User talk:Deepak D'Souza/Archive 2

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  S .D.   ¿п?  § 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Marathi and English
I know, shockingly there are lots of people that believe what the anonymous signer (I think it's actually User:Kasar) says... as a linguist working on South Asian languages, I have heard so much nonsense from people claiming, for example, that Spanish "dos" (the word for "two") must be related to the Bengali word "dôsh" (the word for "ten") - I don't have the energy to first tell them that, yes, Spanish and Bengali are related and have many words in common, but no, those words are not related and shouldn't be, given their meanings! Oh well... --SameerKhan 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing how convinced one can be despite scientific evidence! --SameerKhan 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't spam
Hi,

Please don't spam article talk pages advertising for Konkani wikipedia. Please see Talk page guidelines for guidelines on usage of talk page. Specifically, "Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." If you want to get editors to work for Konkani Wikipedia, you can preferably put a request on the noticeboards, which are meant for general discussions on region-specifc topics. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that many local language Wikipedias suffer from lack of participation. I am not removing the messages, but please refrain from posting more. If you want, you can post a general notice on the noticeboard. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hi Deepak, I will be unable to help in anyway, since I have no know on Konkani besides speaking it at home. -- PremKudva Talk  04:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I speak Konkani at home and I am a Gowd Saraswath Brahmin. You are right about you saying "I guess your statement means that you have had no academic training in Konkani." Not just that I have been poor in languages per se, in fact English is the only language that I can read, write, and speak reasonably well. Even though I studied Kannada 1st and Hindi as 3rd language for 12 and 5 years respectively, I am unable to write or read either of them.


 * With regard to stuff like templates and boxes, I haven't done anything so far. I only do the usual text edits here. But if I can I will surely head to the Konkani encyclopaedia and help when I get some time.-- PremKudva Talk  09:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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! HagermanBot 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk Page Conversations
Hi,

It is not mandatory to keep an archive of discussions at talk page, though usually frowned by many. Most discussions can be deleted by the editor without doing anything wrong, but the exception is that warnings, logs of blocks, etc, then they should not be deleted. Archiving talk pages is easy. I would suggest you to post a message to him, linking to the way it can be done. Perhaps he will comply with your request. However, if you wish to access any past discussions, they are still available through the history tab. On wikipedia, it is very difficult to clear past traces of discussion. If you need more help, I would be glad to help. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnvasai & User:Vasaijohn
What you say might be correct, but both the only contributions from both the accounts has been to insert spam links to a blog. If I see the user making positive contributions, I'll redirect User:Vasaijohn to User:Johnvasai. utcursch | talk 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya
Hi, User:Sarvagnya is a good contributor, but as you guessed correctly, he has his own dislikes. As an admin, I don't have the privilege to reprimand somebody. I can only delete pages and block users. For resolving disputes, see Resolving disputes. You've already taken the first step correctly (discussion). If discussion doesn't help, try Third opinion or Mediation Cabal. If these don't help, the next step is Requests for comment. utcursch | talk 11:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Deepak, I saw your message to Utcursch. Just felt that I had to leave a note about this.  As for my removals of Devanagari script from
 * Mangaluru - I've explained on the talk page.
 * SJSA - ditto
 * The Northeast pages - well, I'd like to see an explanation from you or anybody for that matter as to why Dvngri/Hindi is even needed on those pages?
 * Shilpa shetty - Unlike you've presented it, I have infact made a case against having Kannada there which, incidentally was opposed to Gnanapiti's views.
 * And then, there are some more. Check out Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram also.


