Talk:Belgaum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archives of older discussions: 0

Old discussions archived

I have archived the old Talk page for two reasons:

1. It was huge (125 kb+)
2. It really had nothing in it that contributed towards the improvement of the article.

Let's use this space from now on to discuss factual improvement of the article, and not indulge in politics or speculation.

For starters, I think this article needs some updates to information related to Belgaum

• Connections (air, rail, broad, bus)
• Rise of importance as an "education city"

and let's try and clean out political commentary and editorialization.

Let's make this a great article!

Achitnis 04:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to keep its NPOV intact.Glorification of either side's stand will lead to conflict.Thanks. Mahawiki 04:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent Developments

I would like to recommend that the section "Recent developments" be removed or extensively edited to be more concise. It is the largest section in the article and reduces the readability and interest-worthiness of the article, by introducing needless detail and analysis, none of which add value to the article. This is really not a cricket match where we have to report ball by ball. :)

I would suggest removal of this section, and updating the previous section ("Border problems") with only a few lines about the current developments, with links for further off-site reading.

I volunteer to do this if the suggestion is acceptable.

This suggestion is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of any viewpoint - I am concerned about the readability of the article and the value it offers to readers.

Achitnis 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have created a draft to replace the current text. I have tried to keep it as neutral as possible. Non-political comments are invited. Please note that Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor a repository for future information, and does not chronicle every fact in existence. We should use links to off-site information to avoid distracting readers from the main article.

Achitnis 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any objections, I am replacing the above sections with the contents of my draft.

I would again remind everyone that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a political propaganda vehicle. The idea behind this rewrite was to depoliticise the overall article, and I am going to be pretty ruthless about enforcing this. Belgaum's page on Wikipedia deserves better than being an unreadable collection of political statements by rivalling factions. Worst case situation, I will propose a "Belgaum Border Dispute" article, move the border dispute issues to that article, and link to it from the main Belgaum article.

Achitnis 07:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to the admin's version.I had urged u to keep the NPOV intact and include all details about Maharashtra's stand which was in the old version.It seems u have not read the old version properly.Centre has cancelled his anti-Maha stand long before.There was too much emphasis on Karnataka assembly in ur version.I request u to brief the existing matter rather than reword it.Maharashtra's stand also be given importance as karnataka's.Mahawiki 09:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see that we are going to have a battle on our hands unless you accept the fact that this is an encyclopedia, and that this is an article about the city of Belgaum, not about interstate politics.

You are doing exactly the thing that you are accusing others of doing - you are flooding this article with completely irrelevant political details and propaganada, all of it Maharashtrian. Can you count how many times you refer to to Maharashtra in that section, mahawiki? I am a Maharashtrian, but I care more for the effectiveness of an article about my hometown than politics. That section you are protecting there is ugly, meaningless, distracting and completely irrelevant to the city of Belgaum. If you want that text to remain on Wikipedia, please move it to an article named Belgaum Border Disputes, and we can link to that from the Belgaum article.

Would you like to take this to arbitration?

Achitnis 11:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, 31% of the article is dominated by the border dispute text, which is also extremely badly written and has no precedent on Wikipedia. And I am not saying that the border dispute does not exist - I am saying that it doesnt belong into an article about a city that has a lot more to offer than politics. According to me (as a person actually from Belgaum), this entire border dispute text should be made a separate article.

In addition, you have wiped out all other edits from the article, including my work in other sections such as on educational institutions.

Achitnis 12:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear achitnis, I appreciate ur views.For god's sake dont threaten me about arbitration etc as I have gone beyond it.U say there's many mentions of Maharashtra here,dont u see the Kannada POV pushing in other articles.I mean see the archived talk.I am sick of POVs.I request u to keep the border dispute section BRIEF,BALANCED AND NEUTRAL. I dont want to push Maharashtra's POV here.So i request to go through the old Border dispute article,summarise it and make sure u keep it neutral and balanced.I have no intentions of pushing Maharashtra's POV.Of course u can make a new article outta it. Mahawiki 12:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You have gone "beyond arbitration"? :) Could you show me where? If you can show me that you have had this article in arbitration and were successful, I will back off. If not, I am afraid I will not change my stand about this matter.

Just out of curiosity - where in Belgaum do you actually live? I am from Anagol/Bhagyanagar.

Achitnis 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahawiki says "U say there's many mentions of Maharashtra here,"! his/her english grammar/spellings are below the standards expected at wikipedia. Regardless of which political side he/she is taking, use of such english is certainly questionable.

Professional Educational Institutions

I suggest that this section be redone. It is really of interest only to very few people in a global readership context.

Instead of just listing out a number of institutions, I suggest we replace this section with some text about the growth of the professional colleges, with a few examples in terms of genre (engineering, medicine, etc.) rather than trying to make this a place to list every institution of note in Belgaum. Please understand that every institution is of note to people associated with it, so this could become a never-ending story. :)

Achitnis 06:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section, and provided links to the VTU and KU, which is a more logical place to list affiliated institutions.

Achitnis 08:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Industry

Belgaum is a very important centre for industry. Yet this article hardly touches upon this. We need to fix this. Any volunteers from Belgaum knowledgable about this who could provide information in the Industry section?

Achitnis 08:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have asked admin to make it shorter.I hope it will saisfy ur wish.Thanks.Mahawiki 13:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

User:Mahawiki has violated rules far too many times with this article to be allowed to continue the politicization of this article. In accordance with Wikipedia rules, I am requesting arbitration by admins. Achitnis 14:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged this article as disputed, for attention of admins. The dispute is about the large amount of politically motivated material introduced by User:Mahawiki. I had forked out that material to Belgaum border dispute to avoid further issues and linked to it from the main article, but he has repeatedly reverted out all my edits.

Achitnis 14:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The matter appears to be resolved at this time. Achitnis 15:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tourism and attractions

This section is a thorough mess! We need to do better than this if we ever want this article to get nominated for article of the day. :)

The first para is so 19th century (except for the last sentence referring to Sambra).

The list is a mess as well - some of the links are plain wrong (like Jamia Mosque!), others are 404, etc.

Should we clean up the list and then start adding things in a slightly structured and verified manner?

Achitnis 16:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting all the content for now. Editors please add only attractions in city of Belgaum (+may be places in 20km radius), not places around it. Also whenever you add some place please include some details, dont just list them. Leotolstoy 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggest we put the old list of places here in the talk section (cleaned up of course), so that people can pick from that and add to the article along with descriptions. Makes it easier for people to get started.

