Please see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarvagnya. Thank you. John Carter 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we move this conversation to say a subpage of one of our userspaces? Going through the archive at ANI is a pain in the bum, frankly. Perhaps User talk:Riana/BollywoodBlog. Feel free to notify others interested. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I have raised concerns on the talkpage to which you have not responded. In that light, your edit comment is puzzling. -- Relata refero ( talk) 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you can do something to really improve these articles then. Best of luck at improving them. Writing excellent articles for Bollywood actors and films is a very difficult one particularly as many online sources can be questioned as unreliable. Whatever you aim to do I hope it is good and constructive and that you can work together with the others. Just try to be a little more accomodating to people such as myself in future, who like you are "obsessed" with improving this site. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read the policy. So have most if not all of the editors who agreed that that article met the standards of FA, which specifically precludes unfair use of such images, as determined by a number of editors who are at least as familiar with the policy as you are who supported both the article and those images in any event. I strongly urge you to become familiar with other policies, and realize that the argument you seem to be fighting is in reality not a case of a single individual trying to enforce policy, but a single individual without the consent of wikipedia seeking to enforce his own personal interpretation of policy, seemingly against the existencing consensus. Such activity constitutes vandalism, and is at least grounds for a user RfC, and maybe further disciplinary actions. If you choose to continue in such actions, be very aware that at least that level of discussion regarding your activity is all but inevitable. John Carter ( talk) 19:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. The non-free content policy prohibits us from using non-free images that could (hypothetically) be replaced by free ones. If an actor is alive, someone can take his picture, so we can't use a non-free one. You might want to contact the artist's management company to see if they will license an image so we can use it here. See WP:COPYREQ for guidance in that regard. Good luck! -- But| seriously| folks 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I wrote: "Sarvagnya, are you working on your Wiki-law-degree" at Village pump policy. I appologize if that was offensive to you, as I have been accused of being uncivil. I was trying to humorously suggest that you are splitting hairs. I see your actions as sincere, and you are probably technically correct; however, I don't see a moral wrong here as the use of the images benefits the coyright owners by promoting their product directly or indirectly. A win-win for all concerned. I think that it is only an issue of our policies lacking the flexibility to handle every situation. Cheers! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 02:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sarvagnya,
I would like to invite your attention in to the discussion happening at Talk:South_India#South_Indian_States. Some users think that Maharashtra and Orissa are also be considered as South Indian states. Some others think the opposite. Your comments on the issue will add value.
Thanks in advance, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article. Could you take a look at the new article and my explanation on the FARC page for some of the things I've not included, and let me know if your concerns have been met. -- Arvind ( talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have seen that you have edited the Koenraad Elst article, related to NPOV. I think some of these related articles have major (some maybe even extreme) pov problems and have opened a small discussion about this at Talk:Voice of India and Talk:Koenraad Elst. Maybe you're interested. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Librorum Prohibitorum ( talk) 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
To you. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarvagnya. Regarding your copy edits, I am not sure if some of the Western Chalukya kings were Vaishnava or Jain. There is no such mention. Also, the books dont say that temples were appropriated by other faiths because of the faith of the incumbent king.thanks. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not the following image should be a part of the Poverty in India page. Most Poverty in *Country* pages do not have any images, at most 1. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought many images showing extreme poverty in India and has tried to mislead people into thinking this is the way a majority of poor Indians live. There is a vote in which your input would be appreciated. You can find this discussion here
I feel that the the Bodhgaya Beggar image does not represent poverty in India correctly because:
This can be applied to this because a very tiny fraction of poor people in India are disabled. Most work very hard trying to make a living for themselves. This image is misleading. Nikkul ( talk) 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarvagnya, Thank you for the kind thoughts — they are sincerely appreciated. ~ priyanath talk 05:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
To satisfy your curiosity:
If you still think an utterly and completely uncontroversial statement needs referencing, by all means add as many of the above as you wish. rudra ( talk) 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
My sources dont seem to go into develoments past 1980. Do you know of any source that discuss past 1980 literary developments? Also regarding you earlier comment on providing info on a)Kannada Sahitya Parishat b)Best sellers c)Trivia d)Publishing houses, I really like a),b) and c) ideas but dont know much about d). I need a good image for the lead, as I plan to move Halmidi inscription down to the next section. Any ideas? Lets start putting our heads together for "trivia" also. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnya-avarige namaskara,
I saw your tagging and edits for Bharat Rakshak. I agree with some of them, and I am trying to improve the page according to your suggestions. However, I was wondering why you removed the tranliteration and the following text below:
In addition to providing details on the Indian Military, Bharat Rakshak also produces an e-journal, Security Research & Review, which carries analysis and commentary on strategic issues.
