User talk:Naadapriya

Welcome!

Hello Naadapriya! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting "adopted" by an experienced user How to: edit a page • upload and use images • start an article Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

User community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing!  Netsnipe  ►  18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. 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! --SineBot (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Purastamp.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Purastamp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Karnataka/Carnatic music, you will be blocked from editing. Please do not remove tags unless a consensus has been reached by editors. If consensus was reached, the editor who placed the tag there will remove it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Warning Message

Sir, I think making a valid point is not vandalizing. I do not consider going back to ones own edit that had not been previously modified by others is vandalizing. Also I do not think Overstatements and unnecessary warnings will help anyone. To date there is no objection from the original editor regarding the 'tag'. Naadapriya (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Karnataka/Carnatic music, you will be blocked from editing. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We have multiple accounts by different users on this system with their own passwords. To the best of our knowledge no one has done an act that deserves the "nonsense account". Though I can not speak for all users of the system please unblock for naadapriya. Naadapriya (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Naadapriya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

75.55.122.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "RealIndian". The reason given for RealIndian's block is: "nonsense account".

• Blocking administrator: Blnguyen (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Comparing the edits made by RealIndian and yourself, it is clear that you have violated our Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy which prohibits the abusive use multiple accounts. The editing block on this account has now been extended by two weeks. Sock puppetry is a considered a serious breach of trust by the Wikipedia community and further such violations may lead to an indefinite ban. During your two week block, please familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines as posted at the top of your talk page. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am focusing on building 'Karnataka/Carnatic music'. ('/' will be removed). To the best of my knowledge I do not see activity by anyone else other than me and those who are adding tags to this. Yes, I made several supporting statements against the merge but now I see forgot to sign one. I am interested in building the fact based Karnataka/Carnatic site and hopefully find a dedicated system. Current one is a shared system. However, I will leave the decision to Wikipedia for now. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

It is proposed to rename ‘Karnataka/Carnatic music' as ‘Karnataka AKA Carnatic Classical Music’. Feed back is welcome. ThanksNaadapriya (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Karnataka/Carnatic is Site Deleted

Looks like I need to rebuild since ‘Karnataka/Carnatic music’ has been deleted based on misguided information. The observation made by the deleting 'admn' is that 'naadapriya' is tainted with ‘sock puppetry'. I reviewed the histories of all ids named under ‘sock puppetry’. Absolutely there are no acts that can lead to ‘sock puppetry’ as defined by Wikipedia and there is no effort to vandalize the ‘Carnatic Music’ site as stated by others. I have informed this to the ‘admn’ who deleted the site and hopefully it will be revisited.

Still I and many others strongly believe a site is needed for Karnataka Classical Music based on the correct verifiable historical facts. Again I need to stress that the word Karnataka in ‘Karnataka Classical Music’ stands for the unique South Indian classical music not for the State of Karnataka as repeatedly misinterpreted by others. Since some have raised objection to Karnataka AKA Carnatic music I will work on an alternate name and discuss.Naadapriya (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Point by point rebuttal to unjustfied suggestion to delete the site

Answers in italics after consulting music experts

Comment 1. I hope you don't mind me voicing my suspicions, and making my requests here. I believe Reallindian is a sock-puppet of Knataka. Is there any way of checking this? Perhaps the information in the next paragraph may help a little.

‘Karnatatic/Carnatic music’ site is nothing to do with this.

Comment2 The Karnataka AKA Carnatic music article is a failed attempt to rename the Carnatic music article.

It is for renaming ‘Karnataka/Carnatic music’ site, not an attempt to rename’ Carnatic Music’ site.

Comment 3 After briefly looking at the history and the page itself, clearly, the latter is the most current and updated version.

It is arguable. ‘Carnatic Music’ site contains speculative information about what existed before mid 14th century. Current information about artists is incomplete.

Comment 4 I however cannot delete the attempt at a duplicate article, so am appealing to you.

Appeal is not justified.

Comment 5 Certain new and less-experienced editors (namely, the ones I mentioned in my previous para above, as well as Naadapriya, who refuse to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) are persistently trying to push their POV that the Carnatic music article should be named Karnataka AKA Carnatic music.

Naadapriya is not pushing any POV. There could have been some inadevertant but correctable edits.

Comment 6 The form of music is most commonly referred to as Carnatic music, both in published reliable sources, as well as by modern day artists of this genre of music.

It is not true. There is no authentic reference to say that name ‘Carnatic music ’ existed before ‘Karnataka Sangeeta’ came to existence. Modern day artists including the senior most legendary musician use ‘Karnataka Music’. There are evidences. ‘Carnatic’ is an anglized version of word ‘Karnataka’ does not represent real history.

Comment 7 It is also referred to as karnataka sangitham, which we have mentioned at the beginning of the article, however, this has not stopped these editors from making disruptive edits to this Carnatic music article that some of us editors (myself included) have worked so tirelessly on to bring up to the level it is at.

‘Karnataka Sangeeta’ name came first followed by 'Karnataka Sangitam' and then about 200 years later it somehow got a parallel name ‘Carnatic Music’. Therefore the title of the site should be ‘Karnataka Sangeetha or Sangetam AKA Carnatic Music’. To make it short on accurate web sites one should keep the original title ‘Karnaataka Sangeeta’ given to Sri Purandara Daasa’s invention and mention the rest in the text.

Comment 8 The sock-puppets/other editors have also created a new page with the title they so desired (i.e. Karnataka/Carnatic music, even though the content is already covered in Carnatic music article, and this latter article contains more information.

