Archives

???

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

s c ?

Not quite. By cropping part of the image, it only strengthens the fair use claim since we are using less of the work. Whereas, the requirement is to use as little as possible to infringe on the copyright as little as possible. If the useage is not appropriate (not used for critical commentary or illustrative purposes to show what the CD cover looks like), then you could claim the rationale is not valid. But to say an image under fair use is a copyvio is the whole point of fair use. MECU≈talk 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be online tomorrow, just letting you know I've read your comment and will be replying soon. Apologies for the slight delay in the response, hopefully I can use this to my advantage and re-evaluate the situation. Regards, Rudget. 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misinterpreted the point of AFD here. As far as I can see from the history, KH seems to have been the majority editor in the page, even though it was Vagab who actually created it, KH developed the page nine-fold from 3KB to just over 27KB, and so as the creator of the page was actually absent at the time of deletion, I was willing to ignore a rule and place KH as the article maintainer/developer, *even though* he wasn't. With this in mind, articles are not brought to AFD if a user wants deletion of a page he has dealt with, we use CSD criterion G7 for that matter. You can visit this to see where pages have been put up for deletion where only one or two editors have edited a page and it has been flagged for deletion - we don't use AFD for this matter, because it would cause unnecessary wastage of time. However, I do see from this discussion that consensus was not in favour of deletion, and I admit that the speedy deletion tag that was added was done so without clear thought. For this reason alone I will restore the article, however I would appreciate if your responses to the deletion (if ever to happen again, on another page say) that they do not come across as bitey. I was only doing my job, and I make mistakes here and there just as anyone else does. Rudget. 11:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Thanks for your contribution to the above article. Can you let me know why those citations were removed, especially when it is used for non-controvertial statements. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 09:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that in this edit summary you insulted another editor and his contribution. Please try to keep your cool and be respectful, even when you feel provoked. Thanks, Bovlb (talk)

I have provided the highest reliable sources from the government of india (Archaeological survey of india, Centre of Excellence for Classical Tamil), a source from MIT university and from one of the highest respected newspaper in india, which contains the only reference for the classification of Classical Sanskrit by the indian government available so far. I can find no single reason, why these references should be ignored in any way. Your POV is easily negatived by the sources i provided. Please explain your position now in full details belonging to this matter: Why do you ignore the references i provided in full? Why do you think, that your POV is accurater than those of government of india institutes and the MIT? What's your POV of the newspaper articles, which provided the government's "Classical" tag reference and why do you ignore them also? Please give me an answer in full details as soon as possible, since i'd like to go back to work soon. If you continue to ignore the references after these three days, i have to ask on a third opinion provided by the Wikipedia Community or any other available constructive solution. Frankly speaking, i doubt highly in your good faith in this particular case, but i give it a try. Thanks for reading. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)--Thirusivaperur (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it again or i will get an administrator to stop you. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for Thirusivaperur about this. I respectfully suggest that you let it lie, and maybe we can all cool down a bit. Bovlb (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for the accuse of vandalization. Keep in mind, that i don't want double or even more messages of the same kind in such manner. Thanks for reading. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarvagnya, thanks for your recent inputs into the modern literature section. Can you make sure that Navya, Novodaya etc are in italics whereever you touched/added info to it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have added any info on critisism, please indicate so under Taxman's comments where I have listed a set of points I added after his comments.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya, I hope you dont mind that have reverted your recent edits to the lead. Perhaps the lead should be concise and the details of metres is better of in the "content and genre" section. How do you feel about this?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote: Starting with the Kavirajamarga (850 CE) authored during the reign of the Rashtrakuta king Nripatunga, until the middle of the 12th century, literature in Kannada is almost exclusively Jaina -- explained in part by the fact that they found eager patrons in the Kannada region among the Chalukya, Rashtrakuta, Hoysala and Ganga kings who were either Jains themselves or offered generous support to the faith -- as also by the fact that the Jains themselves were early champions of the vernaculars (unlike the Buddhists and the Brahmins who chose Pali and Sanskrit) to spread their faith.

• Explained in part will open up questions about what the rest of the reason was which only makes it require more explanation.
• Jains also used Prakrit profusely before 4th century.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Some Jain writers continued to write scholarly works in Prakrit/Apabrahmasa till 9th century.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide full citation for this:Sangave V. A, pp. 187–188 Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. feel free to revert now. I will think it over a little more and get back to you tomm. Logging off now. Sarvagnya 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarvagnya. I disabled EmailUser a couple of years ago after a particularly annoying - and wearisome - round of allegations (including, inter alia, meatpuppetry and off-wiki coordination), and I'm reluctant to enable it again. Is it something important? If it's about my swiftly reverted comment on the Kannada literature talk page, don't bother - the comment was quite uncalled for (not to mention bordering on ad hominem). I've had a fairly tiring few months, so I'm a little snappier than normal. -- Arvind (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarvagnya. Thanks for your participation. I appreciate you comments. Wikidās ॐ 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Wrong number. Sarvagnya 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Fowler&Fowler has been adding the Toda image into the Indian image rotation without accepting that there was clear consensus not to have it in the rotation when the last vote was taken. He was the only one for the image and there were 9 people against it. Still he has insisted on keeping it in the rotation, even after I tried explaining to him. He called me a liar and has kept doing it. Nikkul (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]