User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 18

WP:RS?

Hi Sarvagnya! Noticed that you removed one of the referece that I had on Thirukural questioning its reliability. I would like to mention that it is indeed complies WP:RS since it does indeed comply "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." This was a paper presented in the International Thirukural Conference in 2005 held at the State of Maryland and authorised by the Governor Robert L. Ehrlich. It was organised by Tamil Sangam of Greater Washington and many more organisations and institutes, with noteworthy keynote speakers. It is therefore a reliable source. Hence I would like to assume goodfaith on this issue and request you to question the source on the talk page before you can put the citation tag. Regards! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 08:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

India

That sounds like an interesting tactic to stimulate more progressive thought. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that it worked for Karnataka. Cant see why it wont work for an(y)other article. Sarvagnya 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Vij. Empire

I saw this citation put in by Kumarrao, "Well-known historian, Saletore surmised that Hampi was lying outside the Hoysala territory and supported the Telugu origin of Vijayanagara kings[10]." This needs to be examined because Saletore is one of the strongest supporters of Kannadiga origin of vij. empire. We need to see if this is Saletore's asesment or Kumarao's wisdom. If found to be Kumarrao's wisdom, every citation will have to be examined carefully.

I also noticed that half the his citations dont have page numbers. Many others have lumped page numbers like pp35-55 making it difficult to verify. He is supposed to provide page specific citations upon demand. This is a wiki requirement. If significant number of citations are found to be blatantly false, we can bring up the issue on Admin's notice board. For those citations we cant verify from ISBN, we can demand scanned images and bring in an admin to study it. Dineshkannambadi 15:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Read and contribute to talkpages! It makes everyone so much happier!

About [1]:Of course massacres and murders are not the same. Please read the talkpage before assuming that I make the claim they are. And further, I could point out, with greater truth, that "fights" and "murders" are not the same, yet you have replaced the latter with the former when the latter occurred. Hornplease 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A note

Hi Sarvagnya. I've just encountered your username when i was checking the Adam Bridge article following an ANI discussion. Coincidentally, i found you removing edits w/o using the edit summary. I thought it was just a minor mistake but when checked your contribs i found them full of reverting and removing. Could you please tell me what's going on? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the devanagari script from that article because it just does not belong there. There is a tendency for Hindi partisans on wiki to bombard every India-related article with devanagari transliterations. And I keep cleaning up the mess whenever I encounter it. The job is tiring as it is and I just take the liberty to save my breath with the edit summary. Thats all. Sarvagnya 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you been into DR process or approached admins to talk about what you say? Because if not, whatever would be the reason, there is no justification for what you are doing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been similar situations on other articles (Jana Gana Mana for example) where I've made my stand known at length(on the talk page) and it has also been upheld. I do not see the point in repeating the same arguments over and over again in hundreds of articles. If anybody disagrees with my removal, let them come forward and say so. As far as I'm concerned gratuitously adding a non-english transliterations in hundreds of articles on English wikipedia is vandalism. As for any removals, if I have removed something, I urge you to look on the talk page. I usually explain any removals at length on the talk page. Sarvagnya 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it is obvious that there is a conflict as i could understand from the reverting. No, my question is "have you went through WP:DR process to sort your issues? I understand that it a no. So still got two options Sarvagnya, whether a DR or you gently stop reverting. Your arguments at the talk page would be wrong or right but they are irrelevant to me because as i noticed it is a pattern and it doens't concern one or two articles. Please inform me which step you'd be taking. Thanks again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting what? What DR? A dispute resolution is when there is a dispute. And for a dispute there need to be atleast two parties. At the moment I dont see anybody putting the transliteration back. If and when they do, it is for them to first explain why a devanagari transliteration is needed there. If their explanation is "it should be there.. because I like it that way", then the transliteration obviously belongs removed. Sarvagnya 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

btw, I dont know which articles you're talking about. But if you want to question my actions on any particular article, take it to the talk page of that article. Chances are, you might already find answers on the talk page. I revert only when I have good reason to and reverting is not criminal. I have around 2000 articles in my watchlist and plenty of these articles are frequented by banned sockpuppets and trolls. And yes, I do revert them on sight. So do several other editors in good standing. If you want me to be apologetic about it, sorry.. but you're not going to get it. If you want to enter into a DR with me on behalf of those trolls and sockpuppets, go ahead. Just stop with your "stop reverting or else.." threats. You probably dont even have the foggiest what most of those articles are about. I am sure several admins keep a watch on me and you can rest assured that if there is anything to be done, they'll take care of it. Thanks. Sarvagnya

