User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Existing discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarvagnya. Thank you. John Carter 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm tied up with RL work at the moment, but I will try to take a look at this in a few hours. Best. -- But|seriously|folks  20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bollywood Blog stuff

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)

And thanks for the revert :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I finally weighed in. You owe me two hours of my life.  ;-) -- But|seriously|folks  09:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please don't be offended -- I removed your last post from my talk page. I only did so because I think we should hold off on final judgment until the matter is fully investigated. I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, Blofeld posted the identity of the people who provided the images here and on my talk page. He was trying to give you some confidence that things are on the level. Unfortunately, he had forgotten that Devendra asked us to keep that information confidential because of contractual obligations, which is certainly possible, so I deleted the info from the history of this page and my user talk page. Sorry for any confusion this is causing. -- But|seriously|folks  22:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errr...

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)

Nothing puzzling about it. You started that discussion only hours ago. So have the patience for the discussion to reach its logical end before you keep re-introducing such contentious edits. Sarvagnya 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. In the absence of any attempt to actually participate on the talkpage, suggesting I 'get consensus' there is spurious. In future, do attempt to respond before, or immediately after reverting. Also, an edit comment accusing me of yellow journalism is a bit much. Do try and maintain some civility, of which I am sure you are capable. Relata refero (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Screenshots

Technically if we are to be completely serious and honest about this then using the screenshot images does bend the rules slightly even though I think they are of major benefit to the quality and understanding of the article. Images of films are owned by the film company and claiming use of their product which they legally have the right of ownership and have produced themselves in an article on an actor can be seen as copywright infringement. The major problem is for contemporary actors obtaining a free image that would visually and encyclopedically identify key moments in their career is often impossible. Films and actors are interrelated , a reason why when I initally started WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers i wanted it to be as part of films. The thing is wikipedia has become such an enormous and increasingly a sort of world centre on the web that I doubt these film companies would try to sue anybody if they can see how educational it is to the people. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, let me tell you. I have nothing to lose and tonnes to gain if indiscriminate use of screenshots from movies were allowed on wikipedia. There's no dearth of articles about Kannada movies and movie personalities which are languishing without images and it will be a God-send for me if they were allowed. But short of wikimedia foundation cutting a deal with film industries around the world, I feel using what belongs to somebody else without their permission (stealing, ie.,) just so we can beautify our articles is unethical. Its really as simple as that. Just because you/we're consumed by wikipedia and obsessed with improving our articles doesnt mean we take the liberties to steal. Sarvagnya 20:55, 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)

[edit] Bogus warnings?

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)

[edit] FU Images

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)

[edit] Appology

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)


[edit] South India

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)

[edit] Political integration of India

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)

[edit] Hi

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)

[edit] Happy New Year

To you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

Hello Sarvagnya, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Western Chalukya arch

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)

Thanks.. I was actually not sure about it and I was going to ask you myself about it and possibly reword. Let us see how it looks after a few more edits. I will cpedit it for some more time and then come to you with a list of questions. Sarvagnya 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty of India Image

Beggar in Bodhgaya
Beggar in Bodhgaya

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:

  • The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception. To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most living under the poverty line work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of India's or even a fraction of the poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page.
  • Poverty and Disability are not connected in any way. There are thousands of super rich people who are disabled.
  • There are 11 country articles on poverty
  • This user is being uncivil and unyielding. This user has tried to have my user page deleted because it said America is priceless!
  • This image is being used by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus to display his dislike of India and to mislead people into thinking that this is the plight of millions of poor Indians. This user has often added images showing extreme poverty to many India relating articles.[1] Even though this user knows that poverty is present in every country and that extreme poverty is not a fair representation of the Indian economy, this user has previously tried to add an image of children washing their clothes in a mud puddle to the economy section of the India page. This user has added this image to the poverty section of the Economy of India page, when a graph showing poverty would make more sense.
  • WP:Undue says:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

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)

[edit] Thank you

Hi Sarvagnya, Thank you for the kind thoughts — they are sincerely appreciated. ~ priyanath talk 05:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take your pick

To satisfy your curiosity:

