show you to be the POV-pusher misrepresenting sources to push a racist agenda. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've highlighted the general issue. Thank you. I have no problem with coming up with something different on all the points you listed here. Which again turns into disruptive editing etc. That's why I always insist on giving only information into articles, which are really backed as they are provided by the source itself. Own interpretations can be very wrong, and in case of Bodhidharma7, it is totally annoying. I suggest you and Bodhidharma take a short break and think about this. It may lighten your mind up, coming to the same conclusion as me, that we should not weigh in our own opinions into the articles. Everything here is misinforming slightly, and Bodhidharma knows this very well. But these little, small things make here the big difference about race and identity of 200 million people. The fact, that Admins now really think about my future is making me proud already and gives me at least some hope for this great wp. --MThekkumthala (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that your interpretations are insane and/or unintelligent? I don't get it, why would Wikipedia want such interpretations? And will you demonstrate how what Bodhidharma7 has said is misinforming? You keep saying so, but provide no evidence whatsoever. In the face of evidence to the contrary, such claims only comes off as dishonest and irrational. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Dravidian peoples. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sry, you have no idea how much energy has gone into this war. is it good faith when somebody classifies a lion as a cat? don't believe so--MThekkumthala (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Hittite, Punjab and Pre-Germanic

South Indian film industry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bhakta Prahlada

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 8 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).

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

Request reason:

I did all attempts for coming into a discussion with opponents including User:Bodhidarma7. This is displayed by my good faith behaviour in going by the dispute resolution process called Request for Comments on the article talkpage. This was part of my learning process during my last block, which involved User:Bodhidarma7. Further I can't tolerate personal attacks in an edit summary against my person, which needed to be reverted on Dravidian peoples. He was warned for such behaviour earlier by another user. I hence request an explanation, what I actually did wrong and an unblock. --MThekkumthala (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What another editor did doesn't negate what you did. You can't simply edit war with another editor because you disagree with them, you have to work together, or failing that, follow the dispute resolution process. The block edits in a week, please don't do the same thing when it expires. Prodego ^talk 23:31, 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.

Farewell --MThekkumthala (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Dravidian peoples. Your 4th edit after the last block expired was to make the same edits that got you blocked for edit warring last time. You are clearly not getting it. You must discuss the issue on the article talk page, and if you cannot get consensus, you must use dispute resolution. If you are unwilling to edit collaboratively, you cannot edit Wikipedia. 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 22 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).

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

Request reason:

is this block really justified? An edit war after 1 edit with last edit @Dravidian peoples being 1 week old? This is ridiculous. It just seems that the Admin has a special interest to keep a POV there. Also some truth about white people @Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts Dravidians: Caucasoids or Australoids? may have influenced this crazy decision. Caucasian race/Asian race=Albinos--MThekkumthala (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, this block is justified: after a lengthy block for edit warring you immediately continued what you've benn blocked for, it wasn't helpful to wait for you to start a full-fledged edit war. The only way for you to avoid blocking is to stop reverting. Max Semenik (talk) 09:13, 22 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Who says, that I would have engaged in an editwar? Based on my reasoning it's quite obvious, that it is was not in my intention. I would be stupid to repeat the same mistakes, that led to my previous blocks. I will topic ban myself for 1 month, if you need proof for my good intentions. This should eliminate all doubts about my person--MThekkumthala (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is not a question of whether you "would have engaged in an edit war": you did engage in an edit war. Following the expiry of your last block, this edit substantially repeated what you had been repeatedly been doing before that block, as for example here, here, here, here. Do you imagine for some reason that continuing an edit war which has been interrupted by a block somehow doesn't count as edit warring? You have now been blocked four times for edit warring, and time and again you make unblock requests which completely miss the point. If you really are as unaware of what you have been doing as you claim, then it is likely that you lack the level of understanding required to edit Wikipedia, and if so you will probably be blocked indefinitely. Your offer of a voluntary topic ban might be acceptable if it weren't for the fact that your persistent denials of what is visible for all to see cast doubt on the reliability of your assurances. Your own assessment is "I would be stupid to repeat the same mistakes, that led to my previous blocks." Well, you did repeat the same mistake, as the diffs I have given show. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 22 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.

so you call me stupid, right?--MThekkumthala (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC) the only stupid thing here is administrators, who can't enforce neutral viewpoints or can't describe policies as precise as necessary. I shit on this webpage. We in India say: Satyameva Jayathe: Only truth triumphs. Farewell. --MThekkumthala (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't call you stupid. I simply pointed out that you had done something that you said would mean you were stupid. That is not at all the same as saying that I think you are stupid. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of South Indian film industry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article South Indian film industry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Indian film industry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Secret of success (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]