Achitnis 15:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing links

Hi I removed a external link which was a kannada fanatic news item irrelavant to this article.If anyone includes it again,I am ready with many pro-Marathi links.The neutral editors are requested to ask KNM and other kannada editors to not place it again.

Mahawiki 06:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahawiki - provide evidence that the article linked to is inaccurate before removing again. This link has been in place for a long time but has never been objected to by you. It has therefore stood the test of time and scrutiny - including by you. And I have warned you about trying to politicize this article. The only fanatism I see here is yours. Achitnis 08:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters, The Hindu is not even a newspaper of Karnataka for you to call it a Kannada fanatic source. Even otherwise, The Hindu is a far more notable, credible and reliable source compared to your unabashed POV. You are nobody to give a certificate for a source. The Hindu is accepted as a notable, credible and reliable source and it is cited in countless articles on Wikipedia. If you have problems with it, go get an admin. Sarvagnya 08:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Achitnis,I would request u to be civil and refined.I have not objected before because pro-Marathi links have been transfered by Belgaum border dispute move.Before even commenting on this just see the link and answer me why it should be there.Of course if u want it there,I can get a pro-Marathi link too.I have told u N no of times that the Belgaum article has to be balanced.It will be nice if u dont go sarvagnya's way.Mahawiki 11:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahawiki - I have certainly not been uncivil, but I find your fanatism deeply offensive. I have asked you to stop politicising this article. As I have said, there is *no* proof whatsoever that the Hindu article is inaccurate, and the very fact that it is from the Hindu is enough proof that research has gone into it. But nevermind all that - this link has been in the article for a long time - how come you wake up only *now* and try to remove it?

The reality is that it opposes your POV, and therefore, by your logic, it must be inaccurate.

I have told you before that unlike you, I *am* from Belgaum. I know the people of Belgaum, and the situation there. I do not deny that there is a dispute, but the Government of Maharashtra is honourably disputing it in court, why are you bringing disrepute to all us Maharashtrians by going around spitting on people? We are not like that!

Unlike your other "targets", I *am* a Maharashtrian, many people here know who I am and will vouch for this fact (and you can easily google for it, too). I don't have to prove myself to you - but do you even have the guts to state your real name? How do we know who you are, and what your motives are behind all your fanatism?

Please let people of Belgaum speak for themselves, don't attempt to become their spokesman - you are not qualified to be that.

Just leave us alone!

Achitnis 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was opposing the link because it is irrelavant to this article.Never mind,let that link be there,I have added 2 Marathi links too.So that wiki users can also able to know whats Maharashtra's POV.

BTW,the way ur speaking about the border issue tells ur story.I dont care to google ur name etc.If u want my name I can surely give it to u.What fanaticm,mind ur words?Did u notice how ur Kannadi friends are deleting 'unrest' mentions from the dispute article and adding unnecessary details about Mahajan report?

The way R.R Patil was received in Belgaon and the way Kannadi goons disrupted Belgaon during Bandh is known to all.My aunt is from Dharwad who's a tulu and do u know she talks about Tulu nadu everytime.get this into ur head and ur Kannada friend's head too.

BTW I reallty dont need ur permission to edit Belgaon article.Dont think ur the representative of Belgaonkars.In fact i dont care if u r from belgaon or no.

So cut the crap and limit ur talk to relavant topics.I dont care if ur a celebrity or a clerk.

Mahawiki 12:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My deluded friend - I am not a celebrity. I am from Belgaum. You are not. You are just a troublemaker who has crossed the line far too often here. Achitnis 08:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My friend Achitnis you should try to gather some info about the previous discussion before calling someone fanatics or deluded. It seems you are unaware of the troubles of users Sarvagnya and others. Read the previous discussions, you will see a lot of users pushing Karnataka POV in belgaum article. User Sarvagnya has been showing his/her expertee in all karnataka, maharashtra, India, marathi, kannada, related articles. As for as user Mahawiki is concerned, I think he/she is trying to counter the pro-karnataka POV included by others. Read this article Kaveri River Water Dispute and see if you can understand what POVs these users are pushing. Now coming to belgaum article, did you read the Hindu article properly. Is it so difficult to find the entire article is the POV of one person, that is, lok Sabha member from Karnataka, A.K. Kotrashetty. What one can expect from a Karnataka politician? Refer to R. R. Patil's statement on Mahajan. Mr. Patil said, Mahajan went in favor of Karnataka because he did not get Idali in breakfast and a good place to stay in Pune. How about giving reference to that link. This incident is not even very old compared to pre-peshwa history. As for as I understand user Mahawiki is not opposing the mention of Shrihari mandir. Additinally, I observed you discussing other users that Mahawiki is not from belgaum, ask the people you are discussing with and see how many who are editing are from belgaum. I can prove you that I am from Belgaum. Additionally, I can tell with confidence that you know nothing about the border dispute. --Sandipani 02:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL :D.. A supreme court chief justice couldnt find a good place to stay!! LOL!! No Idali(do u mean Idli??) for breakfast in Pune so gave belgaum to Karntaka. Seriously, it doesnt get funnier than this. Do you have a link for this?? Feel free to dump it in the external links. People here are badly in need for a good laugh. Sarvagnya 02:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, why external link, we should cite it and put it in the article. It surely will strengthen Maharashtra's case in the eyes of our readers. Sarvagnya 02:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

People can see how serious you are about wikipedia. You always like to argue about petty things on each and every articles. That's the reason may be you are badly in the need of laugh. Can't you read between the lines? Wikipedia is not the place to give a reference to personal opinions of each and every politician of Karnataka. --Sandipani 04:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore that troll.All this Sarvagnya wants is some action.He is against each and every language.U can get the idea of his intellect by his follies on Jana_gana_mana page.He's even trashing Govt.Of india's citations.So just igmore him.

Mahawiki 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Final removal of links

I have removed link to the article that Mahawiki had put in to push his POV again, since it is non-english and this is en.wikipedia.org. However, at the same time I have also removed the link to the Hindu article, not because I believe that it should be removed, but because Mahawiki is using it as an excuse to plug in political links. Should he attempt to reinstate his link now, he will have to defend his actions in WP:RfC.

Mind ur language.Do u lack the insight to see Kannada POV pushing?Dont blame me and act too smart.Nice that u removed the link and I wont add it again.This is a last warning to u,Mr.celebrity,stop pushing ur POV here.

