{{helpme}}
This user:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarvagnya is simply ignoring sources i extensively provided in the article "classical language" for various facts:
1st edit of him/her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Classical_language&diff=200588557&oldid=200373102
edit comment: "rv bullcrap.. dear ip troll - stop revert warring or you will be blocked."
2nd edit of him/her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Classical_language&diff=200589136&oldid=200588557
edit comment: "sangam lit date fx"
3rd edit of him/her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Classical_language&diff=200589390&oldid=200589136
no edit comment
My sources were from indologists from MIT and from government of india page of classical Tamil and from Archaeological Survey of India institutes. All of these sources provided all necessary dates for identifying the age of Sangam and Vedic literature. I discussed this with various people on talk page very broadly. Do i have to take this "bullcrap" and "ip troll" as it is or what should i do now to prevent any edit escalation with Sarvagnya, since he is not willing to provide any accurate sources like government based ones like mine in example from archaeological survey of india? Sanskritists obviously try anything to push their POV in this article. Please prevent this kind of behaviour... I already told Sarvagnya, that he should use the talk page for any editing, which didn't help anything. I'm quite helpless now. -- 80.108.50.167 ( talk) 18:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC) -- Thirusivaperur ( talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have asked for page protection for the page Classical language and it has been protected for 3 days.No one can edit it till then.You can solve the dispute through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution through the user talk page,the article talk page or through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and further as rightly stated above you can create an account an registering an account .This is optional you can work without creating an account as well. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia.
I notice in this edit that you accused another editor of "vandalism". Leaving a reminder of the three revert rule on your user talkpage is not vandalism and it is inappropriate to refer to it as such. It may be wrong, and you're welcome to explain why, but please start with the assumption that it was placed in good faith. I realise that there is a history between you and this user, but I urge you to try to take the higher path and be the voice of reason.
Here's hoping that your future editing is harmonious and pleasant. Bovlb ( talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
All your activity with respect to article Classical language is consistent with your sole exclusive motivitation for editing that article being to give Tamil priority over Sanskrit, and none of your activity is inconsistent with such a motivation -- and I don't feel any particular need to keep silent about such a situation merely from general overall namby-pambyism. Furthermore, since every other regular editor of that article disagrees with you, it would seem to be incumbent on you to seek external mediation or third opinions or whatever... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Classical language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please note that you are reverting just as much as AnonMoos, and are in the same position to be blocked if you violate 3RR as if they do. Also, stop waving around WP:AGF - 'assuming good faith' is not the same as blindly ignoring all contraversial edits, which is what you are asking AnonMoos to do. Talk Islander 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- dab (𒁳) 17:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
After three months, you are past the "final warning" stage in my book. If I was not myself a party with previous involvement, I would block you myself at this point. Instead, I have asked for review by uninvolved administrators: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Thirusivaperur. -- dab (𒁳) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thirusivaperur ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This was an unneutral decision. There were also other people involved who should have get this block due to 3RR violation. see classical language history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Classical_language&action=history . Please unblock me or block the other persons, too. user:Dbachmann and user:AnonMoos.
Decline reason:
That isn't a reason to unblock you. Also, you reverted more than anyone else. — PhilKnight ( talk) 22:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
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.
See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Thirusivaperur reported by User:Dbachmann (Result: 24 hour block ). — Athaenara ✉ 22:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's a very good reason to unblock me.. -- Thirusivaperur ( talk) 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the WikiProject Dravidian civilizations! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dravidian related topics.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
Wiki Raja (
talk) 08:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the original meaning of the Sanskrit term Vikramaditya? Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you seem to be involved in an edit war on Sanskrit. Please remember that the three-revert rule prohibits users from making more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you should discuss the issue on the article's talk page; continuing to revert will accomplish nothing. It may even get you temporarily blocked. J.delanoy gabs adds 20:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
48 hours for your harassment of Dbachmann, in addition to your general disruption and edit-warring. Please also consider WP:DTTR. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 15:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I have cut the following from Talk:History of Hinduism:
You must never have heard of Mr. Godwin. If you do not wisen up to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, your block lengths will just keep increasing. You are the prime example that just being from somewhere doesn't guarantee you have the least clue about the place in question. I put it to you, if Zara1709 was a German nationalist, wouldn't he obsess over German topics the same way you obsess over Indian topics? Beware. dab (𒁳) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are you monotonously boringly reintroducing exactly the same old heaping load of rubbish when there's a cited reference to the source which YOU yourself requested, stating explicitly that Panini wrote ca. 400 B.C., not in the second century A.D.? Namely, Article "Panini" from The Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition. 2001-07) at Bartleby.com. Suddenly changing the rules in this way by disrespecting your own favored source would seem to be a new low even for you! AnonMoos ( talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
This user:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarvagnya is simply ignoring sources i extensively provided in the article "classical language" for various facts:
1st edit of him/her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Classical_language&diff=200588557&oldid=200373102
edit comment: "rv bullcrap.. dear ip troll - stop revert warring or you will be blocked."