...and i am keeping an eye on what's going on as well if you don't mind. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You didnt answer my question. Considering that I answered your questions, you ought to answer mine atleast out of courtesy. Also, as an admin, you are required to. Which articles, what DR are you talking about? Either spell them out or drop your "stop reverting or else..", " i am also keeping a watch.. beware!" tone. I absolutely dont mind you watching me(you dont have to ask/tell me), only as long as you dont pull me up for not entering into a DR with myself or with an imaginary opponent. Sarvagnya 01:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

DYKs due to you

I recently posted two nominations for DYK and both were selected (Utkala Brahmin and Shakadvipi). The credit goes to you, because I was unmindful of thise things. Your archive for DYKs has a heading "?", a title like "DYKs" may attract more attention. You can ignore this suggestion. Thanks. -Vinay_Jha 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your dyks. The credit certainly is all yours. You wrote them. Please continue to write many more. Feel free to ping me at any time if you think I can be of any help. And ya, I'll think of your suggestion. Sarvagnya 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Chennai

Hi Sarvagnya...Instead of just removing cited sources, you can help wikipedia by trying to get sources....instead of just tagging wherever u want to......help wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddyr (talk • contribs) 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tamilakam

Hi thr! I'm trying to assume goodfaith on the tags you have been leaving on Tamilakam article. I have indeed said that it is common knowledge in TN that Tamilakam is TN. If you differ in the opinion, you may ask for a voting on the talk page. Cheers! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 03:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

mysore

Sir, What is the wrong information I had given on Mysore? A reference was already there in the page about Erumainadu. I had only elaborated it and added proof for it. Please do not take a threatening posture and I will not get intimidated. If you want to file anything, do it. I will face the music for being truthful.Read the rules carefully where it mentions about vandalism. This information addition with valid proof and not vandalism.

Vandanegalu, PONDHEEPANKAR K, DELHI UNIVERSITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PONDHEEPANKAR (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

my proof is there as links. take time to read them properly

thanks for the kindness.

mysore

my proof is there as links. take time to read them properly.By the way user Gnanapiti has also been doing this juggling. What abt. him?

thanks for the kindness.