Mahawiki 09:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have retained all links. We cant rob WP readers of a good article because one person gives himself the right to play judge on anything and anyone from Belgaum's history to Kannada lanugage to Rajnikanth to Rajkumar to Suryakanth Kamath to Rashtrakuta to Shivaji to The 'great' Shivaji. Enough is enough!! Mr.Chitnis, I urge to to go ahead and remove those Marathi links if you want. And if he resists, please call in the admins. The Hindu link is about Belgaum's history and is as relevant as an external link can get on this page. Hell, if we can have a link on a Srihari Mandir and one on job seekers!! And in any case, much as Mahawiki might delude himself, I dont see en.wiki readers downloading and installing crappy font to read a tabloid. Let those links remain as vestigeal organs to this article until some admin or somebody bulldozes it. Sarvagnya 10:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if u dont know Maharashtrians would prefer Pudhari and Belgaon Tarun Bharat rather than ur 'crappy' Deccan Herald or 'Kannad' Vijaya Karnataka!

Mahawiki 11:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sri Harimandir is a an important landmark of Belgaum, and many people actually know Belgaum because of it so it is completely valid. (This is of course something Mahawiki doesn't know about since he has nothing to do with Belgaum, and probably has never been there :) BTW - I lived for many years in the house next to Harimandir, waking up every morning to "Om Namaha Shivaya" chanted by hundreds of people, some of them sitting in our garden.

The jobseekers link was a bit over the top and I agree that it had no place there.

The Hindu link talked more about the Border Dispute, but from the Karnataka perspective, which was what of course triggered off our fanatic friend. Let's move it to the Belgaum Border Dispute article (where it makes more sense), and be done with it.

Achitnis 10:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

TG!Mahawiki 11:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt sure about Harimandir and that is why I didnt remove it. And The Hindu link discusses the border dispute from a historical perspective. And so it is perfectly valid. Just because history says that it was Kannada dominated doesnt mean it becomes biased. If mw finds a historical article on Pudari or Ladari or whatever, he can feel free to put it there. Infact, the Hindu link becomes all the more valid coz., this article talks about both the history of Belgaum as well as the border dispute. So the link is definitely not out of place. Like I said, we cant keep chipping away at the quality of the article coz a self styled politician and historian(rolled into one) objects to it. Sarvagnya 11:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Marathi links removed

Please see Wikipedia:External links#Foreign_language_links: "English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a foreign language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language." The Marathi links provided here are neither to the official site nor to the subject's text in Marathi. Marathi links should be provided at mr:बेळगांव and Kannada links should be provided at kn:ಬೆಳಗಾವಿ. The External links policy was not decided by any single person, but after Wikipedia:Consensus of many editors. If you feel this policy is wrong, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:External links, not on this page. Thanks. utcursch | talk 11:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The users removing citations are requested to read the above explaination keenly.Admin had objected about non-English external links and not citations.Thanks.Mahawiki 07:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The translation

Proposal to make Belgaon 2nd capital cancelled!

Bangalore Their is no proposal to make Belgaon the 2nd capital revealed home minister S.P.Prakash on Saturday. This has shut the mouths of so-called Kannad leaders.Prakash talked to reporters after a meeting regarding Suvarna Karnatak year .The idea of 2nd capital itself cannot be supported,he said.During Karnataka legislative session from(from 25 sep onwards) some people had proposed about the 2nd capital and it was not govt's decision.in J&K this idea was implemented due to weather.Maharashtra also helds legislative assembly in Nagpur but it has not appointed as 2nd capital.These examples were put forth by Prakash to reporters.

Kannad leaders get a bang During the legislative assembly session in Belgaon dep.CM yediyurappa had himself announced about making Belgaon a 2nd capital.Within just 15 days coalition govt's (BJP's partner) JD(S) leader and Home minster Prakash have taken a U-turn.This has exposed the disagreements in coalition govt.Home minsiter's announcement has banged Kannad leaders and their faces are worth watching. Mahawiki 08:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahawiki,

As per Wikipedia:Citing sources#When_you_add_content completely, "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."

Please provide the original-language quote along with its corresponding English translation. Thank you. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 14:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mixing Belgaum city with Belgaum district

It seems like this article includes information about both city and district when there is already a separate article for the district. Would it be all right to remove the district information from this article? Mattisse(talk) 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Section cleanup

I have moved various parts from introduction of the article into appropriate sections to make the article more coherant. I have also fleshed out the Economy section a bit. Achitnis 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahawiki - what you consider important or not is not really the issue here - I am not removing any facts, I am rearranging things things to make the article easier to read and so that it has a better structure. Note that Belgaum City is not the centre of the dispute - Belgaum District is. This article is about Belgaum city. Achitnis 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr achitnis, Plz dont do this mindless editing again.Belgaum city is the centre of dispute. U have no right to delete the facts with reference.Stop raking up 'political agenda' blah blah. Make sure that wikipedia is not OWNED by you and I am not answerable to u.Before making any edits plz consult admin.thanks! Mahawiki 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And ofcourse if u want to check the facts see Talk:Belgaum_border_dispute.Mahawiki 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahawiki: when are you going to realise that Wikipedia is not your private propaganda playground, but an encyclopedia? And that in an encyclopedia, articles have to have structure be readable? I have not removed any facts, I am rearranging text to make the article more readable. Is this so difficult to understand?

And as for your mindless putting in text into the References section - do you even understand how the references system works? You can't just go and put in some random, uncited and unverifiable text there.

And kindly stop using sentences like "Make sure that wikipedia is not OWNED by you and I am not answerable to u." to try and justify your actions. That sounds childish. Wikipedia is certainly not owned by me (or you), but unlike you, I am dealing with an article about my hometown here, you are not. Achitnis 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Achitnis, kindly read this - WP:OWN. I think you are not aware of this policy. Which is why you made this statement "I am dealing with an article about my hometown here, you are not." If you read the link provided, I assure you that things will be clear to you. And please do not go into confrontational mode. Please see WP:NOT. Mahawiki has provided a valid citation. The citation has been verified by an admin. That makes things clear. Alright, keep improving the article. -AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 03:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Chitnis,This is the last time I am requesting to stop ur mindless allegations. It will be nice if you go and improve ur article!!! Two weeks something have been passed since Belgaum border dispute has been seperated from this article on ur insistance.I think very less improvement has been done here contrary to ur claims. What do u intend by speaking nonsense about this issue? Do u want to win ur Kannada friends hearts by showing off ur 'liberal' attitude? Its a request, u dont know anything about this issue so just avoid it.Please go and defend ur article which is prone to deletion requests!!!

