Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:28, 21 May 2010

Archives

1

About Archiving

Hi LG.. Archiving is an easy process. First create a subpage under your talk page. After that cut the portion of your conversations which you like to archive and paste it in the subpage and then save it. Do not forget to add the {{archive}} tag on top of the subpage. Alternatively, you may also use some bots like Mizabot which will archive your page automatically if you add the bot algorithm to your talk page.  arun  talk  06:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You like Cows and Tigers alike..??? I don't believe it.. :D  arun  talk  12:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Nair

Nidhin Chandrasekhar is back with his anti-Nair vandalism. I think we should do something. Axxn (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanam and his vandalism

After vandalizing several related articles, Sanam is now trying to vandalize Nair. Axxn (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Cochin Royal Family. I'll search for some info. Axxn (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi... Sanam has resumed vandalizing Nair articles. Please have a look. Axxn (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

What happened to that image? Axxn (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK.No probs. I'll replace them and make it again. Meanwhile, if you think I've missed any one important, plz inform me. Axxn (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Kutchi Langage Misplaced Pages

Just to inform you, there is a Kutchi Misplaced Pages Test started. If you can assist in any way, please do.

About the recent edit

I dont find anything 'unverifiable' in the citations i have provided in Namadhari naik, almost all of them have been sourced from the topmost library of the nation, from respectable publications (most of them govt. publications) , and adequate references are given. what more is expected? as per wiki policy: The word "source" as used on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer). Everything mentioned has been provided. Undoin it all at mere 'appearance' isnt a prudent action. At the outset it looked like an act of Vandalism. Editing should be more responsible. If peer review is possible for the article by 'knowledgable' members, i openly welcome the same. Let it be decided on merit, not on 'hunch'.

I believe it has to do with the claim on 'Naga/Scythian descent'. well there is no reason why it cant be for any other community other than the 'one' already claiming it. For any doubts i believe you should visit the following site http://historicalleys.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-origin-of-nairs.html

i've put up the same question there. I believe the whole issue can be seen in a more tolerant and positive manner than the one adopted now; atleast for the love of History.

History is no stagnant lake, it is an ever flowing river with streams joining in at regular intervals

Tej smiles (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing 'occupational classification' of castes with the 'Racial' classification. I am myself contesting the classification of Namadhari naiks with the Idigas and Billavas. I dont know from where you saw the proto australoid features among the Halepaiks. if it is there in them, it should be there with other communities of the region also. refer to the link about genetics which talks about Nairs, Ezhavas having similar genetic makeup in Kerala. About Nadavas being the accompanying soldeirs there is hardly any reference. The scholars across Uttara Kannada agree it has to be the Halepaiks as they form the largest community followed by Havyaks and are referred to in one of the oldest texts in the region. The Nadavas themselves believe to have come from Tulunad in around 12-13th century, hence are a late entrants and also miniscule in number.

taking the drastic step of blocking me from editing and regrading my goodfaith edits as war-editing doesnt augur well for wikipedia or your credibility. Instead of having pre-set notions it would have been better if you dealt with it in a more responsible manner. I shall continue to be active in wikipedia even if i am blocked.

Tej smiles (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And also i didnt understand claiming both 'nagavanshi' lineage as well as 'Indo-scyhian' descent. Isnt it well known that we are talking about two different set of people? The reference to Nagas goes back to the times of Arjuna and Krishna, where as the Scythians only arrive as late as 300B.C. I am claiming the 'Naga-Scythian' part of it, ie the probable mingling of Scythian troops and local Naga soldiers. Atleast there is no place for confusion in this atleast.

Tej smiles (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"the scythian practice of matilineality by bunts and nairs is another proof.to claim scythian origins by namadhari is a hoax neither there is a practice of matrinlineality or serpent worship or sharp caucasian feautures among namadhari." I dont know if you have ever seen a Namadhari. You seem to be preoccupied with the Ezhavas and Billavas. I again mention here that these are 'Occupational classifications' only. they cant be and shouldnt be taken to be similar to 'Racial' features. In that manner the 'Idigas' who are totally different in customs and features ahould be held to be same as Namadharis. The racial classification clearly talks about Scythians having Mesorrhine nose and mesocephalic head. you are talking about Caucasoid features here, which clearly is in a another class called Alpine or Armenoid.time to clear some misconceptions? The people of India series by the Anthropological Survey of India talks about Namadharis having matrilineal heredity some time in history and it also talks about the Halepaiks being organised into clans named after Nags or Serpents. incidentally serpent worship formed a major ritual until the coming up of many 'Hero-stones' in the region. even today the remaining Deity-forests or 'Aslesha-Banas' are looked after by the Halepaiks in the Ghats. I again assert, there is a lot in the subject than what meets the eye. With bias or no bias holding my edits as 'vandal' edits is not in good faith. I agree my editing of certain 'Naga' related pages was uncalled for, but i stand by the 'Naga-Scythian' edit. in he page i've not even claimed it, i've just given it as one of the hypothese pending substantive proofs. my endeavour was only to add to the present info. I still believe my contributions are being subjected to undue hounding here which is not good for a common platform as wikipedia.