I'm adding references to show the notability of Bharat Rakshak - There have been quite a few newspaper and media coverage for BR, and it is quite well known in military circles. In fact,they had half a million hits on the day of the Agni-III launch.
Ee page improve madake nimma salige beku.
Thanks T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 04:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnya amply demonstrates the problems with citing BR as a reliable source.
I opened the PDF file where Dr. Richard Speier cited Arun at BF and here is what he had to say right at page 4.
Agni dimensions are reported in Arun Vishwakarma, “Agni - Strategic Ballistic Missile”, April 15, 2005, formerly available at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Agni.html. Surya diameters are those of the PSLV, and Surya lengths are approximations based on the lengths of the PSLV and GSLV missile stages. These space launch vehicle dimensions are reported in http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SPACE/Images/launcher-family-big.jpg For a different description of India’s ICBM technology see Vishwakarma, op cit. This appears to be the only report stating that India is developing a 1.8 meter diameter solidfuel rocket that will extend the Agni to intercontinental range and that could be the basis for a longer-range ICBM. The 1.8 meter diameter rocket represents a combination of PSLV and Agni technology. Such a lighter ICBM makes far more military sense than a PSLV-sized missile. The lighter ICBM might be mobile and able to survive a first strike. However, Vishwakarma consistently reports far higher ranges for the existing Agni missiles than have been reported elsewhere. Given this reporting bias, Vishwakarma may be describing the wishlists of Indian engineers -- or programs that have not yet been funded. The PSLV exists. The existence of 1.8 meter diameter missile has not yet been reported except by Vishwakarma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.75.26 ( talk) 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarvangnya, I noticed that the article titled 'Punch Dialogue' was suggested for deletion by you. I see no reason why it was tagged as 'nonsense' by you considering the fact that it had citations from leading Indian journals. I request you to explain the relevance of this since I wasn't available when this happened. Sudharsansn ( talk · contribs) 23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you ever actually do anything on here these days which is to be proud of? (putting those lovely articles made back in June 2007 aside). You were a constructive editor in those days and actually helped improve content which gained you what little support on here you have today. In those days I thought you were a worthy editor on here and had an element of respect for you and some of the others who worked hard at creating all those new Indian related articles. Why has this changed?. What happened to you during the autumn of last year? I can see your concern that everything should be completely free but how can this be possible for film and actors when you are illustrating important moments on a copywrighted product? Media and images are very important in understanding any places or any product, removing any images is particularly destructive information wise which wikipedia is under no pressure to remove. If a film company pledged a complaint about using them then I would be the first to react and support you. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
From my research, I see that Karnataka state is a new name, but that "Karnataka"/"Carnatic" was historically used to refer to two different areas: one up near Karnataka and the other referring to other parts of South India (see http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:RT7CL-nFbOYJ:dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl%3Fc.0:1:415.hobson+carnatic+etymology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us ). The question is, when was "Carnatic" first used to describe South Indian classical music, and did it refer to the music performed in Mysore, or the one performed down on the coast in Madras and Kerala? These are really important questions. If it does come from "Karnataka" then the etymology is a toss-up between "black land" or "elevated land," but the toponym probably existed before the music. Whatever the case, we really should add such information to the article once it is sourced/known. Badagnani ( talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I must ask you again for a substantiation. I am afraid I will continue to ask you, as politely as possible, in whatever fora are possible. Relata refero ( talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edit summary was particularly inappropriate. Please read this for a helpful definition. Thanks! Relata refero ( talk) 12:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Sarvagnya. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding your editing. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Sarvagnya. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I Need your input on Kannada literature talk page. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. In the lead, I had explained that Virashaiva writers wrote on the devotees of Shiva, his 25 sports and the Shaiva philosophy which you replaced with Vachana sahitya. Ideally we need a combination of both because a good fraction of Virashaiva writers were not Vachana writers (such as Harihara). Could not think of a good sentence to combine both and convey the right meaning in the lead. In th next sentence, you wrote the Virashaiva period was followed by Vaishnava dominance. This may not be accurate as both sects have been prolific from the time of Vijayanagara empire onwards, with only the Jain works becoming fewer and fewer. Also, do you think I should move the portion on the various genres writen on and currently in the lead (secular, scientific genres etc) under "Medieval literature" because the lead section is getting too long. thanks. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