Regarding the citation, it has been passed by a admin. So before u say anything else go to the page I mentioned.No mindless commentry please?

Mahawiki 04:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Both the comments made above are in clear violation of WP:NPA, as they address me personally, and not the content of the article, and the only reason for these attacks is to introduce their own POV. Since this is clearly not the first time that these two users are resorting to this approach, and since it has no place at all on Wikipedia, I am requesting internvention by the admins, and if necessary will take it to WP:PAIN.

Until this matter is addressed by admins (or they clearly tell me that they cannot/will not address it), I am discontinuing any further edits to this article, to avoid edit-wars.

Achitnis 06:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Chitnis, if u observe ur posts u have also had personal attacks on me.Mahawiki 11:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Importance of border_dispute section

Chitnis is being making a issue out of non-issue. For him Belgaum dispute may be nothing but for lakhs of Maharashtrians in border region it is the question of life and death. Morever take this into account- two of Indian states are vouching for Belgaum, matters are with Supreme court, K'taka talks of making Belgaum the 2nd capital and Maharashtra HM attends convention. U like it or not, border issue is indeed a important issue here and hence a sub-section that links the main article and that too in top of (below history) this article is needed. As i mentioned above border dispute article was formed on his insistance and he wanted 'to improve and expand his hometown article'.But as u can see he hasnt done much here and just want to show off his liberal attitude about the issue. Whereas the Belgaon_border_dispute is indeed expanded.

His allegations of me being political is frivolous.His insistance of (ONLY HE SHOULD be)editing the article just because he claims himself of from belgaum is also hillarious.He is being a dictator here.Everything cannot be arranaged and done as per his requirement.His tendency of considering others inferior and being too much proud of himself (If u dont know who I am u r certainly not of Belgaum...google my name and see who i am...etc etc) talks about his 'attitude' in volumes.In fact this guy doesnt even know that the centre of controversy is Belgaum city! Its high time that chitnis stops his dictatorship and expecting others to follow his footsteps. Mahawiki 13:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is again in violation of WP:NPA. And for the record - what I told him to do was to google to verify the fact that I am indeed from Belgaum (unlike him). His interpretation is flawed. Achitnis 07:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again it doesnt matter if i am from Belgaum or not. You are creating trouble here. And ur above reply is nohing but a lie. You had asked to google ur name to 'know who i am'

in fact See this!. He's telling me that I'm not a Belgaumkar since I dont know him! One who talks of NPA again and again should not write Unlike your other "targets", I *am* a Maharashtrian, many people here know who I am and will vouch for this fact (and you can easily google for it, too). I don't have to prove myself to you - but do you even have the guts to state your real name? How do we know who you are, and what your motives are behind all your fanatism?. Mahawiki 07:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you were trying to prove anything at all, you certainly didn't do yourself any favours by proving exactly what I said - that I asked you to google to confirm my claims about being what I am. :) Also, you may not have noticed this, but 'that comment was on a personal talk page, not on an article talk page, and even then it was civil.

My complaint against you stands - that you are using personal attacks to try and intimidate people into accepting your utterly POV edits, and refuse to accept that other editors disagree with you. You are also trying to use brute force to enforce your view by repeatedly reverting edits until the other side gives up. You use quotes from partisan publications, but reject links (not even quotes) to articles that present a different point of view by hiding behind NPOV accusations.

I am awaiting the decision of admins before I take the next step.

Achitnis 10:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Can u explain me what was ur intention by ur statement 'if u dont know me so u r not a Belgaumkar!'. You are not exactly displaying ur liberal stance by endorsing Kannada partisan publications and dumping Marathi citations. You seem to be quite friendly with kannada editors (in fact one editor embraced u for ur pro-kannada stand) and call me as fanatic. Have u read the earlier discussions on the same page before u make such allegations which are utter false.

Above all do u know what u want? Are u creating a scene just because u love controversies? What is ur problem when Border dispute section is placed above all (but below history)? Do u have any justification to prove that there is no border dispute or it is very weak 'political movement'? It is ur POV. Did u know the reference (partisan Marathi) was submitted to admin before using it? Have u read the translations at belgaum_border_dispute talk page? U seem to be so ignorant that u dont know Belgaum city is the centre of dispute.

Think about it before u threaten me anymore or fight about petty issues. Mahawiki 10:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is again in violation of WP:NPA. I continue to wait for inputs from admins on how to proceed. Achitnis 11:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I give up!All this fuss about moving border_dispute section up which is very important and a minor rectification which is backed by a citation!! Incidentlly chitnis is going on by his NPA nags when he himself has been rude and threatning me with few adjectives like 'fanatic'!No comments from me unless a admin asks me to do. Mahawiki 11:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop trivializing other people's thoughts on this matter. And stop the personal attacks. Note that you are not an admin, and cannot hand out admin warnings as a form of "counter attack" on user talk pages. My complaint against you continues to stand. Every post by you of this nature simply strengthens the case against you.

Achitnis 06:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved culture section below geography

I've moved the culture section below the geography section because I think it makes the flow of reading better. I hope this is fine. MaximvsDecimvs 05:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable fact: reference 4

Reference 4 (Belgaon, Karwar, Nippanicha Simaprashna kai aahe? (What is border dispute of Belgaum, Karwar and Nippani?) Special edition, Belgaum Tarun Bharat) in the main article does not link to any verifiable source. Could someone provide a link, or remove it if no verification can be provided? Note that I am not challenging the accuracy of the reference, but Wikipedia rules require it to be verifiable.

What I am challenging is the need for introducing such material when there is an independent article on the Belgaum border dispute where this kind of material belongs.

