User talk:Kalarimaster

Welcome!

Hello, Kalarimaster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ism schism (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sun Pictures

A tag has been placed on Sun Pictures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Leonard^(Bloom) 14:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a friendly message

Hi - don't meant to interfere, but I suggest you don't take that heated discussion on Talk:India too personally. Don't be so aggressive towards others. Be cool and I'm sure your arguments will be respected. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:India. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 10:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion/A request

Hi. I would like to request that you take a more condusive attitude to this discussion in the India page. It is important to come to concensus and not take the "my way or highway" attitude as that will take you nowhere. Please rethink your position on the options being put out so the process can be easy.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

civil

Pls stop abusing people and learn to remain civil. You will get blocked if you continue abusing. Pls read WP:Civil and WP:Blocking. Docku:“what up?” 21:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Languages of India

Dear user:Kalarimaster, Could you kindly answer questions asked of you here? Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your edits

Your indiscriminate do-first-discuss-later sort of edits in Languages of India and Official languages of India articles which have been in good standing for a reasonable time are not helping the project in any meaningful sense. It is just wasting all our time. My previous interactions with you in other talk pages indicate to me that you are yet to develop a better understanding of the intricacies of how wikipedia works.

I am not in any way implying that the articles you are involved in editing are in their best possible shape, there are just better ways. Please also note that it is very much likely that you may be just wrong if many disagree with you. I certainly hope you will engage in discussion to achieve consensus before unilaterally changing the article content in future. I would also request you to read all wikipedia policies several times over if you are here to stay. Docku: What up? 21:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I second Docku's opinion above and add the India page to the list of pages of concern. Let me plead this ernestly: making unilateral edits, without seeking consensus, on a much visited FA like India, is very unhelpful, especially since these issues have been discussed to death before. Please read the discussions of July 2007 in the archives of that page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to India

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to India. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Please do not make changes in the infobox unless you have gained consensus first. An absence of response to your post for a few hours, does not mean that you have consensus. Consensus, is a result of discussion among editors and inevitably takes time. I hope you will cooperate. Thank you. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources

Hi kalarimaser. I want to assume you mean well, but the problem is that we have some policies here in wikipedia. Please read WP:Primary sources,

“

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

”

Constitution is a primary source and any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims of the constitution should be done by secondary sources and not by you and me. Docku: What up? 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I know that all. --Kalarimaster (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be then, you should withdraw the proposals from Talk:India since you presented no secondary sources. Docku: What up? 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have, just take some sources of fowlers page. --Kalarimaster (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2008 (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).

Kalarimaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was abusively blocked by IP range. I didn't do anything wrong with my various nicks or my IP's. Note, that it was always yellowmonkey who blocked me. I did never use "socks" to abuse any article.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 21:35, 12 January 2010 (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).

Kalarimaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my unblock request addressed the reason for my block, which is using multiple accounts and IP's. And I declared, that not a single one has abused any wikipedia article. The reason I got blocked is simply using multiple accounts and IP's. This is not prohibited, at least not explicitly. Therefore there is no reason to block me. I can specify why I'm using multiple accounts and IP's, simply to protect my identity, because of previously experienced unreasonable blocking by Yellowmonkey. He blocks right away, if somebody uses different accounts. I think, this is not correct, if you don't abuse articles.

Decline reason:

You show no desire to edit from one account. Please read WP:SOCK - "The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only", in some cases one can have a second account, but the conditions are clear, and links must be made between the two accounts Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:55, 12 January 2010 (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).

Kalarimaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I thought and I'm ready to take part with a single account. There was some misunderstanding about WP:SOCK. I was sure, that there was a passage for identity protection accounts, which is obviously not present. I would like to start a new account to get rid of the Kalarimaster account, which was heavily destroyed by my errors. I used a maximum of 3 accounts at a time, which clearly violates the policies. You can be sure, that I'll don't do that again. Additionally I'll provide a link from my new account to this account to provide transparency for a couple of months. I hope this proposal is acceptable. If not, please give me instructions, what to do else.

