User talk:Altruism

Altruism is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia . Professional commitments.

Welcome to Altruism's talk page. Please click here, to post your comment and do sign using 4 tilde marks (~) at its end. Replies on your Talk page. Thank you. Altruism is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Tuesday 10 June 08 20:46UTC

Archives

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20

Contents 1 Please unblock 2 Reasoning accepted. Unblocked yet Unable to edit 3 Reply 4 Welcome! 5 Vandalism 6 Craig Venter 7 User:70.255.139.2 8 Thank you!! 9 Unfair 10 AIV Reports 11 race 12 September 2007 13 Dravidian civilizations 14 Appeal against the block 15 Comments 16 Original greetings in Telugu 17 Hello 18 Speedy deletion of Template:History of Andhra 19 Speedy deletion of Template:CURRENTDDMMYY 20 Speedy deletion of Template:CURRENTMMDDYY

[edit] Please unblock

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Reasoning acceptable Request handled by: Jmlk17 09:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule categorically says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period."

How can 7 minutes after the 24 hrs. be considered? --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 08:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The "DECLINE REASON is wrong!!!" 3RR is accepted in 24 hrs. What isn't is 4RR or more in 24hrs. Plz. get the math right. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 09:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoning accepted. Unblocked yet Unable to edit

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 202.189.243.102 lifted or expired. Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  11:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

What irritated me was you terming my proper tags as vandalism (indirectly meaning that I am a vandal) and asking me to keep things to myself. A proper glance of an article is sufficient to make out the peacock terms and undue glorification that are present but you ignored that and went ahead to revert my tags. As I said, I could have gone ahead and removed those sections totally, rather than pointing it out. But I left it to the authors to do something about it because they have better expertise on the subject than me and they know it better to improve it. By the way, I dont have anything personal against you nor anybody else for that matter. I think we should end this matter here, Thanks...

PS: May be you should also look at Guntur, contains too many images some of whose copyright and fairness are suspect (which I have tagged). May be Andhra Pradesh as well, it is a pity that such an important article is in a bad shape. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarrg (talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines related to proper images are here. Thanks... -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}06:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Please feel free to arrange the members usernames in alphabetical order if you want. Regards. Wiki Raja 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Chronological would be good. Regards. Wiki Raja 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Vandals are destroying articles related to Andhra Pradesh, Telugu language, Telugu script, Bhattiprolu and many articles related to Telugu history. These people, about eight, have ganged up and are helping each other to prevent unbiased contributions. The history of South India and even that of the whole of India is being painted as that belonged to a linguistic group. History is being re-written on the basis of a couple of books written by parochial and localized historians and a couple of websites devoted to regional agenda and chauvanistic tendencies. A perusal of their contributions and citations will make my point obvious. I appeal to you to regularly visit Telugu and Andhra-relaated articles and prevent vandalism by these mischief makers.Kumarrao 06:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Venter

Yes. I read about it in today's newspapers. I work in a closely related area (plant molecular biology) and am of aware the past research and future implications. You might have noticed the charges levelled against me. I appealed to the administrators but in vain. Whatever little time I am able to spend on Wiki is turning out to be like searching for an oasis in the desert sands.Kumarrao 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.255.139.2

User:70.255.139.2 has not vandalized after final warning, and therefor should not be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thank you! Tiptoety 05:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, are you saying this user is a sockpupet? Otherwise if you look as the users contribs it shows he has made one edit, and only one. If you belive he is a sockpupet then report him to the proper place, and i would be willing to help you do that if you like. Tiptoety 05:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and place the IP address in the form under the table of contents, fallow the instructions. When you get to the edit this page window it will ask you to place any other IP addresses that may belong to the user, place the other IP address there, it will ask you to insert a code letter, insert the letter A, then give a reason for the request. If you need any other help let me know. Good luck. Tiptoety 05:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks very good! Tiptoety 13:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!!

