User talk:LovSLif

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LovSLif. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, LovSLif. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert and notes

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33  Administrator note The dispute at Pallava dynasty does have a core of a content issue — which theories of Pallava origins should be included and if/how to distinguish between "mythological" claims and historically plausible ones — that is worth discussing (see next para). But, I'm afraid, that the content issue is being buried under the voluminous, poorly-formatted posts by Destroyer27 and you that often seem focused more on putting each other down than on collaborative editing based on sources and wikipedia content policies. The sniping has also spread to several other venues. This has become disruptive, is likely keeping other editors from participating in the discussion, and needs to stop.

The content issue needs to be discussed on the article talk-page with other interested editors but I'll provide some pointers to hopefully help redirect the discussion into more productive avenues. First, don't try to analyze primary sources and solve the problem of inclusion and weight de novo. Instead, look at how recent respected secondary sources handle the issue: for example, here is how Kulke and Rothermund (1986) discuss the origins. You can look at comparable general Indian history texts. Or, even better, find recent books and review articles dedicated to Pallava history that have been written and reviewed by scholars. Unfortunately, on a quick search I didn't find any obvious works to recommend in the latter category (the older ones like Jouveau-Dubreuil (1917) and Gopalan (1928) are far from ideal) but you and other editors may be able to dig some up with deeper effort.

(TL;DR)  Try to limit the number, length and discursiveness of your posting on the topic and format the text, links and references properly. Focus on WP:HISTRS-compliant sources and content. And stop the personalization and the incivility. Abecedare (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Also, recent participation in the discussion by RViN341 (talk · contribs) and Sourcecharita (talk · contribs) looks like sock-, or more likely, meat-puppetry perhaps prompted by off-wiki discussions. Right now I am not delving into this any deeper but, if it continues, it is likely to attract further investigation and sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare, You may please go through this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Personal_attacks . The comments made by each other is mentioned. The severity of the comments made by the user clearly violate civil. Will try to utilize the moderation of user Kautilya to resolve the same or in extreme case to DRN. Thanks. Regarding the other users Rvin341 or Sourcecharita , I am totally isloated from them and I have no connection/sock. You may request for investigation of their identity if you feel sock or violation. I adhere by Wiki policies and respect the same. Thanks for ceasing the discussion which is going in a wrong way. Will try to focus only on the content. By LovSLif (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please try to be productive!

I am afraid you are not achieving much by your frantic posts. You have made over a dozen posts at Talk:Pallava dynasty within a span of a few hours, but almost none of which is doing what I have asked for, even though you yourself asked me to moderate. You need to make only one post a day, but do it productively, which makes progress towards agreement. When I asked for "sources", you need to provide WP:Full citations, not just URL's as you have done here. Without Full citations, it is not possible to determine whether they are WP:HISTRS or not.

Also, you need to control yourself from making off-topic comments and engaging in pointless disputes. Anything off-topic merely detracts from the issues at hand and delays reaching CONSENSUS (if not even making it impossible). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,

What I have provided are what I have and that is what I can explain. I feel that is suffice. I cannot waste my time over here further. I feel the entire platform is totally biased and when sources clearly speak on 'what is what' I still do not understand the credibility of such discussion. POV content has clearly overridden the article and many other articles by the user. If you or any admin could not trace them then no point in withstanding and wasting my time. I believe wikipedia articles have lost it's integrity and neutral content. I will add the sources one last time tomorrow. By LovSLif (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You'd be wise to listen to Kautilya3. There is no "hurry" to edit Wikipedia and it is more important to get sources right than to resolve issues quickly (and perhaps badly). It helps to be patient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3, Give me some more time. I will provide full sources by today and in much better way by clear segregation of the things. I will not club each other. I will keep it short and striking with apparent facts sourced directly from the books.I will follow complete transparent approach. Thanks for understanding. By LovSLif (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Please note that I am not an admin. I am a volunteer editor just like you are. Abecedare has asked me if I can help resolve the disputes on that page, which I am trying to do. My goal as a mediator is not to decide who is right and who is wrong, but to get the contending parties to come to a point where they can agree with each other. I will be giving equal consideration to both of you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This post of yours is too long-winded and disorganised to be useful. I am going to remove it and copy it to your sandbox. Please edit it so it is no more than 10 lines long. Remove any out of date sources (published before 1950) or sources already rejected as unreliable. Add proper citations to any sourced statements.