Comment 9 Any topic in encyclopedia should have clear boundaries. ‘Carnatic Music’ site has speculative historical background. Karnataka/Carnatic music has clear boundary conditions as explained several times.

Comment 10 Could you please delete the duplicate article?

Arguments given are not justifiable for deletion.

Comment 11 Thanks heaps - Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:53, 9 Jan Yeah I deleted it. Yes, RealIndian and Knataka are the same person. I checked it. RealIndian is already blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya's editsare nothing to do with other ids mentioned. Comment is mute

Request for Correct Action The suggestion for deletion is not justified. Sincerely hope that ‘admn’ reconsiders and allows the site. ‘/’ will be removed in the new title.Naadapriya (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop.

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Please stop. If you continue to recreate pages with bad titles before discussions about the title have ended, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ncmvocalist sir, specific comments without assuming ownership of on Wikipedia are requested. Discussions were posted here since other edits were temporarily blocked by mistake. Vague and abstract comments can not be answered. Naadapriya NEVER did any disruptive edits in 'Carnatic music' article nor created a bad title. Naadapriya has already shown valid evidences to create a new needed article, on Karnataka Sangeetha, the original name of South Indian classical music. Repeated false accusations need to be stopped to continue meaningful discussions. Unwarranted notices to editors will not help. If such acts are not stopped, it will be brought to the attention of Wikipedia managers.Naadapriya (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, in Wikipedia, you are not allowed to recreate articles that already exist (you have no valid 'evidence' to suggest that this article is about something other than Carnatic music). The proposal to have an article named in the way you desired has been rejected by consensus. Your continual disregard for this fact indicates that you are assuming ownership over Wikipedia (which leads to disruptive behaviour) - please don't assume ownership. Wikipedia is not a court of law that deals with 'objective evidence' - it is an encyclopedia. It is not for you to decide whether an article's deletion is justified or not - the admin decides that. The 'notices' have all been warranted. Please take care not to violate any of Wikipedia's policies or procedures again, as you are aware of the consequences if you do. Cheers! Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No reply to repeated 'make believe' accusations, vague/abstract comments and unwarranted notices. Naadapriya will stop replying to this editor unless there is a specific rational/logical/technical/comment. Goodbye for now until a meaningful discussion takes place. vanakam poyitu varre (Have a nice time)Naadapriya (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Your proposals for renaming Carnatic music were rejected twice now, and you still insist on pushing POV in other articles, such as Music of Karnataka - please stop vandalizing Wikipedia in this way. Your 'hard evidence' is both questionable and unnecessary as there is no dispute over the accuracy of the first sentence on its own, so you will find that the undos of your disruptive edits are indeed valid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

copy of discussions posted on Badagnani's talk page with correct order

Need to add to article: etymology of "Carnatic"/"karṇāṭaka". Most Tamil Carnatic musicians claim the term is not derived from Karnataka but is an indigenous Tamil word meaning "homeland" or something similar. Badagnani (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic word came from outsiders

Dear Badagnani: Some make up 'Carnatic' means 'Pleasing to ear'. Others fabricate as 'Ancient music'. Some go to the extent of calling it Vedic music. Now we hear it as ‘homeland’ by specific group. However there is no evidence that the original name for South Indian Classical music, ‘Karnataka Music’ was formally given a parallel name ‘Carnatic Music’ by any learned music scholar. Historical evidences show that 'Carnatic' is a name given to certain provision in South by an outside invader to India(~17th century) while other outside occupiers anglicized.For political reasons some are illogically replacing ‘Karnataka Music’ by ‘Carnatic Music’ since Mysore State was renamed as Karnataka State in 1970s, about 500 years after ‘Karnataka Music was founded by Sri Purandara Daasa using Kannada language. Also in native Kannada Language it is written as 'Karnataka Sangeeta' in other South Indian native languages it is written as 'Karnataka Sangeetam' but none of the South Indian languages has provision to write 'Carnatic Sangeeta or Samgeetam'. Therefore 'Carnatic' is a word came from outsiders. Please withdraw or correct your comment in 'discussion' of Carnatic Music article Naadapriya (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, angry as naadapriya may seem, he/she is not way off the mark either. The above description is a fairly accurate description of the situation, but it just has to be cited. I think I can help with that. In the meanwhile, I've made a request on the Carnatic music talk page calling for some calming down and collaboration. Please feel free to pitch in. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating comment. I'm not in a position to "withdraw" anything, as I was simply asking that the name of the music be properly explained (currently, it's not). If it can also be properly sourced, that would be even better. Badagnani (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Badagnani. Thanks for clarification about your comment posted on my talk page. I understand your concern about the use of a word 'Carnatic'. I am carefully listening to Sarvagnya's recent comments. I agree all should be ready for some compromise but never at the cost of hard facts. Again I need to iterate that the issue in so called 'Carnatic Music article' is not about language but it is about embedded distortion of truth using abstract, evading and deceptive means. Justice is not done to Wikipedia users by ad-hoc blocking 'Carnatic Music' from the legitimate edits from editors. As an accompanying musicians I play with great respect for all South Indian languagesNaadapriya (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SignedNaadapriya (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Carnatic Music

I am not going to comment on the content itself. I did however notice the edit warring between multiple users and thus, to prevent further disruption, protected the page for 2 weeks. Please discuss changes with the involved user(s) and come to a consensus for changes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. Like I said, discuss with the involved users. I have no opinion on the content, just a firm opinion against edit warring. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussions are going on intensivelyNaadapriya (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. 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! --SineBot (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just I forgot. Hope it will not happen againNaadapriya (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Carnatic music

