User talk:Bhargavapillalamarri

October 2012

Hello, I'm O.Koslowski. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Telugu language, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, O.Koslowski (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Telugu language. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Telugu language

Perhaps you should take up the article on Telugu with more scientific legitimacy rather than alphabet silliness. Alphabets are not "better or worse" and a vote at an "alphabet olympics" does not make it so. Adding such a silly and completely unscientific and irrelevant comment into the article as if it were established scientific fact demeans the seriousness of the discussion. We have fought hard to keep this article scientific and not full of the nonsense that nationalists have sought to fill it with--"Telugu is the sweetest tongue", "Telugu is the most musical tongue", etc. There is absolutely nothing absolute or scientific about some vote done at a "language olympics". Believe me, I would be "defaming" Telugu if I let such unscientific silliness stand in the article. But content should be discussed at Talk:Telugu language. That's the problem here. This alphabet silliness has simply been added to the article and after it was reverted, rather than following Wikipedia policy at WP:BRD to discuss and gain consensus, it was simply added back in over and over. It is the original editor's job to justify the addition and build a consensus. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

== Sure will continue on my talk page.. ==

b bram (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Well,
So did you mean, you discussed already with the original editor before deleting the edition on the page? Otherwise (if you haven't discussed), your statement means that, you won't be having any problem if I discuss with the original editor and arrive at a consensus whether the article should be on the page or not. Hope you won't have any hard feelings with whatsoever decission we arrive at. Now that the discussion involves the original editor, hope I needn't have to talk to you again. Will get back to you if the original editor doesn't respond to me in a day. Thank you for your support Taivo.

Regards,
B Ram

You don't seem to understand the way that Wikipedia works. The original editor needs to go to the Talk Page, state his/her case, and then EVERYONE who is interested will discuss whether or not this piece of unscientific trivia even deserves mention. That includes me as well. Consensus means everyone, not just you and X. The original editor NEVER discussed the issue at all. NO ONE who wants to add that piece of fluff has said a word at Talk:Telugu language, where the discussion should take place. --Taivo (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

b ram (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
But you said "it's original editor's job to justify the addition and build a consensus". I thought you meant a single person and he/she has the whole and sole rights to decide on any new addition. I can't see anything related to Wikipedia work methodology from your statements. So OK. There's a team involved. Great. Also, thanks that you reduced my effort to find as to who the original author is.

Well, so let's have the discussion here. Before anything, may I understand what you meant by 'scientific'?
Let me quote a little statement, from the currently active page:(I don't want to mention on other languages' articles as I don't want to welcome critics)
Under the block [period]: "Telugu, along with Kannada, was declared as one of the classical languages of India in the year 2008 after Sanskrit (in 2005) and Tamil (in 2004)." - is this scientific or unscientific? I say it's neither scientific or unscientific. Rather, it's just an information, a NEWS and a past reality. There's nothing science involved here. That's not just my understanding but every common person can sense it.
Well but my question is(are):

• This statement is existing on the current page means you or your pannel might have already believed that it deserves the space in the article. Means you or your pannel might have considered this as (so called) scientific information. Doesn't it mean that mentioning a NEWS, that happend in reality, is scientific as per your terminology?
  
• Next, how scientific it is to include dates of classic language delcarations of Sanskrit and Tamil here, where both are mutually different streams of discussion that has to be included in their own pages, rather than in the page of Telugu Language? May be there's a point in common with Kannada - both were declared in 2008. But what's there for Sanskrit and Tamil's dates of classic declaration to do over here?
  
• Hope the panel didn't observe lack of citations for the exact dates. So does the so called "scientific"ness doesn't impose to include citations or proofs?
  
• Not the least, the panel might not have observed the health of the bookmarks over the page, making me wonder as to how come there's a hyperlink only to Tamil and not for Sanskrit and Kannada, though there were established pages for the later already. Don't you think it's been edited by someone who is more inclined to Tamil? And, are a partial & biased person's editions, considered to be sceintific? Where was the accredited science lab and its panel then? Are they too biased?
  
  

So, may I know, in your terms (which you may otherwise show off as Wikipedia's terms), how should I presume the "scientific"ness as to what an information should be acclaimed of.

- B Ram

If you're going to work in Wikipedia, you need to understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Content discussions do not occur on User Talk pages, they occur on the article's Talk Page. I will not discuss content with you here. If you want to discuss content, then you can begin a discussion at Talk:Telugu language. Do NOT type "===" or any permutation thereof to separate comments. Use one or more ":" at the beginning of your comment to indent. You really don't know how this works, do you? --Taivo (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Telugu has the second best script in the world

Look. Language Olympics are not specific to a particular language. This is common through out the world. It is a rare feat achieved by an Indian language(Telugu)to stand second in the world, instead of feeling proud to announce it you are discriminating it with your own language. If your language achieves it would you stop mentioning it in Wikipedia? This is a fact supported scientifically in IAO and further neither you nor me have purposefully crept it. Here are the links for your king information .

Bhargavapillalamarri, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Bhargavapillalamarri! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

December 2017

Your recent edits to Dalit could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dalit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sitush (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term disruption and now legal threat.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 12:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)