  • Gavin Flood, Hinduism, p.30
"...there are close affinities between the Iranian religion of the Avesta (the sacred scripture of Zoroastrianism) and the religion of the Veda."
  • A.A. Macdonell, A History of Sanskrit Literature, p.9-10
"...the affinity of the oldest form of the Avestan language with the dialect of the Vedas is already so great that, by the mere application of phonetic laws, whole Avestan stanzas may be translated word for word into Vedic, so as to produce verses correct not only in form but in poetic spirit... if we knew the Avestan language at as early a stage as we know the Vedic, the former would be almost identical with the latter..."
  • H. Oldenberg, Prolegomena on Metre and Textual History of the RgVeda (tr. Paranjape and Mehendale), p.4-5
"No one can compare the Avestan poetry with the Indian poetry in its content, in its style of expression, and in its entire colouring, without coming to the conclusion, on account of their agreement in small details which force themselves on us at every step, that both the literatures point not only to a common origin of these two peoples and their religions, but also to a community of Indo-Iranian religious poetry, developed in well-established forms."
  • H. Oldenberg, The Religion of the Veda (tr. Shrotri), p.14
"The Vedic diction has a great number of favourite expressions which are common with the Avestic, though not with later Indian diction. In addition, there is a close resemblance between them in metrical form, in fact, in their overall poetic character. If it is noticed that whole Avesta verses can be easily translated into the Vedic alone by virtue of comparative phonetics, then this may often give, not only correct Vedic words and phrases, but also the verses, out of which the soul of Vedic poetry appears to speak."
  • J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p.36
"Probably the least-contested observation concerning the various Indo-European dialects is that those languages grouped together as Indic and Iranian show such remarkable similarities with one another that we can confidently posit a period of Indo-Iranian unity..."
In a sidebar on the same page, Mallory has a well-known example[2] of Yt.10.6[3].

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)

[edit] Kannada literature

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)

I will start googling and come up with something soon. In the meanwhile, I intend to also pitch in with the cpediting. I will skim through the article and pick a section and work on it. I'll also be on the lookout for appropriate images. just fyi, any image published in India 60 or more years ago is in public domain. So if you have any pictures in any of your books that are patently in public domain, you can scan and upload them. Will share more thoughts in the coming days. Sarvagnya 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bharat Rakshak

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 editssign 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

