User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 12

DYK

On 9 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siribhoovalaya, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 10 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Origin of Karnataka's name, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

DYK

On April 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Churumuri (blog), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Karnataka topics}}

There is a discussion on Template_talk:Karnataka. Please provide your inputs. - KNM ^Talk 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WatchlistBot

I replied to your questions here. Ingrid 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note from Veeresh

Dear Sarvagnya,

I have one suggestions, as for as hinduism is concerned mythology plays a great rule. When one can say the basava is the incarnation of Nandi why not we include mythology behind Veerashaivism, that is of course is the first part whenver there comes lingayatism thats too, arise of panchacharyas from sthavaralingas.

If you do not agree with this, then again the the god shiva himself is the mythological figure. and what we are mentioning is contradictory.

Then why do not we include mythology behind veerashaivism/Lingayatism, that is about panchacharyas as first chapte or section on this article.

Regards, Expecting constructive reply,

Veeresh Hiremath —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veereshhiremath (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Karnataka/Collaboration

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Karnataka/Collaboration and the discussion page. Your inputs are much appreciated. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 07:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta

ThanksDineshkannambadi 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Karnata and PICTURes..

Thanks for the response on the Karnataka page.. But a lot of my pictures have been misused before.. Used in calenders, sold as posters , etc.. Which is why i put the FOR WIKIPEDIA USE picture.. I thought i'd show some more of Flora and Fauna around.. I'd prefer if both watermarks remained.. I dont mind anyone using the pics as long as my watermarks remain.. So its upto you, you want to keep the pictures , keep them, else its out.. I cannot put up unwatermarked ones for the reasons i've mentioned above.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayanths (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The photograph is on the Churumuri site in the article on the Churumuri team meeting the Governor.

http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2006/06/27/to-the-governor-of-karnataka-from-us/

DYK

On 30 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bidriware, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

BGL Swamy

Try to answer this before getting busy experimenting with the warning templates. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning templates

I noticed your warning templates on Venu62's talk page. I wanted to point out, Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Please consider discussing the issue or going to other dispute resolution routes rather than posting warning templates. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Sarvagnya 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DTTR applies to Venu62's warnings as well. Both of you are regulars here. These warnings aren't helping much with resolving the issues. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content

I noticed that you have unilaterally removed content in Tamil language article. You removed cited content about Tamil's influence on Sanskrit here. You removed cited content about early inscriptions in Tamilnadu here Could you care to explain? Thanks Praveen 19:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Read whats already been said and what will be said on the concerned talk page. Sarvagnya 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please reach a consensus in talk page. If we keep, your 1000 year claim, then it means that we give importance only to Herman's work. This will be grossly unfair to other scholars' work. Thanks Praveen 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

None of cited material were removed in my edits yesterday. I think it is you who should have had the courtesy to reach a consensus first before

removing cited content unilaterally. Please comment further on in the article's talk page. Thanks Praveen 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

You have called the other editors (which includes me) as trolling on articles like Halmidi & Rastrakuta Dynasty in Talk page of Tamil article [1]. If you do not either explain your uncalled personal attack or apologize for remark, I will be forced take this issue with admins (I am not using warning templates as per DTTR mentioned in above post). Thanks Praveen 13:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My edits

My edits to Tolkappiyam weren't 'removal of cited content'. They were valid edits and rephrasings. I have provided the citations you omitted. You are welcome to provide the one missing citation. 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism

History of Tamil Nadu has gone through peer review and FAC review. Stop vandalising the article. - 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to the nonsense. Sarvagnya 02:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

removal of template

Hi Sarvagnya,

Often, when I edit articles, I do similar edits to few others, thus having to leave the same edit summary message to each one, as it can be seen in my contribution list. Thus, I write one edit summary and copy it, pasting it whenever I do a similar edit to another article. When I removed the fact template (BTW, I did not know [and still do not know, for that matter] what the fact template is; so I removed it), I pasted the same edit summary, and you took it as "sneaky" vandalism. I apologize for the inconvenience, but would mind telling me what the fact template is actually there for? Universe=atom 14:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, do you think my latest change to the India states template was wise, for I am doubtful of it? Universe=atom 14:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal report