Decline reason:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying you don't want to use this account anymore. If that's the case then you need to be asking for the account you do intend to use be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (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).

Kalarimaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Beeblebrox, I want to start a new account from scratch, requesting all my other/blocked accounts (including this one, which gave me the IP Range block) to be deleted or so. I would chose the account "NeutralPointOfYou" as my only account, if I have to chose an existing account.

Decline reason:

After looking in to this a bit further, it seems you have engaged in socking as recently as late November of last year. Personally I wouldn't consider unblocking you until at least May. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (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.

I remember the time this user was blocked from editing, one of the colourful times in Indian wikipedia topics history. I have a feeling the user genuinely regrets his actions and hope he will also mend his ways. In a time, when there is a real shortage of Indian wikipedians, a reformed user will be very useful for our purposes. I would recommend his unblock with some conditions attached. it would not be very difficult to determine (and therefore place him in block again) if he chooses to use his account unconstructively. --Car Tick 13:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating

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).

Kalarimaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Despite making very good edits, my accounts gets banned solely on the reason, that it's an account from Kalarimaster, a banned user. This enables vandal minds to establish their fringe theories and introduce pro-Brahmin propaganda, a malicious Nazimindset of sort based on research of 19th century germanic people, which has lost all grounds.--Kalarimaster (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you have really been away all of this time and truly desired to come back, making accusations of a "Nazimindset [sic]" was definitely not the way to return to good standing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:32, 6 July 2011 (U TC)

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).

Kalarimaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nazimindset was maybe not a politically correct term, but it is true. If you have problems with this, you may ignore it, but don't make it an invaluable argument. You can go to Ancient Dravidian culture, where somebody is already trying to discredit perfectly academically established theories I set in, with a preducial mindset of cultural supremacy of Aryans over Dravidians: religions. Try to understand the truth, before accusing me of bad behaviour. I would like to add, that these Ariosophists and other political enemies of Dravidians are the reason for my block froms day 1 here. Naturally I fought many battles and won and lost many against them. addition: never attacked anyone on a personal level, only on encyclopedic basis with WP regulatories foundation.--Kalarimaster (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Closedmouth (talk) 09:15, 6 July 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.

No, your blocks have never been political, they have been due to your behaviour around here...unless you're willing to accept responsibility for your actions, you will never be unblocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea, what happened during the last years. Don't comment on things you can't know or don't have any knowledge about India, history, languages, politics, Arayanism, Dalits, Brahmins, etc.--Kalarimaster (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please guys. I don't want to harm anything or anybody. I want m edit warringy identity back, which has been robbed long ago by experienced users, who are against Dravidian nationalists. They need to accept our mindset and deal with us encyclopedically--Kalarimaster (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still continue to blame others ... however, I have brought this to the wider attention of Administrators at WP:AN. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. SpacemanSpiff is a very suspicious old editor avatar. He god admin rights incredibly fast for basically no significant contribution. He worked well with Yellowmonkey who blocked me for the joke account. I'd like to know who he really is...--Kalarimaster (talk) 09:41, 6 July 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).

Kalarimaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I gave reasons here. If socking was the main problem, I wouldn't be blocked for years. I got never a chance to prove, that I won't sock anymore. That's maybe something u should think about. In all these years, I went only with one account around, except the Kalarimaster times, when I made a Jokeaccount "Indianstarforce", a one edit account for a voting. I voted for the opposition.. for this joke I got blocked, and I became an angry young men..all blocks since then have been block evasion blocks from my old friends, because they simply had to deal in content matters with me.. I don't have to block evade when this block is lifted, and when I get blocked again, of course it must be validly, I can surely accept it. When you look at my edits carefully, it's not an easy task, then you will understand my high quality editing with revolutionary new content, I have really to fight for, to get accepted, such as the religious content at Ancient Dravidian culture, despite having super high quality sources. --Kalarimaster (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Being abusive about other people (see below) is not the way to get yourself unblocked - all you are doing is proving that you are either not willing to discuss things collegially, or are incapable of doing so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 6 July 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.

