User talk:Nvvchar/Archive 2009 October

User:Nvvchar/sandbox
Congrats for one more DYK. I still had User:Nvvchar/sandbox on my watchlist and as a curiosity, took a look. You have built an excellent article there. 1 thing I will suggest is name the article "Architecture of Karnataka" like "Architecture of India" as Legacy usually denotes something that left behind once a person/empire is dead. Karnataka is still alive. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the greetings and also for the suggestion on "Architecture of Karnataka" article. I am slightly feeling shy to post such a large article. May be, you could join me, as done earlier to build up my morale! We can try it on DYK, if such a large size artcile is permitted. I have created one large Infobox and seven templates in the article. It took three full days. What do you suggest?--Nvvchar (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Chandrahasa
How are you, sir? I am extremely sorry for the delay. My PC is infected as a result of which I am facing problems in connecting to the internet. I do not have internet connection in Bangalore and my Wikiped-ing is limited to the weekends and occasional bank holidays like these which I spend at home in Chennai. I will surely look for info but it might take sometime as I'm facing PC-related issues here. Bye. Take care. - The Enforcer Office of the secret service 02:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Chandrahasa
How are you, sir? I am extremely sorry for the delay. My PC is infected as a result of which I am facing problems in connecting to the internet. I do not have internet connection in Bangalore and my Wikiped-ing is limited to the weekends and occasional bank holidays like these which I spend at home in Chennai. I will surely look for info but it might take sometime as I'm facing PC-related issues here. Bye. Take care. - The Enforcer Office of the secret service 02:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxoboxes
Hi Good to hear from you again, I'm not sure what do you mean when you say put two taxoboxes in an article. Hope you meant something like Himalayan musk deer taxoboxe in Kedarnath Wild Life Sanctuary article. In that case is there any particular reason for need for taxoboxes of that birds. I would have a look when you expanded it for more clarification. Best until then!-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 15:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

?
I'll look? .... Victuallers (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Its back... I'll find out who and why ... guess it was a mistake Victuallers (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC) .... The picture of the sign says 500, million years .... which is right? Am I misunderstanding Victuallers (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Clarified in the reply to another reviewer's observation below.--Nvvchar (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Eparchaean Unconformity
Hi there. I am not sure when i will get to the Kedarnath article. In the meantime, I have been checking out more of your good work at Eparchaean Unconformity, which you have nominated at DYK. I have been copyediting the English. There is, however, one sentence that has raised some questions:
 * "At this location, the boundary fault is overlaid between the Cudappah group of rocks of 1600 million years age and the archaean rocks comprising granites, gneisses and dolerite dykes that are 2100 million years old."