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Carnatic music. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Also, comment on relevant content, not on contributors, as Wikipedia has a no personal attacks policy. Please stay cool and keep the above in mind while editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again this is an effort to stall the progress and take the discussion to a different path. Hope the commenting editor understands that a generic assessment of public domain information in the context of the discussion is not a personal attack. Comments are made only based on information provided by editors and are applicable to the editor to respond not the original author since they are not involved. However, naadapriya never made/makes any personal attack and will withdraw if any word is rationally objectionable to others. Editors should stop dragging unrelated references that are weasels and those created just to change the original name. Naadapriya firmly believes that a reference which changes anything in 'Karnataka Sangeetha Pitamaha Sri Purandara Daasa' and contradicts the strong followings of Karnataka Music by Trinity, MS, RKS, BMK and Chembai is not reliable. He will not answer further comments on this topic since it just stalls the on going progress. He will remove them with Wikipedia permission.Naadapriya (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya does not own Wikipedia, so claiming something as being unreliable for such reasons you have suggested is not justified, and not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In addition, Naadapriya has again failed to assume good faith by conveniently suggesting that editors are trying to stall when this is not the case. A final warning has been given in the talk page for the multiple violations Naadapriya has been pushing for. Any further violations may result in Naadapriya's ban/removal from Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To date naadapriya has NEITHER exercised any ownership NOR violated any Wikipedia rules/guidelines. He has interpreted all comments, rules and guidelines in good faith. Except from one editor he has not received any adverse comments similar to above from any other editors. Naadapriya sincerely requests editors/admns and visitors to ignore previous comments since they are mute.Naadapriya (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Carnatic music

Your recent edits to Carnatic music are not valid. Synthesised, WP:POV, WP:OR material is not allowed. There has been no consensus so please stop assuming so. You have already been told that this is the case on numerous occasions on the talk page of the article.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carnatic music. 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. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. You may be blocked if you choose to ignore this warning.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya has discussed this topic in detail since Feb 3, 2008. Except for Ncmvocalist no one has opposed to the needed correction. Ncmvocalist has opposed it without giving any valid evidence. From history one can see there are many such repeated 'undo' of valid corrections without giving justification. Warning given above applies clearly to Ncmvocalist not to Naadpriya. To date Naadapriya has not reverted any edits by others. He has made justified corrections and defended against unjustified 'undo'. Admns will be requested to review discussions.Naadapriya (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Bagagdani

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bagagdani, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bagagdani is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bagagdani, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic Music

You may be undoing others' edits repeatedly in Carnatic Music article. Please be aware of 3-revert rule and use talk page for discussions and gaining consensus. Thank you - KNM ^Talk 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should be concise. Etymology and history should go in the "Etymology" and "History" sections. The name "Karnatak" is favored by Western scholars of this music (many links already posted), and that can be explained in the "Etymology" section quite well and comprehensively. Such a section was proposed several weeks ago and should already have been added, since we have excellent researchers working on this article. Badagnani (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The etymology should go in the "Etymology" section. Badagnani (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought up etymology in every posting I made, going back many weeks and weeks. Badagnani (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Links regarding the top ethnomusicologists focusing on Carnatic music, and their preferred spellings for the name of said music, already provided. Please read the entire discussion carefully. Badagnani (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely related to etymology, which belongs in an Etymology section. Badagnani (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In spite of several requestsBadagnani has not answered why my edit is affecting the 'etymology' section that did not exist in the article. Also he has not identified the scholarly article to support his statement that 'Karnatak Music' is English equal of the original and currently used name 'Karnataka Music'. It appears that he is taking ownership of the 'Carnatic Music' article by repeated disruptive 'undo's of edits of corrections for which he has rarely/randomly participated in discussions. It is requested that he should first focus on creating an 'etymology' section with consensus and discussions rather than arbitrarily deleteting other valid edits.Naadapriya (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Please stop

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Carnatic music, you will be blocked from editing. Removing the image of Papanasam Sivan was not justified. Please take care not to do so in the future. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Carnatic music, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Purandaradasar was not the founder of Carnatic music as has been discussed, and consensus does not exist when no comment is made by other editors. If such claims are made, please ensure a valid reference is given that explicitly states so, as this would otherwise constitute synthesis. Please discuss this on the talk page again to avoid being reported. Thank you.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Above comments are not valid. Please see rebuttals posted on Ncmvocalist's talk page.Naadapriya (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy of Reply posted on Ncmvocalist talk page that someone has removed.

---

Reply to message posted on Naadapriya's talk page and request to withdraw inappropriate statements

False warning does not help anyone. It was not a question of removing photos. It was about having the appropriate photos within reasonable size of the article. All senior editors have agreed on this.

Except you no one has opposed the corrections to the article. Constructive comments made by some were incorporated. No opposition from some other editors who participated in discussions (since I proposed the changes on Feb 3, 2008) implies consensus. To date you have not provided any valid evidence to support your opposition. All who have knowledge of English know that ‘father of’ literally means ‘founder’. The article already includes references for ‘Father of Karnataka Music'. It is difficult to understand why this answered question is repeated just to stall the progress.

Finally you should have discussed before making recent unilateral changes to the corrected article. You have reworded the lead with no reason and removed an authentic reference with ISBN# that was endorsed by other Sr editors.