Thank you so much for the barnstar! How did the check user come out? Tiptoety 04:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair

You are going out of your way in trying to block User:Mbrdnbry which is clearly unfair. You have already reported him once here which has been thrown out and you go ahead and report him once more here, (which has again been thrown out) even when he has not done a single edit since your first report? Whom are you trying to please? What are you trying to do, canvassing/pleading with admins just to get this guy blocked? May be you should work towards getting the tags from Dravidian civilizations removed; before notifying anyone who is properly removing templates which have been wrongly put in the first place. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Mind your language (nothing was "thrown out"). Who are you to speak for that user? What is your interest in this case? The account was created for the sole purpose of template removal, one which hasn't been removed. Removal definitely warrants an explanation if not a discussion. Addition of templates needs no explanation. -Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 07:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your report was thrown out, that is what happened... Who are you to pull him to the admin wrongly? If you can pull him to the admin, I can as well speak for him. My interest in this case is as equal to that of yours. Your reasoning is skewed. You can add templates if there is a proper reason for doing so. You cant create your own POV template and keep adding it everywhere without justification and expect others to keep quiet about it. I have shown you in umpteen places that this template is disputed and warrants a discussion. If you cannot understand this, that is your problem. For the nth time, click on this link and see the tags and see the discussion here. I have bolded it so that you can see. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reserve the crap. I didn't pull him wrongly. The link you are showing is of an article, while I'm talking of a template. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 08:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The crap is all yours. If you know simple nursery English, it should not be difficult for you to understand that the template is based on that article -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't respond to trash and don't spam my talk page. First read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dravidian_civilizations. Lets see if you know even the alphabets.--Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 08:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and this is what the closing admin said: What is clear is that there are significant parts of the article that are disputed and the way forward is for those concerned editors to initiate a thorough-going rewrite. Since, it is disputed, status-quo should be maintained. You are the one contributing to the trash and spam, no point in blaming me -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See, the article may need to be re-written, but the template is different in purpose and only identifies with its name "Dravidian civilization." Only if its irrelevant can the template be removed, not for other reasons incl. grouses that some culture hasn't been appropriately represented or magnified. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 08:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See, the meaning of Dravidian Civilizations itself is disputed as can be seen in the same link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dravidian_civilizations. There was no consensus on it. So I think we should all wait on the consensus, which will then identify the scope of Dravidian Civilizations and then decide on what to do about the template. Why do you want to jump the gun when there is a clear dispute -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Again you've got me wrong. If its disputed let the dispute go one way, clearly, unambiguously. Why does that user take it as a challenge and go on removing templates. Can't he indulge in constructive edits. I never imagined that you wouldn't like Dravidian topics. Without your (you and your friends) contribution they are 25% lost! --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 09:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know about you, but honestly I have never been taught nor believed in the concept of Dravidian Civilizations, it is only in Wikipedia that I am seeing this term. A project is acceptable and valid, if it has been brought about in a proper way involving consensus. Just by cooking up something and trying to sell it, does not take anyone anywhere. If it was a good topic, honestly, do you feel there would have been so much opposition to it in the Afd. The templates were added in such a manner that I dont see anything wrong in the way it was removed. And by the way, I see that the so called Dravidian things are essentially being skewed to just one region of South India, which itself is questionable. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I really don't know why there's so much opposition from you and your friends. The template and the topic seem relevant enough. A topic is skewed. Content in an article can only be relevant to it. Foreign facts can't be included. Aren't all the languages, cultures of a similar nature? They are and this is no different. If anybody is unhappy about the article's coverage, they can contribute and make their facts heard within the ambit of WP rules. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The dravidian template was created with an agenda that all of south India is dravidian. This is historically wrong. In fact apart from Tamil Nadu/Kerela where the dravidian movement had/has some momentum, other states in the south are alien to this concept. I agree with Amar. This is a new concept to us in Karnataka. Branding every topic in South India as Dravidian is utterly wrong. I had mentioned in the "vote" section for the article itself, that if this article is allowed to go thru, Wiki Raja will be dropping templates in every South India topic. This is not right. First the concerned article needs to be thoroughly cleaned up to accurately reflect what the author wants to convey (which is a haze right now). Even after the clean up, a discussion should made w.r.t. every article he wants to plop the template into, before it goes in there. This is a uphill task, but so is the topic.Dineshkannambadi 12:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, i believe that User:Altruism (unless told otherwise by a admin) should be able and is allowed to put any user up for consideration of a block if s/he believes it is justified, any other user who disagrees may state so to the admin or add a comment to the report forum and allow a admin to make the final decision. But like i said before if an admin does inform User:Altruism that s/he was in the wrong and needs to be more careful when putting users up for consideration than s/he needs to do so. Tiptoety 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do advise that you (Altruism) be very carefull when putting users up for blocking consideration, as you can get yourself in hot water if you do so without proper justification. Tiptoety 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV Reports

