Talk:Hogenakkal Falls water dispute

Hogenakkal is a village in the Dharmapuri district of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. It is part of Koothapadi panchayat village within the Pennagaram sub-district of Dharmapuri district.

please dont say karnataka state unit of bjp's contention as "karnataka perspective". People in karnataka never want to deprive another fellow human being from drinking safe water.

Cine people's involvement has their own vested agenda..see article present version... Politicians have their own vested agenda like having no issue that differentiates all three major parties which have been the object of people's jokes for shifting stances based on betrayal.

Ksense (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)3:57 pm ist

Please do not post your opinions on this article. Please read What Wikipedia is not. The jurisdiction of the village is not in dispute, it is the location of the falls that is under dispute. Hogenakkal village's location is not same as the falls. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

mr./ miss ganeshk, i think you are crossing your limits & seem to not respect your own appeal to not use the site as personal blog.. if i am supposed to be a sock puppet , i will not be able to edit this article & ignorant/ stupid people can claim otherwise!! so i guess miss/ mr/ master "liar ganeshk" ought to apologise for calling me names if ganeshk is a honourable person.. hope you stop abusing other editors henceforth. and by the way it seems that you are not going to allow any rectification of an error which states the karnataka state bjp party's perspective as the "KARNATAKA'S PERSPECTIVE". SEE THE REFERENCE QUOTED FOR THE MISQUOTED PART..i hope you are not a puppet under karnataka bjp's command. please remember that the tamilnadu bjp & other parties in karnataka itself differ from that k-bjp's view.. & if you had read the previous entries here, you would not have idiotically revereted to a factually incorrect version repeatedly..you can justify your action here(if you have any justification) Cityvalyu (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

why i am going to restore refernced content

1. they are relevant to this article

2. they are referenced

3. the older version is full of misleading wrong attributions..(see discussion fully)

4. a cotery of 3/ 4 users may have a vested agenda in hiding the facts on the violence & the timing of the violence

5. k-bjp's perspective not equal to karnataka perspective

6. facts on 1998 project are not the sole perspective of tamilnadu. karnataka participated in it too as a equal partner

7. will restore facts unless deleters can explain why they want to delete facts & insert lies on this talk page

Cityvalyu (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who violates the three-revert rule, will be blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i am getting fed up with this ganeshk/ maximvsdecimvs...why do these people delete referenced content repeatedly..this is not their personal blog site & arent we free to undo their mischief!! i dont know if the hindu cant be taken as a reliable reference, then what else is 'reliable', considering that the hindu is part of the core team of media groups that our indian govt takes on board for coverage of all ...i also find that ganeshk's attempts at masquerading karnataka state bjp's stand as karnataka perspective was correctly identified (ironically) by ksense using the reference article quoted by ganeshk!! so what is he upto???117.193.33.181 (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the whole drama

Cityvalyu, I do agree with you that the violence as an aftermath has to be mentioned, but with precaution. Remember not to point fingers at anyone but STATE THE FACT AS IT IS, but not the opinions. To point out that Cinema theaters were attacked is stating the fact, but to point it to every crisis between the state would be OR. It may have happened, but thats between you and me. The best way you can go about that is to add such details using Kaveri River Water Dispute as a model. That article had been made after a lot of edit wars and loads of taggings. But in my opinion its as much as balanced as it may get. I see no reason why you want to remove the sections on pespective of each state. Try expanding it, rather than pushing yours all over it. Keep a cool head throughout, because people will use it to run over you and for God's sake remember not to breach Wiki rules including 3RR. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)