Hi there, thanks for reporting the IP vandalizing the India related articles. I will watch the IP, but it is not blocked as the vandalism last occurred at almost 20:00, May 5 (UTC), which is about nine hours after the edits were contributed. Blocking by administrators is a preventative measure only, so there is no immediate risk of re-occurrance. Thanks for the diligence, Teke 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

You have raised many points in my talk page and my head is still formulating an answer and a method to go forward in the Tamil langauge article (although parts of it, I have already suggested in the Tamil language talk page). I will follow up with a detailed reply when time permits after month end activities at work end. Thanks Taprobanus 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As you have pointed so eloquently some where else, we are here not to tell the truth but to cite verifiable information from reliable sources. That is this is a documentation project of all the truths and facts out there about a subject matter. Problem starts when most people assume that there is only one form of truth to be told and everything else has to be censored. Couple to it a total lack of process focus can make this so called harmonious effort at bringing a Ivy leaguer and person with an access to a computer in a mental asylum to collaborate on facts over whelming. To make matters worst you specifically have a charming way of feeding the trolls. This charm my friend is primarily your own making and may work to keep some trolls as well as legitimate Wikipedians at bay but all what it takes is one determined person to take you to arbcom and the charm has to come off or else. Infact the charm is in the way of you harmoniously collaborating with the Ivy Leaguer and the nut case from the asylum.

Further there is a total lack of process focus in these edits by all concerned. That is to edit a huge and politically charged article such as Tamil language and to make it neutral (for what ever it is worth) requires patience, perseverance and total and undeniable dedication to wiki process. The differences between you and the other party are not that great. You are not a creationist and them evolutionists, they are not from India and you are out of India theorists. What you are discussing is the difference between using scientific analysis and the question which one takes precedence over which. It is a question of mere 1,000 years in one of the differences. I think it is very plausible to reach a consensus that is scientifically correct in these circumstances as long as you stick to wiki process. But what you did in Tamil people article where even neutral editors such as User:Krankman and myself had to go in and remove the excessive fact tags shows either you have not read these things before or were angry because of something else but the very least it does not help the great wiki process.

I have come to understand the limitations of Wikipedia. It is a great place to research about neutral articles such as Mollusks and Ammonite s as I did with my daughter the other day but we need to take the information that comes out of Wikipedia with a pinch of salt when we come to articles such as Tamil language, Indo-Aryan migration and even Sathya Sai Baba and many others like them. If you think that you have the heart and the patience to waste (really it is a waste of time on big and controversial articles) away about 6 months of your life to make the article truly neutral please go ahead. I may or may not be able to focus on things ancient because what attracts me to write is the current examples of man ability to revert himself back to the animal stage that inspite of thousands of years of civilization has been unable to cleanse him of. I document the recent history of rapes, murders, beatings and other examples of savagery that is rendered by man on fellow man from the tear drop island that I was fated to be born in. But I can help to steer the conversation in Tamil language talk page to follow wiki process. As I had pointed out , lets start a project page and list out each and every item that is if contention and strictly follow the wiki process. If no compromise is possible then we take it all the way to mediation. In your mind there should be 1 or 2 things you want to see changed and that’s what you concentrate on. Taprobanus 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gottuvadhyam

Thank you, but my computer is more than 5 years old and renders Tamil as blank boxes. So I tend to defer to editors from India when dealing with Indic-language spellings (I'm not of Indian background, though my name is similar to yours!). Badagnani 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get that software. I can see other Unicode things but not the Tamil. My OS is Windows 98. Badagnani 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This aint vandalism,Rashtrakutas are part of Marathi history and Yadavas of devagiri have little kannadi to write a whole para on it. Plz dont belittle other language to market kannadi.