I know you are trying to help, but some of your reports on AIV are not necessary. If a user goes away after being warned a half hour or hour ago, especially after just making a few edits, there is no need for it to be blocked. Blocks in these cases are only if an administrator finds the IP or user before a warning can be issued. As for the longterm user whom you reported, another established user supported him, so I felt uncomfortable about that report as well. Academic Challenger 07:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually read what the IP wrote. What matters is that nothing has happened in the last hour. I will definitely have that page watched. Academic Challenger 07:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But if it is blocked, if it is dynamic another one will come. Academic Challenger 07:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race

Very interesting reply on race. You have made a complex issue dogging scores of anthropologists so simple. Let tme explain to you something. Do you know why Karnataka is one of those states that does not even have a regional political party based on language, let alone on race? Because we identify ourselves as Indian, not by a race or any other narrow concept. Please keep your racial theories to yourself.Dineshkannambadi 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made anything simple. It still is complex issue. I haven't reached any conclusion in the above post. So seems you've either misunderstood or jumping to conclusions. What's KRV by the way? I don't have to hear it from you about "Indian" nonsense. We all know who's narrow-minded, race/state/language chauvanistic. You involved yourself in the discussion on my talk page and after receiving a polite response, revealed your true colours, by your language (your last sentence.) So I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself in the first place. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 05:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:35.11.50.138, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Tiptoety 03:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot does sign sometimes, but it is still nice to sign it, and just in case the bot doesn't, thank you! Happy Editing!! Tiptoety 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dravidian civilizations

For your repeated revert warring at the above article over the course of several days, you have been blocked for 72 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. After my post on Blnguyen's page, I didn't expect something different from his friend.--Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 05:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal against the block

[edit] Comments

You broke 3RR on September 7.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't carry out more than 3 reverts. Individual edits don't count as reverts. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 06:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One, two, three, four in two hours. Sarvagnya 06:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

three is not a revert. I did only 3R in 24 hours. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly a revert. You have removed the tag, that means you have undone another editor's efforts with that edit, which is a revert per WP:3RR rule.

And you havent taken part in any worthwhile discussions on the talk page either. And you didnt bat an eyelid before you made any of your blind reverts with edit summaries like "...Discuss and get a consensus, before further such edits..." Sarvagnya 06:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need your comments. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

three and four don't match One and two. How does this become 4RR? - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 06:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Blnguyen, you need to look at your assertion regarding the 3RR violation on 7 September. There were only four edits to Dravidian Civilisation article on that day by User:Altruism and as I have pointed out above they weren't all same reverts. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Parthi, No. Your assertion is not true. Please read WP:3RR policy again. Reverts need not be same. Reverts need not be in full. Partial reverts, unrelated reverts count together for 3RR puposes. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that 7 min over 24 hours dosn't some how magically protect you from the 3RR. 3 reverts is not an entitlement and if you continue to treat it as such you will keep getting blocked for edit waring. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original greetings in Telugu

Hi,

I have heard that in Telugu greetings it is Namaskaram or Namaskaramu which are both from Sanskrit. Is there an original Telugu version for greetings? Wiki Raja 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Dear Altruism,

When do you plan to revisit Wiki? I have given an exhaustive list of citations in the article Kamma (caste). Comments?Kumarrao (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:History of Andhra

A tag has been placed on Template:History of Andhra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:CURRENTDDMMYY

A tag has been placed on Template:CURRENTDDMMYY requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:CURRENTMMDDYY

A tag has been placed on Template:CURRENTMMDDYY requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)