There are two issues. First, i do not know what is intended by the expression "overlaid between". It does not make sense in general, and makes even less sense when considering a "boundary fault". Do you mean that the fault marks the boundary between "the Cudappah group of rocks of 1600 million years age and the archaean rocks comprising granites, gneisses and dolerite dykes that are 2100 million years old"? Second, those two dates are 500Ma apart - how is this consistent with the claim of an 800Ma difference at the unconformity? I hope you can assist. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The GSI text at reference 4 reads "Eparchaean Unconformity, Tirumala hills, Andhra Pradesh separates the Proterozoic Nagari Quartzite from the oldest Archaean granite representing a time gap of over 800 Ma. The unconformity is supposed to be a period of remarkable quiescence without much structural disturbance and igneous activity in the history of earth. The contact is exposed in the Tirumala Hills, located 10 km northwest of Tirupati town, at the 12 km point on the Tirupati – Tirumala Ghat road, Chitoor district, A.P. The Tirupati – Ranigunta loopline connects it to the Chennai – Vijayawada main line of the South Central Railway". The word "overlaid" as metioned by you is superflous and has been removed. I hope this clarifies the position. Since the plaque gives specific years the date could be chamged to 500 MA. I took the text format as correct.--Nvvchar (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, we are making progress. Unfortunately, I have been checking links, and i have noticed two things. First, footnotes 1, 2 and 4 all appear to be referring to the same document online - a short summary para prepared by the GSI. There are different web addresses, but it is the same info. These should be consolidated to be one named ref. Second, this ref is used as a citation for the text "At this location, the boundary fault is between the Cudappah group of rocks of 1600 million years age and the archaean rocks comprising granites, gneisses and dolerite dykes that are 2100 million years old." But the text at the weblink does not contain this information. Is it meant to be a reference to some other document? If so, perhaps you can correct the reference. I think perhaps you have a hardcopy version of something not available online? that is fine - just don't link it to a different webpage. Let me know. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hold on. You changed the age diff from 800 to 500Ma But the online citation that is provided does say (as you pointed out to me) 800 Ma. If the source says 800 Ma, that fact should stay. My point is that the section that says "At this location, the boundary fault is between the Cudappah group of rocks of 1600 million years age and the archaean rocks comprising granites, gneisses and dolerite dykes that are 2100 million years old" - is the problem section needing resolution. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have removed repeat references. The off line ref 2 now is the GSI book titled "National Geological Monuments", which has 93 pages and is not in digitzed format in any web reference. The releveant monument is described in pages 5 to 8 in this book. As regards the ages of the rocks (1600 ma and 2100 ma), the book gives a wide range for geological formations in general terms (not specific to this formation) but the plaque gives specific years. I have taken the plaque info (img to the hook). Also the first reference gives the age gap as 8 MA but now I find from the original book that it is 500 million years which tallies with the info on the plaque. The web info at reference 1 could be attributed to typo and printer's error. I leave it to your judgement to decide, since I own misjudgement.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. OK, can you tell me the author of the book - is it the Geological Survey of India, or is it one or more individuals? If individuals, what are their names. ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is published by the Geological Survey of India with a forward by the Direcor General but without mention of any authors.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've cleared this at DYK. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate your review. I would also request you to look into the copy right issue and tag of the Kedarnath article at your convenience.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there for displacement on this feature? It's clearly an unconformity, and therefore a type of discontinuity but unless there is displacement it's not a fault. Mikenorton (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the photograph in the first reference on the Eparchean Unconformity at the Tirumala Ghat Section, which shows displaced plane of unconformity and hence the wording was used as 'fault'. While it is known that the major structure is an uinconformity the minor structure shows displacement.--Nvvchar (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What I see on the photograph is that the unconformity is faulted during a later tectonic event, but the contact between the two rock units is generally not a fault. It is extremely misleading to say that the unconformity is "a rare geological fault of stratigraphic significance". I have read eveything that I can find about this unconformity and none of the sources mention displacement along the unconformity surface, so the term 'fault' should not be used. Mikenorton (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I agree. Change is made. --Nvvchar (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As regards age of the Archean granites, I have gone by the information displayed in the plaque by Geological Survey of India (GSI).--Nvvchar (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, for you take a final view I am giving below additional extracts from the GSI publication “National Geological Monuments”, which states under Eparchaean Unconformity as follows.

“The lowest division of the Paleozolic Era is known as the Cambrian period, which is a very prominent landmark in the evolution of life on earth. In the history of the earth, the first recognizable remains (fossils) of the hard parts of organisms are found in the Cambrian rocks. Below the Cambrian we have Proterozoic rocks wherein fossils of primitive life have been observed. In India, the Protozoic Cuddapah, Kurnool rocks and their equivalents are also called the Puranas, existence of life from older Archaean rocks was not recognized. After the Archaean Era, the land mass suffered weathering and denudation spanning several hundred million years. Then the “Purana” rocks were deposited in large bays of the sea that came into existence over the weathered and eroded surface of the Archaean rocks. This profound unconformity below the Puranas is traditionally called the “Eparchian Unconformity”. This time gap is also supposed to be a remarkable quiescence without much structural disturbance and igneous activity in the history of the earth. The contact between the Proterozoic Nagari Quartzite and the Archaean granite defines the Eparchean unconformity in the Tirumala hills.”

Further, a Geological map of the Warnagal district, adjoining district to the Chittoor district where the unconformity is situated, indicates the following listing under the legend.

“Archaean consists of Poryphyritic granite (PG), Grey Granodiorite, Garnet-biotite gneiss under the Peninsular Gneiss Complex and Hornblende schist, chlorite schist, amhpibolite; and Banded magnetite quartzite under Other metamorphics.”

As regards the era, I have followed the information given in the plaque, which has also been erected by the Geological Survey of India, which givees the eras (1600 MA and 2100 MA).

