User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 16

KA

You may have to move the citation in the lead down somewhere. The reviewers will object to citation in the lead.Dineshkannambadi 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Will do that. Sarvagnya 02:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

KA

Sarvagnya, I am not able to fit all the images/pie-charts related to demography in a proper fashion in the article because the text in that section is very less. I have finally arrived at some format, please feel free to modify it if it is not OK -- Amarrg 17:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unification of Karnataka

It would be best if you use the {{Editprotected}} template on the talk page. I'll see if the requested additions will not be problematic. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If I unprotect the page, I could potentially be criticized for double standards, and I'm not really in the mood for that type of talk. However, if you show me first what edit you wish to make (create a user subpage and I'll look at it), then I can probably unprotect the page temporarily. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I already told you. It is not like I want to add a paragraph or another section or something. I want to add "references". I want to add a pic(which I uploaded a few hours ago). I want to maybe cpedit the wikilinks etc.,. May be some external links. Basically, minor but important edits.

I really dont see any reason the article should be locked in the first place. There just are no disputes on that article. Atleast not yet. It is just that some people have been stalking me around and trolling with tags on Kannada related articles. If anything you should be dealing with the ones who are trolling with the tags. One of them is an obvious sockpuppet and another one is a suspected sockpuppet.(when they are not busy stacking votes and fabricating 'consensus' on xfDs and talk pages, they're busy harrassing me) Yet another one has done precious little on wikipedia except stalk me. Another one is a nitpicking troll by his own admission. If you care to peep into the talk page, you will see that those who were slapping nonsensical tags on the article hadnt even bothered to explain why. That being the case, you should be hauling them up before you lock the article and effectively thwart its improvement by well meaning editors. Sarvagnya 23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm following Wikipedia policy. I do not bend the rules for anyone. Anyway, all of these people you are talking about are either suspected sockpuppets or stalkers. File an RFCU case, or present it at AN/I if you really feel something is wrong with these users. I don't see what's so bad in showing me what you plan to edit, and then me unprotecting the page so you can make your changes (provided that they are acceptable). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a total of three references to an article that appears to be on a sensitive topic. The tag was justified. All I need was you to say that you weren't going to add any text, and I would have unprotected. You said that now, so I acted on my word. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not my point. My point is that you could have unlocked it even if I said that I was going to add text. Because how can anybody take exception to any text in an article even before they have seen what it is! It is not like there is a piece of prose that people are fighting over. I've only been trying to tell you that there just are no disputes on that article except some routine trolling from SPAs, obvious socks and 'self confessed nitpicking trolls'. That is no reason to lock the article. It is reason to pull up those who are adding those tags and ask them to explain their actions. And as for referencing, I've seen far worse from the very ones who're adding these tags. Especially from the self confessed nitpicking troll(as for the rest, they havent written any articles and only exist on wikipedia to troll and stalk me.. but thats besides the point). Even if there were only 3 refs on the article, they are all verifiable links from RS sources which any good faith editor can click and read. Its not like I've written a 10000 word article and just thrown in my favourite unverifiable esoteric book at the bottom of the article like the 'nitpiciking troll' has done on dozens of articles. Thanks anyway for unlocking the article. Sarvagnya 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sivaji

Hi. Noticed your recent edits/post on the talk page. I've posted a reply reg the lead. Pls chk it out when you've the time. aJCfreak yAk 09:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've been a little busy last few days. I will take a look and comment on the article talk page soon. Thx. Sarvagnya 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to Sivaji.

I have made a news box for Sivaji article editors:

Thanks to your edits there has been a huge change at the Sivaji article. The news is in chronological order. Thank your for your contribution.

~~ AVTN ^Talk 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've been a little busy last few days. I will take a look and comment further on the article talk page soon. Thanks for your efforts. Sarvagnya 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sivaji (film)

• I've had enough of this constant nonsense and tattering from which once had been a good article.
• Despite being started, developed and furnished by me, others have decided to take loyalty. User: AVTN, User: ajcfreak, User: Sarvagnya, User: Gnanapiti and others have deprived all the controls.
• By the way, I've stopped caring about the article and refuse to edit it constructively unless calls are heard for and:
  • Discussions are made on the talk page before major changes
  • People accept that Behindwoods.com is actually a fair source and official - sponsoring many tamil films.
  • The unneeded tags on the article are removed
  • Anonymous/new editora re restricted from editing.

Until then I disassociate myself from the article I made "spectacular"

Universal Hero 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First you dump a load of nonsense on wikipedia by disregarding every single guideline and policy about article writing and now you throw a tantrum when other editors put their foot down and decide to deal with the article in a way it deserves. I am glad that you have decided not to edit the article. It gives the article some hope of being salvaged. Thx. Sarvagnya 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Swimming

There is one sentence in that section. Several swimmers and athletes from Karnataka have made a name at the national level. If you feel swimming needs more stress, we can bring back couple of sentences that I've removed. Gnanapiti 21:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

aah.. ok.. i had missed that line. Sarvagnya 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Sarvagnya, there are lot of references to Kamat, Sastri and other books in the article which you can see in footnotes section. I think it's better to move the references back as just mentioning name in footnotes section won't be appropriate, IMO. Gnanapiti 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lotlil