I have a suggestion. Take one or more independent admins, controling my edits and behaviour in the next few days or weeks. If you see, that I really engage in vandalism or attacking others personally, edit warring, refuse discussion, socking etc. I may be blocked accordingly. Isn't this a fair deal?--Kalarimaster (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A) You're not in any position to negotiate. B) You have proven this morning alone that you're not capable of acting collegially. Massive WP:FAIL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. Reverting fringe theories is a duty of any wikipedian. Spiffman has blocked me for block evasion, typical way of him to silence me. Everyone in this field knows me and my socks and he waits only, when its appropriate to block me per block evasion argument.. now I had enough, and came to limelight and set things straight. Spiffman obviously enjoys to block me every single time, when it hurts the most (Malayalam as an example being my mothertongue). I seriously have problems with his attitude, and the result is seen here by more socks out of frustration. I think, there is no further need of explanation. I will never become friends with such sadists.--Kalarimaster (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've had a look at Malayalam, and it's clear that you have been using multiple sockpuppet accounts even as recently as yesterday and today - you have no chance of being unblocked while you are still doing that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, multiple accounts? I doubt you analyzed it correctly, since yesterday there was only the main sock..User:Malaikaran around. The following socks I have explained earlier. How do you expect me to use no socks without a main account availability for years? Could you please make up your mind and read my statements properly and reopen unblock? I like editing Wikipedia and working with other wikipedians. That's nothing I need to prove anyone. That's a basic attitude of mine, without that I wouldn't extensively engage in countless discussions about many different topics.--Kalarimaster (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating multiple socks to engage in an edit-war, for whatever reason you did it, and then making abusive comments about other people here on your Talk page, is not the way to get yourself unblocked, and I am not going to reverse my decline of your most recent request. You may, if you wish, make a fresh request and see if another admin is prepared to unblock you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 6 July 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).

Kalarimaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is my last request, and I hope a sensible enough admin can look into my case properly without ignoring anything including my good intentions. I've been blocked multiple times in my "sockcareer" for block evasion. The block goes back several years now and I have given key moments of my history in previous unblock discussions with excerpts of the bitter moments, which brought me into this bad situation. I don't agree with the first block, but of course for the following evasion blocks, which were the result of the in my opinion difficult to take first block. I have no other wish than working with a real account, but my evasion blocks seem to indicate something different. Please note, that all my previous unblock requests have been denied in a same way like now. I had actually no chance to really prove my intention to work with only real account. Give me this one chance.--Kalarimaster (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your "good intentions" include creating three new sock accounts today. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:57, 6 July 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.

Thanks for watching.--Kalarimaster (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much enough

When you signed up for your VERY FIRST account, you agreed to some rules. These servers, and the services they provide are PRIVATELY OWNED, meaning you have ZERO rights - you're entitled to use the services as long as you abide by the rules you agreed to. First rule: one person, one account. As per WP:EVADE, you may NEVER edit (not even anonymously) if your first account is blocked. You do not get any "special privileges" because you know the WP:TRUTH or if you believe you're correcting some grievous wrong on the project - those rules apply to you 110% of the time. It does not matter if you feel you were "not given a chance", y ou actually DID have a chance - many of them, and you continued to fart in direction of the rules. Today alone you suggest again and again that you were within some kind of rights to ignore the rules because they magically don't apply to you. Well ... THEY DO. Have you ever seen a "no trespassing" sign? Did it apply to you? Get it through your head: YOU broke the rules, and you get no special treatment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want special treatment. Fact of the matter is, I like editing wp, and I've chosen to use the unblock feature, which the community provides. Nothing to get hot about it.--Kalarimaster (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You said yourself that you did not agree with the first block, which is why you chose to WP:EVADE using WP:SOCKs. Hey, guess what ... you don't get to do that. As such, you're CLEARLY asking for some magical special treatment that other sockfarm-masters do not get. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Dravidian, special treatment is Anti-Dravidian/Pro-Casteism.. Not my cup of tea.. try to harass some other guys with a lower intellect --Kalarimaster (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's your last personal attack. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]