 * As for yourself, I've always been polite and assumed good faith, but I am disappointed that you have not. Your claim that I harbor an anti-devanagari bias is a misrepresentation of my stand.  Moreover, you have accused me of hypocrisy on the Mangaluru talk page.  These are personal attacks.  Please do not make them again.  If you need a clarification about anything, please feel free to ask.  Thank you.  Sarvagnya 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ragib 07:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deepak, you have reverted the article 7 times by now. Only due to conflict of interest, I'm not blocking you, but your editing privileges will soon be revoked temporarily for this disruption (by some other uninvolved admin). If you have any problems with the article, the talk page is a good place to start the debate. Revert war is bad, and will only get you blocked. Thanks. --Ragib 07:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Jana Gana Mana. Thank you, and hope you'll edit constructively when your block ends. --Ragib 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Hi, I wanted to report 3RR violation on you and when I went to 3RR report page for that, I found out that you have been already reported. Just thought it would be a good norm to inform you. CheersGnanapiti 07:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither do I care about your insults nor about innuendos. Just want to remind you that before adding anything to articles, you got to provide ample citations and proofs for your claims. And btw, 3RR wasn't reported by me. I just informed you about the already reported incident, ofcourse, I saw that when I went to report. CheersGnanapiti 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just about to reply to you when the block became active. So let me put the message here: If you take it as an insult, its totally fine with me. I don't see how citiations are going to help when you have come to Wikiepdia with a biased agenda.I have seen how much you value citations on the Konkani Language and Mangalore articles. And I understand very well you habit of using "discussion" and wikipedia policies to push your own biases. You seem to be really "Cheers"full about my ban. So Cheers to you too --Deepak D&#39;Souza 10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm not wrong, you can still edit user talk pages when block is in place. Not sure though. Citations in Konkani and Mangalore page? Are you kidding me? Where? You have done a great job in Konkani language page, I don't deny that. All I disputed in Konkani language page was using contracted Kannada script for Konkani. Subsequently you failed to provide references and the script remained intact. Mangalore page I have clearly stated my stance in the edit I made. Instead of talking on and on and on in Mangalore discussion page which you are doing now, you could have come up with references to back your claims. You fail to do so, article remains intact. I have never questioned editions you made in Konkani language page since they are backed with references and citations. So what agenda are you talking about? All I can say is, stop imagining too many things. CheersGnanapiti 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only page you can edit when blocked is your own talk page. This user used an alternative account to bypass the block. John Reaves (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To Gnyanapiti: Your agenda starts and ends with Kannada. you indulge in endless debates only to keep users off track. I must hand it to you and Sarvagnya, you have used Wikipedia's policies effectively to protect your POVs. I am sure that even if I were to provide a hundred citations it wouldnt be enough for the two of you. You are not concerned about the quality of the Konkani language article, you were only interested in protecting the Kannada script version on the Konkani language article. And removing the devanagiri script from all India related articles. --Deepak D&#39;Souza 05:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deepak, don't talk rubbish. Show me atleast one diff where I've indulged in deterioration of quality of Konkani language article. The thing is, you can't come up with references or simple diff to support all your claims and you can't accept the fact that other editors might actually have different views than you. I'm afraid that the approach you are taking is not of much use. Gnanapiti 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sacchi baat hamesha Kadwi rehti hai! Truth hurts, eh Gnanapiti? Let me ask you a simple question. Just how much do you know about Konkani? Have you ever read anything in Konkani? Does anything about Konkani interest you apart from the fact that in Canara , Konkanis write it using the Kannada script? --Deepak D&#39;Souza 06:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Man are you annoying or what? You are turning out to be a troll now. You have nothing to say, just don't say anything. This is my last reply to you since it's wikipedia's policy not to feed trolls. Gnanapiti 07:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whats the matter Gnanapiti, dont like facts do you? I realised that a long time ago. You are a vandal Gnanapiti, only diiference is you indulge in organized vandalism. As far as trolling is concerned , maybe you should examine your own conduct first. Don't worry, Wikipedia may advice not to feed trolls, but I will definetely feed you. You seem to be very happy that you have got an oportunity to insult me on my own talk page while I have been blocked. --Deepak D&#39;Souza 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just want to remind everyone that No personal attacks is an established policy which everyone should adhere to. Thanks. --Ragib 07:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure! Mind telling the same thing to Gnanapiti on his talk page. I cant since I have been blocked. --Deepak D&#39;Souza 07:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To John ,I have explained clearly that I used a proxy to ask you for a confirmation. I have even sent you a mail stating why I did so. --Deepak D&#39;Souza 05:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for three revert rule violation on Jana Gana Mana. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. John Reaves (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC) John Reaves (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So I guess two or three users ganging together to protect each others edits is not considered vandalism?? --Deepak D&#39;Souza 08:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just saw this:

