User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 4

Kaveri River
I went to make an edit to Kaveri River today, and notice that it is protected. If you and Mahawiki will agree not to revert each other until after the issues have been resolved on the talk page, then it would be my hope that the protecting admin would be willing to lift the protection. Please consider this request. Sincerely, --BostonMA 20:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarvagnya. I have responded on my talk page.  Sincerely --BostonMA 21:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I left a short commment on my talk page.  It is not a comprehensive reply, but I need to take some rest now.  Talk to you again tomorrow (US time).  --BostonMA 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Try again
I have clicked "Enable e-mail from other users" switch.Dineshkannambadi 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi again!

I see the problems between you and Mahawiki involve:
 * civility issues
 * content issues

As about civility, let bygones be bygones. Let's decide that from now onwards, both of you will be more refined while dealing with each other. That's the only way of resolving this matter. I can't really catch your necks and ask you to be friends (I would've done that that if you were both present in front of me...) Just make sure that you stay cool, don't mount personal attacks and assume good faith.

As about content issues, next time you feel that the other person is adding POV to the article, instead of starting a revert war, just drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. All editors who are knowledgable about India will try to arrive at a solution.

If everything fails, the only option is Resolving disputes. utcursch | talk 03:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree we'll have been wrong sometimes. But let bygones be bygones and from now onwards, let's be civil and use the notice-board for content-related issues. Also, please go through Resolving disputes carefully. :) utcursch | talk 11:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Hi. We need to get in pictures of the famous haridasas inclding Kanakadasa. I would like them in the Vijayanagar page also. Can we copy/scan it off the pages in the Haridasa link I have provided in the Haridasa page?

Dineshkannambadi

Dispute resolution
Hi! I believe Requests for comment is the next step. utcursch | talk 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Chalukya
I have received permission from a wiki admin to use Photos taken by my friend at Pattadakal/Badami as my own (with permission). So in the next few weeks as soon as i get them, I shall have a page ready on Badami Chalukya architecture. I shall defnitely visit the place too later too.

Dineshkannambadi

Phenom
Hey ignorant fool, if you don't know about Indian rock bands don't put silly tags. It makes you look like an idiot. Don't try to mess with us. Again, if you put stupid tags on Phenom article I'll call an admin PhenomenalRock 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri
Hi there! Sure, I'll take a look at the article, but it probably won't be until late tomorrow evening. Just off the top, I think this is a well written article but I'll read through a little more tomorrow and see what areas, if any, can prove contentious and how we can appropriately add citations to the article. Unfortunately, edit warring is something that all contentious articles experience regardless of whether or not the articles are well cited. It is one of the fundamental problems with having a wiki encyclopedia. AreJay 02:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sarvagnya! I'm a little busy now with a couple of things on the Norwegian wikipedia, but I will have a look at the article on Monday or Tuesday and tell you what I think. At a quick glance, it seems quite promising, and I don't think there're likely to be any real issues. I have a couple of academic papers about the dispute buried somewhere, which I will also try to dig out. -- Arvind

Hi again Sarvagnya! I've now had a detailed look at the article. Apart from a few points of wording (mainly the use of words such as "amazingly" and "obviously"), it seems fine. There are a few points I'd like to add, though.
 * First, I'd like to add a section at the top which describes briefly the chief contentions of each State (Karnataka has those three or four volumes it published setting out its case, for example, which make five main points). I'd also like to relate the stances taken by Karnataka and TN to the various principles that have been advanced internationally in the general context of river disputes between upper- and lower-riperian states ("prior appropriation", "absolute sovereignty", "equitable allocation", and so on).  I'd also like to add percentages into the table you have at the beginning, which will make the significance of the figures much more obvious.
 * Secondly, I'd like to emphasise the politics a bit more: there has been a strong correlation both in TN and Karnataka between winning the most seats in the riparian districts and winning control of the State Assembly, which essentially means that taking an extreme stance pays off politically and reduces the chance of compromise (as has been pointed out in several academic analyses of the dispute). Additionally, the increase in the dispute's intensity in the 80's also coincided with the weakening of the national parties and of the central government generally, which has reduced its ability to force a solution.
 * Finally, I think we need to link this to the wider context of the problem of water resources in India, which are getting scarcer, referring to things such as the dramatic (and downright scary) drop in the water table in much of southern Karnataka as groundwater gets used up.

