User talk:Amarrg/Archive 7

Sargur
Dear Mr Amar, The initial one line write up on Sargur has been expanded with lot of referenced text. Will you please add the text on demographics? You may also like to edit and add more text. I can't add any pictures since I have yet to understand the nuances of uploading photos and obtaining no objections from copy right angle.I am in the process of finaliising an artcle on Sosale which I will upload next week.Regards Ys--Nvvchar (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

T.Narsipur
Dear Mr Amar, I am impressed with your contributions on Karnataka for wikipedia. Keep it up.

I have now combined Tirumakudlu Narasipur and T.Narasipur articles since T.Narsipur is the offical name (and is also the taluk headquarters)of the town as per official records.Since I am not very proficient in computer usage I have not been able to add pictures of Tirumakudlu and the Gunjanarsimha Swamy temple.I tried butthe pictures have been deleted on copy right issue.

I hail from T.Narsipur and I am a retired Technocrat of Central govt. I am still very active providing consultancy in the hydropower sector, operating from Delhi.

You may like to read my very long article on "All About Saligrama" on wikirage edited by Gouranga of UK.

I visit Bangalore frequently and I will be happy to meet you when I am there next to pursue my efforts at conributing articles to wikipedia.

If you wish, you may give me your contact tele nos. and e-mail address. Keep up your good work Best wishes N.V.V.Char —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvvchar (talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr Amar, I have now added all the internal links in the T.Narsipur article. I suppose it is Ok now.I tried to add an article on Iyengar Bakery but unfortunately it has been deleted as propogandist material. How do I go about removing the propaganda part of the article to make it acceptable to wiki standards? I feel, that it is very informative article.Thanks. User:Nvvchar--Nvvchar (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review script at FAC
Amar, would you mind adding the peer review scripts to the article talk pages instead? The automated script can be helpful, but its feedback isn't always accurate to each article; while it's useful at peer review, it could be misleading at FAC. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Amar. I'm a fan of the script, but one has to know how to interpret the results, and I'm afraid it will be misunderstood or misapplied at FAC.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I wanted to ask you regarding WT:INB. Do you have something to add? I've gone through major analysis of what the majority opinion/general reception for each of her performances is, and implemented some reviews on the article too. If you have nothing to add so thanks anyway. Because I think it turned beneficial eventually, to prevent any such concerns in the future.

Although there were some tense vibes between us, I wish you all the best with the Mysore article. Nice article on a nice city. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. It's much appreciated. As for Mysore, my automated peer review has some technical and MoS things which need to be addressed, would you like me to add this review on Mysore's talk page? If you want, let me know. Regards Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. When you address suggestions, let me know and I'll update the section, to ensure that they have been addressed completely. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Comment for the Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC.
Hello, I have left some replies to your comments at the Hindu German Conspiracy FAC Please have a look.Rueben lys (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Somerset FAC
Thanks for your comments on the Somerset FAC which I believe have now been addressed. It would be great if you could reassess the article & put any further comments at Featured article candidates/Somerset.&mdash; Rod talk 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edits to the sections of the Somerset article which I agree looks better. We have also added more citations - particularly in the education and transport sections. Would it be possible for you to review again & put any further comments at Featured article candidates/Somerset?&mdash; Rod talk 18:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hindu-German Conspiracy
Hello Amarrg. First of all, a lot of thanks for your efforts as well as comments in the Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC which unfortunately did  not work out. However, I worked through article quite a lot today, taking into account Sandy's comments, and think I have done a (half-)decent job editing it. Do you reckon you will have time to look at the article some time and give me some more comments on where it might fall short on an FAC. I gathered language was the main (if not only) problem that stopped it from getting promoted. I plan to renominate it sometime soon. RegardsRueben lys (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If 'Akashvani' is not Hindi then why was it opposed?
Here are some passages on Anti-Hindi imposition- In the late fifties, anti-Hindi protestors took to the streets protesting the changing of name of All India Radio (AIR) to Akashwani. Tamil artistes refused to perform in AIR till the government agreed to retain the original name as a special case in Tamil Nadu alone.