One more issue. Karmarkar mentions the total nmber of famous Jain, Virashaiva and Vaishnava writers from Kavirajamarga onwards upto 1947 = ~950 writers. Jain=177, Virashaiva=~430, Vaishnava=~250 and the rest being other sects. Not sue if this needs to be included since it surely does not include the 300+ haridasas and 300+ vachana writers. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your participation in the current debate in removing bias from the current British Raj article is appreciated. A small group of people have overtaken this article to show British rule in India in a highly exaggerated positive light without any discussion of large scale atrocities, suppression of rights, racist policies, general looting of national wealth. Desione ( talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, I provided this link from Encyclopaedia Britanicca on the discussion page as to what "Carnatic" means historically. [5]. We are trying to establish what the musical treatises called the art form we popularly call "Carnatic/Karnatak/Karnataka" music today. You wrote an article on "Nonets". I am hoping we can all bring info on what the art form was called by composers in the 15th century and thereafter, with citations. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 03:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
PLease participate in the discussion at Talk:Historical development of Ganesha about the question should the article Historical development of Ganesha be retained or deleted. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop making destructive edits
You have simply cleaned out a whole article without mentioning anything in the talk page or substantiating anything. This is not constructive. Sudharsansn ( talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: Please do not think it is personal, I assure you it is not.
Hi. Actually it was this way earlier. The problem I saw was Vachana literature which starts from 12th century is mixed up with late medieval section while Hoysala literature which is also from the same period is in the early medieval section. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I think you should know that the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright violations, the disputed content should have been removed by me on sight when I first discovered it. I was displaying leniency with you which is not really required by policy, which, given your own repeated failure to abide by even the barest standard of WP:CIVILITY, is far from being necessarily required. Honestly, given your own repeated personal attacks, I wonder whether you will appreciate I extended to you a courtesy, when to the best of my knowledge you have never shown much, if any, courtesy yourself.
And your misstatement that I did everything I could to keep certain images from being deleted is clearly far from being indicated by the facts. If you will bother to look over the page in question, I requested that the individuals involved in the discussion be contacted before the images were deleted, and that's all. And the "cabal" joke with Blofeld was a joke based on the characters from whom we took our two user names, and your own ongoing hostility, nothing more.
If you could try to once in a while act civilly, and cease the preemptive, presumptuous allegations and insults, you'd probably encounter a lot fewer problems. Whether you ever will, given your history, is another matter entirely. John Carter ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Tags are supposed to stay in place, regardless of any "ego trip" a purported "developer" of the article may have. However, if the article is in development, they could presumably be removed. Still checking on the earlier copyright violations, though. John Carter ( talk) 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The information you requested regarding the copyright cases I mentioned is contained in the articles I linked to. I would have assumed it would be comparatively easy to follow the links provided. And you have received a piece of e-mail. I think it would be in your own interests to read it, as it contains what I think is a fairly clear solution to an existing problem you face. Personally, I can only imagine that your own unfortunate tendency toward emotionalism is the only reason it hasn't occurred to you already. John Carter ( talk) 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess you deleted Some elements in the formation of this extensive and innovative new musical form might have resulted from the systematic scientific study of various scattered forms of Dravidian, Aryan and possibly Persian music existed in India before 15th century. that was proposed. The purpose it was added to is to give general credit music existed before 15th century and also to deter the injection of weasel information for pre-15th century. Your other edits are valid and constructive. I am planning to re-propose corrections with all constructive suggestions. Naadapriya ( talk) 10:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarvagnya. Thank you. John Carter 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we move this conversation to say a subpage of one of our userspaces? Going through the archive at ANI is a pain in the bum, frankly. Perhaps User talk:Riana/BollywoodBlog. Feel free to notify others interested. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I have raised concerns on the talkpage to which you have not responded. In that light, your edit comment is puzzling. -- Relata refero ( talk) 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you can do something to really improve these articles then. Best of luck at improving them. Writing excellent articles for Bollywood actors and films is a very difficult one particularly as many online sources can be questioned as unreliable. Whatever you aim to do I hope it is good and constructive and that you can work together with the others. Just try to be a little more accomodating to people such as myself in future, who like you are "obsessed" with improving this site. