User talk:Mudaliar

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Mudaliar, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.


 * Thanks for adding the ref! I personally found the Indo-Euro site that you referenced to be a very informative link; however I am not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source as per wikipedia standards since the authorship and editorial process for the articles is not clear. There are other references in the Hinduism article which too will not bear close scrutiny - we are attempting to bring all the references upto the standard of the ones listed in Hinduism. It would be great if you too joined in in the effort.
 * The "s" - "h" shift that you wrote about is correct, and was previously mentioned in the article. However there seems to be a consensus that the information should be referenced rather than explained, in order to keep the length of the Hinduism article reasonable (it is currently >100kb; while the recommended length is 30-50kb). So the information was recently removed (see diff) and you should not mind, if you see someone deleting it again.
 * I hope you'll continue to contribute to this and other articles within the Hinduism project. Also take a look at the discussion at the Hinduism Talk page. Thanks.

Abecedare 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Abecedare 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Crossposted to both your talk pages
I'm going to be really frank here. I originally thought that the reason I didn't understand this dispute is because I am a self-centered American women. But then I realized I wasn't giving myself enough credit. I am capable of understanding a well-written english article on nearly any subject. The reason I don't understand this dispute is because both versions of the Mudaliar article are terrible. Sorry to be so harsh, but I believe that that's true. I cannot fix this article. You guys can. Before you continue to bicker over this tiny, tiny dispute that half the world could give a fig about, you need to make at least that first paragraph make some damn sense! Here's my more constructive criticism:

Mudaliar's preferred version
Mudaliar also Mudaliyār, Mudali and Moodley in Tamil language literally means a person of first rank in a feudal society[1] (Again, where? Scotland?). It is originally the title and the surname of Tondaimandala Vellalars only, (Where? India?  What part of india?  Or is that a kind of people?  Also when -- 1987?  400 BCE?) [1] [2] [3][4]. However in recent times due to the process of sanskritization (Huh?)the name is used by people belonging to various castes originally from Tamil Nadu (Where?!?!) and in the Tamil diaspora (What Tamil diaspora? Where did they originate, where did they end up?) for the purpose of social upliftment (Oh really? How?. Some castes are forward-caste (totally confusing term) while most are backward-caste ('''confusing and sounds borderline insulting. Meaningless phrase to this english speaker). Mudaliars are usually more financially well off than other communities. (Where? In Brazil? How well off? Needs a ref) Mudaliars also tend not to marry outside their community (Again, "tend" is uncyclopedic. Why? Where? What community?). Most Mudaliars are pure Tamilians with Tamil as their native language. (Okay, what's a Tamilian''')

I hope it's clear that I am somewhat mocking an ignorant American here, and that neither of you will be insulted. I am just trying to explain that this dispute is sidelining you both from creating an article that could answer these questions. Answer the questions!!!! :)

I will unlock the article sometime this weekend. Not sure when. If you revert war and violate 3RR I'll block both of you for 48 hours and lock the article again, for at least a week. We can keep doing this, or you can work together to answer the stupid American girl's questions. Lastly, more writing advice: Make me care about this topic as a reader. Because I'll be honest, right now I really don't. And please stop fighting on my talk page. Cheers. Dina 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Hi. You recently posted a vandalism report on WP:AIV, but it appears to be a content dispute rather than a case of clear vandalism. Can I suggest that you have a go at using the dispute resolution process instead? Cheers TigerShark 23:48, 5 January 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 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Devadasi
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. Natalie 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, you've both been warned and reported by me. Whatever Venki123 is saying or doing on another page is irrelevant here - neither of you are exempt from 3RR in this case. Please, please take this to RfC or arbitration or something. Natalie 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:3RR on Devdasi
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Devdasi. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Devdasi). The duration of the block is 48 hours. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

calling edits vandalism
It's generally considered bad form to refer to other people's edits as vandalism when they are not, as you did in your last six edit summaries. If you're having a conflict with this editor, please take it to dispute resolution rather than just reverting everything they say as vandalism. Natalie 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but I still think this is a disagreement, rather than simple vandalism. That said, have you tried any form of dispute resolution? Obviously just reverting back and forth has not solved anything, and you've both been blocked for 3RR at least once. I really don't do a lot of dispute resolution, but the other editor contacted me asking for my help and I don't want to just leave you two to fight all over a bunch of pages. Natalie 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

an option for dispute resolution
User:Durova, who is a respected editor, admin, and very experienced with dispute resolution, would be willing to mediate between yourself and User:Venki123 if you'd like. Just contact her on her talk page. Natalie 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser procedure
Hi, I am a clerk assisting the Checkusers with their work. I just wanted to thank you for listing your case in the IP check section. I requested your original posting to be deleted. Good luck with your request! -- lucasbfr talk 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am only a clerk assisting the checkusers. I don't have access to the tools and won't discuss the cases. Normally, the checkusers will answer your request at Requests for checkuser, keep an eye on the page :) -- lucasbfr talk 10:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Devadasi
Hi. I've moved your Kaikolar part to a subsection since it seemed to only address the origins and traditions of Devadasi in a certain part of South India. I don't know a whole lot about the subject so please comment on the talk page if I have erred in this change. Venki claims that your additions are defamatory so I've asked him to present a more detailed case on the article talk page. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks and cheers. The Behnam 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, when you revert Venki, don't call his edits vandalism, even if that is what you truly think. They aren't blatant enough to justify using the term, but the usage certainly makes the issue more contentious.  Thanks again.  The Behnam 04:10, 30 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 04:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit deletion
I am very concerned to see this edit. If you disagree with another person's post, please post your point of view after it rather than delete it without explanation. I find it particularly troublesome that you did this to a request that had been posted to my user talk page. I had already referred the matter elsewhere before it was posted, so I'm handling this rather gently and full protected the article where you've been edit warring. If you have a legitimate need to delete some portion of another editor's talk page post in the future, please explain your reason in an edit summary or a following post of your own (such as removing vandalism). Although I do not wish to block you, be aware that I have issued blocks for similar actions by other editors. Durova Charge! 14:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are involved in an arbitration case
You are involved in an arbitration case. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Mudaliar.2C_Kaikolar.2C_Sengunthar.2C_Devadasi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Venki123 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Until I have any idea what your point is (not relative to venki), I am not going to make any further comment. I am TamBram myself, and far removed from the state. Baka man  02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll look into it and consult with some people who are more knowledgeable on these affairs. Baka man  02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI
FYI, the term is "sockpuppet" (not "socket puppet"). Think of a kid's puppet made out of an old sock. See sock puppet for the origin of the term, and Sock puppetry for its use here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCU
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but whatever you did seriously messed up RFCU. I've reverted your changes to RFCU/Pending. Please ask for help on the RFCU talk page rather than directly editing the article. Thank you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK
Listen mate. I am not User:Venky but check it for your satisfaction anyway.

My views are totally consistent and I dont know why you doubted me?

Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Mudaliar and User:Venki123 are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is posted by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to advise that this account has been blocked for one year to implement this decision. Newyorkbrad 15:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Youonlylivetwice for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Saedirof (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

baadu potta naaye
You have been accused as son of thevdia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akambramaasmi (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)