In view of the above, you may like to reconsider your views and suggest an alterative hook for the article.--Nvvchar (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Narasipur, thanks for all this and I've found quite a few references about the age of the Peninsula Gneiss Complex. It is Archean, with the granites mainly late Archean, so I'm happy with that. The confusion was caused by that GSI sign at the Tirumala Ghat locality using more than 2100 Ma. To be Archean they should be more than 2500 Ma and they almost certainly are (as far as I can tell) which would give a gap of at least 900 Ma across the unconformity. However, I haven't found a source that confirms that at the locality described. I'm going to make a few edits to the article and then have another look at the DYK hook. Sorry if it seems like I'm being difficult, I look forward to this appearing on the main page, suitably modified. Regards, Mikenorton (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your patience. There are no Indian geologists in wikipedia who can write or even comment that I know. I am happy that you are taking lot of interest in Indian geological monuments. I am interested to post articles on all the geological monuments in my country, in view of my close association with geologist for over 45 years of my professional career as an enginner in water resources sector (with some knowledge of mostly engineering related geology of the Himalayas). One way out of the present imbroglio could be to change the year for Archaeans to 2400 or 2500 MA (on some authority or reference), and then attributing the mistake in the plaque to an error in writing, since early Archaean could be dated to 2500 or even later? At this stage, I leave it your judgement, as you are a highly qualified geologist (It seems that you have done your doctorate in Structural geology?). I would appreciate that the DYK is not deleted in the meantime. You may like to put in a note in this regard. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already left a note on the DYK page saying that if you are happy with the changes that I made to the hook (to match the article as it stands after my edits) then I support its promotion. I don't know why the sign says 2100 Ma, because most of the references that I've read clearly support an Archaean age (in some cases > 2700 Ma) for the basement. As it is, 2500 is of course 'more than 2100' but I suspect that an error occurred in the original text of the sign, as you suggest. No need to go into this for a DYK I think. I don't know if you've had time to look at the changes that I made, I hope that they meet with your approval. Regards, Mikenorton (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dr Mikenorton. I have recorded my acceptance of your change in the DYK hook. In future, I hope you would give advise whenever I intend to post more articles on other geological monuments in India. --Nvvchar (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to. Mikenorton (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia WikMeetup Bangalore 6
Hi there, WikMeetup6 Bangalore is scheduled for Sunday, 11 Oct, 2009 3:00 PM - 5:30 PM at CIS Bangalore office. Please sign up if you are attending. Please ping me if you require any more information. Hoping to meet you on the meetup day. Take care --  Tinu  Cherian  - 10:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to see u online.... any chances of you cmg for this meetup.. ? --  Tinu  Cherian  - 06:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Kokrebellur
Hi, did bit of editing and wikilinking. Nominated. Hook is Will answer any query that might pop up there. Regards!-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 06:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ... that the name of the village Kokkarebellur, an important breeding ground for Spot-billed Pelican (pictured), is derived from word "Kokkare" meaning stork or pelican in Kannada language?
 * Thank you for the prompt action. I appreciate it. The hook is fine.--Nvvchar (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I must appreciate your effort in continuously producing DYK articles. But i found a minor issue in this one and hence notifying you.I see that you have included the image of whose license has changed after uploading to commons.So the image has to be deleted eventually.I will remove the image from the article for now and we can include if the author gives (and retains) under free license.I did not want to stop the article from going to DYK, But also did not want a DYK article to have this issue as it will be noticed by a large audience. From the flickr comments i see that you had requested the author to change the license just for uploading into commons to *cheat*(If i may use the word) FlickrBot. I am much younger both in age and in wikipedia tell you this,But please lets not do this.You could use a Fair Use clause if that picture is rare, Again, am much younger to tell you about WP policies. Srikanth (ping me) 12:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my mistake. The author of the photo has changed the license back to free use. The ambiguity has been resolved. You may now like to restore the deleted text and immage in the article.--Nvvchar (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but this morning when i saw the image's license was CC with a NC clause which is still not acceptable by WP. I will check back again later today and will do the necessary changes.If the author doesn't want to release under CC-Commercial, i will tag with fair use(hoping no one questions it) and put the picture back. I have been discussing this with the author since he happens to be a good friend of mine(which was how i came to note this) and will convince him to release under CC-Com. Thanks again for your understanding. Srikanth (ping me)  08:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted my edit removing the picture.Kokrebellur is same again Thanks :) Srikanth (ping me)  05:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)



Hello Nvvchar, Logicwiki has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you, Young man.--Nvvchar (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kokrebellur

 * Thats quite alright, Navvchar. Let's do some collaboration in future as well. Regards!-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Tungnath
IMO, too much is written about the general Diwali - which could be removed. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC) IMO, Celebrations in India para can be deleted as Onam is mentioned in Legend and details of other days of Diwali need not be discussed here (as WP:UNDUE) except Govardhan puja that concides with the day. The puja can be ibncorporated in Rituals. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please see my suggestion for hook on your talk page.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * About Celebrations in India para, are you OK with its deletion? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I introduced that para after some doubts of its relevancee. It is better deleted. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will search if I can something more, til then let it remain in userpage. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do move it in main space. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 02:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * About the DYK, I will search for a fact and let you know, then you nominate, if you don't mind. About joint nom, it is your wish.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 02:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "that according to Hindu mythology, Bali Padyami (celebrated today) commemorates victory of god Vishnu in his dwarf incarnation Vamana (pic, File:Vamana1.jpg), defeating demon king Bali, and pushing him to the nether world?" is the best IMO.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * nominated. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)