If Lotlil is such an obvious sockpuppet, file an RFCU case! It's much easier to work with something that is confirmed, than something that is just suspected. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganga

Still under use?Dineshkannambadi 23:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Western Ganga - 350 / 1000 Categories

Thanks for the good edit summary. Based on that, I looked into those red links, which were actually empty categories. They(i.e, [[Category:350 establishments]] etc text), as you guessed, were generated automatically from the infobox. I have created those categories now, so you wouldn't see those red links anymore. TaTa - KNM ^Talk 03:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sahana (song)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Sahana (song), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Od Mishehu 06:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Afd trimming

Hi, could you please explain why you feel it is necessary to remove two comments from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiruba Shankar 2 Afd. John Vandenberg 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

'Crooks on mission', 'trolls', conspiracy theories. And anyway, a SPA sockpuppet has no business existing on wikipedia, least of all voting on an AfD and peppering it with personal attacks. Sarvagnya 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

KA literature

I just made an edit without realizing you were cpediting. Hope you did not loose any edits.Dineshkannambadi 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I dont think we've lost anything. Sarvagnya 18:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a web site with Kappe Arabhatta inscription image put there by an Indian couple. I could not find the web site again. We really need to get a hold of that image, untill I travel to Badami next year.Dineshkannambadi 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

E. V. Ramasami Naicker

Please stop edit warring over the name, and discuss it on the article's Talk page. Corvus cornix 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are u talking about? Sarvagnya 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Western GD

thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Punch Dialogue

Hello. I've reverted your speedy deletion request for Punch Dialogue. I assume it was just a mistake since you tagged it as nonsense. I have no issue with you sending it to AfD though. Pascal.Tesson 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

National language

As per my own advice, I won't bring up the national language issue again on Talk:India, but I'd like to point out that National language is marked {{expert}},{{globalize}},{{Refimprove}} and is basically unreferenced original research. Also please read the Washington Post article again; English is categorically not the national/official language of US, and it is the article writer, David Montgomery, who editorializes that the whole debate of labeling a language "national" is meaningless. The article appeared in the Style section of Washington Post where reporters have some leeway in inserting personal slant/commentary, but I can provide you ample straight-news references which establish that the attempt to declare English as US's national language failed.

In fact having a declared "national language" is relatively uncommon and India is far from unique in not having one; for example, according to Ethnologue (a very well regarded reference in this field) around 40 nations/regions have French as their "official language" and only about 6 have it as their "national language".[1] Incidentally, this reference too calls Hindi, India's official language, while it labels, Assamese, Bengali etc as "state languages".[2] I have yet to see any respected secondary/tertiary source that takes a different approach.

By the way, I don't have any pro-Hindi/anti-Hindi axe to grind on wikipedia (as hopefully was established by my stand on Official languages of India article and earlier during the Jana Gana Mana debate where I was initially for including the Devanagari transliteration before I discovered this reference) However in this case all references I have seen do seem to indicate that Hindi and English have a distinct official status than the other widely spoken languages. Of course, I am always willing to reconsider, if new reliable sources turn up.
I don't intend to draw you in a one-on-one debate; am leaving this comment only to clarify my position on the issue, for what it's worth. Regards. Abecedare 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

You wrote:

Hi there,

Can you please explain your edit summary here and on a few other images sourced from the same site?

Do you mean that because the source doesnt assert copyright, it is alright to take from such sources? What then will prevent me from dumping the best pictures stolen from elsewhere on my blog and then uploading it onto wiki from my blog? Where ofcourse, there wont be a 'copyright assertion' in sight!

Also, age of the inscription has nothing to do with copyright. Nobody is claiming copyright over the inscription itself. Copyright is only over the photograph of the inscription. The pyramids are 5-6 thousand years old. But if I take a photograph of the pyramids, the rights of the photograph belongs to me unless I release it. Please explain your removal of my tags. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for being so long to get back to you about this. Simple scans of a book that is well out of copy-right do not recreate a copy-right for the person who makes the scan. If someone adds something significant to an image (through touch-up, re-interpretation, etc.) a new copy-right is formed. In this case, we have to assume that no copy-right exists (1) because of the nature of image and its copying, and (2) because no copy-right is asserted. (If it were, I'd probably disbelieve it, but that's another issue.) This is a different situation than (say) a photo of the pyramids, where the photographer is making creative choices (angle, lighting, depth of field) that make his image contain elements of his creativity. Once his image is public-domain (either because of its age or because he has put it there), no one can claim copy-right of a simple scan of it.
• I hope this helps. If you disagree with my interpretation, you can always put the images up for deletion at WP:MFD. Best, Bucketsofg 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Those images did not come from a book, rather from a web site writen by a novice called Alduri.Dineshkannambadi 17:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Official languages

Hello Sarvagnya. Thanks for the links. The trouble with the 50 years CD - which is what gives most hits on the nic.in domain - is that it is very out of date. There have been a lot of changes since then in many states, so I'm a little reluctant to include information from there.

I'd covered Goa and Meghalaya already, but I'll look into the other links. I'm also trying to get lawyers I know in other states to look up their official language acts, but it's taking a good bit of time.

Incidentally, Manipuri is officially written in the Bengali script, so that resolution, though it looks like Bengali, will probably be quite unintelligible to our Bengali friends!

Thanks again for the links. -- Lexmercatoria 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)