namskara,
If you can establish the notability of the site... good. I had raised the issue as long as a couple of months ago (dig through the India Notice Board archives) but had not got any responses. Also remember, the number of hits a website gets is of no consequence and is not an indicator of encyclopedicity. If you can show us that reputed third party sources have featured the site in their publications and have given non-trivial coverage to the site, it will save the article from going under the AfD hammer on 'notability' grounds.
Having said that, BR is NOT a reliable source for an encyclopedia for the simple reason that it is manned by novices who arent experts in the subject. Novices, no matter how seriously they take themselves, are still novices. I dont know who it is, but this habit of wikibombing several India related articles with links to this site will have to stop. I will be removing links to BR from all articles unless you can prove to me that those who run the site have the credentials to be commenting on military affairs of India or any other country. From what little I have seen of the site, it is manned by self styled experts spouting jingoistic tripe.. not to mention the fact that we'd also seen a case some time ago where they'd plagiarised from wikipedia.
You are welcome to prove me wrong and I shall let go. But websites piggy backing on wikipedia's popularity and making a quick buck isn't what wikipedia is about. And oh.. as for the transliteration, I removed it simply because a transliteration(and one in devanagari at that) isnt warranted. Sarvagnya 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/main/Media.php has a collection of media articles pertaining to Bharat Rakshak. They have also got some dedicated coverage from the media - Times of India did [this story about them (web link). I agree that hits alone aren't a good indicator, but it does indicate notability. Plus, I seriously doubt whether BR is piggybacking on Wikipedia's popularity. Considering the fact that most Indian Defence Articles use BR as a main source, I think the wiki pages actually take away readership.
Also, to mention about those who write, true, they are amateurs, but to call them novices is, IMO, stretching it. For example, Arun Vishwakarma is cited by Richard Speier, the person who created the MTCR in his paper on India's ICBM. I doubt he'd be doing that if Arun weren't credible. Additionally, BR and PVS Jagan Mohan (who manages the IAF webpages) have been commended by the Chief of Air Staff, something that I'm sure they wouldn't do if he wasn't an expert, or at least knowledgeable in the field; even more so considering that this isn't usually given to Civilians. Plus, I doubt that novices, or even amateurs would be invited to a panel along with Generals and Air Marshals.
I think you've made the mistake of looking at the forum and painting your opinion of the rest of the site with the same brush. Perhaps you should see more of the site before you make a decision. Also, could you show me the case of plagiarism from wikipedia.... If so, I'll ask them to attribute properly. However, the information on the site is quite accurate.
Also, seeing as you aren't a member of WP:MILHIST, I suggest that this issue of removing BR links and information be discussed more widely, especially considering that a whole lot of information on Indian Military Articles are got from BR. Please dont take a hasty decision in this regard... I can promise you that it will not be looked upon kindly by a lot of editors in the Indian task force, who use BR as a source of information. If you wish, I'll put up a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history about this.
Regards
T/@ Sniperz11 editssign 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability - - I do not have the time to sift through it, but if you have any information that can establish or add to their notability, feel free to add it to the article instead of adding it to my talk page.
  • Credentials - You gave me three links. A random discussion forum and youtube are not RSes (see WP:RS) and I didnt bother clicking on them. The other one, the pdf, looks less suspect but is not sufficient to magically turn blithering novices into experts on military affairs.
  • And I am not aware of WP:MILHIST.. just another of the hundreds of Wikiprojects? I cannot run the errand for you, but if you feel like raising this issue there, go ahead. I usually confine my comments about articles to the article's talk page or to individual talk pages. The folks at milhist can feel free to drop their comments on the article's talk page and I will answer.
  • And oh.. as for the plagiarism thing - here's the link. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If you don't have the time, then I suggest that you don't edit this page, especially when you don't have time to check the references and links you're removing. That page has all the news stories about BR. As for the videos, If you haven't had the time or the inclination to see them, its not my problem. The discussion forum has a picture of the commendation that Jagan has got, while the Youtube video is a DD News discussion program about the MRCA competition, which had a General, an Air Marshal and the Bharat Rakshak admin. I doubt they would have called him if he weren't an expert. The same for other TV News programs that call BR senior members for their opinions and analysis. As for the PDF, as I said, its written by the creator of the Missile Technology Control Regime, who cites and compares a paper by the BR Missile site administrator, Arun Vishwakarma.
As for MILHIST, its a short form for WikiProject Military history, which looks after all the Military related pages. My point was that its not a good idea to remove BR links from military pages without discussing. Anyway, thanks for opening the discussion about BR. I'll join in.
Btw, BR is a featured website on both the Air Force and Navy pages. I doubt they would have put it up unless BR had been at least reasonably reliable.
I'll search for more links and try and answer some of your concerns. Some of your edits were also valid, and I'll use them as well.
Cheers. T/@Sniperz11 editssign 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (unindent)*sigh*. Before you drop off links to any more discussion forums and videos on my page, I request you to please read up and familiarise yourself with WP:RS.
  • Ok.. thanks to you, now I know what wp:milhist is. Now what do you want me to do with it?
  • And as for the IAF and the navy blogrolling BR... well.. it does nothing to enhance BR's reliability or credentials as a source worthy of being used on an encyclopedia. Given the jingoist blather all over BR, its hardly surprising that the IAF and navy like it. And for that matter, wikipedia is widely cited too in all kinds of publications and websites. That doesnt make it a reliable source. Do you know why? Take a guess. Sarvagnya 00:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote - "The discussion forum has a picture of the commendation that Jagan has got from the CAS". I am familiar with WP:RS and know exactly where forum discussions stand.
  • No need to do anything with MILHIST - I just provided it since you didn't know about one of the biggest wikiprojects, which has over 600 members. Anyway, I have posted a link to the discussion you created on MILHIST Talk page.
  • So now, you're saying the IAF end IN endorsal means nothing... so who should endorse BR for you to be satisfied? Do you think the Services would have put BR site up on their recommended list if they hadnt checked out its veracity and accuracy. After all, it is their name at stake.
  • Wikipedia is a different case. Do you think Coca Cola will recommend Wikipedia as a good place for info about Coke if they hadn't checked up? The same is true for any other endorsal. Mind you, this is not an isolated case - I can give you links to Service Officers papers which use Bharat Rakshak information and specifications as a source, and not just to quote an opinion.

T/@Sniperz11 editssign 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)

I am sure nowthat the Agni III has come out since that paper and it had a diameter of 2m[4] - not far from what Arun Vishwakarma had reported, Our Dr Richard Speier must be eating crow now. (check any other source other than bharat raksahk and it will report the same) jaiiaf (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Punch Dialogue article being deleted

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)

