User talk:Sarvagnya

Archives

???

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

s c ?

Toolbox external links readability edit count

Contents 1 Re: Image:Papanasamsivan.jpg 2 Re: Deletion of article 3 Dravidian parties 4 Incivility in edit summaries 5 classical language 6 you have vandalized my talk page 7 Kannada literature 8 RFA thanks 9 email 10 thanks 11 Fowler 12 Re: Your Hi 13 A friendly word of warning 14 RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Sarvagnya) 15 A. Kanyakumari 16 Kumbla 17 Why your name was there 18 User: John Carter 19 WP:INDIA Tagging with TinucherianBot for WikiProject Karnataka 20 Gandhi 21 Gandhi

[edit] Re: Image:Papanasamsivan.jpg

Not quite. By cropping part of the image, it only strengthens the fair use claim since we are using less of the work. Whereas, the requirement is to use as little as possible to infringe on the copyright as little as possible. If the useage is not appropriate (not used for critical commentary or illustrative purposes to show what the CD cover looks like), then you could claim the rationale is not valid. But to say an image under fair use is a copyvio is the whole point of fair use. MECU≈talk 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletion of article

I'll be online tomorrow, just letting you know I've read your comment and will be replying soon. Apologies for the slight delay in the response, hopefully I can use this to my advantage and re-evaluate the situation. Regards, Rudget. 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted the point of AFD here. As far as I can see from the history, KH seems to have been the majority editor in the page, even though it was Vagab who actually created it, KH developed the page nine-fold from 3KB to just over 27KB, and so as the creator of the page was actually absent at the time of deletion, I was willing to ignore a rule and place KH as the article maintainer/developer, *even though* he wasn't. With this in mind, articles are not brought to AFD if a user wants deletion of a page he has dealt with, we use CSD criterion G7 for that matter. You can visit this to see where pages have been put up for deletion where only one or two editors have edited a page and it has been flagged for deletion - we don't use AFD for this matter, because it would cause unnecessary wastage of time. However, I do see from this discussion that consensus was not in favour of deletion, and I admit that the speedy deletion tag that was added was done so without clear thought. For this reason alone I will restore the article, however I would appreciate if your responses to the deletion (if ever to happen again, on another page say) that they do not come across as bitey. I was only doing my job, and I make mistakes here and there just as anyone else does. Rudget. 11:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dravidian parties

Hi there!

Thanks for your contribution to the above article. Can you let me know why those citations were removed, especially when it is used for non-controvertial statements. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 09:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility in edit summaries

Hi. I noticed that in this edit summary you insulted another editor and his contribution. Please try to keep your cool and be respectful, even when you feel provoked. Thanks, Bovlb (talk)

[edit] classical language

I have provided the highest reliable sources from the government of india (Archaeological survey of india, Centre of Excellence for Classical Tamil), a source from MIT university and from one of the highest respected newspaper in india, which contains the only reference for the classification of Classical Sanskrit by the indian government available so far. I can find no single reason, why these references should be ignored in any way. Your POV is easily negatived by the sources i provided. Please explain your position now in full details belonging to this matter: Why do you ignore the references i provided in full? Why do you think, that your POV is accurater than those of government of india institutes and the MIT? What's your POV of the newspaper articles, which provided the government's "Classical" tag reference and why do you ignore them also? Please give me an answer in full details as soon as possible, since i'd like to go back to work soon. If you continue to ignore the references after these three days, i have to ask on a third opinion provided by the Wikipedia Community or any other available constructive solution. Frankly speaking, i doubt highly in your good faith in this particular case, but i give it a try. Thanks for reading. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)--Thirusivaperur (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] you have vandalized my talk page

Don't do it again or i will get an administrator to stop you. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note for Thirusivaperur about this. I respectfully suggest that you let it lie, and maybe we can all cool down a bit. Bovlb (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the accuse of vandalization. Keep in mind, that i don't want double or even more messages of the same kind in such manner. Thanks for reading. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada literature