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read the policy. So have most if not all of the editors who agreed that that article met the standards of FA, which specifically precludes unfair use of such images, as determined by a number of editors who are at least as familiar with the policy as you are who supported both the article and those images in any event. I strongly urge you to become familiar with other policies, and realize that the argument you seem to be fighting is in reality not a case of a single individual trying to enforce policy, but a single individual without the consent of wikipedia seeking to enforce his own personal interpretation of policy, seemingly against the existencing consensus. Such activity constitutes vandalism, and is at least grounds for a user RfC, and maybe further disciplinary actions. If you choose to continue in such actions, be very aware that at least that level of discussion regarding your activity is all but inevitable. John Carter ( talk) 19:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. The non-free content policy prohibits us from using non-free images that could (hypothetically) be replaced by free ones. If an actor is alive, someone can take his picture, so we can't use a non-free one. You might want to contact the artist's management company to see if they will license an image so we can use it here. See WP:COPYREQ for guidance in that regard. Good luck! -- But| seriously| folks 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I wrote: "Sarvagnya, are you working on your Wiki-law-degree" at Village pump policy. I appologize if that was offensive to you, as I have been accused of being uncivil. I was trying to humorously suggest that you are splitting hairs. I see your actions as sincere, and you are probably technically correct; however, I don't see a moral wrong here as the use of the images benefits the coyright owners by promoting their product directly or indirectly. A win-win for all concerned. I think that it is only an issue of our policies lacking the flexibility to handle every situation. Cheers! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 02:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sarvagnya,
I would like to invite your attention in to the discussion happening at Talk:South_India#South_Indian_States. Some users think that Maharashtra and Orissa are also be considered as South Indian states. Some others think the opposite. Your comments on the issue will add value.
Thanks in advance, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article. Could you take a look at the new article and my explanation on the FARC page for some of the things I've not included, and let me know if your concerns have been met. -- Arvind ( talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have seen that you have edited the Koenraad Elst article, related to NPOV. I think some of these related articles have major (some maybe even extreme) pov problems and have opened a small discussion about this at Talk:Voice of India and Talk:Koenraad Elst. Maybe you're interested. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Librorum Prohibitorum ( talk) 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
To you. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarvagnya. Regarding your copy edits, I am not sure if some of the Western Chalukya kings were Vaishnava or Jain. There is no such mention. Also, the books dont say that temples were appropriated by other faiths because of the faith of the incumbent king.thanks. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on regarding whether or not the following image should be a part of the Poverty in India page. Most Poverty in *Country* pages do not have any images, at most 1. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought many images showing extreme poverty in India and has tried to mislead people into thinking this is the way a majority of poor Indians live. There is a vote in which your input would be appreciated. You can find this discussion here
I feel that the the Bodhgaya Beggar image does not represent poverty in India correctly because:
This can be applied to this because a very tiny fraction of poor people in India are disabled. Most work very hard trying to make a living for themselves. This image is misleading. Nikkul ( talk) 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarvagnya, Thank you for the kind thoughts — they are sincerely appreciated. ~ priyanath talk 05:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
To satisfy your curiosity:
If you still think an utterly and completely uncontroversial statement needs referencing, by all means add as many of the above as you wish. rudra ( talk) 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
My sources dont seem to go into develoments past 1980. Do you know of any source that discuss past 1980 literary developments? Also regarding you earlier comment on providing info on a)Kannada Sahitya Parishat b)Best sellers c)Trivia d)Publishing houses, I really like a),b) and c) ideas but dont know much about d). I need a good image for the lead, as I plan to move Halmidi inscription down to the next section. Any ideas? Lets start putting our heads together for "trivia" also. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnya-avarige namaskara,
I saw your tagging and edits for Bharat Rakshak. I agree with some of them, and I am trying to improve the page according to your suggestions. However, I was wondering why you removed the tranliteration and the following text below:
In addition to providing details on the Indian Military, Bharat Rakshak also produces an e-journal, Security Research & Review, which carries analysis and commentary on strategic issues.