PONDHEEPANKAR 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnatic

I can no longer edit those sections (thanks to you), so if you think it belongs in the article, fix it appropriately. I'm open to the idea of adding most of it, as long as it goes with the flow. Not just stuffed in there to baffle newcomers. Relocate it appropriately, or, discuss how you want to do it which was what my initial idea was, but noooo, apparently you know better and have made the article that it is today from the massive mess it used to be. What a joke. My method of editing may not be orthodox, but at least they yield results. Unless you intend on causing more edit wars of this kind and recreating a mess of an article like it used to be, then rather than tell me that you respect(ed) me as a reasonable editor, show it through your actions rather than jumping the gun. Between the time you stopped doing these ridiculous edit wars on this article with 'you know who', and now, I've thought you've developed into a reasonable, sensible editor, despite previously (and obviously still) being somewhat biassed on issues such as Muthuthandavar - whose compositions are rendered a LOT more frequently by the current prominent artists, over the composers you are trying to add. All I can do is hope that I don't lose that better opinion of you within a matter of a couple of days or so. I also have to hope you aren't going to try cause trouble to the extent of 'you-know-who' - it's been so peaceful for a while. Anyway, best wishes Ncmvocalist 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt you can make even a somewhat accurate representation of Carnatic music today purely based on "scholarly" sources. Highly. It needs a mixture of both, and I really hope one day you acknowledge that, among other things. Your Muthuthandavar/Arunachala Kavirayar explanation is still with your biassed way of thinking - you need to get over it if you truely want to improve it. Marimuthu Pillai on the other hand, yes, not as popular, yet we keep him in the list purely for the sake of the Tamil trinity mention which has been accepted. This isn't about Tamil artists alone - it's about the most prominent Carnatic artists of India, they're invited to the most major events. As for your problem with panns, if you have a source that says otherwise, then according to your way of doing things, it can't be blanked out. (I'm neutral on it, purely as it makes sense and doesn't mess up the flow of the article - something you need to learn to detect before making your criticisms which have so far been of no use to this article whatsoever, except in favour of these composers) Trinity pic can be put in the article, as long as it fits with the text, which, that picture doesn't, plus, there's a better picture for it in the actual Trinity article. You've had over a year to do your proposed changes - again, actions speak louder than words, and my effort certainly hasn't just been wasted over the last year, which is more than I can say about your contributions which have nonsense inserted in every other line. Assume away, it's not like your biasses are going to ever change. Next time, I suggest you assume good faith, even in edits. Though I guess it's not just edit warring and biasses you're back to, but making threats like you-know-who? You really must be having a lot of fun. And fyi, I'm allowed to revert from vandalism, whether it's on my 1st, 2nd, 3rd (or so you seem to think) 4th edits. Ncmvocalist 04:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly taken aback at your reaction. To say the least. Correct me if I got you wrong, but you seem to be saying that I made threats like 'uknowwho'. If you're referring to my pointing out that you were in vio of 3rr, I can tell you that you're grossly mistaken. If it was my intention to assume bad faith, I'd have pounced on the opportunity to file a 3rr(6rr actually) vio report against you and got you blocked. It was purely out of 'good faith' considerations and my opinion of you as a reasonable editor that I just chose to inform you and let it be. I am saddened that it hasnt gone down well with you. And I also dont understand why it is not possible to write an article from 'scholarly sources'. I dont mean 'primary sources'(I am too much a novice to even attempt such a thing) if that is what you thought I was saying. I only meant that I'd use 'scholarly sources' written by scholars such as R satyanarayana, Sambamoorthy, N Ramanathan and such other stalwart musicologists. I really cant see what the problem with that would be. As for my view on Tamil composers, your understanding couldnt be further from the truth. I am fully aware of the currency they have in the current Carnatic circuit. Infact, sevikkavenDumaiya is a personal favourite of mine and I dont tire of listening to it. Same with some compositions of oothukkadu venkatasubbaiyar... to present day gems like rajaji's Kurai onrum illai malai murthi kaNNa or even eru mayil eri viLayadum mugam onre from tiruppugazh. Sudha Raghunathan's renditions of these composers is something I treasure. What I dont approve of, however is the elevation of these composers to be on par with the trinity or purandara dasa, swathi tirunal and such others. That is POV and is not subscribed to even by the very artists who sing their compositions today. What I may at best be guilty of is that I am wont to err on the side of caution when faced with even subtle shades of tamil nationalistic pov.. and this gets exacerbated due to the chronic assumption of bad faith by the likes of 'u-know-who' and his pals and their relentless pov pushing. And honestly, for all your commendable efforts, I still have to say that the article is still miles from being a scholarly and encyclopedic presentation of the subject. And for this, I hardly hold you responsible. I am just as frustrated with the state of the article as you are. I dont know what else to say. If you still want to assume bad faith, I cannot stop you. But I can only assure you that it is misplaced. Sarvagnya 06:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will reply shortly - rest assured, I certainly don't want to assume bad faith. Ncmvocalist 07:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply - I've been busy over the last few days. I think I mistook your tone when you warned me - nevertheless, I do appreciate the fact you did. In a way I agree with some of your sentiments about the Tamil composers that you listed, yet at the same time, I don't. I see the compositions of Muthuthandavar, Arunachala Kavi, and even Periyasami Thooran at a level that is much higher than that of a composer like Rajaji. While I agree it is best to avoid giving the article a biassed slant with nationalistic views of any ethnic/linguistic group, sometimes even though it appears that such bias is being given, it really isn't, and this may be as a result of being over-cautious. So, I have removed all these 'contentious' names temporarily, however, I may re-include them (or certain other composers) in the future, once I reassess each of their contributions, and how often their compositions are rendered in the Carnatic circuit. While it is true that the presentation of the subject isn't as 'encyclopedic' as it should be, it (in most sections) is simple to follow, and while may not be as full of citations as it should be, it does give the reader a fair idea about the most important points of understanding Carnatic music summarily. So although I'm dissatisfied with what it lacks, I'm very pleased that at the very least, readers can come and read this article with some ease - the many difficulties that readers encountered when attempting to read the article seem to have vanished. While this may on the surface not seem like much of a development, it is crucial to furthering the article later. The huge amount of time and effort needed to make it into what it is today, may very well be less than half of the time of what is required to fix the article to the level we all want it to be at. However, before other criticisms are given, the time and effort put to change the article to what it is now has to be recognised in order to avoid reducing the motivation of editors, such as yours truly. Hope you understand. Regards, Ncmvocalist 11:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

