Very pleased. We should perhaps look at getting the portal itself featured one of these days. Sarvagnya 04:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who often ends up seeing the result of what happens AFTER the editor makes legal threats, I wanted to tell you that I support Moreschi's block. We simply do not tolerate them, with warning or without. Threats cause a chilling effect on the encyclopedia. If the user wants to make legal threats, they are more than welcome to refer them to me through the OTRS system and we'll deal with them there. In the meantime, until their legal situation is resolved, they will remain blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Legal threats are grounds for a block until they are retracted. Warning is optional.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the first para of Rgveda, there was a wrong reference to Max Muller which I had corrected, but DAB removed the whole thing just because I touched it (just when Moreschi banned me). My action was perfect, but DAB has asked me many a times to leave Wiki and start my own web site ! Why he behaves like so ? What should I do ? I had issued the legal warning to draw attention of others, but no one is asking him to observe WP:CIVIL and not to remove well sourced contributions. See DAB's threat on my talk page which says I will lose if I opt for arbitration (against his abuses and reverts), and see my previous complaints in talk page of Moreschi (and Abecedare), and Moreschi's unsympathetuc answer yesternight that no Wikipedian will sympathise with me. I did not know issuing legal warning is illegal and illegal abuses is legal in Wiki, because I joined just one month ago. But it does not mean I am one month old, students guided by me decades ago are heads of departments and I am now "insane, silly, crackpot, &c" according to DAB. I have no intention of going to court, but DAB is making it impossible for me to work. -Vinay Jha 22:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today I made a few edits to Rgveda for which received abuses {spoilt child) and threats at my talk page. He again inserted an unsourced statement about Rgveda dating in the introduction, after removing a well sourced statement. You said you were watching my edits. See svadhyaya which is Buddhipriya's creation, watch how this article changed after I joined it. It was difficult for me to add an entire section on a theme which had not any source at all in western English literature. Buddhipriya was tolerant, hence a well sourced article about a neglected theme has come into being. Had DAB been there, I would have abused away in the very beginning. I am planning to add complete lists of all Brahmana gotras (community-wise), with shakha,moola,pravara,etc of every division of Brahamana. Work on Maithil Brahamana has already begun. I possess enough material (mostly Sanskrit and Hindi, there is no reliable and exhaustive list is English)), but much of my time ia being wasted by DAB's campaign against me. -Vinay Jha 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lara bran is edit warring with me by insisting on placing a template that duplicates information on the Yoga template on many pages. Aside from just duplicating the Yoga limbs, it also includes links to thinks that are not clearly related to Raja Yoga. This editor is also very interested in sexual content on Kama Sutra, and many other sex-related articles. Can you take a look? Buddhipriya 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

About [6]: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

thanks for the kindness.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Per WikiRage.com, the article Karnataka received heavy editing today by unregistered users and may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi friend, you are reverting my updates in kannada article without any comments or even a discussion in the talk which is a real vandalism. Regards --IndiWorld 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I dont take kindly to unsourced POV/OR.. especially when it is nonsense. Sarvagnya

Thanx for warning me! I assure that I would not continue editing the page. But then, just for the sake of information, what to do in cases of a page being being repeatedly vandalized. Regards -Ravichandar84 09:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a site only for Kannadigas. People from any other linguistic background can post messages and their views are at least as important as yours. Please refrain from deleting others posts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.172.37 (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have an overly full watchlist, I thought I should let you know that I have made a material change to the section on Sanskrit influences. See this diff. There's a bit of an explanation and some general thoughts on the talk page. -- Arvind 22:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick glance at the diff you provided and it seems like this is a 'material change' that I intended to do myself. Thanks for taking time out to work on it. That said, I still have some concerns about the nuances about which I will comment after taking a closer and more critical look. My biggest concern is that we shouldnt be giving undue weight to Rajam(that is not to question her credentials, in the least). Like you mentioned, she herself lists as many as nine people who posit a Sanskrt/Pali influence on the tolkappiyam. I am not certain, but I vaguely remember Hart and Zvelebil also talking of Sanskritic influences on the Tolk.,(will check again). So we should only make sure that each view gets space commensurate with its currency and standing. More later. And yes, I have an overly full watchlist, but I have also been overly busy in real life as can be seen from my contrib history. Much of my limited contribs in the past two months have been tool-driven watchlist-watching. Sarvagnya 23:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CSD for the deliberately very restrictive definition of "nonsense". That it may not be a good article does not by itself make it suitable for a speedy. DGG (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I agree with your position on the culture picture in India, I took the liberty of removing your warning to Fowler&fowler as I thought it wasn't helping to amicably resolve the issue. Hope you understand. Have a good day -- Samir 02:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your frustration with revert warring, Sarvagnya; I've tried to man WP:AN3 in the past many times and have been inundated by ire from all directions each time I handled a 3RR report. I agree that you are in your rights to issue a warning to prevent revert warring. What I disagree with is the tone in your message (to me, as an outsider to the situation, it seemed rather harsh) which is why I thought it was somewhat unnecessary, as I mentioned on ANI. I won't interfere if you feel the warning is warranted. Take care -- Samir 03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks Sarvagnya
	I would like to thank you for your participation in my successful RfA, which passed with a tally of (44/10/5)[1]. Whether you supported, opposed or were neutral in my RfA, I appreciate your participation and I hope that we can continue to work together to build a stronger and better Wikipedia.
	Regards, nattang 04:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