Let me know what you think. If you're OK with these suggestions, I'll have a go at adding these into the article over the weekend. -- Arvind 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jana Gana Mana
My comments on the JGM talk page was this

''Sarvagnya and Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra are again undoing/redoing Hindi to Devanagari. Can you guys discuss whats wrong. This talk page has enough information already about this whole issue. Just few lines above on this page Sameer Khan has provided some logic about some of his changes. So why this issue again ? What's wrong with Hindi and what's wrong with Devanagari either ? --APandey 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)''

What accusation did you see here ? As is very clear I am OK with either you putting Hindi or Arya Rajya Maharashtra putting Devanagari. Although I would personally like Hindi because of the logic provided by Sameer Khan. Now where is the question of me accussing you of anything or having problems with you. I do not have time for all this, you know. Thanks. --APandey 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Seuna
Looks like these guys have got together with one more person and started to just put tags and remove stuff without even getting me involved in it (considering I put together the page)

Dineshkannambadi


 * Hi! I made two changes to the "Seuna" article, that might be considered controversial. Firstly, I put tags. That was because the citations produced were "according research by XYZ" -- there was no mention of which research etc. This is fair enough I guess. No content was removed from the article. Secondly, I suggested that Seuna be merged with Yadava Dynasty and the new article be located at Yadava dynasty or Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri. This again, was not without discussion -- I initiated the discussion at Talk:Yadava Dynasty and also put a pointer to it at Talk:Seuna. I've given reasons for the merge, please do have a look at them. I also left a note of Mahawiki's page : "let other editors (including Dinesh) provide their views" (and this was before Dineshkannambadi left a note on my user page). I am not anti-Kannada. Earlier, I've been accused of being anti-Maharashtra by Mahawiki. I guess, that's because I don't let things like regionalism, linguistic patriotism or religion come in way of my edits. I just want an accurate article, without any POV, whether pro-Kannada or pro-Marathi. utcursch | talk 08:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I've moved Seuna to Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri. No content has been removed. Some content has been added to make the article NPOV. I hope it's OK with everybody now. Please do drop by to tell if something is amiss. Everybody is free to edit the article, but please don't add POV (pro-Marathi or pro-Kannada). utcursch | talk 12:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Not really. Littering talk pages with bogus warnings is vandalism. Consider yourself warned, any more useless garbage on my talk page will be removed.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * hi &mdash; I agree this is misbehaviour, and I did of course not expect otherwise from this user. But since I do not want to escalate this into personal feuds, could I ask you to look for assistance from the wider admin community at WP:AN/I. dab (&#5839;) 07:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, Godse was executed for murder, no need to dispute that.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 08:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was talking to Bakaman...perhaps I should've put it on his talk page, my mistake.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 05:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your message
I am not very keen on complaining about you at the admin talk pages as you suggested. That will not solve the purpose because you will never ever change your views. However as I said you have been showing some indecent behaviour in that discussion. Earlier also, you left me a bogus warning for no reason. If you follow the thread carefully and read all the discussion with intent, you will understand what I am saying. Do not use the language like "Let me refresh your memory". Thanks. --APandey 09:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, thats why I asked you to read the discussion threads with intent. Can you show me a single line in that thread where I said that you are biased (although personally I very strongly feel that you almost always push your POV). I said that I do not want to reply to your points because u r beyond my comprehension. And then you said hundered of things in reply to me, to which I refrained from replying. you even warned me for no reason. I don't know whats the matter with you. --APandey 10:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dr. Kamath
My statement about Dr. Kamath was not a "sweeping statement". See User talk:Mahawiki for the fully story. (Try, in case this page gets archived). I didn't "dismiss Mr. Kamath with a wave of my hand"; in fact, I said "But still, he is a notable historian, so his citations are valid." utcursch | talk 11:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnatic Music - Admin abuse
Yeah he must be otherwise he cant reverse edits like that.