regarding tagging

Sarv, I have been doing all my work in good faith and I am a student of M.A History in Delhi University. Please do not engage in a warring-counter warring position as the article is start class and I am a new participant in wiki. You can help me to organise and format rather than leaving tags as I am not adept in wikiformatting. No hard feelings. Cheers! PonDheepankar K D.U PONDHEEPANKAR 10:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pondheepankar. If you need help with understanding wikipedia, I'd be glad to help you. For now, forget about wiki formatting and cpediting. There's plenty of people out there who will pitch in to help you with that. But there are certain things that are non-negotiable on wikipedia. Foremost among them is wiki's policies about reliable sources, verifiability and no original research. Please click on all three links and read each of them twice. Then, go to your articles and start with adding reliable sources. Just fyi, coimbatore.com is not a RS for reasons detailed in the policy. Same with any random tripod, geocities, blogspot or wordpress site. A good place to look for info would be Google books, Google scholar and sites such as jstor.org(check if your university has a subscription with jstor. If they do, you're in luck as its a veritable treasure trove). That said, I have to point out to you that you have been here longer than I have! And I have been here nearly 18 months! Its ironic that you ask me to be patient with you. And btw, stop blanking your talk page. Archive it if you want, but dont blank it. Sarvagnya 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi friend

Hi Friend,

You have changed the following edit made by me,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannada_language&oldid=156874538

May I know why?

I have posted regarding my edit in the discussion page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kannada_language

what is the answer for my question,

What I did is not a vandalism, How can call it is a Vandalism. I am not here to vandalise anything. I have clearly quoted regarding my edit in the discussion page. How can it become a vandalism. You only Vandalised by blindly Undo ing the update

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.96.190 (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha: Lord of obstacles

Sarvagnya, I reverted your recent edit to Ganesha and thought I'd stop by to explain the reason, which was that this specific issue has been discussed on the talk page before and the academic sources do seem to agree that Ganesha has a dual role of placing and removing obstacles. See the discussions here and here in particular. Of course, this issue can be reopened, but from my own perusal of academic literature, the title "Lord of Obstacles" besides being an exact translation of Vighneshwara, is also a accurate description of Ganesha's role. Regards. Abecedare 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not convincing. Will reply soon. Sarvagnya 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It may be best to bring it up on Talk:Ganesha, so that all interested editors can participate. Cheers. Abecedare 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hai Sarv, Again you have resorted to edit wars by adding tags. I can also find unresouced info. in Mysore wiki but Im not adding tags in good faith so that it may be constructively edited in the future. Please stop this (tagging with a hundred tags) and resort to something useful for the readers (like helping others you find cannot format a wiki).

PONDHEEPANKAR K DU —Preceding unsigned comment added by PONDHEEPANKAR (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Chola bell

Sarvagnya, I noticed your revert on the Chola dynasty page. While I don't favour adding those statements unless supported by a reliable source, I feel that the revert needs an edit summary and doesn't merit the use of popups. Popups should only be used for vandalism reverts and repeat violations. They're not a tool intended to replace the normal edit process relaxing the need for an edit summary. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

on kongu nadu

sarvagnya, is the karnataka workgroup waging a jehad on me? what i have posted is all authentic info...i do no how to format...why dont u do that....if you or not interested why dont you better leave me for a while to take a breath and format? i think now you are all hell bent to malign all my posts....and thus u disgrace and disgust a new wikipedian....

HELP OR LET GO.... this is a request....if ppl. from karnataka work group wanna wage a wiki edit war on tamilnadu posts...then im ready with the tamilnadu workgroup on my side...but is this the spirit of wikiying? pls. think and react.

affectionately, pondheepankar d.u —Preceding unsigned comment added by PONDHEEPANKAR (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

im also reverting the link i had given on sangam text if that is what you want......to keep off from karnatakan wikis....PONDHEEPANKAR 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tamil (Chola) Bell

Just a note regarding this Bell - you asked in one of your edit summaries about why the article shouldn't be deleted. In fact this bell is well known in New Zealand, and is held in the national museum in Wellington. So it is a valid article. What I am objecting to is the use of dubious sources to make assertions about how it got into New Zealand. Thanks for your help Kahuroa 06:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. That was my concern - notability. Sarvagnya 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)