Hi Sarvagnya, thanks for your recent inputs into the modern literature section. Can you make sure that Navya, Novodaya etc are in italics whereever you touched/added info to it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you have added any info on critisism, please indicate so under Taxman's comments where I have listed a set of points I added after his comments.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I hope you dont mind that have reverted your recent edits to the lead. Perhaps the lead should be concise and the details of metres is better of in the "content and genre" section. How do you feel about this?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

you wrote: Starting with the Kavirajamarga (850 CE) authored during the reign of the Rashtrakuta king Nripatunga, until the middle of the 12th century, literature in Kannada is almost exclusively Jaina -- explained in part by the fact that they found eager patrons in the Kannada region among the Chalukya, Rashtrakuta, Hoysala and Ganga kings who were either Jains themselves or offered generous support to the faith -- as also by the fact that the Jains themselves were early champions of the vernaculars (unlike the Buddhists and the Brahmins who chose Pali and Sanskrit) to spread their faith.

• Explained in part will open up questions about what the rest of the reason was which only makes it require more explanation.
• Jains also used Prakrit profusely before 4th century.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Some Jain writers continued to write scholarly works in Prakrit/Apabrahmasa till 9th century.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide full citation for this:Sangave V. A, pp. 187–188 Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. feel free to revert now. I will think it over a little more and get back to you tomm. Logging off now. Sarvagnya 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] email

Hi Sarvagnya. I disabled EmailUser a couple of years ago after a particularly annoying - and wearisome - round of allegations (including, inter alia, meatpuppetry and off-wiki coordination), and I'm reluctant to enable it again. Is it something important? If it's about my swiftly reverted comment on the Kannada literature talk page, don't bother - the comment was quite uncalled for (not to mention bordering on ad hominem). I've had a fairly tiring few months, so I'm a little snappier than normal. -- Arvind (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Hi Sarvagnya. Thanks for your participation. I appreciate you comments. Wikidās ॐ 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Wrong number. Sarvagnya 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fowler

Hey,

Fowler&Fowler has been adding the Toda image into the Indian image rotation without accepting that there was clear consensus not to have it in the rotation when the last vote was taken. He was the only one for the image and there were 9 people against it. Still he has insisted on keeping it in the rotation, even after I tried explaining to him. He called me a liar and has kept doing it. Nikkul (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your Hi

Is this some kind of sick joke? You have the audacity to make a malicious personal attack [1], and this time, not just on me, but the efforts of the entire Assessment Team of a prominent WikiProject and you honestly think I'd treat your request as a genuine one? Think again.

I could be sympathetic to your uncontrollable temper where you wanted one of your close buddy's article's to go through - Dinesh did put hard work into it, and you wanted him (and his work) to receive recognition for it, even if it meant casting a blind eye (or even attempting to dismiss) a valid oppose. But particularly for your recent conduct, I have no sympathy because it is inexcusible, meritless and unwarranted by even the most lowest standard that exists (if it actually can be considered a standard). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont remember coming to you seeking your sympathy. All I asked you was to review a WP:INDIA article which is up on FAC. Also, please review WP:NPA and familiarise yourself with it before you accuse others of being violation of the same. Sarvagnya 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly word of warning

Hi, I saw that you've made a few comments like this [2] to editors concerning the Preity Zinta FAC. I think you might be on the line or just over the WP:CANVASS rules. Canvassing is prohibited for FAC (which is not a vote by a means of determining consensus) and I encourage you to be aware of that in future FACs. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been here long enough to know that canvassing is prohibited. But than I'm sure there hasnt been any canvassing. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Sarvagnya)