I would request an explanation from your side as soon as you would find time. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The Checkuser procedure is meant for clearing apprehensions and anyone would be more than suspicious of someone popping out of the scene with the other alleged 'master' leaving the scene, especially your case.
I have a copy of the article and I do not deem to consider random comments that reek of farce airs as being noteworthy of describing an article that was cited with apt citations and even video links AND edited by 10+ editors AND an admin.
This is NOT an ego battle, but I would have appreciated if you had left me a message or asked me for any clarification instead of deleting an article which you obviously did not understand. However, seeing this talk page it looks like I am not alone in pointing out some destructive editing work. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Look.. I didnt delete the article. I am not an admin and I dont have the powers to delete an article or restore one. I only nommed it for deletion and it went through the standard deletion process. Many people voted and almost every single one of them voted delete. So stop trolling my talk page about things that I even hardly remember. If you have a grouse, take it up with the admin who closed that AfD. Thanks. Sarvagnya 15:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am NOT trolling in your page so stop using some 'randumb' terms to describe this conversation. I am talking to you only because you had nominated this for deletion when an article was being built from scratch. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 21:06, 15 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)

[edit] Carnatic

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)

[edit] Question

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)

[edit] Incivility

Your edit summary was particularly inappropriate. Please read this for a helpful definition. Thanks! Relata refero (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I concern

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)

[edit] input

I Need your input on Kannada literature talk page.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada lit

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)

ok.. I will think of some way to reword it to convey the right meaning. As for Shiva, his 25 forms, Shaiva philosophy vs Vachana, I only made that approximation because Vachanas too were steeped in Basava's theology anyway... And Basava's theology encompassed Shiva worship.. yes.. but along with "vachana" we will perhaps have to squeeze in "shiva/shaiva" somewhere and then the rest can perhaps be explained in the body. And as for moving genre info out of the lead.. I dont know.. we can leave it there for now and take another look again later.. I think. Kamarkar -- I dont know.. it is interesting trivia, but like you said if it doesnt account for the haridasas and vachanakararu, it may be misleading. So again, I think we should hold off on it until we find an appropriate spot in the article for it. Sarvagnya 18:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Bias from British Raj article

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)

[edit] Carnatic

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)

Yes.. this is exactly what B L Rice (and/or E P Rice (?)) and others also say in their works. I have the links stashed away somewhere.. We need to first fix the Carnatic article and then move to Carnatic music. Will do. Sarvagnya 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical development of Ganesha

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)

[edit] Destructive edits - Stop

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.

[edit] Late medieval

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)

[edit] Copyright

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)

oops.. i just made a comment on that talk page.. Anway.. I dont quite get what you mean by "...content should have been removed by me on sight when I first discovered it..." You were asking me just minutes ago to point out cpvios, if any, in that text. Now you come telling me that you were lenient in not removing it after you (purportedly) found some. Go ahead, if you find any sentences/paragraphs/sections that are cpvios, remove them. Who am I to stop you. But given your history of knee jerk reactions and shoddy homework, I can only urge you to make sure that what seem like cpvios to you are indeed cpvios before you take it upon yourself to delete content. The issue here, if I am right, is about the 'threshold of originality' that has to be reached in paraphrased text. The uninformed novice that I am in legal matters, I'd assumed that I'd done enough paraphrasing to cross that limit. If someone more conversant with the law can shed light on it, I'd welcome it. If it turns out that I hadnt paraphrased enough this time, I'll be more careful next time. There ends the matter. It is you who said that you would bring in experts to check it. I said go ahead. So whats with this whole thing that you were lenient to me?! Sarvagnya 22:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

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)

Point out the purported cpright vios before you take it upon yourself to indulge in any more of your ill-advised knee jerk reactions. Sarvagnya 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And just in case you missed the point while I was busy cleaning up the mess you left on my talk page - you are NOT one who I would consider a 'reasonable editor'. So.. please do not delude yourself to think otherwise. But I must concede, its amazing you even the courage to huff and puff on an article which I am sure you have no clue about whatsoever. You have no clue about the subject.. you have no clue about the authors.. you need WP:V thrown at you before you seem to realize that there is such a thing as "self published sources" and "acknowledged experts" and yet you seem to be able to go on forever! Amazing! Sarvagnya 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And you seem to not be able to read any of the policy pages relevant to the subject? Amazing! John Carter (talk) 02:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright matters

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)

Oh, and I should say clearly that I can't swear that the suggestion in the e-mail would necessarily meet current legal guidelines, because like I said I've been away from the law for a while, but I have no reason to think it wouldn't, based on what I do know. So don't take it as an absolute guarantee, but it should probably work. John Carter (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether you want to see it or not, you've got new e-mail. It deals with some of the presumptions you expressed elsewhere which are I believe erroneous. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Your Recent Edit in 'Carnatic Music' before improper 'undo' by others

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)

Sarvagnya, just take it easy regarding Amargg's block. You don't want to end up blocked as well. :-P Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)