"" in the block log. It might not have been you, but don't use sockpuppetry to evade a block, it's only 31 hours after all. John Reaves (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't indulge in sockpupetry. If I wanted to I wouldn't even have used my real name --Deepak D&#39;Souza 08:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, IP addresses don't lie ... and even if you used a different name, you would still be traced via checkuser. Thanks. --Ragib 08:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah Raghib, nice to see you! And nice to know that you are taking a personal interest in me! Have you considered that this IP address may be shared? Again I reiterate : I did not use an anonymous log in. On my system, I am permanently signed in to Wikipedia which means that I will not be making anonymous changes. Maybe I should have done what Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are doing: band up with some other user who shares my world-view and make a pact to protect each others edits, right Raghib?

Let me again reiterate what I said: If I was interested in sockpupetry, I wouldnt even have used my real name. --Deepak D&#39;Souza 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One more point Raghib, it may not be relevant but still: I am a Computer Science Engineer and have a very good idea about tracking users and other such stuff.   --Deepak D&#39;Souza 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

John, I am wating for at least a conformation that you have received my emails(2). Its been at least 3 hours since I sent the first one --Deepak D&#39;Souza 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I received them and have replied to them. Feel free to post another unblock if you want another admin to review.  But given the obvious case of sockpuppetry on my userpage, I doubt anyone will unblock you.  Anymore evidence that you have used alternate accounts to evade the block will lead to the extension of the block. John Reaves (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wont post another unblock request. As I said in my mail I violated the 3RR rule wilfully and was prepared for the consequences. You can gladly extend my block for the "sockpuppetry" I have done on your talk page. --Deepak D&#39;Souza 05:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007
With regards to your comments on Talk:Jana Gana Mana:&#32;Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Note: I had already once let you know on this very talk page not to misrepresent me. Misrepresenting other people's stances is incivil and a personal attack. I am warning you once again not to indulge in such misrepresentations of my stand. Sarvagnya 07:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As I told Gnanpiti (Im sure he must have let you know by now) I intend to use this 3RR block to point to your dubious tactis and biases. --Deepak D&#39;Souza 08:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand what you're hinting at, but I think you'd do well to read up on WP:POINT. Thanks.  Sarvagnya 08:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dont worry, I will let the admins know what I am hinting at!--Deepak D&#39;Souza 08:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as minsrepresenting is concerend I am sure you know what you are talking about. After all, the way you deftly handle citations that go against your biases and create facts to match your biases.--Deepak D&#39;Souza 05:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just budding in
I see you are a great contributor and all your energies, time and reputation is being wasted because of a conflict you seem to have with a select group of editors. Well there are ways out of it. Step one is to relax and take a break, step two is to read all the conflict resolution related policies and step three is to have friends. Without friends you are done no matter Wikipedia or in real life. Thanks about it and let me know. Thanks RaveenS 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No Raveens, it is useless trying to talk sense to these guys. If you doubt it go through each and every line in the Discussion pages of Sare Jahan se Accha, Jana Gana Mana, Vande Mataram and analyze for yourself as to who is interested in a debate and who is just there to justify their biases. The protect each others edits and indulge in a nice long chat while keeping any changes that do not confirm to their biases out. They keep the debate going round in circles until others have given up or enough members match their "consensus". I might as well talk to a stone and hope that it will respond instead of these POV pushers --Deepak D&#39;Souza 05:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MaharashtraExpress's objection
''I agree that I am not always polite. MaharashtraExpress has seen that too. If I dont show good faith it is because I am tired of battling with jingoists who couch their biases in polite sentences'' I came across to this message of urs at sarvagnya's page. Please don't call names unnecessarily. Calling me jingoist is unfortunate as i have always tried to create peace regardless of ur mean comments against SMM and Marathi.Dont refer me again in ur future discussions.Maharashtraexpress 06:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That comment wasnt just about you, but it also includes you.


