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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually that's true.. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are not assuming good faith again. Notice that. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. _Talk Islander 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. _Talk Islander 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Classical language

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)[reply]

If you really want a resolution, then open the dispute resolution process. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no you aren't, you are just revert warring: that's not a "dispute", that's just disruption. --dab (𒁳) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU and the other Sanskrit pushers are revert warring. I have supporting documents. You have NOTHING. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

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)[reply]

Thanks for the information. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly inserting unsourced and original content warning

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)[reply]

Please give more information (article) about your complaint. I don't know what's your problem.... ?! --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the List of languages by first written accounts, you are saying that Tamil originated earlier than most sources suggest, and that Sanskrit originated later. Your argument about Tamil appears to rely on saying that Brahmi script found in Tamil Nadu is part of the Tamil language, which I think is original research. You don't appear to be providing sources regarding Sanskrit. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Brahmi script found in Tamil Nadu. It's Tamil-Brahmi, which is slightly different than Brahmi-script, and it in use to write Tamil in early times. This is nothing, what would need sources.. The source is needed for the specific time period of the usage.. Regarding Sanskrit, there is common knowledge, that the first inscription was made by Scythian Sattraps in 150 AD.

"The first evidence of classical Sanskrit is attested by an inscription dating around A.D.150 in the Brahmi script.2,3 It records the repair of a dam originally built by Chandragupta Maurya, and also contains a panegyric in verse which can be regarded as the first literary composition in classical Sanskrit. It is at Girnar in Kathiawar and was inscribed by Rudradamana, the Saka Satrap of Ujjayini, on the same rock on which the Fourteen Rock Edicts of Asoka were also found. It is significant that Rudradamana employed classical Sanskrit in a region where about four hundred years before him Asoka had used only Prakrit." http://www.appiusforum.com/sanskrit.html

happy? --Thirusivaperur (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially, you are engaging in edit warring across several different articles, for example Classical language. If you continue to edit war, you are going to be bocked. Also, it would be preferable to carefully explain your reasons on the talk page, to establish consensus, and then make changes, instead of continuing this pattern of conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing all i can. My opponents are not willing for a dispute resolution and are resistant against sources. Also you don't make messages on the opponent's talk pages. So i think, you are unneutral and unfair. Future threat messages of you, PhilKnight, i will handle as personal attacks. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that "dispute resolution" means that you can keep wasting people's time even after it has been shown that you have no case. That's not the case. You have no case. Sometimes, a position is simply wrong, even on Wikipedia, and the case is closed. The burden is on you to establish that you do have a case. As it is, you are just disrupting Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is disruptive with your edit-wars across the articles, just because you can't accept antiquity of Tamil. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:35, 15 June 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).

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/w/index.php?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)[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.

Of course it's a very good reason to unblock me.. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's possibly a reason to block the others, but you were blocked for a reason, and regardless of whether others were blocked or not, that reason still stands. _Talk Islander 23:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By admitting, that it's "possibly" a reason to block the others, you're giving me right in my thoughts. I don't believe, that the wikipedia-antiabuse process is that hardlined as you try to implicate here. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if this is your attitude, you'll just run into renewed blocks of escalating lengths. This means that if you continue in your current vein, your next block will be for 48 hours, after that for a week, and so on. dab (𒁳) 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=Welcome!

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:

The Announcements and Open tasks section can be watchlist it if you're interested.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
Our future project would be to have a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats may be available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Interested in working on a more complete article? The peer review department of the project would welcome your help!
Interested in a particular area of a Dravidian groups history, geography, culture etc. ? There is already one task force, and you could initiate the creation of more focusing on specific topics or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

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)[reply]

Vikramaditya

What is the original meaning of the Sanskrit term Vikramaditya? Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Sanskrit

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)[reply]

Blocked

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)[reply]

ridiculous. The wikipedia gods got me... --Thirusivaperur (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider an admin complaint against you. These "" signs do mean something, you know? --Thirusivaperur (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing the block for continued harassment at User talk:Dbachmann and frivolous AIV request. Have a dispute over content? Take it to dispute resolution. seicer | talk | contribs 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no dispute about content. Here is a dispute about Admin frivolity --Thirusivaperur (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. 75.47.153.153 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, i will never ever again challenge the reasons and behaviour of the gods. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then please stop your mindless revert warring. Don't you have anything worthwhile to contribute? How pathetic. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dab, too much work on edit warriors with no substance like you. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk discipline

I have cut the following from Talk:History of Hinduism:

True Trips. But User:Zara1709 is appearently from germany, a country with significant nationalism and holocaust history. These guys usually blame all others to be nationalists. I hate it, when people from germany or german speaking people, especially those, who claim theirselves Aryans, make history articles in the indian section.

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)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Classical language.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The latest nonsense on Classical language

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)[reply]

..Panini proves no dates for sanskrit literature.. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- he most definitely does provide a date for Classical Sanskrit, because the definition of Classical Sanskrit is pretty much "the language described by Panini". AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panini.html