Hello, Sarvagnya. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya, where you may want to participate. -- John Carter (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude you don't make life easy for yourself. I think you are forgetting what a gift wikipedia is when you get into these disputes. I am all for articles being of a neutral tone and of reliable sources but I really do think you look into certian things far too much and in doing so people may get the wrong impression of your intentions. I've seen evidence that you can create good content and removing serious POV from several articles but if you conducted yourself better you'd save so much less time in conflict. Part of the problem with wikipedia is time wasting with such disreputes, when all those poor stubs and articles which actually do have serious POV problems and unreliable sources are being neglected. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont demand any more of others than I demand of myself and infact, is demanded of me. If you can find a source I have used anywhere which you suspect is not RS, feel free to bring it up. If I am not able to demonstrate its RS-ness, I will stop using that source myself without further ado. You wont find me stonewalling, filibustering or abusing process with dishonest reports of my opponents' behaviour. Wikipedia could be such a better place if people would simply bow to policy and chug along. Sarvagnya 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not faulting you from questioning certain sources and aiming to improve the reliability of wikipedia, lord knows that accuracy, neutrality and reliability are some of the most important issues in this encyclopedia and to improve its credibility. Naturally everybody would wish that every article reaches an acceptable standard in this way. But on certain sources finding a replacement would be very difficult particularly for Indian film statistsics. It would help if the site could publish more about their staff and editor status certainly, but they have stated how they compiled the statistics. If each reference was worded as "According to BOI" it would remove any indication that we are stating the exact truth but are merely reporting what has been reported elsewhere. Can it really be possible to verify absolutely every digit published by that site or any other? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely because it is humanly impossible for editors on wikipedia to verify the veracity of every written word that we have WP:RS standing between us and the sources. It is presumed that if the quality of the sources used is taken care of, the veracity of the content takes care of itself. "According to..." is used when you are quoting an expert... and BOI is not an "expert". Just as you cannot say .. "According to my neighbour..", you can also not say "According to BOI...". Sarvagnya 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well yes of course the source should be considered a professional one. Where the conflict seems to be arising is that you disagree on whether it is or not. I can see your concerns about the lack of information on how the statistics were compiled and that you completely disbelieve that the site "is the premium and largest site on Hindi film stats" but the issue doesn't have to be such a major one if we act maturely over it and work together to improve it for everybody and ensure there are no doubts over anything. I've replaced several, not because you disagreed with BOI as a source but because I felt the reference also prvided an insight to why a film was considered a flop or whatever and is more informative as a source than just a statistic at BOI. There are now actually only 2 out of 110 references which isn't a cause for much of a fuss, given that the article is extremely well referenced anyway I don't think it would make much difference if the remaining two were taken out or replaced ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The RfC has been deleted because I don't think John Carter and SheffieldSteel have sufficiently demonstrated that they unsuccessfully tried to resolve the issues regarding your conduct. You don't have a free pass here. Your behavior on the article's talk page (and even some of your recent comments here) have been uncivil. I suggest you be more careful about your talkpage comments in the future, as such behavior is grounds for a block. Please do not use attacks or make uncivil comments when you can get your message across in a much friendlier manner. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well.. content disputes on talk pages do heat up quite often on wikipedia and if we had parties to content disputes filing RfCs against each other, there'd be an RfC for every editor on wikipedia. Surely, you dont expect me to treat such mala fide filings with respect. Having said that, I must point out that the fake-content and bogus citations on that article page still remain and John Carter was one of them who warred to keep it. And as for talk page messages like this, I continue to consider it petty trolling and I reserve the right to remove such messages from my talk page. Thanks. Sarvagnya 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A. Kanyakumari

Hi Sarvagnya. Could you check the reliability of A. Kanyakumari. I have my doubts evne if they are vlaid sources it still needs fixing. COuld you help reference it properly? I know Carnatic music is a subject you are interested in so,. Also N. Ramani is completely unreferenced. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well.. to begin with both Kanyakumari and Ramani are leading artists and there should be no doubt about their notability. As for sources, for anything to do with Carnatic music (or indeed with India), I'd start with searching The Hindu... ie., a <"mysearchstring" site:hindu.com> on google. Then I'd also do a similar search on deccanherald.com. Between them, I'm sure we'll find something. I'll take a look when I find time, but you could go ahead and do a few searches on the sources I mentioned and see what you get. Sarvagnya 14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't questioning notability. In fact I realised they were pretty important articles which is why I asked you. Personally I think it would be a good idea if there is a wikiproject on it to draw up a list of articles or at least articles you consider as a priority on the topic which have serious referencing issues and work gradually at improving them. I am continuously shocked at the some of the core American articles like Las Vegas which you'd think would be pretty sound but is rather a poor article in terms of referencing. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 08:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kumbla