Achitnis 05:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I questioned the importance of border dispute section in this article in the edit summary, and just moved(rearranged) that section down a bit. And I got personal attacks in response. So, just gave up.Gnanapiti 06:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, this is the way this young[1] man fights his battles. Which is why I am currently in the process of taking this up with WP:PAIN. Every personal attack against another editor will help lead to resolution of this case, so you should actually welcome each personal attack. :) "Giving up" is not the way to do things, so please don't. Achitnis 06:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi the answer to ur doubts- #I have included that citation for a minor edit in the statement at Border dispute section. #You are free to delete the citation if no editor contests the edit. #The validity and accuracy of the citation is checked by a admin.In case u want to have a look, please email me so that I can forward u a copy of it. Mahawiki 06:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have personally experienced in the past, Wikipedia is not about the truth but about verifiable facts. Unless you can provide a reputable online reference, this citation is unverifiable. Achitnis 06:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps u are not aware- Belgaum Tarun Bharat is a reputable source. A reputable source can be offline(a book for eg) or online and both are valid. The citation which I am talking about is sent to me by none other than editor of Tarun Bharat. Morever the admin has looked into it. If u can understand Marathi I would be happy to email it to u. To repeat-I had posted the citation ro back my edits. If no one contests my edits feel free to delete the mention of citation. Mahawiki 06:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop hiding behind the admin for everything. The admin alone is not the reader. WP is read by millions around the world and everyone cannot go hunting for your admin and ask him for a copy of the pamphlet or whatever you have sent him. First of all nobody knows what Tarun Bharat is and your ref doesnt explain it. Nor does your ref give the date of publication, the edition, the author of the article... NOTHING!! What kind of a ref is that and why are you hiding behind the admin for a ref that isnt worth anything in its present form. Stop embarassing the admin. Stop passing off your actions as having his consent! Sarvagnya 06:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not everyone can go hunting for my admin and ask him for a copy of the citation. Just like the Suryanath Kamath's book,perhaps?, but I can email a copy of it to u/whoever wants to have a look on. No one knew Suryanath kamath but his citation was used based on ur unconfirmed claims of he being a reputed writer! Anyways FYKI Tarun Bharat is a popular newspaper published from Belgaum. The citation is collection of articles published about border problem.The authors includes Kiran Thakur and Maloji Ashtekar (former mayor of BCC).

It will be nice if u stop ur mindless blabbering as the citations have been submitted to Blnguyen and Utcursch. It doesnt seem u know much about this issue so plz stop ur speculation. Mahawiki 06:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is again in violation of WP:NPA. Achitnis 07:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The above msg signifies partisan attitude of chitnis. My reply was after provocation of sarvagnya. chitnis is adviced to be neutral and not encourage sarvagnya who's being rude and incivil. Mahawiki 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr.Kamath is a member of many prestigious committees and institutions. But then he is not a cricket player or a film actor for everyone to know him. And yet, Dinesh's citations mention the name and ISBN of the book and the edition etc.,. Your ref is as it stands now is useless. And readers cant keep coming to you for emails and attachments of some pamphlet. If it is as reputed as you claim it to be, they should be able to find it if you give them the date, edition, editor, author of article etc.,. Sarvagnya 07:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Name,ISBN and edition etc is useless unless we get to read his works. Why should readers believe about ur claims of being Kamath being a authentic writer.Mahawiki 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya and others, why are you making a issue out of a non-issue. Mahawiki has given a valid citation and it is perfectly alright. He has e-mailed me the file, and I have myself read it. But, comin' back to the point, let me point out that all citations cannot be online. Offline citations are allowed in Wikipedia. If you still want to remove the citations, then it's your prerogative. But then rest assured, your Kannad author Mr.Kamat's references from all the articles that Kannambadi has kannadized will also be removed. So, please cool down your rhetorics as they ain't gonna scare Mahawiki or me. By the way, Sarvagnya, I must point out that what you're doing is Wikistalking ! Isn't it ? I must also point out that Mahawiki has been extremely civil and all you guys are doing is provoking him by raising a non-issue just because he is related to that issue. Please, stop this. And remember, WP:OWN. AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? cut the lecture and mail me the file. I want to see it. I have far too much trust in you and mw to take your endorsement of his citation unquestioned. My email is configured and I am waiting for the file. Treat this as a formal request. Thanks. Sarvagnya 07:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think u dont know much about email things.U have to email me firsr/give ur email so that I can forward u the file.i cnt attach the file from wikipedia!! Mahawiki 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sarvagnya and Achitnis, please have a look here. mahawiki and arya ara making personal attacks on me again and calling me sockpuppet. I've already reported this to an admin. Sad to know that Achitnis has to go through same thing.Gnanapiti 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing sad about it. Every personal attack by him just provides more evidence against him and his friends. Don't worry about anything - he isn't actually going to come and beat up anyone. :) Just edit as you think is right, make sure that everything you edit a) provides value to the article and b) is verifiable, and don't give up unless your facts are proved false. I personally do not think that the balkanization attempts by him and his friends are going to go unnoticed for much longer, but at the same time, any attempt by the other side to counter their attempts using "counter facts" really doesn't provide any value, just more fuel to a fire that will consume both sides (see "Mutual Assured Destruction" for more details).

Achitnis 07:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Chitnis do a reality check at this point. Are u sure about what exactly u want? For what ur fighting? I edited a line about Border dispute in this article. If u agree and dont need a citation for my edit plz delete the citation mentions.If u disagree plz mail me so that I can mail u the file and u can check it. What is ur problem? Mahawiki 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mahawiki has mailed me a PDF version of Belgaon, Karwar, Nippanicha Simaprashna kai aahe? published by Tarun Bharat. I've verified it. It's in Marathi -- if others want to have a look at the file, please ask Mahawiki to mail it to you. I've also asked Mahawiki to upload the file at geocities or some other site. utcursch | talk 07:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Utcursch, I've already asked for the file and I am waiting for it. How long should I wait before I decide remove the 'citation'? Sarvagnya 07:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Till u email me or give away ur email id to me.I cant forward the article from wikipedia.Mahawiki 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We all know as well as I do that mailing you a PDF, or uploading it to Geocities, or anything else, is not valid verifiability according to WP - a link to the Tarun Bharat site would be. The primary issue here is not whether you or I know that the material is valid - it is about other readers of the article who know neither you nor me. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiable facts - by anyone.

And in any case - does this kind of material belong in this article, when there is a separate article about Belgaum border dispute, which this article links to? This looks like a deliberate attempt to migrate material/issues from that article to this article.

I would be perfectly content if both "pro-Maharashtra" and "pro-Karnataka" material were removed from this article, after all this article is not about the border dispute. But MW would have to point out what he considers "pro-Karnataka" in the article on this talk page, and allow other editors to evaluate that. He has never done that - he uses his favourite figleaf - "NPOV" (or hiding behind admins - notice how you are now his primary verification source?)- and reverts at will. Achitnis 08:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

chitnis has clearly shown his prejudice and partisan attitude once again.If u have a look at the citation u will probably understand it is authentic.Still furthur u can ask Belgaum Tarun Bharat about its validity. The file im talking about was sent to me by none other than editor of Belgaum tarun bharat. Mahawiki 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And in any case - does this kind of material belong in this article, when there is a separate article about Belgaum border dispute, which this article links to? This looks like a deliberate attempt to migrate material/issues from that article to this article.