We have sufficient representation now (in terms of having speakers of all relevant languages to support the cause) to proceed against this menace. Please keep checking back often in the next few days. We should do something about these linguistically biased admins and provide some objective content there for wikipedia users. We should not allow WP to be hijacked by vested interests. --Kris 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We will take article one by one and work at making them objective.--Kris 22:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We can use that. It is funny that after indirectly calling me names (as spammer), he turns over the same blame on me saying that I called him a liar. If consensus has been reached, where do all the dissenting folks like you and me go? I have asked him to try for that consensus that he claims was reached. ;) --Kris 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagna, as I said, I am not against portraying these composers as "composers" or as "trinity of ancient tamil music". I realize that this issue has raised a heated debate on both sides, so I dont mistake you. We should be aware of both areas (Ancient Tamil Music and Carnatic Music) to effectively end this debate. I can claim (with all humility) to know something of both. And in my view, even though the ancient tamil compositions are sometimes included as karnatic concert pieces, it does not make them Carnatic Music compositions. Their basic nature is that of Tamil devotional hymns (both saivite and vaishnavite works are there). Their composers are basically tamil devotional music composers. Whereas people like Thyagaraja, Dikshitar etc composed "classical music with a devotional flavor". This is what we have to make them realize. --Kris 00:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Halmidi inscription
Hello Sarvagnya,

Some months ago, I typed up a transcription of the Halmidi inscription. I think it's the only online text of the Halmidi inscription, something I'm quite pleased about. Anyway, since you have some knowledge of Halegannada, I was wondering if you'd be able to provide a translation of the inscription. The article should, ideally, have the Halegannada text, a translation into modern Kannada (with a romanisation) to show the relationship between the two, and an English translation. Do you think you could do that?

A picture showing the actual inscription would also be great - or, at the least, a graphic file showing how it was written in the Old Kannada script. -- Arvind 10:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ನಮಸ್ಕಾರ
ನಮಸ್ಕಾರ ಸರ್ವಜ್ಞರಿಗೆ. ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್ ವಿಕಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಕ್ರಿಯರಾದ ಕೆಲವೇ ಕನ್ನಡಿಗರಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಹೆಸರು ಕಂಡು ಬಂತು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಎರಡು ವಿಷಯಗಳತ್ತ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಸಹಾಯ ಕೋರುತ್ತ: ೧) ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪುಟಕ್ಕೆ ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ತುಂಬಿ ಹರಿದ ಜೋಗದ ಫೋಟೋ ಒದಗಿಸಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸೋಣ. ೨) ಕರ್ನಾಟಕಕ್ಕೊಂಡು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡೀಯ ಪೋರ್ಟಲ್ ಮಾಡುವ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆಯಿದೆ. ನೀವು ವಹಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೀರ? --H P Nadig * \Talk \Contributions 06:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

carnatic composers
Made a few changes in wording. Do we need early-modern distinction where its in chronological order? I removed this.--Kris 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Taluk infobox
Hi Sarvagnya, I have replied to your message on WT:INWNB. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats your problem on Kaveri?
Why are you deleting ?? Sarvagnya 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. This nice article is already categorized by "Rivers of Karnataka" category which is already a subcategory of category "Karnataka". This is common policy here. - Darwinek 22:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Guess... my bad. But then, if what you are saying is true, I have some questions for you. See for e.g., this, this and this.  Note that there are 139, 91 and 56 pages under cat:kar, cat:tamil nadu and cat:west bengal respectively.  Also note that most of these (139,91 and 56) pages are also members of subcats of cat:Kar, Cat:Tamil Nadu and Cat:west bengal.


