User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 19

Karnataka
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)

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

Warning
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)

Please dont delete my postings
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)

Tolkappiyam
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)
 * 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)

speedy
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)

Hi Sarvagnya
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)
 * 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)

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

Kannada, Tamil and Malayalam
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)

Talk:India
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)
 * 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)

cpedits
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)

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)

image file
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)
 * 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)

Mysore-clarify
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)

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)


 * 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)

Peer-review request
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)

Karnataka DYK hits a century
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)

Bangalore
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)

pooram
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

Shavige
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)
 * 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)

history
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)

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)

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

WQA Alert
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, -- B figura (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


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

Please stop
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)
 * 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)

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

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

Image Tagging
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)
 * 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)
 * Our messages crossed. Give me a few minutes to read through that explanation. --  But | seriously | folks   02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * A great place to ask image copyright questions is WP:MCQ. -- But | seriously | folks   02:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

The Watermark?
Dear user:Sarvagnya, in your post on user Butseriouslyfolks's talk page you said: ":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)"

Here is my response, also from the same talk page: "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&amp;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&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"

I shall be awaiting that retraction. Warm regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Since you mentioned Kurta page, here is the BL tagged image and here is the original image, Image:Kashmiri children1890.JPG, which I downloaded from BL in Fall 2005, and which I just uploaded to Wikipedia.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS. I'm sorry, I can't seem to keep track of what I uploaded where, but that image is on the Churidar page.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sarvangya. You're quite right about the relevance of the distinction between the date of creation and the date of publication and of the fact that it's the latter that's relevant - this is pretty much what Wikipedia policy also says. It's policed somewhat more carefully on Commons than here, but I can't imagine a picture not being deleted if the term hasn't run out calculated from the date of publication. Re the watermark, there is a threshold of originality that must be crossed in order for a work to be copyrightable. Mechanically adding a watermark or a logo to an existing picture will not normally cross that threshold of originality. It might be different if, for example, someone had added a Stella Artois or other brand logo to Picasso's portrait of Sabartes, but adding the BL's logo done is quite far from that and will not create a new copyright. I hope this helps, and feel free to just ask if you have any questions. -- Arvind 16:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Karnataka on Main Page
Congratulations!! It is on Main page now!!. Thanks for all your efforts!!! Also, ಕನ್ನಡ ರಾಜ್ಯೋತ್ಸವದ ಹಾರ್ದಿಕ ಶುಭಾಶಯಗಳು!!! Best Wishes of Kannada Rajyothsava!. - KNM Talk 00:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! and ಹಾರ್ದಿಕ ಶುಭಾಶಯಗಳು to you too!  Sarvagnya 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy Rajyotsava Sarvagnya. Thanks for all your good work. Gnanapiti 00:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ರಾಜ್ಯೋತ್ಸವದ ಶುಭಾಷಯಗಳು. It will be even sweeter this time with the appearance of Karnataka on the front page -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! You have no idea what was unfolding same time last year :)  Sarvagnya 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I can guess ;) -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ರಾಜ್ಯೋತ್ಸವದ ಶುಭಾಶಯಗಳು. Thanks for all your efforts. -- Naveen  (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care
You've cleaned-up good for you. But you didn't imagine that you will meet someone like me - so here I am to prevent your acts. I'm much faster than you. I'll report on you.


 * FU images are used in the same way on Jolie's page - A FEATURED ARTICLE.


 * boxofficeindia is used in Lage Raho Munnabhai - A FEATURED ARTICLE.

Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sakuntala image
Why are you removing this image from rotation?? We had 6 people vote for it versus 3 against - and the against were only in the context of another image. Now that we have rotation there is absolutely no reason to remove it. What you are doing is grossly against the spirit of what was the purpose of rotation. --Blacksun 09:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. There is a general agreement that we limit it to one pic per state for now.  This is to take care of concerns(valid concerns) that some(including you if I remember correctly) raised about the size of the pool.  Once the process matures and gets fine tuned, we will perhaps be able to manage larger pools with little fuss.  Until then, I'm afraid we'll have to stick with one pic per state.  And the Trissur Pooram is something that is very very Kerala... much more than a RRV painting.  The Shakuntala painting, apart from the fact that it was painted by a Keralite has little context to it and doesnt represent Kerala or its culture.  btw, there is a discussion on the WP:IIR talk page about the logistics of this exercise.  Feel free to share your thoughts about it there.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 09:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has voted on the other image. It is just you who are saying it is more relevant.  Sakuntala image has been voted upon and has largely received favorable notes.  No one has voted on one per state rule either in context of rotation.  Please do not go against the mandate of other editors.  What you are doing is your own interpretation of what everyone else has said and I am saying it is wrong.  Rotation was installed primarily to be able to expose images of high quality like Sakuntala image without having to chose. --Blacksun 10:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I also disagree with your interpretation of Sakunatala image as Keralite. Yes the painter is from Kerala but it is a depiction of Indian art and an episode from an Indian epic.  It cannot be grouped as Keralite. --Blacksun 10:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)