As I make out u have completely misunderstood the whole issue. You dont know about what ur fighting and contesting for.I have added that citation for a minor edit below the Belgaum_border section! If u dont need the citation for that remove the citation.Gosh!! Mahawiki 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I had already talked about verifiability and use of credible sources in Talk:Belgaum_border_dispute#Non_English_Citations and this resulted in Mahawiki accusing me of being a sockpuppet (with a hilarious reason that I had understood Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Checkuser#Sarvagnya ). The burden of providing verifiable evidence lies with the editor who added the content and not people asking for it.(Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence ). Please don't respond with answers like "Still furthur u can ask Belgaum Tarun Bharat about its validity.". Looking at this highly chauvinistic and derogatory nature of this article, I have serious reservations if this thing was ever published. Just because you claim that the editor had mailed it to you, does not add credibility to this source. I wish an admin would take note of this. Naveenbm 10:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG!Can any admin please take care of Kannada POV pushing and do the sock-puppetry check ASAP? Mahawiki 10:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You better be clear about whom you are calling a sock-puppet. That is a very serious accusation on WP and unless you can clearly prove your accusation, it could get you into extremely big trouble. You have been very free in using terms that you clearly do not understand - you are doing your "cause" absolutely no good this way.

Since you have indented your accusation at one level, it means that (as per WP talk page convention) you are accusing me of being a sock puppet. I am taking this as yet another example of violation of WP:NPA, and request the admins to note this. If you are handed an Npa3 (after already having received an Npa2), you are ready for listing on WP:PAIN and higher.

As for your "cause" - I strongly suggest that you go and read (and listen to) Mile sur mera tumhara, and remember that we are all Indians.

Achitnis 16:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

TG to pointing out,whoever user it was! I was wondering how can a Maharashtrian/Indian be a antagonist in this debate. Thanks a lot. Mahawiki 06:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

File uploaded

Please download it here. I hope this will clear any doubts ur having! Mahawiki 09:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it has raised even more doubts, and it still doesn't justify sullying this article with political rabble rousing. Please stick to Belgaum border dispute, which is the only place on WP where this issue is on-topic. I recommend removal of the reference from this article, along with any other partisan references (Maharashtra or Karnataka). Achitnis 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just curious. Are citations which have no information on date, publication, author's name, validity, allowed in wiki? This article provided by mahawiki has nothing! Tomorrow if I create an article in pdf and use it as a source is that acceptable? Why should anyone believe Mahawiki saying some editor has mailed him? Considering the highly chauvinistic nature of that article, I doubt it was ever published. This issue need to be addressed or else I'm going to report this to concerned admins. I'm fairly new to wiki and I'm not really sure who to complian. I'll find out soon and report.Gnanapiti 18:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This so called reference is a joke. Like Gnanapiti says it doesnt have any details that will give it any credibility. It reads like some MES pamphlet. Infact, there is nothing in the pdf to even prove that it is indeed from a newspaper or magazine. btw, is tarun bharat a newspaper or a magazine? the pdf doesnt even have the logo of TB. I will give another 24 hours for mw to come up with a better citation or I will bulldoze it from this article. Also, I want to ask the admin how he cleared the use of a reference like this - one that is devoid of any details except some disgusting venom against Karnataka. Endorsing MW's translation is one thing, but endorsing the use of references like this is totally another thing. The admin shouldnt have allowed the use of this ref in the first place. Sarvagnya 22:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an article sent to me by the editor of New York Times. I want to use that as a source. If admins want I can mail that article to them. Still further anyone can ask New York times for it's validity. Gnanapiti 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can delete the citation and the section of the article with that citation as the source provided by mahawiki is not at all a trusted source. It might well be a self created pdf file as it has no information on publication, date, logo or name. I'll wait for 24 more hours and delete that section.Gnanapiti 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! It seems u have found it hard to digest the truth. Belive me you will not touch that citation! Mahawiki 05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course if u want to check the authenticity of the citation please call Belgaum tarun Bharat (sarvagnya,this newspaper is the MOST popular newspaper of Belgaum.There are no takers for Vijay Karnataka or DH there) offices and even ask the editor 9email: editor@tarunbharat.com ).Admins are requested to ask these people to stop mindless commentory esp from kannada editors who are using DH which publish pro-K'taka news. Mahawiki 06:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I least care about your challenges and accusations. If you don't provide the valid citation, this citation is going to be deleted. As simple as that. As I've said before, I have an article sent to me by the editor of New York Times which talks about Belgaum issue in detail. If you want to check the authenticity of that article, you can call New York Times office and ask the editor. email:editor@nytimes.com Gnanapiti 06:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok give me the article which NYT gave it to u. This citation is valid and auntentic. Just because it doesnt suit to ur POV u cant label it as invalid.Morever this article has been sent to blnguyen and utcursch before using. I know ur doing all thse things to provoke me but seriously you will not touch the citation Mahawiki 07:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations are provided when something is written in the article. Not before that. You have already written something in the article, for which the citation you have given is almost a joke. So talk about saving your citation and edits first. Sarvagnya 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what does above message means! A gentle advice to sarvagnya- dont argue for the sake of it.See the article's history! Mahawiki 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mahawiki,
I think the article in question is already mentioned on the border dispute page. It would be best to remove the citation from here, for the simple reason of keeping this article free from any bias. The border dispute article seems to be the place where there are POVs upon POVs and clearly partisan newspaper references from both sides heaped together (although ideally, the border dispute article can be written in a MUCH cleaner way without a semblance of partisanship, but that article seems to be as inviting to touch as an active volcano right now so let's leave the thought aside). Coming back to this article, it is my sincere request to you to consider deleting your reference and maybe putting a more NPOV source in its place. You may say that there are two Deccan Herald references cited on this page, and that DH is a pro-Karnataka paper. It may be true but if you look at those links, the content is quite bland. The cited DH pages do not seem to have anti-Marathi, anti-Maharashtra rhetoric. However, the same cannot be said about the PDF that you have provided.

In conclusion, to keep the Belgaum page free from controversies and edit wars and to prevent more bad blood between editors, please consider deleting your reference.

