User talk:Thirusivaperur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Classical language article

{{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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Classical_language&diff=200589136&oldid=200588557 edit comment: "sangam lit date fx" 3rd edit of him/her: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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 will leave a note for Sarvagnya, but I suggest that you explore some of the options listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Also, please considering registering an account and using edit summaries. Bovlb (talk) 19:55, 24 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)

Thanks to both of you. I'll do my best. And i'm considering seriously now to get a nickname. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Thirusivaperur! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! MBisanzBot (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR notices and vandalism

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)

Acknowledged. Sorry for my overreaction. I feared, that my talk page will be spammed with even more such unnecessary "messages". Hopefully, it won't. By the way, what should i do, if this happens actually? There could be an eventual situation when sockpuppets spam my talk page. What should i do then? --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If any page is subject to vandalism, please feel free to warn the user (see WP:WARN for some example warnings). If it is persistent, you can report it somewhere like WP:AIV, WP:AN3RR, or WP:ANI. Beyond warnings, the main remedies are blocking and page protection.
If you feel that an apology is in order, I'm not the right person to make it to.  :) Bovlb (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually that's true.. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classical language

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 are not assuming good faith again. Notice that. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- "AGF" doesn't require me to close my eyes to reality, and your insistence on "AGF" comes rather strangely to someone who just got through attributing to me things I've never said, and accusing me of being things which I'm not, over on Talk:Classical language. AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

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. TalkIslander 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I already requested a protection for the article. And i'm an active talk page user as well..... --Thirusivaperur (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I know you requested protection - I just declined it. The article does not warrent protection, and what's more it appears that you are going against concensus by continually reverting. Please continue discussion on the article's talk page before reverting again. TalkIslander 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain, why it's not "warrent"? The page was once protected, as there was an edit war. Why not now? And i want to inform you, that you act against WP:AGF with your statement. I'm strongly against your condemnation. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)