Many years later, the name was again changed to Akashwani in 1982, but dropped in a hurry due to protests. Source:Sify news Indian Government controlled All India Radio (AIR) started using the Hindi word Akashwani on the air. Tamil people demonstrated against this. Tamil writers and performers refused to participate in radio programs. Indian Government decided to use the old name "All India Radio" in Tamil Nadu (Maras State) while Akashwani was used in other states. (NOTE: Indian Government started using Akashwani in Tamil Nadu again in 1982. Tamil people demonstrated and government went back to All India Radio again. Source:Tamil Tribune: Chronology of Anti- Hindi movements

So even if it was Na Kasturi who coined it, he did it in Hindi, I suppose. 59.182.44.93 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply:
 * From Mixed Signals, Radio Broadcasting Policy in India:


 * Akashvani was a kind of an all-India name and trademark for All India Radio and the word had been taken from Kannada where it was originally used for the Mysore Station during the British days.


 * From Lok Sabha Debates, 1954:


 * The term 'Akashvani' is the standard Indian language equivalent to the term All India Radio and is the call sign in Kannada of the former Mysore radio.


 * From Media And Mediation, By Bernard Bel


 * The word Akashvani had been taken from Kannada (where it was the name originally given to the Mysore station from the British days onwards)


 * From the above examples, it is clear that the word Akashvani was taken from Kannada. However, it has the same meaning in the Hindi language because of which it could have been used later as a name for All India Radio. Hope this clears the issue. By the way, I would request you to create a login account so that I can discuss this with a single person, rather than multiple IPs. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 07:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to see you respond so quickly. Seeing these links I am satisfied that Akashvani is infact a Kannada term. Having the same meaning in Hindi it was later officially used for AIR. Thanks a lot for cooperating. Congrats on getting 'Mysore' FAed. 59.182.6.25 (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysore -> FA
Hi Amar, Congrats!! Great job done!!! Thank you - KNM Talk 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the FA. Great job. -- Naveen (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Congrats Amar. The article looks really wonderful. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysore
Congrts on that effort. Hope there are more to come.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. It was a great article, a good job all round (especially you) *tries to point finger like that old guy out of the war posters*. :) Rt . 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
You're welcome! I was willing to support the FAC but forgot about it. When I came to the article (there was no star yet), the talk page indicated that it is already an FA (not that my support was necessarily needed). I'm really happy for you, keep up the great work.:) Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on Mysore -hard work paid off!! I wasn't aware of the nomination thats why I didn't offer my comments/ Well done! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Blofeld. That was much appreciated. Thanks for your support ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 22:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

can you include the link of madikeri dasara
Hi Amar, i have created article on Madikeri dasara. If possible, could you please include the link or relevent info on karnataka article.

Sumatran Rhinoceros
Hi Amarrg, thanks for your comments on the above article. I have since gone through and added many additional citations. If there are other spots in the article you would like to see citations please let me know. I am happy to do what is needed to address your concerns. --JayHenry (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Karnataka article
Hi Amar. Can we not have a section called "Festivals of Karnataka" in the Karnataka article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madikerimanju (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful FAC
Thank you for providing comments on how to to improve the article at the successful FA nomination of Vasa (ship). Happy holidays and all that!

Peter Isotalo 08:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysore Palace
When you return from you trip or christmas vacation can add some text and references to the article - it needs filling out. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
To you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Somerset FAC
Hi, Would it be possible for you to re-evaluate Somerset. Your oppose is the only one outstanding at Featured article candidates/Somerset and the article has undergone some significant changes since you last commented on it, nearly a month ago. Of course if you feel there are still outstanding issues if you let us know we will attempt to address them. Thanks.&mdash; Rod talk 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Somerset FAC
Unfortunately there has been a problem with FAC (possibly due to transcluded pages/templates & overall page size). As a result several nominations, including Somerset, have had to be restarted and I have been informed that all previous commentary (both supporting and opposing), including yours is void. As a result would you be kind enough to review the page and place any comments at Featured article candidates/Somerset. Thanks&mdash; Rod talk 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi
Hi Amar,