Tej smiles (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course i know there is a dispute on the veracity of Arjuna or Krishna. I was only talking about the refernce to Naga people in the Khandava dahans chapter. and my dear friend, wasnt the Aryan invasion theory an accepted one till now. do you think is it anymore, and the talk of Dwarka being submerged in sea till recently was held to be a figment of imagination. what has the excavation of underwater city of Dwarka spelt out. I dont know about Jats or for that matter any of present North Indian communities for there is no dependable stability in the assertions. There has been a lot of intermingling among the north Indian communities to arrive at any conclusion. this talk of Naga origin is a recent one among them and is disputed too. they claim to be descendents of Guptas while the Guptas themselves hunted Naga kings. The present baniya caste too claims Gupta lineage and it seems plausible oo. you talk to any Haryanvi jat today and he'll say they are the descendents of the Aryans who came to India, and for that matter any Nortn-Indian about South Indians, they call everybody here Tamils and Negroes. your assertion that all Namadharis have proto autraloid feature reminded me of that. For now the Parashurama's reclaiming of sea is a legend and considered a myth. there is every reason to believe that our ancient people converted a geological phenomenon as a Purana and it is being debated in the circles. there are communties who claim to be from Sarasvati basin and till now sarasvati was supposed to be a myth again. Recent findings in Rajsthan have found a river which fits Sarasvatis description. but again it is 'disputed' about having many unverifiable facts in my page, i dont see any. i've corrected the previous wiki reference. and apart from that one citation none of the other was 'debatable' then why was it taken off?? requires answer. seems to be a unilateral misuse of privileges to me. for that matter i've seen more unverifiable citations in the pages you contribute. need to rectify those. i submit again here that editing out my page was uncalled for and not beyond discussion.

Tej smiles (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You talk abou Namadharis being looked down by Havyaks:). you mean to say the present situation was the same all along History? that thinking needs further study to change. to put it simply, Brahmins look down upon all other communities and everybody else is a Shudra for them. South India never having a 4 class varna system only substantiates this. and to claim that they wouldnt have treated them so if they were the ones accompanying them seems funny and childish. History has been proof for the fluctuations in the destiny of various people. The Meenas of Rajasthan were once rulers before being displaced. today they are in scheduled list. the descendents of Shivaji still belong to the same caste and there is no upward mobility in their status. true they were lauded as true kshatriyas and hindu dharma paripalaks, but only when they had power. Mughals who claimed a pure royal blood have been mentioned as bloodthirsty uncivilised barbarians during the rule of 'Royal' sultans of Delhi. there are always ups and downs you see.

about caucasoid features being a common group i need you to clarify to me further plz. as far as i know ( and my reference) the basic anthropological classification treats them diffrerently and this any student would know. i dont know from where you are basing your explanation. i for example have refered to the widely accepted Risleys classifiaction. what about you?

you say you have seen the Nadava, Havyaks and Halepaiks, in Karwar, and Gokarn. good, should be appreciated. but i never found any so called 'caucasoid' element in Nadavas. if you are talking about the Bunts, i agree. but not nadavas. compared to them the Halepaiks have more similar features. and this is maybe cause of intermixing with other communities (as in Kerala). My contention of Scythian origin was related to the Halepaiks in Ghats because they are the ones more secluded and not without much contact. there are hardly any Nadavas found on Ghats the first landing point though both Havyaks and Halepaiks abound (since historical times)

I agree with the serpent worship tradition among bunts and that could be taken as a Naga tradition too. i have never questioned that. what i question is the the reference to Naga-Scythian people also. Scythians may have had serpent rituals, but they also did have Sati system and this has been the halmark of halepaik history in the district. I dont see any Nadava Sati stones anywhere. About matrilineal descent among Halepaiks http://books.google.com/books?id=tUYWbzjB1S4C&pg=PA276&dq=halepaik&lr=&ei=8Fh9SqTwH4askATQ5JiyCg#v=onepage&q=halepaik&f=false ,yet i dont think the matrilineal descent holds any clues. because in olden times most of the communities all over India followed it. only the rise of Brahmanism changed it. About serpent lineage; in the following link there are many communities with Naga term. i think you would like to include all the communities into ambit of your discussion:) http://books.google.com/books?id=FnB3k8fx5oEC&pg=PA134&dq=nadava&lr=&cd=4#v=onepage&q=nadava&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tej smiles (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont talk about politics but history. and dear friend neither do i have time. The above talks reveal your lack of knowledge about anthropological classifications and in the present subject (not to mention you yourself being a party to dispute and resultant bias), you should leave the adjudication to a neutral party than taking unilateral decisions. I still believe Misplaced Pages is a place for logical and unbiased material for everybody's benefit. I hope to see the same in practice. if you are not able to debate, plz make place 4 someone who can, after undoin all that you have done. your actions are not in good faith my friend. there is a pertinent bias. plz correct it and allow a neutral wikipedian. Tej smiles (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC

"'Nadavas' and 'Havyaks' are the only land owning communities", "Nadavas have caucasoid features", "Nadavas have a history of mistreating Halepaiks", "Scythian and other features come under caucasoid"....these are some of your comments. You want me to reply on that?:) dont make me laugh. Go brush up ur facts kid. just assuming a trendy name doesnt make you knowledgable, u need to have stuff within for that, and that you've shown by blurting out.

I didnt give out details about other communities for the only reason that i wanted to concentrate on my page alone and not start a 'war' here by 'offending' some of their sensibilities. i very well know how much land who owned and where they owned and what has been their status in the last century. and for that i dont need your fantasies to prove. got authentic material.

arguing with you has been such a waste of time. i thought i was arguing with a person who atleast had some sort of knowledge.sorry that my precious time has been lost typing to one who doesnt even know the A of anthropology!! this has also given me the opportunity to see your biased and 'racial' point of view. Respect for all communities was what with which i started out. some bad elements spoil it all. but i still do maintain it.

my page is up for peer review amongst some of the neutral editors. even after the notice you have edited it out, just 2 fwd ur propoganda. i advise you 2 keep away from the page while the wiki takes its own course of action. i warn you from further editing out info

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Tej smiles (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)