 * As I said on the Marathi Language talk page. MaharashtraExpress, your "politeness" is all there on my talk page. Anybody can see it and decide for himself as to how polite you have been. Let me remind you (since you have deleted my replies from your talk page), you have used threatening language twice! "Creating peace"! really?


 * I admire the way you have "cleaned up" the Marathi Language talk page because I have put my points in a lot of places. That was a really smart move. And as far as name calling is concerned, you are aware of your own name calling even if it was indirect. Your "efforts at creating peace" have basically been about pushing your POV that Konkani is a dialect of Marathi.


 * If you find my comments about Samyukta Maharashtra movement and Marathi mean remeber what I said before: One mans hero is another mans devil. And that goamarathiacademi.com link that you cited was not mean! NO MaharashtraExpress, it wasn't mean it was downright insulting!


 * As far as not referring to you in the future is concerned,there is no law in the world which prevents one person from talking to another person about a third person.


 * Right now since I have been blocked I cannot post this reply to your talk page, but will do so as soon as this block is taken out --Deepak D&#39;Souza 06:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I encourage all to find my politeness and dig into my discussions with Deepak.i have never used threatening language. In fact the details which u r insisting are on Marathi page. Unfortunately u have always misinterpreted me.

Ur points are archived at appropriate places and not cleaned up. I have never meant to insult and similarly I shall not take it from anyone. Please refrain from passing comments on me while talking to another person. Thank you. Maharashtraexpress 14:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again MaharashtraExpress: there is no law in the world which prevents one person from talking to another person about a third person. --Deepak D&#39;Souza 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Provided u dont insult them...Maharashtraexpress 04:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you take it as an insult, feel free to do so, I have no power to stop you --Deepak D&#39;Souza 04:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please refrain from insulting and commenting on me in ur furthur discussions. Maharashtraexpress 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you have decided to copycat someone elses npa tags. Good! I guess this is a good time now that my hands are tied behind my back. Aa beta, tu bhi behti ganga mein haath dho le! Kindly tell me which comments you find insulting. First tell me if Wikipedia has a rule that prevents one user from commenting on another user. And do me a favour: report me for an extension of my block for the "insulting comments" I made against you.--Deepak D&#39;Souza 04:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

''I guess this is a good time now that my hands are tied behind my back. Aa beta, tu bhi behti ganga mein haath dho le!'' Please dont think this way. I am only requesting u to stop referring me in ur discussions.Maharashtraexpress 06:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is such a rule in Wikiepdia, I will follow it. If not, I cannot make any such promise. You are within your rights to report any user for abuse, so go ahead if you feel you have a good case. --Deepak D&#39;Souza 08:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Admins!
I would like to thank Ragib for nominating me and User:John_Reaves for blocking me for violation of 3RR.

Amazingly, nobody bothered to nominate Sarvagnya for repeated violations of 3RR for:
 * 6 reverts on Vande Mataram on 3rd September 2006 -check the history
 * 4 reverts on Vande Mataram on 5th September 2006 -check the history

Not to mention many near misses of violating 3RR.