I'm adding references to show the notability of Bharat Rakshak - There have been quite a few newspaper and media coverage for BR, and it is quite well known in military circles. In fact,they had half a million hits on the day of the Agni-III launch.
Ee page improve madake nimma salige beku.
Thanks T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
T/ @ Sniperz11 edits sign 04:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnya amply demonstrates the problems with citing BR as a reliable source.
I opened the PDF file where Dr. Richard Speier cited Arun at BF and here is what he had to say right at page 4.
Agni dimensions are reported in Arun Vishwakarma, “Agni - Strategic Ballistic Missile”, April 15, 2005, formerly available at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/Agni.html. Surya diameters are those of the PSLV, and Surya lengths are approximations based on the lengths of the PSLV and GSLV missile stages. These space launch vehicle dimensions are reported in http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SPACE/Images/launcher-family-big.jpg For a different description of India’s ICBM technology see Vishwakarma, op cit. This appears to be the only report stating that India is developing a 1.8 meter diameter solidfuel rocket that will extend the Agni to intercontinental range and that could be the basis for a longer-range ICBM. The 1.8 meter diameter rocket represents a combination of PSLV and Agni technology. Such a lighter ICBM makes far more military sense than a PSLV-sized missile. The lighter ICBM might be mobile and able to survive a first strike. However, Vishwakarma consistently reports far higher ranges for the existing Agni missiles than have been reported elsewhere. Given this reporting bias, Vishwakarma may be describing the wishlists of Indian engineers -- or programs that have not yet been funded. The PSLV exists. The existence of 1.8 meter diameter missile has not yet been reported except by Vishwakarma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.75.26 ( talk) 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarvangnya, I noticed that the article titled 'Punch Dialogue' was suggested for deletion by you. I see no reason why it was tagged as 'nonsense' by you considering the fact that it had citations from leading Indian journals. I request you to explain the relevance of this since I wasn't available when this happened. Sudharsansn ( talk · contribs) 23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you ever actually do anything on here these days which is to be proud of? (putting those lovely articles made back in June 2007 aside). You were a constructive editor in those days and actually helped improve content which gained you what little support on here you have today. In those days I thought you were a worthy editor on here and had an element of respect for you and some of the others who worked hard at creating all those new Indian related articles. Why has this changed?. What happened to you during the autumn of last year? I can see your concern that everything should be completely free but how can this be possible for film and actors when you are illustrating important moments on a copywrighted product? Media and images are very important in understanding any places or any product, removing any images is particularly destructive information wise which wikipedia is under no pressure to remove. If a film company pledged a complaint about using them then I would be the first to react and support you. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
From my research, I see that Karnataka state is a new name, but that "Karnataka"/"Carnatic" was historically used to refer to two different areas: one up near Karnataka and the other referring to other parts of South India (see http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:RT7CL-nFbOYJ:dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl%3Fc.0:1:415.hobson+carnatic+etymology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us ). The question is, when was "Carnatic" first used to describe South Indian classical music, and did it refer to the music performed in Mysore, or the one performed down on the coast in Madras and Kerala? These are really important questions. If it does come from "Karnataka" then the etymology is a toss-up between "black land" or "elevated land," but the toponym probably existed before the music. Whatever the case, we really should add such information to the article once it is sourced/known. Badagnani ( talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I must ask you again for a substantiation. I am afraid I will continue to ask you, as politely as possible, in whatever fora are possible. Relata refero ( talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edit summary was particularly inappropriate. Please read this for a helpful definition. Thanks! Relata refero ( talk) 12:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Sarvagnya. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding your editing. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Sarvagnya. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I Need your input on Kannada literature talk page. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. In the lead, I had explained that Virashaiva writers wrote on the devotees of Shiva, his 25 sports and the Shaiva philosophy which you replaced with Vachana sahitya. Ideally we need a combination of both because a good fraction of Virashaiva writers were not Vachana writers (such as Harihara). Could not think of a good sentence to combine both and convey the right meaning in the lead. In th next sentence, you wrote the Virashaiva period was followed by Vaishnava dominance. This may not be accurate as both sects have been prolific from the time of Vijayanagara empire onwards, with only the Jain works becoming fewer and fewer. Also, do you think I should move the portion on the various genres writen on and currently in the lead (secular, scientific genres etc) under "Medieval literature" because the lead section is getting too long. thanks. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