Re this edit, vedikettu in Malayalam means exploding firecrackers (as during festivals). Does "bedi" mean the same in Kannada ? I was wondering whether this "Kumble Bedi" is real or a subtle joke. Tintin 03:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As in "kumble bedi"? Not sure what it would mean.. but in the context of that sentence in that article, I dont think it is meant as a joke. also depends on how the bedi is spelt in Kannada, bEdi, BEDi, bEDi, beedi are all different words in Kannada with vastly differing meanings. Considering it is in Kasargod, it may also mean something in Tulu.. I am not sure. Will google a little more and let you know. Sarvagnya 04:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tintin 09:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why your name was there

You asked why your name was there. The answer is because you never replied to this request. If you prefer to agree or reject, then I think you can still add yourself to the appropriate list. (Since so much time has passed since, I would prefer if you could add the date, but I won't make a fuss if you don't.) — Sebastian 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but your revert and reply does not answer my question. I've never been a member of SLR and consequently I dont get to either "agree", "disagree" or "abstain" from any of its proposals. It is not upto you or anyone to sign me up for any project you like. All I know is that I edit SL related articles occassionally(I havent edited in months perhaps) and thats it. Unless I take it upon myself to join SLR and opine about its processes and proposals, I dont see how I can be forced to be a party to it. I am not a part of it and I dont know what it is. My involvement back then was about L and N's blocks and has/had nothing to do with any SLR. Infact, I dont have the time to find the diff now, but If I remember correctly, I had infact explicitly stated somewhere that I reject any moves to make me a party to that. I will be reverting you and I also suggest you check with Gnanapiti. I believe it will also surprise him that his name is there. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - If, in future, I decide to be a part of it, I will myself add my name there. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff. Sarvagnya 17:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not in the list because someone mistook you for a WP:SLR member, but because a panel of some of Wikipedia’s most respected administrators unanimously put you there when they forged the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement. If you can not respect that decision, you should have replied half a year ago, when FayssalF meticulously explained it to you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed#Comments. At SLR, we respect and defend the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, which is why we are happy to host its current version in our project page.

As you said correctly, you are not an SLR member. As such, you are welcome as a guest on our talk page, but you need to respect our house rules, which state that only members can change the project page. Please read and abide by the boxes on project and talk page. Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I was not asked/consulted/informed when they decided to put my name on the SLR page. Secondly, admins - even the most respected of them simply dont get to put another editor's name on any page/discussion they want. That would be a gross misrepresentation of the editor's views. I for one, have no view whatsoever about either SLR or any of SLR's proposals. Unless I involve myself in its affairs and then "abstain" from, "support" or "oppose" a proposal, nobody else gets to speak for me. And FayssalF didnt "meticulously explain" anything to me. No offence to him, but like I said above, he simply doesnt get to do it.Sarvagnya 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, just coming in as an uninvolved person with a suggestion. Sarvagnya, I understand that you don't want to be listed as "abstaining" since you don't really have an opinion. What if there were another section on the page that just listed "Editors contacted", with your name there? I think it's useful to have a list of "editors who edit in this topic area", to ensure that those who are interested in a debate, are informed of it. Though, as you said, there is no requirement that you actually participate. Would that address everyone's concerns? --Elonka 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I was not even "contacted" about any SLR. My comments only had to do with the issue of blocking of two editors on allegations of sockpuppetry. So it wouldnt be appropriate to put my name under any "Contacted" list. If it was a "Editors interested in SL topics" or "Editors who have edited SL topics" or "Editors who can be contacted to opine about a SL issue" or some such thing, then .. yes.. my name can be put under that list.. (as can many other names like Black Falcon, Jayjg, Blnguyen, FayssalF etc) but that too only after telling me exactly what the specific proposal is and getting my permission. Right now, I am being put down under a "signatories" list of some "agreement", I was not even privy to! Sarvagnya 23:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PS:An even more precise formulation would be and for one which I wouldnt need to be contacted would be - "Editors who participated in the Lahiru and Netmonger block discussions". That is it. Sarvagnya 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: John Carter

There is some commentary here that you may wish to respond to. Best Regards, Cleo123 (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:INDIA Tagging with TinucherianBot for WikiProject Karnataka

FYI- Your attention and help is requested .You are receiving this note as you are the member of the project -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi

Hey,

There's a discussion going on about the name on the Gandhi page. Please weigh in here. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi

Hey,

There's a discussion going on about the name on the Gandhi page. Please weigh in here. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)