You should have left the corrections for other editors to review in the context of article rather than hastily reverting it.

Please withdraw inappropriate statements made to date.

Please stop giving repeated unwarranted and annoying notices. It is not constructive. To-date you have made following offensive comments and not withdrawn in spite of requests.

On ‘Carnatic Music’ discussion page:

Repeated use of unwarranted notices ‘You will be blocked’.

Offensive statement ‘It seems you have a problem with reading comprehension’

On talk page of user:Blnguyen with reference to Naadapriya

‘This editor has (as predicted) started dribbling his nonsense in Carnatic music. ….. He has not come spewing to my page.’

Please immediately withdraw above inappropriate, offensive and uncalled for statements.Naadapriya (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Naadapriya (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply: forward

Hello Naadapriya,
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are referring to as 'forward'. Also I don't remember placing any such requests for any of the articles. Could you please tell me what is a "forward" and give me the link where you think I have placed such a request. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Now I got you. I suggest you open a discussion thread in Talk:Bharatanatya and move on from there. Thats a better approach, instead of directly removing the #REDIRECT. My 2 cents. - KNM ^Talk 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead was fine previous to your edit. Regarding your new large paragraph, the English is not good or clear, and the subject should probably have its own page to discuss in such detail. Badagnani (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Thank you for the support.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you have taken up Purandaradasa and Kanakadasa articles. Please do the utmost you can for these two all important articles.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"In Purandaradasa article, you have the "references" and "notes" sections switched. Your inline citation notes should be in "Notes" section.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In the lead sentence, He among other dasas such as Sripadaraya, Kanaka Dasa, Jagannatha Dasa, Vijaya Dasa, and Kamalesha Vittala promoted bhakti (devotion) to God and tried social reforms through music.[1]

citation [1] points to a web link. It is not acceptable to have links in the middle of text. Please convert that link into a citation using the below syntax,

{{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)

Any of the KA featured articles will give you more details how to use it, how to provide the access date, etc. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A good source of info on Dvaita saints including Purandara Dasa and Kanaka Dasa is

'History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and Its Literature By B.N.K. Sharma' can be useful.[1].Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal falls

Hi Naadapriya,

I am writing here as a final resort in my pursuit to amicably solve the dispute in the article on the waterfalls. Let me list the concerns one by one so that things will be much easier.

1. Your first concern on the which state does the jurisdiction of Hogenakkal falls come under. To split that further down,

• according to Tamil Nadu – [2]
• according to Law Ministry of the Indian Union [3] (refer points 6.1 c and d)
• according to Karnataka State Tourism Department [4]

If you can show such government links then we can proceed further discussing about this.

2. Then the shoots the question on why in the heavens are people then talking about a survey.

• The survey is about an island near the falls which both state claim to be under their control. References [5] and [6]

3. If the island is the root of all trouble, was there a survey earlier?

• Yes [7] [8] [9]
• But what happened to the survey then? Read for yourself here, because I don’t want to be shown guilty of blaming any single side of the dispute.

4. So, if the waterfalls is on the TN side of the border, are they barking mad to ask approval of Karnataka?

• Because the any use on the Kaveri river has to be authorised by all the four Kaveri dependent states involved [10]
• Mover over as you can see Karnataka itself wanted approval from TN which is a lower riparian state for using Kaveri for Bangalore [11]

5. So did Karnataka approve of the scheme?

• Yes, as per reliable press reports [12] again and one more [13].
• The Hindu report on top will also tell you that the Union government approved of it.

6. Then your next concern that the article is on the waterfalls and there is no need to say about a project, but as I mentioned to you earlier it is usual practice in an encyclopaedia to mention every detail including water projects. For this entries on Niagara falls was shown. [14]

Naadapriya, I would like to see the issue solved with no further trolling and dispute, but the ball is at your court. If you can show good references of any of your claims, you are more than welcome, but otherwise, please do not waste precious time of your fellow wikipedians. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not claiming anything new. I am pointing out inaccurate information posted in the article and suggesting corrections. None of the above quoted references justify the section on non existing water project in Hogenakkal falls article. These were already discussed. As a trained irrigation engineer I do not see a relation between water project and water falls. Since all state and central Govt have acknowledged that there is a dispute on the land at the falls it is premature to make conclusive statements in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is about existing facts not speculations and judgments by the editors. Readers are referred to the detailed discussions of Hogenakkal falls article.Naadapriya (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no conclusive statement there. It clearly uses the word proposed, which is true. Moreover we have been through your stance on relation between water project and water falls. If you are in any doubt of this, you are free to ask for third opinion from a non-Indian admin (which I have already done through email to admin John Carter - you are free to check with him). You may also want to check Shivanasamudra Falls which mentions about the hydroelectric project. This would prove beyond doubt that a project can be mentioned in a waterfalls article. I still believe talking to you is not a waste of time. Don't make me feel as if am barking up the wrong tree. BTW I take that you agree on the other points that you haven't raised in your reply. Thats a good move ahead in this issue. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment was about conclusive statement on disputed area not about the water project which does not exist. For Wikipedia it does not mater if the editor is an Indian or not. It is about the fact.

1)The water project does not exist and as shown in discussions with reference there is an on going dispute between two states about it. Even the references quoted by above editor say that. Therefore water project should not be included in the wikipedia article.

2) As it was mentioned earlier it is logical to talk about hydroelectric project since it has to be at the falls. There is no relation between a water falls and water project.