On 7 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vijayanagara musicological nonet , 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.

Images of the dam and the gardens would do just fine.Dineshkannambadi 23:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there discussion going in Talk:Malayalee article about origin of Malayalam with someone arguing that Kannada also has its roots on Old version of Tamil. Is this statement worth discussing? I am contradacting that. But not much refrences. is it fine for you to partcipate?Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sarvagnya. I have a proposal for you: be kind to Fowler&fowler. I know that you see him as being rude, but I think you can still be kind to him. Do you know that I once saw him as rude too? That was after he repeatedly reverted my edits to India last year. It turns out that he was not being rude; he just wanted me to discuss what I was doing first. After I did that, we treated each other with more respect and were both able to contribute more to Wikipedia.

If you treat Fowler with kindness, he will do the same. No one will need to link to "DFTT" anymore, and you will be more likely to get your proposals (expansion/rotation/balance/etc) listened to. Fowler (who has the same goals as you) could even start helping you out by digging up obscure JSTOR papers or doing something else.

Do you have any comments? Saravask 21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He isnt/wasnt being rude?! You got to be kidding me. Maybe in your case, he realized early on that you were an admin and decided to suck up to you.. as he always does with admins. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the only people he's at his obsequious best is with admins(and their pals). Unlike him, I dont play to a gallery and I have no axe to grind. I am not looking to contrive a 'Hindutvavadi' zealot or an 'idiosyncratic edit' out of every non-admin I come across or every editor/edit I disagree with. Wikipedia is not about waxing eloquent on talk pages. It is about adding stuff to article space. People like Fowler only add to the noise.. and people like me get sucked in because we feel that somebody has to do the dirty job if the article is to improve.

Add to that the double standards that admins like you display all the time. Last year during the "to 'ugadi' or not to 'ugadi'" debate, you jumped right in after a few comments of mine to claim that I was 'disrupting'! Here fowler keeps dumping slime worth hundreds of kbs on the talk page(how deluded does one have to be to even think that people are reading all that!) and you stand by and watch! He calls me names.. he calls me churlish, graceless and what not(not once or twice, but many times over) and you look the other way. He talks down to Nikkul; keeps resurrecting his ghosts from the past to undermine any and every suggestion Nikkul offers and you play along. He reserves his choicest for Gnanapiti, you stand and watch. He has the gall to call editors of long standing 'drive-by's and you twiddle your thumbs.

He does 3 reverts in 22 hours and then when I warn him to 'cease and desist' he has the cheek to take his "discontent" to ANI - where he lies through his teeth in the most sincere tone possible. Pray, what prevented you from sitting up and telling him.. "Hey Fowler, cut the crap. Your diffs are bogus. You were on 3RR edge and a warning was always on the cards"? Oh yes, you never saw it. Right? The lone admin(Samir) walks in, takes his dressed up diffs at face value and hastily(in good faith, though) concludes that my warning was unwarranted.. and Fowler adds the 'endorsement' to his armoury and starts trolling about it wikipedia-wide. And now, I link to DFTT and you come running to me with pep talk(?/advice(?)/yellow card(?)/request(!?).

Dont take my word for all this.. go ask Rueben, ask Priyanath or Blacksun(who expressly remarked that Fowler, all things considered, should back off for a while). Ask The Behnam, who hardly could conceal his irritation and who too if I remember correctly, was the target of Fowler's juvenile behaviour. And I am sure there are several others who feel the way I do. They probably just dont think its worth wading through a 300kb talk page to put it on record.

And what is this nonsense about having to 'discuss' on the talk page before we add anything to the article?! Like Rueben eloquently says on the talk page, anybody can add anything they want to the article, as long as it is even half a step towards improving the article. If what was added qualifies as nonsense, revert it.. if it doesnt, then reword it, recycle it, correct it, buttress it, source it. In doing all this, a short-term bloat in the article is inevitable and necessary. Or, if you have to absolutely remove it, leave a courteous note on the talk page letting people know that you've removed something(because it was breaking the flow of the article or somethning like that) and that you intend to bring it back with improvements asap. Better still, move it to a child article where it can be 'held' while you produce an 'improved' version for the article. You dont simply start off with branding all edits you dont like as 'idiosyncratic'!