And this is to everyone: Guys, relax! We're all from the same country remember? I hate to sound like I'm giving a sermon but do you look at whether the guy next to you on the road is Marathi or Kannada when you celebrate and shout and dance after India beats Pakistan in cricket? Maybe you guys should read this. It seems most of you are suffering from it :-)

Regards,
MaximvsDecimvs 08:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

hi maxim,

finally a neutral voice!!

maxim please delete the reference urself,i had added the reference to justify my '1951 census 'edit in border_dispute section. (this is the figure taken from mahajan repository) These people are fighting for nothing. All they want is have bash.However whichever citation i have used inbelgaum_border_dispute i feel i have taken care to write the facts and not the POV which they might carry (unlike sarvangya and his 'friends').The citation i gave has FACTS and figures about all the problem.It is not at all anti-karnataka. i mean disclosing the facts which unfortunately goes against karnataka doesnt mean that the source is biased. All know Karnataka's decision to stop Marathi schools and make kannada compulsory to all non-kannadas.

If u come through fantastic book called a concise hostory of karnataka by great suryakanth kamath u will understand how fanatic and fictious books are used by wikipedians to fool others.wikipedia is suffering because of this lingual fanatics which I found only in this part of India.

Mahawiki 09:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mahawiki,

I can understand what you're saying, but the thing is that such a sensitive issue naturally sees passions being inflammed on both sides. References for the border dispute article are primarily Marathi or Kannada newspapers. Newspapers can be some of the most biased forms media if they want to be. Marathi newspapers will carry pro-Maharashtra news, and Kannada newspapers (or even English dailies like DH for that matter) will do the same for Karnataka. Facts and figures may be challenged depending on which source/newspaper you're citing. This is how edit wars escalate, which is the cause for much distress and, as I mentioned, Wikistress. I'm not saying that the facts you mentioned are false, but that they can just as well be countered using the facts and figures quoted in pro-Karnataka media. Who decides what is right then?

What would be immensely more preferable is if someone rewrites the border dispute page by quoting more from relatively neutral sources, such as Outlook (which I believe is cited It is Frontline which is cited, not Outlook. Sorry. MaximvsDecimvs 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)) or India Today or for that matter, a newspaper which does not get published from the feuding territories (e.g. Asian Age or Dainik Jagran). It is foolish to expect rags from both states to remain neutral. They will never be neutral. The border dispute page can be made better than what it is right now. Unfortunately my knowledge of the issue is limited and until I read more, I will be reluctant to edit it.

And please, call me Max :-)

MaximvsDecimvs 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right.But the catch is that the census done by Indian govt is indispensable.Morever the citation i used is the secondary source of that info.The writers of that article have themselves quoted the figures from Mahajan repository (by which Karnataka swears and Maharashtra/Kerla trashes it) and census of Indian govy,

I completely agree on ur other points :)

Mahawiki 10:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Max, pray tell me, how is frontline or the Hindu or Indian Express not neutral? All are from a publishing houses in Tamil Nadu. Also, why should we trash Deccan Herald just because somebody is prejudiced against it. We arent using any tabloids. We hadnt even used any Kannada sources until Mahawiki conjured his flimsy Pudari and pdf from somewhere. Let him use TimesofIndia - what prevents him? But suddenly, Times of India becomes a Delhi newspaper for him!!! He cant trust Delhi newspapers, he cant trust Bombay newspapers, cant trust Bengaluru, cant trust Madras... all he can trust is Pudari and his own pdf, supposedly sent to him by some obscure editor!! And the problem with using sources like Outlook and India today is, most of the times you need subscriptions to read the whole article and that hinders verifiability. But even if we were to do that, there's no guarantee that he wont call Outlook or IT a 'Kannadi fanatic magazine'(sic). Sarvagnya 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's extremely sad how these Kannada gang takes on the lone Marathi warrior Mahawiki. I was busy for quite some time, so couldn't get time to reply. But now, I have come back. OK, Kannada editors, please tell me how is this reference unverifiable and blah....blah... ?? I can say the same about Suryanath Kamat. Mahawiki has even provided the pdf file. Alright, you remove the material and then I ask about verifiability of Mr.Kamat. You can do one thing - Mail me Suryanath Kamat's book. Or as Achittnis says, provide me an online link. Then it can be agreed that the citation is verified. Otherwise I am going to clean up Rashtrakuta, Vijayanagara and whatever else where the book is cited.

Secondly, if you are "trashing" Tarun Bharat, and you are saying Frontline isn't neutral 'cause it's from Tamil Nadu, then what about Deccan Herald. I ask admins to remove all citations from Deccan Herald and Kannada newspapers. BTW, I have the subscription of India Today and I am gonna start an article on Kannada which is very well detailed in the last issue of India Today as well as many Marathi and English newspapers and books. So don't worry. We'll start an article for Kannada. Now you must be happy.

I will start my work tomorrow.

AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You are free to do what you want. You can start now. Why wait till tomorrow. By the way, if you dont understand English, enlist the services of someone who does and get them to read what I wrote. I never said frontline is not neutral. Infact, I've myself cited from Frontline!! The problem for you and Mahawiki is, Frontline, Hindu, Indian Express all agree word for word with what Deccan Herald says!! Sarvagnya 17:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why editors are even using expressions like "Warrior", "Battle" etc. Please try to understans guys. We are not fighting any battle here. Don't turn this article into a boxing arena. We are all in good faith and shall continue to be in good faith.

I never denied the reputation of Tarun Bharat. It might well be an established news paper, I don't know. My only concerns are over the so called "mailed by editor" article depicting chauvinism of nth grade. I can say that the article very much looks like a self created one. Providing the pdf doesn't make the citastion valid. It doesn't take only editor of Tarun Bharat to create a pdf file. Even if we assume that it is "mailed" by the editor, why doesn't the article carry any information on author, date, publication or atleast whether the article was ever published or not? I don't trust the article. That's it. The very fact that editors are comparing this funny looking pdf which is nothing but a joke to trusted and highly reputed newspapers like DH, The Hindu, shows the attitude of editors towards this article. Gnanapiti 17:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, when did I use "battle" ? Don't try to act smart Gnanapiti, we all know WHO you are ! I would ask you to do one thing - mail the Tarun Bharat editor and ask him about this article(citation). Since, you guy(s) have questioned the verifiabiltiy of the citation, you may please do the same. By the way, you guys have turned this into a boxing arena, rather WWE arena, with four(or is it one) on one. Isn't it so ? AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 17:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Arya is requested to have look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. It is very unfortunate that some editors have made it a habbit to "personal attack" when their POV is being questioned. Some editors keep making false claims on other editors in spite of repetitive warnings. I don't want to continue this anymore as the article in question is rightly deleted and there is no point in making personal attacks just like some other respected editors do. Gnanapiti 18:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

sarvagnya, Tarun Bharat is the most widely circulated newspaper in belgaum.Do u understand this? We all know that u know very less about belgaum etc.No English newspaper (forget about Kannadi newspapers!!!) is as popular in belgaum as tarun Bharat.