Except above two issues other issues mentioned in previous comments are not related to the present discussion. Therefore the section on water project has be removed from the article. Still it is not clear why above editor wants to keep the speculative information in the current article. If water project becomes a reality he can write a separate article.Naadapriya (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied in the article talk page. I have asked for editor assistance for another third party comment. I guess we can solve it there. But one thing, please see at your own posts from the past on this article. You started with saying that the falls belongs to both states, then that the project was not aproved and now your claim is that its on hold and hence non-existance. I will keep this for the record. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments consistently say the same thing from the beginning. Please do not misinterpret them to defend your conclusion based on going unsettled disputes between state Govts. For now I stand by above 2 observations on water project. Third party comments are welcome. For now the section need to be removed.

On a related issue that will not impact above discussions I support water projects since they are humanitarian issues as long they are planned considering the interests of all concerned parties. As a trained irrigation Engineer I just do not understand why it is planned near jointly owned falls area in such a way to cause a serious controversy. Water project is lot simpler than a hydro electric project and its location is very flexibleNaadapriya (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

We will be just going in circles if it is just us talking. As I said earlier, let a third party comment on it and we can then move further. Thats the protocol. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinions from other editors are voluntary. For now the section has to be removed.Naadapriya (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually asking third opinion is wikipedia recommended procedure. Please refer to this section and further down follow the links. I believe you do believe in Wikipedia protocol. Don't you? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that it is not.Naadapriya (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that a recommended procedure is not voluntary. BTW what you have done in the article page is really not good, as in, you have made your decisions without built up of consensus or waiting for third opinion. As of now, you are the ONLY user who wants it to be removed. So what you did is not advisable and HENCE am reverting it. Please wait for a third opinion. Ok? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How shall we proceed?

Do you want to see a recap of events on the Hogenakkal falls talkpage? I thought since I have wasted so much time there already, I would spend a bit on preparing this for you. Hope you enjoy reading it.

Lets start:
The reference you provided here when you said

“ The location of falls is in both Chamarajanagara district of Karnataka and Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu ”

was a google search page with no WP:RS material.
Evidence that you said that is here ->[15]

But, the entry already had references to the contrast which where ->[16] [17] [18], all of them WP:RS.

Nevertheless, you still went on and said

“ Answer is very simple. If the falls area solely belonged to Tamil Nadu then central Govt would not have agreed to resurvey [16] the area to determine the ownership. The falls area belongs to both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka State. ”

Once again what reference did you show? The same google search!!! Evidence that you said that is here ->[19]

Although you didn't have a reliable source (actually no source- google search is not a source), we showed you two reliable source information that the survey was not about the falls, but about the island. This one and this.

What did you say again here ->[20]?

“ The falls area belongs to both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka states. ”

My oh my! We are still in talking terms is astounding. I never knew I have this much of patience.

In spite of your BS, I listed out all your concerns and replied to them all about again here [21] and also in your talk page here ->[22]

For this your response was

“ None of the above references justify the inclusion of non-existing water project in the article and conclusive statements about the ownership of land ”

Yes you did say that here ->[23] But, the good news was this time I got a WP:RS from you. The reference quoted Nanje Gowda (former minister of Karnataka) as saying We must remember that we had issued a NOC on 21-09-1998 for this project... .

Oh O!!! Wait!! Weren’t you the one who said that Karnataka didn't give its consent? So here is someone who says (in your reference) that Karnataka issuea a No Object Certificate.

Well, still I suggested that we can ask for a third party opinion here ->[24]

Your response for this was nothing like anyone would have expected. You said

“ The project is proposed by one state yet to be approved by other state and Central Govt. ”

HOLD ON!!!!! Didn't we go through this already? God I really need an award from Jimbo Wales himself for my patience.

I still suggested that we wait till we hear from the third parties here [25]

Shall we see what you did?
You removed the content!!![26]

Million dollar question!

What will you do if you were me? Especially, in spite of my good gesture, the person says that I am incivil . I will leave you to examine your own conscience. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in finding information with Google search as long as the original source is reliable. Majority of sources to date are from news by reputed news agencies such as Hindu, Deccan Herald etc just like most of your references. You are unnecessarily going round and round without directly answering 2 issues I pointed out on water project again and again. As the tag says it is necessary to keep 'cool'. Though I do not like choice of some words you use I tend to ignore them in the interest of the accurate article. By stating the accurate facts one can keep this article about beautiful falls non-controversial which I guess both have common interest.Naadapriya (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, please ask anyone in WP:RS/N if you may wish to on using google search as a source. More over goes to

1. Hogenakkal Water Dispute page
2. Your talk page
   

as the first two hits (as of now).
As for the news articles it self that show up, they talk about the ownership of island and not the waterfalls. Once again do not show such a stuborn stance. As for your alegation on my choice of words, you are once again free to ask anybody else. I don't see anything odd about them. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please beating around the bush. Please stay focused 2 issues identified in the discussion page of the articleNaadapriya (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Beating around the bush? Read dude, you will see who is beating around the bush here. I have asked you to go get an expert suggestion. I guess you should do that before putting warning messages on other user's page. Ok? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I will stop responding to unrelated comments by Wiki San Roze on this page. Unnecessary information will be deleted. Naadapriya (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by unrelated comments? You used google as your source and I was talking about that. How come that is unrelated? Not just me, but even the third opinion tells you that the section should stay. Even John Carter has answered your concerns. Once again if you think I'm talking unrelated stuff, ASK OTHERS. Remember that leaving such warning messages is as per WP:HUSH, which states Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page ... is a common form of harassment. I would recommend you to remove them yourself. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Hello, Naadapriya. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. As you can see, by protocl if you file an AN/I you will have to inform the other party to give a reply. Something for you for the next time. As for this unfortunate thing, well, you were warned earlier many times. This has been a last resort. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant unfortunate for the future of article.Naadapriya (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