In totality since 28th September 2006 Sarvagnya has reverted:
 * Jana Gana Mana: 9 times
 * Sare Jahan Se Achcha: 31 times
 * Vande Mataram: 14 times

No one has blocked him for vandalism! --Deepak D&#39;Souza 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What happened Gnanapiti, no more original research tags??. Thanks for pointing out the error anyway! --Deepak D&#39;Souza 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You want tag? First I want you to familiarize with WP:3RR. Your claims above hold no value whatsoever since there are no 6 and 4 reverts at all as you have claimed on those days. Probably you are confused with edits and reverts! Each and every edit is not a revert! Go through each and every diff in the history and try to understand why he wasn't nominated for violating 3RR. Good luck Gnanapiti 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You think I haven't noticed that? That is a good trick isn't it? Do not revert but edit and remove out someone else's content repeatedly!!It is a revert, only thing being no bot will notice that it violated 3RR! He seems to have taught you quite a lot. Or maybe, he doesn't have to? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deepak, I see that you've decided to dedicate your life to study my 'works'. I feel honoured. Thank you.  Keep them coming and may God bless you.  Sarvagnya 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe in making good use of my spare time. So when I was blocked, I did study your history. And yes, your talk about "always being polite"is hollow. I am sure many can testify to that! --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. John Reaves (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know Sarvagnya is an expert with Wikipedia rules. Thats why he disguised some of his reverts/edits as "Minor edits" to cover up his tracks.

--Deepak D&#39;Souza 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Arun Talks
Yes!The name written in Malayalam in Mangalore page reads Mangalapuram. Thanks for supporting me. Please be in contact.

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Heimstern Läufer 05:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me state this : The first revert that was mentioned in my 3rr nomination was done nearly two days after my previous edit on the same page. In between that i patiently waited and discussed the matter and as you can see Gnanapiti has not responded properly. I also checked thge Mangalore city corporation website and verified that all names were acceptable and then added the Byari name too. At least I was honest enough to mention that I "readded" the Malayalam name along with the Byari name.Sarvagnya and Gnanpiti protect each others edits, admins do not seem to have a problem with that! See "Thank you admins above". The person who nominated me for 3RR violation himself has misused the minor edit to cover up 3RR violations but the admin who was involved in the issue, Ragib for some reason chose to overlook that.

As far as your concern about my attitude you should see the attitude of the person who has nominated me for 3RR. He and Gnanapiti will dismiss any opinions contrary to their beliefs and demean anyone who opposes them. Take a look at the discussions on that page and you will know that. I never believed that I was entitled to an edit war, you are making up this opinion on your own. I just pointed out that three other users had agreed to the inclusion of the Malayalam and byari names. I wasn't even aware that I was being nominated for 3RR violation. I was blocked without a warning or even being given a chance to explain. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer, I would also like you to note these point : --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My reverts have been constructive, not disruptive.
 * 3 other users have supported the inclusion of Malayalam and Beary names for Mangalore.
 * Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti collaborate to protect each others edits and reverts.
 * They always make sure that their biased viewpoints are kept in place without violating 3RR rule simply by doing this: when one user is in danger of violating 3RR, the other one take over and starts reverting.
 * Only one user among them discusses at a time on the discussion page but the other one will also be active in reverting without discussing.
 * Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti have once been accused (and even confirmed once, although later checkusers returned negative)of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry.
 * also please take a look at this discussion on the same page and this will tell you something about the biased and unreasonable attitudes of the person(or maybe people) who nominated me for 3RR: Talk:Mangalore

What about the person who nominated me?
The last one was done after Sarvagnya got me blocked after a false nomination for 3RR violation. Shouldn't he desist from editing the same article after getting me blocked, until the issue is resolved?
 * 1) 05:27, 2 April 2007
 * 2) 07:00, 2 April 2007 This is an edit but should be treated as a revert because Sarvagnya would probably have removed the Byari name too, had not another user added a link to another article.
 * 3) 05:27, 3 April 2007