If you want to be able to get your points of across on Wikipedia and look like a good Wikipedian, you need to learn how to write clear and succinct posts. You have already been warned by Abecedare about writing voluminous, poorly-formatted posts. Continued behaviour of this kind without any improvement will be regarded as obstinacy and you are likely to be blocked. In this talk page section, both Abecedare and I gave some tips to Destroyer27 about how to use proper formatting. Please review all those suggestions, because they equally apply to you.

If you want to be able to contribute and improve the Pallava dynasty, you really need to learn this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I do not want to entertain any user further. I have already organized well enough earlier and I cannot drum it repetitively.Sources are pretty clear enough. I ask Abecedare doesn't the same productivity applicable to other users on the discussion? You may look at the sources and the statements made by the other users as well on how reliable enough are their statements and sources.

@Kautilya3, On what basis the etymology section is holding on article? Did you get chance to verify the sources and content? I belive POV content pushed in self written style is productive enough for wikipedia? I belive it was you who provided 3 sources and when I provided statements from the same what is now confusing on the same? My counterpart is purely stating on personal assumptions. For instance in his statement says 'Why pallavas did not publish in Telugu if they are from Andhra region'. One should understand when Telugu script evolved and it was Prakrit used by the region and monarchs. Do such statements look productive to you? Seems wikipedia is entertaining those who got poor knowledge. Can you also look at the length of my counterpart statements? Does they hold short enough?.I do not bother about getting blocked and that is what I can expect when wikipedia loses transparency.I live in Singapore and I am a civil services aspirant for Indian services.I refer many a books for history and I just raised my voice against the wrong content over wikipedia and as a consequence I had to end up losing big time despite citing the content from sources rather I would love to quit the moment I feel wikipedia has lost its credibility of being transparent. Liz asked to verify the valid sources but seems that ended up unroductive and I still do not know the reason. Thanks for your time. By LovSLif (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

LovSLif, please rest assured that if other editors engage in long-winded, disorganised posts, I will caution them in the same way.

The Telugu issue was also answered by me when I stated that "Andhra" does not mean "Telugu". We do not need to address every point made by everybody, just those that are necessary to reach consensus on the issue we are concerned about.

Regarding the Etymology section, I am not going to get into that issue until we settle the Origins section. I do not have an infinite amount of time to devote to this. If you are able to learn to debate the issues better, you would be able to settle the issues yourself without help from other editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,I possibly may not agree with your last line.Learning to debate is feasible when both agree to get the facts into mind.At the same time it is not possible when other user is evident of the facts but unable to digest the same.Even your moderation would not help here.This is a basic psycic law.

I don't think so equal treatment is given on the talk page. Any user or you if can notice latest statements on talk page then this is clear.My counterpart agrees on same source which he disagrees earlier.Just messing up the things to show something out of nothing.You may look at the shape of talk page now and decide if equal treatment being rendered. Regarding "Andhra" and "Telugu" words,yes! both are not synonymous and I was only showcasing their orgin from Andhra region.Telugu hasn't actually fully evolved by then. By LovSLif (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

LovSLif, I took a look at your post on Talk:Pallava dynasty that Kautilya3 moved to your sandbox and I too found it difficult to parse given its poor formatting. Please spend a bit of time learning how to format wikitext; use proper punctuation so that it is clear when you are quoting a source, summarizing a source, or making a general statement; be clear on which exact source (and page number) you are referring to; and, to prevent endless discussion, once a source is found to be unreliable, either dispute that at WP:RSN or stop referring to it "irrespective of this book reliability." Finally, allow discussion on one topic (Sources for Pallava's origin currently) to be settled before starting discussion about another topic.

All this will make your arguments more clear and effective, save you time, and be respectful of the time others are volunteering. Abecedare (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare Alright! Hope this is also applicable to other users on talk page.I noticed user has today opened 2 new sections on talk page just to post his comment on ongoing discussion.When the thread is already in place,how relevant is it to post one's comments in a new section?.Request you to check. By LovSLif (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I am afraid you have made frantic disorganised posts today [1]. You are not getting anywhere.

All the views in my draft are attributed. You cannot "contradict" them by stating the views of other scholars. All scholarly views are represented, and we are not going to remove any of them because somebody or other disagrees. You need to quit making such arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I need to collapse some of these comments especially those dealing with Thirunavukkarasu, because the talk page is becoming unreadable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Let the moderators on WP:DRN page decide which sources are attributed and which holds good.

I believe you have moderated and presented your views.To accept or to contradict is up to the users on the discussion.If not happy over your draft, then let me move to DRN team.Let them decide the content to be added. I am afraid that moderation is not going transparent enough by looking at your statements including the one on collapsing Thirunavukkarasu dealings. He is a notable scholor and his books are much revered.Request you not to collapse the same. Thanks for your time and I will no more comment on talk page. By LovSLif (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thirunavukkarasu is not a historian. Nothing he says can override what the historians have concluded after decades of research. Moreover, you have not even told us what Thirunavukkarasu says.