O don't worry about the article. I have pretty much chalked out on how to improve it and get atleast a b class for it. Once the isues are resolved, geological data will be added. I had knocked he doors of wikiproject geology and one user had already emailed me and is now workin on it. As for the tourist section, I have got a book on the boats and another on the medicinal effects of the plants around it. I can assure you that the article will be in great shape once the silly jurisdiction issues are solved. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know that you are working on material directly related to falls area not just a specific narrow portion of water falling. Also it is important to keep the article to reasonable length in the interest of wikipedia by avoiding speculative and politically disputed informations. I agree with you that why talk about silly jurisdiction when it uniquely belongs to two great states. I am trying to get a photo that is more appropriate for the name of the falls that can be posted. Take it easy.Naadapriya (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Naadapriya, it doesn't belong to two states. This discussion is better on the talk page of the article rather here. I brought it here to the talk page earlier because it was recommended in dispute resolution protocol, but we are now passed that. Anyways, as for the project to be included, we can have another RfC on what others might think. Although I insist on the jurisdiction to be mentioned as per what the official documents say, I would also stand by the fact that Kannada language script shoul stay there. I guess as far as that is concerned we will agree with each other. If you think there are more details on the falls and its area that can be mentioned, please feel free to let us know. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussed here since it was brought up. I stand by retaining both Tamil and Kannada language scriptsNaadapriya (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Naadapriya! I guess you would have noticed that John Carter has suggested that a mediation would be a good idea rather than AN/I. I would like to get your consent on going in for mediation. If you are not comfortable with that we can continue in the AN/I itself. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the response on AN/I. All editors involved since beginning of discussions need to be included. About 10 or so have opposed the current POV statement in the lead. Trying to choke one editor's comment with coordinated multiple editors' comments will not make the real and valid issue disappear.Naadapriya (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The AN/I was agaisnt you, not agianst others. It was against you for being disruptive. Let me know asap if you want to go for a mediation or not. I would like to see the back of the issue asap. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Others are also are dragged into AN/I. BTW Does anyone know where is AN/I discussions on the use of 'BS' in discussions by Wikiality123 related to Hogenakkal falls article. It also included use of 'Damn', 'I will remember this' etc etcNaadapriya (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn is something wrong for you? Please ask this to some admin or third party and they will tell you what DAMN means. The AN/I you filed agaisnt me is in the archives btw. Please do not modify an archived discussion. Anyways, I am moving to mediation because the AN/I is going no where. I shall follow the protocol what is on wikipedia and take advices as recommended. I hope you will co-operate. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy one should have informed before archiving portions of ongoing active discussions. Please retrieve all discussions including that on use of BS by you with comments by user:SheffieldSteel to active pages till issues are concluded Naadapriya (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are requested to take part in the mediation filed here. Would be nice if the issue gets solved once and for all. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kanakadasa image

The expert on image license is User:Elcobbola. He will answer your question. Or you can put the image on my talk page and I will ask him. If you have a good image of Purandara Dasa as well, it would be a welcome addition. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal falls mediation

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 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hogenakkal falls, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Anthøny I will review the details and respond ASAP within deadline. Naadapriya (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) Please note, I intend to work with the filing party, to restructure the issues to be mediated: a lot of them are conduct issues, which mediation does not address. Just an FYI, that the issues will be changing soon. Anthøny 12:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the up date. I will wait for further info.Naadapriya (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the issues have been re-written. This mediation is now an opportunity for the content dispute to be sorted out, once-and-for-all. Please do give your input, and give serious consideration to accepting: I know the MedCom can really help this dispute. The choice is, of course, yours. Anthøny 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is good that the inappropriate text was corrected by the initiator. Thanks to clarity of mediation guidelines that one needs to follow. The current modified text looks kind of clumsy with all strike-outs of unrelated text and possibly mislead those who are not familiar with all discussions. If my observation is appropriate please ask the initiator to clean-up and just leave the relevant content material as suggested by you. I will make my decision in a day or two after visiting all discussions in detail. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Role

Responded via e-mail. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post it on your talk page in response to my request for clarification. I would like to keep all discussions open for wikipedia. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kanaka.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Kanaka.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Hi Naadapriya, please also note that scanned images constitute derivative works for which the original author retains copyright. If you believe the original is not under copyright, please provide supporting information (e.g. author, date of first publication, etc.) to substantiate the claim. WP:PD may be of assistance. Thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hogenakkal falls. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

For what it's worth, please remember that in addition to having to meet WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RELIABILITY, all information which is sought to be included in an article must also be clearly and explicitly stated in a single source. If you can remember that from this point forward, you should be fine. If you should have any problems in the future, please feel free to drop me an e-mail and/or leave a message on my talk page and I'll do what I can to help. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, anyone can look at the AN/I page and act on what is posted there. It would be very bad form to try to report someone for trying to be a useful citizen, which is basically what you threatened to do elsewhere. I very strongly suggest that you read some of the policy and guideline pages rather quickly, as you are right now starting off with what seems to me to be very much the wrong foot. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello John Carter In above comments I am totally lost on you just like I lost you several times in discussions. Even Sr editor Wikiality123 also had lost you in discussions. Can you please state who, why and what are you addressing in above comments. For sure it does not belong on my user page. I plan to delete it. Still I am waiting for open response from you on my inquiry posted on your home page. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Shivanasamudra Falls

