User talk:Altruism/Archive 5

Fair use rationale for Image:Lok Satta party.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lok Satta party.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 06:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Template added. Tag removed. --Altruism^T a l k - Contribs. 06:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamma

Hi there! I hope I sorted this out OK - I deleted your freshly created Kamma (disambiguation) page and moved the old Kamma page there, so we would have a disambig page but with all it's ancient history preserved. Then I moved Kamma (caste) to Kamma and fixed up the double redirects. Let me know if there are any problems! --Stormie 12:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kakarla Subba Rao

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Kakarla Subba Rao, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.nims.info/kakarla/kakarla.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 09:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of D.L.N. Prasad

A tag has been placed on D.L.N. Prasad, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 11:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's why it's called "speedy". 2) I didn't delete it, only administrators can do that, I just flagged it. WebHamster 12:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hohoho...please assume good faith even regarding actions of administrators. I'm not responsible if you perceive my action as high-handed and did not conform to your expectations. The article didn't ascertain notability in the least, and I followed the link provided and dropped on a kind of yellow pages for doctors. What else can putting up the name of a non-notable plastic surgeon be? You are of course free to recreate the article with notability established, or bring this up at WP:DRV. Regards. Lectonar 15:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list

Unnecessary additions by the users without proper thought will make the retention difficult. I am unable to spend much time in Wiki. I appreciate your efforts to keep things moving.Kumarrao 13:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babu , Please stop u r kamma feeling even on wikipedia . This is a place to give the true picture of people. Whatever I wrote about that Kamma NTR is correct . DO you think it's wrong. Don't you love him because he is a Kamma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.242.2.233 (talk) 05:34, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Chiranjeevi Charitable Trust

Well, it certainly reads like an advertisement, it's virtually an orphan article (only one real incoming link, from Allu Rama Lingaiah), there are no sources whatsoever mentioned. However I'd hesitate to speedily delete it since "The blood bank of the CCT served over 70000 people in last 8 years, which itself a record" certainly is at least an assertion of notability. Perhaps the best solution would be to trim it down and merge it into Chiranjeevi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stormie (talk • contribs).

Your "corrections"

Regarding your "corrections" ([1], [2], [3]), please don't do it anymore. The bots works just fine without your intervention and updates the counter as needed. If you do not understand the instructions, assume it works and don't touch it. Миша13 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I wrote and run this bot and have fixed after you 3 times already. I'm not getting paid per page archived, so it's not my my loss, but nevertheless I was patiently showing you how to use the bot properly and without flooding my mailbox with error logs. Миша13 07:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Please see Gottipati Brahmaiah. Deleted a sentence regarding the community support to TDP which is incorrect.Kumarrao 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu script

Hiya! I've posted some stuff on Talk:Telugu script, would like to give the warring parties a chance to sort it out before protecting the page. --Stormie 07:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason accepted. Please unblock.

My reasoning has been accepted by User:Jmlk17. But my block still continues (re-blocked by User:Blnguyen). --Altruism^T a l k - Contribs. 09:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't edit anything, long after being unblocked, after my reasoning for the "unfair block" was accepted. --Altruism^T a l k - Contribs. 09:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "User unblocked" but "IP blocked." Please unblock the IP address too. --Altruism^T a l k - Contribs. 09:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: highest temperature at Guntur City ..

Can you provide the official reference/link that you are talking about, regarding the temperature at the City itself where it exceeded to 50c? I checked various sources, but no where I find it exceeding to that much. Thanks for your help and cooperation. Gnt 13:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate

It is highly unfortunate that the bunch of rogue elephants are back to their old game. Wiki has become an easy trampling ground for them. I find that they have been doing the same mischief in many historical articles cutting across regions, languages, traditions, customs etc. It is a pity that wiki is a susceptile victim to these pests.Kumarrao 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

How to revert to an old version skipping recent edits?Kumarrao 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags in Kamma

Request you not to remove tags which have been put for a valid reason which has also been explained in the talk page here. Repetition of this will attract a warning on your talk page. By the way, you dont have to teach me what is nonsense, show some civility here... you dont own wiki or any article for that matter... -- ¿Amar៛^Talk to me/My edits11:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just add the appropriate tags, if necessary. Reserve the edit summary nonsense. eg. What did you mean by "Who wrote this article...." Don't you know who writes articles in Wikipedia? BTW I see that you are no stranger to this style of talking, as you've amply demonstrated in some of your earlier edits (1). So, learn civility and then preach. Most of your summaries were unnecessary for the tags you added. --Altruism^T a l k - Contribs. 11:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also do see that you are no stranger in reverting articles without proper justifications ([4]) as you have also done here to the Kamma article. -- ¿Amar៛^Talk to me/My edits12:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I should have given better thought to some rogues' actions. Unfortunately, words uttered can't be reversed unlike articles.--Altruism^T a l k - Contribs. 12:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Invited!

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja 22:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gang

I thought that the gang comprised of only four or five persons. Now, I understand that the number is around nine and they regularly help each other. I shall not be surprised if they correspond with each other by emails (so that they escape attention on Wiki) and try to silence inconvenient Users by all kinds of tactics. It is also a distinct possibility that a single person has multiple Usernames. Some of the members seemed to have got exalted status in Wiki which makes the efforts of well-meaning Users much more difficult.Kumarrao 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guidelines related to proper images are here. Thanks... -- ¿Amar៛^Talk to me/My edits06:07, 31 August 2007 (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.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are 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 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thank you!!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]