User talk:Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman

question

what are all these names Anthuvan, Adhi, Adagar, Alagan and so on? could you please explain what "clans" mean in Kongu Vellalars? --CarTick (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthuvan, Adhi, Adagar, Alagan these are clan names

what "clans" mean in Kongu Vellalars?

Rituals played and still play an important part in the hindu Community.The Gounders(kongu vellalar) are no exceptions.This community is sub-divided into Kulams(clans).Each Kulam(clan) has its own name and some of them date back to the Sangam Age.Ati kulam.Antuvan Kulam,Antaikulam are few examples of the names.A special study is necessary to enumerate the entire number.Marriage between members of the same Kulam(clan) are the direct descendants of one and the same ancestor after whom the kulam(clan) is often named.A penetrative study of these kulams(clans) takes as dangerously near Freud,s interpretation of similar sub-divisions(clans) in his 'Totem & Taboo' .Each Kulam has its own invincible, 'presiding deity' but it is not rare to encounter three or four different kulams with the same kula Teyvam(presiding deity). often it is one of the numerous forms of KALI which is the Kula Teyvam and less frequently the earliest ancestor of the sub-sect is elevated to the rank of the kula Teyvam.

i think so this will explain you clearly Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these Kulams endogamous? --CarTick (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we will not marry in same kulam/kottam/gotra/clan because they are brothers and sisters , ex:my clan/kulam/kottam/gothra poosan(pushan/pucan) clan, who ever belongs to poosan clan they are my brother and sister ,i can't take bride within my clan(pucan). so kulams are Exogamy. but technically i can take only the bride from other 213 clans/kulam/kottam/gotra within my caste.(so my caste is Endogamy) my caste(kongu vellala gounder) is group of 214 clans . in clan wise we were exogamy in caste wise we were endogamy

this clan/kottam/kulam/Gotra concept has another genetic dimension.. a male contains XY chromosome and the female contains XX chromosome.. so son of a man can only inherit that Y chromosome.. in a particular lineage, the Y chromosome is continuously preserved through sons..

so a man’s son has his Y chromosome, and the X chromosome of his wife.. but his grandson has his Y chromosome, but definitely not his wife’s X chromosome..

genetically Y linkage is clan/kulam/kottam/gotra linkage i think so i had explained clearlyPalani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why do you say you "were" endogamy? do these Kulams still exist? are everyone in your caste aware of their Kulams? --CarTick (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in my caste(kongu vellala gounder) every one is aware of this, during marriage time we enquire about their kulam ,we the people never lost our clan identity,you can see still marriage invitation, they kulam/kottam/clan/gotra name of boy and girl will mentioned , if the person is belongs to my caste we will ask first question to them enna kottam(which clan/kulam/kottam/gotra do u belong)

It is common practice in preparation for Hindu marriage to inquire about the kula-gotra (meaning clan lineage) of the bride and groom before approving the marriage. In almost all Hindu families, marriage within the same gotra is prohibited, since people with same kulam/kottam/clan/gotra are considered to be siblings. But marriage within the jati/caste is allowed and even preferred. this line will summarize you clearly Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i should have been aware of these things. sorry if it sounded naive. anyways, do you know why you were blocked? --CarTick (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have no idea, i had just edited one article that too in discussion Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—SpacemanSpiff 15:32, 30 April 2011 (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).

Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

just now i had created my account , i was blocked , i am a new user Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block reason is plausible and at any rate your contributions do not seem helpful. Sandstein 20:09, 30 April 2011 (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).

Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i need reason from administrator , how do you people concluded me as a some other personPalani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

you are an obvious sockpuppet, and your innocent-sounding denials, below, are not believable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:32, 1 May 2011 (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.

Hi, I'm not an administrator but the short answer is: the way you write, what you say and where you say it. The chances of there being two such people are pretty slim. You are clearly not new to Wikipedia, even though this username may be new. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so ,my formated writeing way in discussion is reason of blocking correct Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, what you mean in your sentence? Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the block notice says, you are considered to be one of many sockpuppets of a long-term abuser here. Every time one gets blocked, another appears. I think that perhaps you need to give up. You have already appealed and the reviewing administrator agreed with the blocking administrator. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where do i abuse here? if new user came and discussed , you people(administrator or others) says you was related to another person so we will block you, what is reason to consider me as one of many sockpuppets of this user ? Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why i want to have many accounts? Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I thought that you would have learned your lesson by now. I am not responding further, You are becoming tendentious and have gone into your typical pseudo-naive mode, which is yet another trait of the socks in question when they are challenged or blocked. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2011 (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).

Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

how do you people concluded me as a some other person? still nobody has answered to this question Palani Anda Nadu Kongan venman (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In point of fact that question has been answered, more than once. At this point it feels like you are fishing for more detail so that you can better avoid detection in the future. We won't be helping you out in that department, and your access to this talk page is being revoked. If you wish to contest thsi block further you may contact the ban appeals subcommittee by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (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.

Interesting. A suspected IP sock of Pondeephankar was blocked two hours ago for vandalism at the talk page of User:Sodabottle and now you reappear here with a malformed unblock request. Hm. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]