I could go on and on about his nonsense, but I'll stop here. Short of seeing some 'real'(time) improvement in his behaviour, I see no reason to be 'kind' to him. In any case, I dont see what bearing that can have on people 'listening'/'lending a ear' to my suggestions. I would expect an objective and good faith editor to 'play the ball, and not the bowler'(as God is wont to say). Perhaps thats too much to expect where the likes of Fowler have their own axes to grind. Sarvagnya 02:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S, the automated PR says I should maintain concise image captions. Regarding the usage of "plaster" vs "pilaster", I have seen both used frequently by architects.Dineshkannambadi 12:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I must say, the current captions actually give more meaning to the images. Lets keep it and see what the reviewers say.Dineshkannambadi 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look. We should consider testint it in the "Culture" section as well. If you have comments, please share. Saravask 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Saravask. I've been late in replying. Will reply in detail later today or tonight. Thanks. And it looks fine, btw. Sarvagnya 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S, the book says that Tipu was not as benevolent to other religions as it may seem. He made endowments to Temples and Brahmins in the Mysore region, but was ruthless with them and Christians in the Malabar. Also those who took up Islam on the coast were rewarded with tax benefits and other economic concessions wr.t. maritime trade etc. hope this clarifies. I have also read that Tipu, even in Mysore palace premises eliminated a temple which Purniah restored (Raman, 1996). However, generlly his tough religious ways were not felt in the Mysore region.Dineshkannambadi 15:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the subarticle Tipu Sultan and its gives interesting opinions of many scholars. Saletore calls him protector of Hindu Dharma. Others take a neutral stand.Dineshkannambadi 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the accounts I've read, he was benevolent to his subjects in Mysore. In fact, if you visit the Nanjanagud temple, there is note in one of the sannidhis saying he offered worship in the temple when his elephant lost its eyesight. The elephant is said to have regained it after he worshipped there. However, on the other hand, almost every account of Kerala and Coorg history seems to be unanimous about his ruthlessness, plunder and forced conversions. However, my clarify tag, I think wasnt about this.. it was something else.. let me take another look. Sarvagnya 18:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Based on the suggestion of Ncmvocalist, I was wondering if you can take out some time in peer-reviewing an article that I've recently expanded. Any form of critique is a welcome! :)

Regards, Mspraveen 14:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!!! We have reached a significant milestone in the Karnataka WikiProject today when the 100th DYK related to Karnataka has been featured on the main page of Wikipedia.. You can see the entire list here.