One more issue. Karmarkar mentions the total nmber of famous Jain, Virashaiva and Vaishnava writers from Kavirajamarga onwards upto 1947 = ~950 writers. Jain=177, Virashaiva=~430, Vaishnava=~250 and the rest being other sects. Not sue if this needs to be included since it surely does not include the 300+ haridasas and 300+ vachana writers. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your participation in the current debate in removing bias from the current British Raj article is appreciated. A small group of people have overtaken this article to show British rule in India in a highly exaggerated positive light without any discussion of large scale atrocities, suppression of rights, racist policies, general looting of national wealth. Desione ( talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, I provided this link from Encyclopaedia Britanicca on the discussion page as to what "Carnatic" means historically. [5]. We are trying to establish what the musical treatises called the art form we popularly call "Carnatic/Karnatak/Karnataka" music today. You wrote an article on "Nonets". I am hoping we can all bring info on what the art form was called by composers in the 15th century and thereafter, with citations. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 03:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
PLease participate in the discussion at Talk:Historical development of Ganesha about the question should the article Historical development of Ganesha be retained or deleted. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop making destructive edits
You have simply cleaned out a whole article without mentioning anything in the talk page or substantiating anything. This is not constructive. Sudharsansn ( talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: Please do not think it is personal, I assure you it is not.
Hi. Actually it was this way earlier. The problem I saw was Vachana literature which starts from 12th century is mixed up with late medieval section while Hoysala literature which is also from the same period is in the early medieval section. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I think you should know that the guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyright violations, the disputed content should have been removed by me on sight when I first discovered it. I was displaying leniency with you which is not really required by policy, which, given your own repeated failure to abide by even the barest standard of WP:CIVILITY, is far from being necessarily required. Honestly, given your own repeated personal attacks, I wonder whether you will appreciate I extended to you a courtesy, when to the best of my knowledge you have never shown much, if any, courtesy yourself.
And your misstatement that I did everything I could to keep certain images from being deleted is clearly far from being indicated by the facts. If you will bother to look over the page in question, I requested that the individuals involved in the discussion be contacted before the images were deleted, and that's all. And the "cabal" joke with Blofeld was a joke based on the characters from whom we took our two user names, and your own ongoing hostility, nothing more.
If you could try to once in a while act civilly, and cease the preemptive, presumptuous allegations and insults, you'd probably encounter a lot fewer problems. Whether you ever will, given your history, is another matter entirely. John Carter ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Tags are supposed to stay in place, regardless of any "ego trip" a purported "developer" of the article may have. However, if the article is in development, they could presumably be removed. Still checking on the earlier copyright violations, though. John Carter ( talk) 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The information you requested regarding the copyright cases I mentioned is contained in the articles I linked to. I would have assumed it would be comparatively easy to follow the links provided. And you have received a piece of e-mail. I think it would be in your own interests to read it, as it contains what I think is a fairly clear solution to an existing problem you face. Personally, I can only imagine that your own unfortunate tendency toward emotionalism is the only reason it hasn't occurred to you already. John Carter ( talk) 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess you deleted Some elements in the formation of this extensive and innovative new musical form might have resulted from the systematic scientific study of various scattered forms of Dravidian, Aryan and possibly Persian music existed in India before 15th century. that was proposed. The purpose it was added to is to give general credit music existed before 15th century and also to deter the injection of weasel information for pre-15th century. Your other edits are valid and constructive. I am planning to re-propose corrections with all constructive suggestions. Naadapriya ( talk) 10:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)