Pudhari newspaper is reknowned and extremely popular in western maharashtra esp. And why dont u do one thing,yeah!,lets talk about Suryantah kamath. I think his book not verifiable,he us controviersial which is being proven, he writes nonsense which we have seen by Dinesh's editing where he labels every historic empire as kannadi! (sarvagnya are mughals kannadi BTW????) I think we should bulldoze that kamat and Dinesh pseudo-history at once. I AM GIVING 12 HOURS TO SARVAGNYA (AS U AND DINESH ARE QUITE FRIENDLY PLZ PASS ON THIS MSG TO HIM).They should bring a neutral and verifiable source. NO KANNADA fanatic material.I will have to delete all the stuff which was cited by that childish and hillarious source.

Deccan herald which is obviously pro-karnataka and anti-Maharashtra and has published nonsense about Belgaum issue,is needless to say, is not acceptable in these articles.TOI, IE and other NATIONAL MEDIAS should only be used.It is nice that we are trashing out fanatic sources.

Mahawiki 18:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that the funny self created citation is deleted, on what basis the sentences like "More marathi speakers according to 1951 census" are preserved in the article? Who did this census? Where is the proof for the above sentence? Time to reframe that section. Gnanapiti 19:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued here. Sarvagnya, please find my reply at the aforementioned link. Thanks.

MaximvsDecimvs 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Instead of personal attacks/sarcasm/edit wars, I suggest you guys start a voting to decide things. And do drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics, so that others can participate as well. utcursch | talk 12:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Voting may be a good idea in some cases. But I dont see how it could be a good idea in this case where the very source is suspect and unverifiable. Most editors here like achitnis, gnanapiti, myself have already made our stands known afa the pdf is concerned. Sarvagnya 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good idea, Utcursch.

By the way, Sarvagnya, what did you mean when you typed "most" ? ;-))

AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

'Most' editors means 'most' of the editors who have been taking part in the discussion so far and who have already made their stands known. Sarvagnya 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but are they "most" ? AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 17:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Most???Only TWO members have said no and TWO members have said yes.hain na :) Mahawiki 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I don't see the logic. Voting for what? If such funny artciles even qualify for voting, then each and every editor comes up with self created articles claiming "mailed by editors" of A to Z Bharats. It's the waste of valuable time of all concerned editors. Gnanapiti 18:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I thought still the debate on whether Voting is required or not is going on. But looks like even the counting has started already :)

Page number 9 and page number 16 themselves talk about how valid is this citation. - KNM ^Talk 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrgh!Dont change the stance! Mahawiki 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Request to Admin: The citation has already been removed from this article and I do not see any point continuing the same debate in this talk page. It is more relavent to Belgaum border dispute page where the citation is present. This article as well as talk page should deal more with the Belgaum city rather than the dispute, for which there is a separate article. Please do the needful. Thank you. - KNM ^Talk 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A Gift to Kannada wikipedians on rajotsava day

A gift from me to all the Kannada users who were provoking and doubting about my citation!Surprise..here's the link to the same article of Belgaum tarun bharat,at their OWN site. Belgaum tarun bharat is a reputable newspaper and very poplular in belgaum. As they say folks, TRUITH ALWAYS TRUIMPHS!

• http://www.tarunbharat.com/Seema%20Ladha/seemaprashna.pdf

I am dieing to see the reaction from sarvagnya... I am sure this is the best gift u could receive on the rajutsava day which might not be next year at is today,right buddy?? Thanks a lot!enjoy the rajotsava day while,hey what a coincidence!, I look into the preparations of Black day of Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti at Belgaum. Enjoy :) Mahawiki 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth of sarvagnya

This user is a member of this discussion and for the benefit of everyone please see this.I hope the POV pushing and harrassing will now evade. Mahawiki 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Belgaum transliteration

Kannada editors STOP your POV pushing yet again. Naveenbm and KNM(it seems u have no other work than to impose ur language.I am amused to find that u ppl 'come' unitedly wherever u need to push ur POV). Read this and this to ascertain the majority of Maharashtrians and their 'opposition' to Kannada. Belgaum has 3/4th of population of Maharashtrians. They care less about Kannada. The order of transliteration is not followed as u said. U can find many articles which doesnt go alphabetically. Sanskrit is placed before kannada at Carnatic_music. technically though Kannada should find here, at the ground zero there are no takers for kannada. yesterday's Black day has ascertained it.Stop ur POV pushing and taking advantage of 3RR rule. Mahawiki 16:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why people rake up a new issue each day. The transliteration order was this way all these days and there was no problem with it. All of a sudden, Bereft of any chauvinistic citations, this seems to have been raked up. Please let people contribute productively on wikipedia article pages, rather than waste their time on meaningless discussions on article talk pages. Request some admin to please take note of this. Naveen ^(talk) 16:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have requested Blnguyen's intervention. And btw please dont blame all on me. Your Kannada friends are being chauvinist and dont assume good faith. U might be knowing the all fuss about my Tarun Bharat citation was all unnecessary and childish. The citations I gave now are far from being chauvinist. The transliteration was that way because I didnt have any citations. Thanks. Mahawiki 17:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of 3RR rule

Naveen has reverted the article even though I gave him citations and told him to wait for admin's intervention. This shows the Kannada users are in no way of Good faith edits and unnecessarily provoke. naveen was prompt to wake up to help POV pushing here after 2-3 hours wikibreak as soon as KNM had his first revert here.(see-Belgaum page history and Naveen's contribs) These people's action makes me paranoid!

Clearly they are misusing 3RR rule and using 'mob' power to push their POV. I await admin's verdict. Mahawiki 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Literacy

I think the literacy numbers are incorrect. If 54% of men are literate and 45% of women, then how come total literacy is 78%??.

Leotolstoy 20:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)