You always have the option of going to WP:DRN. But at this stage, since an NPOV draft is available, I don't think you will achieve anything by going to DRN. I suggest you take advice from Abecedare. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,You had stated to produce modern sources.You ruled out old sources cited by me.At the same time,pointing to the old sources cited by you, you were stating Nothing scholar says can override what the historians have concluded after decades of research.These statements are contradicting with each other.

Please understand that History is ever progressive and dynamic subject and its content is not static. The moment new research/discoveries materialize old theories/research always do not hold strong.

You have preferred another user's edited publication which presents selective statements of DC Sircar to original book of DC Sircar which I asked you to refer.No clarity on the same.I request Abecedare to consider these points in a transparent way.
Term 'Kanchi origin' is nothing but a self conclusive term and it has nothing to do with the content/nor used anywhere.They did not put forth 'from kanchi' thesis.
Also,using 'Tondaimandalam' synonymous to Kanchi is a clear misguided information.You may refer scholarly book/maps on Tondaimandalaml These sort of terms do not look like 'NPOV' to me.That is why I feel to approach DRN.
I could have progressed to certain agreement of your draft with minor modifications if the term 'Kanchi origin' was not included in your draft.
NPOV draft is a first draft and it was posted by you for suggestions/updates.Hope it is not final draft.But unfortunately I do not sense my statements/sources are being considered at all.As stated above,I have uncertainty on the way the discussion and moderation is progressing. By LovSLif (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Kanchi origin" (my term) is in line with "Pallavas of Kanchi" (Sircar's term). Do you have an alternative?

"Origin in Tondaimandalam" might make you happier. But we have no information that a region called "Tondaimandalam" existed before Pallavas. It seems that the region was named after them (via their Tamil name Tondaiyar or Tondaiman).

I can weaken it to something like "origin in the vicinity of Kanchi". That is the best we can do. But this is not in line with Sircar, who does use terms like "Pallavas whom we find stationed at Kanchi at about the end of the third century" (The Early Pallavas, p.10). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,"Stationed at kanchi" does not mean they have originated from kanchi. Gabriel propounded the same.Prior to their seizure of kanchi by the end of third century,their forefathers reigned in andhra region and made land grants.

Also, how well does it hold to rely on single sentence. What are your inputs on below statement from the same source.

SCHOLARS are now generally of opinion that the Pallavas were not indigenous to the K&fici region. Thus Prof. S. K. Aiyanger says, "The Pallavas seem nevertheless to have been foreign to the locality as far as our evidence takes us at present" (op. vit., p. x). The question is now : When did the Pallavas attain political supremacy in the K&ftci region"

Also, I am not supporting 'Origin in Tondaimandalam'. just based on'Some author thinks pallavas to be natives of Tondaimandalam'.I am ok to retain the line but proposing/terming the uncertain thesis as 'origin' from kanchi/tondaimandalam does not look ok. We have many such unclear probabilities by various historians stating various origins of pallavas. By LovSLif (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

In the passage you displayed, Sircar is describing Aiyangar's views, which I had summarised in another paragraph.

The draft is summarising three articles in History of India volumes. Unless you have read those articles, you have no basis to comment on whether they are accurate summaries or not. So, please read the articles first.

Finally, if you have an alternative description to replace "Kanchi origin", please state it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have been through the book of Sircar and as I said above, Sircar no where propounded origin from kanchi.He was clear enough on pallavas extension to kanchi.It could be better if you could point to the paragraph or page numbers where he proponated 'Kanchi origin.

Those lines you quoted sofar are no where supporting such origin.'settling or extending' is not synonymous to origination.
Request you not to propogate self conclusive terms like 'Kanchi origin'.

I have cited book of Heras which translates velurupalayam grants stating conquest of kanchi.

You have rejected stating book is old.This book is as old as that of Sircar and younger to Gabriel book.Also,the translation of epigraphical plates will not alter with time.

I think the moderation is not progressing in a transparent way,So no point of prolonging the same.Let us park our comments.
As Abecedare said below,I will wait until he reviews and then decide on proceeding to DRN.
By LovSLif (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If you had read through the book of Sircar then why are you quoting the passage where he summarised Aiyangar's views. Why aren't you quoting Sircar's own views? Where did he say 'settling or extending'? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

References

• I'll be off-wiki for about the next 24 hours but will take a look at the recent developments soon after that. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)