2nd edit of him/her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Classical_language&diff=200589136&oldid=200588557
edit comment: "sangam lit date fx"
3rd edit of him/her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Classical_language&diff=200589390&oldid=200589136
no edit comment
My sources were from indologists from MIT and from government of india page of classical Tamil and from Archaeological Survey of India institutes. All of these sources provided all necessary dates for identifying the age of Sangam and Vedic literature. I discussed this with various people on talk page very broadly. Do i have to take this "bullcrap" and "ip troll" as it is or what should i do now to prevent any edit escalation with Sarvagnya, since he is not willing to provide any accurate sources like government based ones like mine in example from archaeological survey of india? Sanskritists obviously try anything to push their POV in this article. Please prevent this kind of behaviour... I already told Sarvagnya, that he should use the talk page for any editing, which didn't help anything. I'm quite helpless now. -- 80.108.50.167 ( talk) 18:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC) -- Thirusivaperur ( talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have asked for page protection for the page Classical language and it has been protected for 3 days.No one can edit it till then.You can solve the dispute through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution through the user talk page,the article talk page or through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and further as rightly stated above you can create an account an registering an account .This is optional you can work without creating an account as well. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia.
I notice in this edit that you accused another editor of "vandalism". Leaving a reminder of the three revert rule on your user talkpage is not vandalism and it is inappropriate to refer to it as such. It may be wrong, and you're welcome to explain why, but please start with the assumption that it was placed in good faith. I realise that there is a history between you and this user, but I urge you to try to take the higher path and be the voice of reason.
Here's hoping that your future editing is harmonious and pleasant. Bovlb ( talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
All your activity with respect to article Classical language is consistent with your sole exclusive motivitation for editing that article being to give Tamil priority over Sanskrit, and none of your activity is inconsistent with such a motivation -- and I don't feel any particular need to keep silent about such a situation merely from general overall namby-pambyism. Furthermore, since every other regular editor of that article disagrees with you, it would seem to be incumbent on you to seek external mediation or third opinions or whatever... AnonMoos ( talk) 10:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Classical language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please note that you are reverting just as much as AnonMoos, and are in the same position to be blocked if you violate 3RR as if they do. Also, stop waving around WP:AGF - 'assuming good faith' is not the same as blindly ignoring all contraversial edits, which is what you are asking AnonMoos to do. Talk Islander 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- dab (𒁳) 17:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
After three months, you are past the "final warning" stage in my book. If I was not myself a party with previous involvement, I would block you myself at this point. Instead, I have asked for review by uninvolved administrators: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Thirusivaperur. -- dab (𒁳) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thirusivaperur ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This was an unneutral decision. There were also other people involved who should have get this block due to 3RR violation. see classical language history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Classical_language&action=history . Please unblock me or block the other persons, too. user:Dbachmann and user:AnonMoos.
Decline reason:
That isn't a reason to unblock you. Also, you reverted more than anyone else. — PhilKnight ( talk) 22:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
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.
See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Thirusivaperur reported by User:Dbachmann (Result: 24 hour block ). — Athaenara ✉ 22:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's a very good reason to unblock me.. -- Thirusivaperur ( talk) 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the WikiProject Dravidian civilizations! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dravidian related topics.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
Wiki Raja (
talk) 08:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the original meaning of the Sanskrit term Vikramaditya? Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you seem to be involved in an edit war on Sanskrit. Please remember that the three-revert rule prohibits users from making more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you should discuss the issue on the article's talk page; continuing to revert will accomplish nothing. It may even get you temporarily blocked. J.delanoy gabs adds 20:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
48 hours for your harassment of Dbachmann, in addition to your general disruption and edit-warring. Please also consider WP:DTTR. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 15:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I have cut the following from Talk:History of Hinduism:
You must never have heard of Mr. Godwin. If you do not wisen up to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia, your block lengths will just keep increasing. You are the prime example that just being from somewhere doesn't guarantee you have the least clue about the place in question. I put it to you, if Zara1709 was a German nationalist, wouldn't he obsess over German topics the same way you obsess over Indian topics? Beware. dab (𒁳) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are you monotonously boringly reintroducing exactly the same old heaping load of rubbish when there's a cited reference to the source which YOU yourself requested, stating explicitly that Panini wrote ca. 400 B.C., not in the second century A.D.? Namely, Article "Panini" from The Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition. 2001-07) at Bartleby.com. Suddenly changing the rules in this way by disrespecting your own favored source would seem to be a new low even for you! AnonMoos ( talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)