Three reverts within 24 hours by Sarvagnya. Hey Heimstern Läufer, how about blocking him for 3RR violation too? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm sorry I didn't get to you sooner, but I was asleep. First off: Seraphimblade has reaffirmed my block, so I don't plan to unblock. Secondly: The rule is more than three reverts, not three. So Sarvagnya has not strictly violated the three-revert rule. I do believe, however, that he is edit warring. I have therefore warned him to stop with this. He disagrees with my warning. I can sympathize with you in one sense: others are not bothering to discuss with you. Here's what I can give you: When your block ends, go to the talk page to discuss the matter. If they won't discuss, and there is clearly an edit war with multiple parties on each side, consider listing the page for full protection at WP:RFPP. Then the page will be locked and parties will have to discuss (note, though, that the version protected may not be the one you prefer, see The Wrong version). If you can't get others to listen to you, try some form of dispute resolution. The main thing is: don't edit war. Find other ways to resolve disputes. Heimstern Läufer 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The "others" you have mentioned may as well be one and the same person. Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya have been nominated for sockpupetry once. And it is really futile to discuss with them. If you agree with thier POV you have consensus, if you dont then there is no consensus no mater how many members oppose hem. I requst you to play devil's advocate in this case and look up two issues in the discusion page: "Konkani name for mangalore" and "Malayalam and Byari names". It is unfair that Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are alowed to team up and protect each others edits while I am blocked for a 3RR violation which I havent comited --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A message for Heimstern Läufer
It is a pity that I was travelling yesterday, otherwise I would have put another unblock request, never mind that it wouldnt be accepted. I half expected it to be rejected. Can't blame Seraphimblade for declining my unblock request. It seems there is an unwritten rule that one admin does not overturn another admin's decision. Forget that; take this: "do not unblock without first attempting to contact the blocking admin and discussing the matter".

That is as good as saying "don't even bother", after all an admin who has issued a block is not likely to go back on his decision.

Let me ask you a few questions: I doubt it. I really feel that you took the complaint at face value. Your talk with Sarvagnya does not mention the fact that it wasn't a revert. I am sure that if you had gone through it the issue would have come up and you would have discussed it with him. To me it seems more likely your statement that : 'Seraphimblade has reaffirmed my block' was retrospective.
 * 1) Did you really go through the list of reverts and verify wether it was true?


 * 2)If you had really noticed the discrepancy(that it want a revert but an edit or maybe a part-revert) didn't you think it was necessary to give me a warning or chance to explain myself? Especially since the 3RR rule doesnt explicitly mention anything about reverts that may take place in Edits. Or maybe consult other admins before taking a decison.

I feel that your opinion was coloured by the fact that I had been blocked for a 3RR violation before and hence didn't need a warning. And especially since it isn't a clear case of 4 reverts in 24 hours. Repeat offender! No warning, no trial, just BANG! Judge Dredd kind-of justice??
 * 3)Do you feel that your decision was fair ,and not done in haste?


 * 4)Did you question if the reverts I made were really disruptive or not?


 * 5) Did you go through the complaint carefully?

Sarvagnya nominated me saying: "He keeps reverting to include the Malayalam and/or Beary transliterations in the lead." Yet Sarvagnya's and Gnanapiti's reverts have mostly been aimed at removing the Malayalam name and not the Byari name? Did you bother to ask why ?


 * 6)Given the fact that you had noticed that Sarvagnya was edit-warring, didn't you feel the need to go throug the decision twice before issuing the block? Again given that Sarvagnya himself wasnt participating in the discussion but reverting at will, shoudln't his reverts be treated as vandalism.


 * 7)Did you consider that I may not have done it deliberately?. If you had thought a bit you would have understood as much: that after being blocked once any user would be circumspect about violating 3RR willingly.

Let me also tell you this. I had noticed that Sarvagnya used to cover up his reverts and avoid 3RR violation, by using terming his reverts as minor edits and sometimes by disguising it as edits. I wanted to report it but didn't since it happened in September 2006 and another admin was patrolling the same page but chose to disregard it. I have mentioned it it the "Thank you, admins!" section in my talk page above.

Sarvagnya probably realised that this was a good oportunity to get back at me for exposing his fraud and listed my edit(or at worst part-revert, part-edit ) as a revert. And you bit the bait. He was probably hoping that I would get a longer block or a ban.