Hi Naadapriya,

I have added your image to the Shivanasamudra article in the gallery section. However, I have retained the original image as it is, since it shows both Bharachukki and Gaganachukki. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Just to notify you that there's a reply to your post at my Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I will read it.Naadapriya (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

John Carter

There is some commentary here that you may wish to respond to. Best Regards, Cleo123 (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

editprotected

Hi Naadapriya. Please understand that I can't go against the consensus on the talk page. Unless those editors comment there, then I can't change the article, as there are more opposing than not. I suggest you contact those editors and ask them to participate in the current talk page discussion, or open another request for comment. However, as the admin doing the {{editprotected}} rounds, I can't submit to those changes without current consensus. Hope that clears it up. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

courtesy note

This is to inform you that a complaint has been lodged against your editing of Carnatic music. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic music-- you see to have violated the 3 revert rule. you might want to leave off and let the RFC take it's course

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dlohcierekim 08:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the same rule applys to Ncmvocalist who acted similarly first. I did not revert any new edits. I brought back the section that existed before Ncmvocalist deleted first without discussions . The section was introduced based on discussions and feed back by many editors. Therefore RFC should be based on the status of the article that existed before Ncmvocalist reverted first. Naadapriya (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec - see below)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Reverting while there is a process in place is a strong indication of bad faith, so I have blocked you from editing for 48 hours. Your block log and the content of this page does not speak well for good faith generally, but I would emphasise that the appropriate method of dispute resolution is by discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse the above interpretation. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Naadapriya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

All edits made were corrections to the article not reverts. As also suggested by other editors (for e.g Erachima) the last edit made was to introduce the section that was deleted in bad faith before RFC was initiated. Please remove the block. Naadapriya (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The edit history of the relevant articles clearly shows your inability to edit collegially without entering into an edit war. — Black Kite 19:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Warning regarding your edits on Carnatic music

You seem to have violated some of our policies ( don't edit war on articles primarily, by repeatedly reverting and edit warring on the Carnatic music article ).

Normally accounts which violate that policy are blocked for 24 hours. In this case, I am going to assume you had good faith intentions in mind and not do so.

However... I have fully protected the article for 48 hours so only administrators can edit it at the moment. The edit warring has to stop.

You need to engage more productively in discussions on the article talk page, to help find a consensus which you and everyone else there can agree to.

Please keep the following Wikipedia policies in mind as you re-enter those discussions:

• articles need to have a neutral point of view
• ... and not give undue weight to minority viewpoints, though they should be presented
• all information should be sourced back to external references
• and those references should be reliable, preferably print books or magazines, journals, etc.

A number of the points you have raised need to be reviewed in light of those four policies. Please try and review those policies and respond to others' criticisms in these areas, answering their questions regarding verifyable and reliable soruces for information, and whether your own viewpoint is promoting undue weight on one aspect of the overall topic.

When the article full protection ends, please DO NOT resume the back and forth edit warring there. If you do so, numerous Wikipedia administrators who are now aware of the situation will find that there's little alternative left but to block you if your are disruptive. If you make changes, make sure that you've discussed the changes and the issues (including the policies I mention above) in the article talk page, and made a good faith effort to cooperate and come to consensus with other editors there.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge I have not violated any of the above mentioned. I added recorded talks, legal CDs, news articles in addition to book references since the article needed it. I reintroduced a section that other editors had endorsed before it was deleted in bad faith. Please see discussions.Naadapriya (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of 34 references in the current version of Carnatic Music only about 9 are based on books and Jl articles. Rest from either web sites or news articles. Legal CDs and recorded talks can serve as additional citation due to nature of the contents in the article. If wikipedia strictly wants to enforce the rule

• and those references should be reliable, preferably print books or magazines, journals, etc.

then the article which also has significant other mistakes should be completely re-written.

Naadapriya (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent blocks

My Comment

Dear Admn. I would like to what alerted you to block me. You blocked me when I made an edit to bring back a section that was removed in bad faith and a RFC was initiated by Ncmvocalist. As I understand also pointed by other editor Erachima such deletion by Ncmvocalist is against Wikipedia policy.

As I understand direct reverts automatically alert Admn. In this case your action is followed after an edit. During the same period I could see on you talk pages there were some intimate transactions going on between Ncmvocalist and you on a different topic. I want to make sure you were not requested to intervene and block me. Please clarify so that I can understand the situation better. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Admn Response

Thank you for you message on my talkpage. I acted upon reviewing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive471#User:Naadapriya - block needed (which I note, when reviewing the archives, is a follow on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive471#Repeated deletion by Ncmvocalist of existing valid section in Carnatic Music which I hadn't seen) and the timing of your edits. It appeared that you were continuing the edit war - the view that an edit is correct is not relevant, it is still reverting - while the other parties were attempting to create a consensus over the matter. It also appeared to me that you have some difficulty in understanding the collaborative processes of creating consensus, as your talkpage is full of complaints and warning regarding you disregarding the comments and positions of others over your own preferred versions. Under the circumstances, I blocked you for the violations of WP:Edit war yet not so long as you could not attend the RfC created to resolve these matters. As you will note, I made my actions known at the WP:ANI#User Naadapriya section above.
My recent interactions with Ncmvocalist are subsequent to my acting in regard to your block, and are themselves subsequent to our mutual initial involvement regarding the same matter back as per User talk:LessHeard vanU#Re: Re Abtract back in July. I trust that you are not inferring anything from the polite manner in which I and Ncmvocalist interact, as I endeavour to be as polite and respectful to all those who correspond with me. I trust your concerns regarding my actions have been resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My Response