 * So, who's wrong, what's wrong here? In this light, please take a look at this and comment ont the talk page.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 23:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right. This mess should be cleaned up. It started when somebody created a subcategory, added it to an article but didn't removed parent category from it. Basically, in future categories "Karnataka" and others should be empty like Category:Burkina Faso is. All stuff should be in the subcats. - Darwinek 08:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Ragib 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
For ridiculous levels of fighting with Mahawiki. And please do not use popups in content disputes. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Appealing my block
Note: I tried appealing through email to Admin Blnguyen. But since I have not got a response in over two hours or so, I am appealing it here

Contents of my block infobox Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Blnguyen for the following reason (see our blocking policy): excessive fighting/arguing with User:Mahawiki

Your IP address is 70.162.92.59.

I appeal against my block on the following grounds. As far as the warnings(given by Mahawiki and Arya) were concerned,

a) They were frivolous. b) They do not even mention where the so called violations took place. c) I have not removed those warnings, I have infact, archived them. d) I took a look at the rules governing reverting edits and nowhere does it prohibit the use of popups in the case of reverting non-vandalism edits. e) Use of popups in content issues : I have always discussed content issues on the talk page extensively and have also clarified my stance in the edit summaries.  Please see the histories of the pages concerned and you will find that I have ALWAYS and EXTENSIVELY engaged in discussions on the talk page before reverting anything.  Also I have explained in the edit summaries also the first couple of times and only used popups when it degenerated into POV pushing edit war by the likes of Mahawiki, Arya and Baka.  And again, I have found nothing in WP policies that bars the use of popups in content issues or limits it to reverting only vandalism.  Correct me if i am wrong.

f) MOST IMPORTANTLY : Things have come to such a pass not because of any effort on my part by purely because of the trolling attitude of Mahawiki. I had made a detailed appeal about his incivility HERE.  This is a message I had posted to atleast a dozen admins.  The above complaint/appeal was made by me almost one month ago.  Unfortunately, none of them took any action against Mahawiki.  He did not even get a stern warning! Also, it is not as if many of these admins did not know about his incivility.  Many of them including, Blnguyen knew about it.  And yet,  NONE OF THEM took ANY action.  I understand some of the admins were busy, but I cant digest the fact that out of the nearly 12-15 admins I had complained to, not even one of them even bothered to serve Mahawiki a stern warning!! And needless to say, his incivility has continued unabated.

g) Also please note, the above complaint(in (f)) is not the only one I've filed with the admins. There have been complaints even before and after that by me and other users too against Mahawiki to many admins.  And yet, no action has been taken.

I am sure many users like User:Achitnis, User:KNM, User:Dineshkannambadi, User:Utcursch and many more can testify to his incivility. He has even called us terrorists and jehadis etc.,. And even recently he has slandered non-Maharashtrian editors on Jimbo Wales' page. See THIS and THIS. This is nothing short of misrepresenting others' stands and trying to mislead people. This IS slander.

As for my own behaviour, anybody is free to check with users User:SameerKhan, User:Sundar, User:AreJay, User:Vadakkan, User:Ragib et al. These are users with whom I have discussed content issues on many articles like Sare_Jahan_Se_Achcha, Jana_Gana_Mana, Vande_Mataram, Tamil_language, Carnatic_music etc., and the discussions on the talk page are there for everyone to see. I have NEVER once deleted or reverted an edit without engaging in a discussion on the talk page. This surely is a travesty of everything that WP stands for that I have to be seen in the same light as trolls like Mahawiki.

In the light of the above, it should be clear that I have done nothing to deserve this and I strongly appeal that my block be lifted and strong and punitive action be taken against User:Mahawiki. Sarvagnya 10:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)