I saw ur comment in an article called Ayyavazhi. i am a follower of this faith. I have read quiet some books and articles regarding it. You can post ur queries to me, if u had any.. i can help you get it cleared :-)

Thanks Arun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool maddy (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

input
I Need your input on Kannada literature talk page.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sachin's centuries
Hi there! Thanks for the wonderful and timely assistance! The article thoroughly deserves a FL status, I believe. Best wishes. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thanks for you co-operation and immense help. Tourist attractions in Mysore is finally in DYK

- Tinucherian (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove tags prior to consensus being reached about why the tags shouldn't be there
Removing relevant tags prior to consensus has been reached constitutes vandalism, and again, this is a Wikipedia policy. I have reverted your revert, as the tags are relevant, and the onus is on the editors who want the tags removed, to demonstrate why they should be removed as has been indicated by an administrator on another editor's page. Please refrain from removing tags in the future, unless they are obviously irrelevant, which isn't the case here. I have also briefly outlined why the tags are relevant, currently. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is YOU who is CLAIMING that the tags are relevant. It is just a CLAIM, it is not BINDING. Users are not bound to take your words at face-value. If you want to question the validity of a certain source as RS, the right place to discuss that is Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which I am sure you know of, from your Carnatica.net fiasco -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, I suggest you take a break and cool down before making any further responses, so that you are civil, calm and rational. 2 sources (especially, those 2) are not enough to form the basis of an entire article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You need not have to advice me on civility, I dont go around unnecessarily tagging articles and users. Your argument is again questionable, a single source is more than sufficient to write a single article, as long as it can be proven as WP:RS. For example, many articles on history are more or less based on the writings of 1-2 authors who actually recorded that history, but then we cannot claim such articles as unreliable, can we? -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 08:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right re: advice - I listed it at the WP:AN/I, so that an administrator takes an appropriate course of action. Regarding your argument, it wouldn't be a surprise to know that you are supporting your comrade in pushing for the removal of these tags, as the article can only rely on these 1-2 measly sources. If a source is 100% R, or close, then of course an article could rely on this alone. Yet, with so little to show for the credibility of these sources/authors (whether this be in the form of qualifications, or other forms of recognition), there is significant doubt over the sources and they certainly would not fall under this category as you are well aware. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary wasn't required
Re your edit summary to the Brad Hogg retirement update. Ask Ganguly what he thinks. You'd think he would have retired before the Indian series if they were "too hot to handle". I think you need to use a bit more civility. The-Pope (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Free advice not needed. Responded on your talk page -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that an administrator (in response to the WP:AN/I on your recent edits will either advise you, or perhaps warn you that Wikipedia's articles are NOT a forum for voicing your opinion or personal analysis, even if it is in an edit summary, and such comments are not warranted. I don't think any administrator will see your comment/reply at The-Pope's talk page as a valid justification. However, you are welcome to dispute this there at the ANI if you wish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias
If you can indicate to me how a source which does not demonstrably meet the reliable sources threshold can be considered to be a reliable source, then I would say that I have shown bias. However, to go so far as Sarvagnaya did and calling the placement of the tags "vandalism" is itself more than a bit inappropriate, isn't it? And, for what it's worth, it wasn't an attempt to lecture, but just explain the justification for restoration. Personally, what I see is, unfortunately, more of a likely failure to AGF on your part than anyone else here. John Carter (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And, in addition, please cease misrepresenting wikipedia policy as you did on the talk page of the article in question. Alternately, if you believe that somehow your statements on the Talk:Vijayanagara musicological nonet page are justified, I suggest you read the page I linked to regarding sourcing. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lastly, as indicated in the last thread above, WP:CIVILITY is at least potentially an issue for you yourself. Please in the future at least try to pay a bit more attention to it. Thanks. :) John Carter (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To an extant, I agree with your comment. However, it should be noted that the source in question, while written by a scholar, is from a source which gives no indication of it having been peer reviewed, so, in effect, all we have in this case is the reputation of the writer and the website, whose reputation I know nothing about. The nutshell of the WP:RS says that we should base content on "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It's arguable, at least in the eyes of someone not particularly knowledgable about the field, whether the web site including the second source even qualifies as "published", let alone one with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I do know that there are now some "on-line academic journals", but there's no clear evidence that this is one of them.
 * By saying that, I'm not saying that the source isn't acceptable, just that to my eyes there's no real good evidence that I've seen that it is, and unfortunately the burden of proof is on the person placing the disputed material. I deal with a lot of religious content, and trust me, I've seen more official looking websites elsewhere which were pure POV pushers. I don't anticipate arguing that it's not an acceptable source, but another one would probably be preferable, and a bit clearer evidence as to what is being cited would work as well. There do seem to be some reasonable questions at least whether the last paragraph is sourced anywhere, as there's no citation for that. This isn't necessarily a big problem, like I said earlier. I've written lengthy biographies based on a single source with no reference citations whatsoever. But it would help a lot if there were citations, maybe at least at the end of each paragraph, to indicate that the material is sourced.
 * And, for what it's worth, the individual who likes to threaten to block others has now been told repeatedly, including by me, that that's not really the best approach to take in these matters. I did indicate to him on his talk page the preferable way to go in situations like this, and I at least hope that he'll start acting in accord with them. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings. And, for what it's worth, who would know better regarding how to behave than someone like me who's been told several times that what he's doing is wrong? At this point, trust me, even if I don't follow them, I've memorized most of the rules of conduct through having them consistently repeated to me. And, regretably, at least one other editor (name begins with an S) has in all the previous contact with him that I remember behaved in a manner which was at best dubiously acceptable, and I regret to say I probably based some of my own actions on that prior experience. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with you regarding the great difficulty in verifying whether a website might be POV pushing or not. That's one of the reasons why we try to avoid websites wherever possible, because such entities have a harder time indicating that they are reliable. You will note I specifically said that all that would be required in this case would be to find the printed documents, which that party has repeatedly indicated are available. As someone who has more than once used websites myself, I know I can be counted guilty of such conduct as well, but I haven't yet myself to date argued that any information I had gotten from the web had to be counted as reliable, as someone else has elsewhere. I get the impression that that party simply doesn't want to do any further work on the subject. If that is the case, I think that perhaps that attitude might be the problem here. I could be wrong, of course. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:brindavan.jpg|thumb|200px|Fountains at Brindavan at night
Hi, I have relinked the image uploaded by Roshan to Mysore as it is available now.