Ncmvocalist requested to block at 09:52, 1 September 2008 and bloking took place at 10:30, 1 September 2008 i.e just within 38 minutes. It was acknowledged that the comment I had placed to justify was not read. Given the complexity of situation I guess it would have required more than 38 minutes to make such big decision on blocking. My action before I was blocked was a normal edit to bring back a section that was deleted by Ncmvocalist in bad faith before initiating a RFC. All my other edits were to modify sections based some recent comments in RFC regarding quotes from RS.

I strongly consider my blocking is a result of unfortunate misleading information posted by Ncmvocalist. He has tried it several times in the past without success. In such failed attempts once I guess he himself got blocked. Somehow he succeeded this time. At this stage nothing I can do about my blocking. However, I would like to request Admns to make wikipedia allowed provision to bring back the section that Ncmvocalist has deleted before starting the RFC. It will bring back the article to a status at which Georgewilliamherbert wanted to edit protect for a while. Deleting valid NPOV section without discussion that too just before RFC is ignoring NPOV effort in good faith by many editors to include the section.

Section can be modified based on RFC conclusions. Naadapriya (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Admn Response : Not yet

Uncalled for comments

Your violation of policy is what resulted in your block - please do not suggest otherwise as you seem to have done here. The consensus was to delete the section because the concerns of NPOV, RS and UNDUE are critical to the encyclopedia, and you have not satisfied any of these thresholds for inclusion to date. The action will not be reversed. Responses were given to erachima and yourself on the matter, on separate venues, on separate occasions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to this is posted on Ncmvocalist talk page. Naadapriya (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and UNDUE are non-negotiable - those changes have been deemed unacceptable for inclusion in the article and so they will not be reincluded. If you continue to harbour on this point, then you may be subject to another block for disruption. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is NPOV. erachima and I have pointed on separate occasions but for your same incorrect action. The section was up for a discussion for a while before it was added with the help of at least 3 editors. It is NPOV. It has book RS in addition to other. Rest will be followed up with Admn and articles talk page. Naadapriya (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• You appear to be engaging in distraction fallacies. Before material can be included it has to pass at least two tests: first, is it verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources; second, would its inclusion give undue weight to a view which is not widely held. To say that the text is stated neutrally is to ignore these fundamental requirements. What you are arguing for looks increasingly like a novel synthesis, which is absolutely forbidden by policy. Much of your engagement on the talk page is simply restatement of the same arguments which others have already addressed - we call that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your comments about your blocks are plain wikilawyering and also not helping your case at all. I suggest that you read your own user page, particularly the comment about fanaticism; if you carry on as you are then I foresee an unhappy future for you. Sorry to be blunt, but you are now giving all the appearances of being a tendentious editor and an agenda account. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Detailed reply to above comment that shows up randomly without specifics will be posted on commentator's talk page after analyzing all piece meal comments. For e.g. it deliberately and repeatedly ignores the a well refereed book RS that was used during the discussions. Naadapriya (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Except that others concluded that the book source did not properly support your content. That's the whole problem, really - you keep making the same statements as if, for example, the existence of a book inherently validates your interpretation of that book. It doesn't. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If my interpretation is considered inadequate, then how come no one has yet given an alternate better interpretation in spite of the book clearly talking about Ugaboga. Also users such as Ncmvocalist who claim an authority on Carnatic Music have not provided a RS to prove otherwise and show how alapane got originated in Carnatic Music. Given the complexity of the topic I have given my best interpretation in good faith. However modifications to improve are well come.Naadapriya (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI proposed community sanction

Hello, Naadapriya. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI#Community sanction/ban proposal on User:Naadapriya regarding a proposed community sanction against you. Thank you.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello User:David_J_Wilson Thanks. Yes NOW I can see. Please read the discussions for the last year or so in Carnatic Music. Ncmvocalist who initiated the ANI has a history of making false complaints and discouraging new editors with 'block' threats and unwarranted ANI TBMK in due course he was blocked once. After reviewing the current one I can see concerns of some other editors. All my edits are in 100% good faith and the statements on my user's page is based on my real experiences but not directed towards any one. Unfortunately this new unwarranted ANI is initiated when RFC is coming to a logical conclusion.Naadapriya (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Per the consensus expressed at Community sanction/ban proposal on User:Naadapriya, you are prohibited from editing pages relating to Carnatic music, broadly construed. You may appeal this ban to the Arbitration Committee, but I have to say that I personally would advise you not to as the restriction is the more lenient of the options proposed. It is likely that an appeal for lifting of the restrictions would be viewed favourably by the community if you are able to productively edit other subjects for a period of months; as a rough guide, I would expect 6 months to be the minimum people would consider sufficient to justify revisiting this decision, but that is only my personal view. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of a ban/sanctions issued by the community. The edits in question are: [27] along with [28]. 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Naadapriya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason here

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=your reason here |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=your reason here |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=your reason here |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Since the message was posted on 13:29, 9 September 2008 I have NOT made any edits on Carnatic Music. Only edits I have made are in my user page and Ughaboga article which in noway impact the existing incorrect version of Carnatic Music. Please remove my block. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)