User talk:Sunilsrivastava
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Indian philosophy, is not consistent with our policy on attribution and verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you added the following material to Out of India theory and Proto-Indo-Europeans.
According to DNA Study by National Geography Genographic Project, (there was a reporting in main line news medias, like San Jose Mercury News in early 2006 as well) that Europeans were settled from people of Northern India descent as part of the study done on the Mitochondria DNA (not the nucleus DNA which is half-half from each parent in normal pregnancy or 100% of mother's nucleus DNA in parthenogenesis or virgin birth observed in Giant Lizard, Sharks, and reported in Religion Mythos like of Christ), which does not change except for some time event markers, and is same as mother's and mother' mother's and so on. See https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html. The time frame shows around 50,000 BC to 40,000 BC that this migration took place. This may explain why there is Prototype similarity in Languages and Religion mythos and supports Out of India Migration Hypothesis.
You cite the "National Geography [sic] Genographic Project" and the San Jose Mercury News. You need to point out exactly where the Genographic Project or the San Jose Mercury News says that Europe was settled from people of North Indian descent. Just mentioning them in passing is not enough. JFD 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Abraham
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as those in Abraham, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! -- Avi 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Avraham,
I think you are making a mistake. What I have shown is nothing but what Anacalypsis has discussed. I am merely trying to show linguistic rules and references which I have shown do talk about it. Looks like Wikipedia would win over content by people who have time to keep rejecting other meanigful statements.
[edit] No original research
One of wikipedia's primary pillars is that of WP:No original research. Please read that policy carefully. While it may be frustrating, it is policy, and violations of the policy will be corrected. Thank you. -- Avi 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why articles of OR of Gene Matlock and Geoffery Higgins is covered then? They are not accepted main stream research.
[edit] Pointcast
Thank you for leaving the note on my talk page. First, you say that you "do not understand why people choose to communicate like masters and hide behind the psudonames." I think by this you mean to suggest that edits by people who use their own names are more reliable. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who you are. I could easily create an account under the name "BillGates," but that would not make me an authority on Microsoft.
Second, you claim that none of your edits were editorial in nature, and assert that you "happened to be the guy who delivered to Pointcast and know what went on."
You may well be an expert in Pointcast; we have no way of knowing. However, Wikipedia is not a forum for people to post their personal recollections and opinions on topics. That is what personal web pages and blogs are for. If you review the official Wikipedia policy on original research, you will see that your claim to personal knowledge actually requires that other editors remove the information you added to that page. If you can find objective third party sources for your claims, then please reinsert them with appropriate footnotes. Until then, they have no place in Wikipedia. Uucp 14:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I think people can leave any name behind, but leaving a meaningful name and saying somehting is better. But you are right, that anyone can claim that they are so and so. I think for this reason, people need to have an electronic Tagged ID that is verifiable. Now I need to go back and read Pointcast page again and see what is a "third party" referred source. I see there are so many pages in Wikipedia which do not qualify for this. Maybe they need to have "Tags" which say the information is at what level verifiable - like a color coded scheme or a filter scheme.
[edit] Re: your message
I have nothing against your blog in particular, but on wikipedia we don't link to blogs unless they are written by a noted authority in the field, or perhaps by the subject of a biographical article. Unfortunately your blog falls in neither of those categories. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID for more information on the topic. Abecedare (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've just asked me why I removed your link, and I see above that you have already been told the answer, so you knew not to keep adding it to articles. --Doug Weller (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