Thanks a lot for your contributions in making this happen -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made changes to the Education section in Bangalore which you wanted to work on :). Can you please cp-edit it and modify/add more info if needed? I could not get good citations for Sir MV's efforts towards education in Bangalore and hence I have currently removed it. But his contribution definitely warrants a mention and will bring it back once I get a good citation. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from test pool because there was already one from Kerala there (Toda). Like you said, we should give opportunity for all regions/states to gain exposure and open this up to everybody. Thanks. Saravask 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Toda is from Tamil Nadu (Nilgiris). Not Kerala. And even if it was Kerala(which it is not), I'd get rid of the Toda pic as a pic of the Trissur pooram with all the caprisoned elephants is as Kerala as a pic can get. Sarvagnya 00:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I left this message about why the Toda pic appears in the Portal:Kerala/Selected pictures/Archive (he got the Kerala portal featured). Thanks. Saravask 01:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you own me and others an apology for the personal attack and false allegations you piled against Tamil Canadian editors and to User:Taprobanus and User:Wikiraja. You are allowed to comment on the issue of Lahuru but you cannot attack others to prove your point not to mention without any proof. Watchdogb 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, why are you attacking me against WP:NPA to make a point ? Thanks Taprobanus 12:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is shavige a type of noodle (i.e. the dried noodles) or a dish made from the noodles? If a type of dried noodle, how is it different from Idiyappam (different in shape, thickness, etc?)? Or is it just a different name for the same food? Badagnani 01:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you mean by "type of noodle".. also its confusing that you call Idiyappam a "type of dried noodle".. For all I know, Maggi is "dried noodle" which needs to be cooked(boiled) before it can be eaten. Right? Neither Shavige nor Idiyappam is "dried noodle" like Maggi. Both are 'ready to it' noodles. As for the differences between the two, I am not sure there is any significant difference in the taste, but looking at the Idiyappam article, I feel there is a small difference in the method of preparation. According to the Idiyappam article, the noodle is steamed after 'pressing'. In the case of Shavige.. the pre-steamed rice flour is pressed into Shavige(noodle) form. Frankly, I cant understand how Idiyappam can be made the other way round. Sarvagnya 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S, I feel the info on Nalvadi is better of in his own page. Why keep the churn on? None of the other FA's have a subarticle for History. No point in blowing up the article when the last few weeks have been spent on reducing it.Dineshkannambadi 11:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, perhaps its ok to have Nalvadi there. Some copy editing may be necessary to play down adjectives.Dineshkannambadi 12:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support.Dineshkannambadi 14:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Sarvagnya. I'm responding to an request filed over at WP:WQA regarding this edit, and the previous reverts. While the original post may have been a little long, it does appear to be marginally related to Wikipedia. While the talk page guidelines do allow the removal of blatantly off topic posts, as this is marginally on-topic it probably would have been more civil to contact Fowler&fowler and ask for the post to be shortened, rather than refactoring it yourself. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you filed an RfC/U? That might be the next appropriate step. (Or some form of mediation). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not mark templates for speedy deletion as test pages when they are not test pages. It wastes admin resources. Perhaps you should step away from Fowler&fowler before you annoy someone more sensitive than I. -- But|seriously|folks  07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a work in progress, but it's still not a test page. A test page is a page that was posted to test the posting process. He's obviously working on something. If you really want, take it to TfD, but I really think you should step away. -- But|seriously|folks  07:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up? Nice to see you around. Hope all is well. Best, Amerique^dialectics 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no need for all that. I actually left the whole project not long after that, and sort of returned just to work on areas I was familiar with, as opposed to attempting to play "the voice of neutrality" in conflict zones I really know little about. Wikipedia became too much for me. Anyway, glad to see you are still around. Best, Amerique^dialectics 19:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Discussion move and Specific proposal Your participation and acceptance would be appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; just a friendly reminder that we really need your input on the proposal being discussed here. Without it, we can't craft a solution which is acceptable to everyone, and without indicating your willingness to go along with a solution, the whole process could fail. Thanks in advance, --Haemo 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an image tagger too, so I know what a magnet that can be for criticism. And I have no problem with you going through someone's contribs and tagging images and other things where appropriate. But the note I left for you was about a test page tagging, and it seemed to me you were stretching for a reason to tag the other guy's pages, and that was wasting my time. I suggest that you try to err on the side of not tagging contribs of someone with whom you're in a dispute when they are borderline tags, but of course go ahead and tag in the clearer cases. That what I try to do, and I'm sure it's saved me from a lot of wikistalking accusations. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your objection is to the three images mentioned on my talk page. I was able to find them all on the British Library's website, so the source was accurate. I added the exact page reference to the image page for each. The descriptions were copyvios, by the way, so I did remove them. If you still have a problem with the images, please let me know on my talk page, because I'm not watching the images. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  02:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our messages crossed. Give me a few minutes to read through that explanation. -- But|seriously|folks  02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read it, but I don't think it's correct. If the original image is in the public domain, the British Library can't gain ownership of the original image (or any portion of the original image) by placing their watermark on it. And as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they don't have copyright in their photo of the original image per the Bridgeman case. They may or may not have copyright in their watermark, but the original image can still be used by anybody by simply removing the watermark. -- But|seriously|folks  02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they have no rights in the watermarked image, only in their watermark. They haven't modified the rest of the image, so they have no rights in the rest of the image, so we can use the rest of the image. -- But|seriously|folks  02:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great place to ask image copyright questions is WP:MCQ. -- But|seriously|folks  02:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BL only has rights in its modifications to the image. If the modifications are removed, there's no difference between the resulting image and that portion of the original PD source image, so there's no problem with it being used here. I'm not going to take the time to raise this anywhere, because I'm fairly certain I'm correct. But I won't be offended if you raise it yourself if you think I'm wrong. -- But|seriously|folks  02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:No. I didnt say the BL gained ownership of the original image by getting their hands on the original image and watermarking it. What I said was, they have ownership over the watermarked image and they reserve all rights over it (see their copyright policy on their site). And what Fowler has done is he has taken the watermarked image and cropped out the a half inch to one inch strip on the side thereby stripping it of its logo. Now, that amounts to Fowler modifying(without permission) a pic which BL created(by way of adding their logo) and one over which they reserve all rights.  ?? Sarvagnya 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now uploaded my original image to the image talk page. As you can see when I downloaded my images (Fall 2005) there wasn't any BL logo. You can check with them if you'd like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

and a postscipt:

In light of my recently uploaded original image Image:Pahari women.JPG (without the BL logo), I hope user:Sarvagnya will consider retracting his remarks above about my snipping off half an inch etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I shall be awaiting that retraction. Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]