en User talk:Altruism Archive 6

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Appeal against the block

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).

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

Request reason:

Silly reason or excuse for a block. Though I haven't indulged in abusive, or 3RR , I have been blocked. The reason "Repeatedly revert warring at Dravidian civilizations over the course of several days" is absurd and I request a re-look at this case. Those who indulged in manifold edit-warring weren't blocked as me. Please see the history page. Thank You.

Decline reason:

You were revert/edit warring and you have a long block history of doing so. Endorse block. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:48, 11 September 2007 (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.

Comments

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.