He is a master of Wikipedia rules, that is why he deliberately did not give a warning (as Wikipedia rules state on WP:AN3) for 3RR violation and instead directly nominated me for 3RR violation by showing an edit as a revert. He guessed as much that since I had recieved a block before, admins would be willing to dispense with the warning. Well, his gamble paid off!

You are absolutely right when you say that Sarvagnya has not violated the 3RR He is very smart, he knows how to exploit Wikipedia's rules to protect his POVs and biases. HE always stops at 3 reverts, if possible he will keep it at 2 reverts. Somehow magically Gnanapiti will appear out of nowhere and continue reverting. And if Gnanpiti is in danger of crossing 3 reverts there are others to carry on reverting! It is pertinent to note that Sarvagnya has recieved a 3RR violaion warning once but never been blocked for violating 3RR even though there are at least two clear cases where he has crossed the treshold.

With regard to your statement that "He disagrees with my warning" I am not surprised that he disagrees. That is the best way he knows to get around warnings, and it has worked for him before. To put it in perspective: after a sockpuppetry nomination brought a split verdict, Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti were let off the hook on the condition that they wouldn't edit the same articles. When a user pointed to the admins that they had broken that warning soon after, Sarvagnya lamely deffended that he and Gnanapiti had never agreed to heed the warning and hence it was not applicable at all, and got away ith it. He did the same with your warning, knowing well that he could get away with it, and you let him get away!

I intend to place my block on the administrators notice board and question its fairness. The verdict is a foregone conclusion, yet I will persist.I know that questioning an admin's decision won't be taken lightly by other admins and I might even earn another block or ban, but I must do it.

I want to ask if my block was realy fair considering that one of the reverts wasn't really a revert(at worst a partial revert)  and if it is permissible for an admin to interpret the rules liberaly in case there is a doubtful case.

I will wait for 24 hours from the posting of this message before I do so. You are welcome to reply if you wish. If not, no problem. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. Here is my reply. First: In fact, I did go through the list of reverts with care. I always do this when processing a 3RR report; I do not make them hastily, despite your assumptions to the contrary. I have declined many such reports because I have found not all of them to be reverts. You are correct in thinking my decision was coloured by the fact that you were blocked in the past for 3RR. I only consider it necessary for a user to be warned about 3RR if the user may be unaware that the rule exists; if the user has already been blocked for 3RR, that is clearly not the case. As for what seems to be the fundamental issue here, whether or not your first edit was a revert: Your edit added the Malalyalam name immediately after Gnanapiti removed it. This is a revert. Note that the 3RR page says, "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." Thus, the fact that it may have been a partial revert does not make a difference here. Also important is "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted."
 * If you choose to contest my block on the administrators' noticeboard, I can't prevent you, although I do believe it will be upheld. I will wait this out and see what happens. Heimstern Läufer 16:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Maikala
Yes, both Kudla and Maikala can be merged with main article Mangalore if redirects are provided for both Abushahin 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. The idea seems to be great! Please go ahead and let me know once the chage is done. Thank you Deepak. Abushahin 09:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Goa links
Yeah I didn't even realise what the links were. I think I had recently come back from a long wikibreak then and was rushing when checking links like that. Your suggestion on my talk page sounds fine to me. Graham 87 12:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read through the Konkani language article and the problems about scripts. I therefore don't think there would be a problem in having a link to the Goa article in more than one script. I'll therefore reinstate the two links you added earlier to the different versions of the Goa article in the incubator. Graham 87 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind me - I just saw that you added a link to the incubator. There seems to be a link on top to the Devanagari script version so that is taken care of. Graham 87 13:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, but I'd agree with you 100% about adding a link to the Wikimedia Incubator in the Konkani language article. We have a template, template:InterWiki for linking to Wikipedia languages that are at their own subdomains, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a similar link even if the Wikipedia is in the incubator. Graham 87 13:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)