Hope you dont mind ! - Tinucherian (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop harassing me
There is clear evidence that shows you fail to assume good faith now. Please stop harassing me with your nonsensical claims and other attacks. Btw it wasn't a matter of pleading - most of the administrators could obviously see straight through what you were doing. And maybe if you stopped harrassing me, I could spend that little time I am on Wikipedia to work more on the articles I've begun. And btw, please don't expect a reply to your next comment on my talk page (if you make one) as I have better things to do. I shouldn't bother interacting with the group of trolls. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And where did I call you a troll? AGF is a compulsory policy at Wikipedia, so deal with it. I said I would add more sources, so stop twisting my words. Again, please stop with the harassment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What a wild imagination you have. I didn't call you a troll. I made a general observation that I shouldn't interact with trolls. Perhaps you need lessons in reading comprehension. If you continue to make false allegations, I will have no option but to take further action which may lead to a decision being made by the arbitration committee. The sources I was talking of will be added in due course to the article that you erroneously tagged as a copyvio. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you're suggesting that multiple users are using your account at Wikipedia to be called 'the group of trolls', then I see no basis for these false allegations. If you want to believe that you are called a troll, then you are welcome to imagine so. However, you have no authority over MY talk page, and continuing to edit war on it will not help. This is the final time I am going to tell you to stop harassing me. Good luck, and again, please don't reply to this. - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bing
The e-mailman cometh. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)