User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 5

Discussion from Saare Jahan Se Achcha

Sarvagnya and all other anti-Hindi memebers are adviced to stop spreading hatred against any language.just like wikipedia is not Hindi-prachar sabha its not hindi virodh sabha either.I do agree that Hindi is not our sole national language but it is a fact that it is the official and main link language of India [1]. Morever i hope all know that Colloquially and linguistically, the distinction between the Urdū and Hindi is nearly meaningless[2].Apart from all this reasons what harm will it do to anyone if we include hindi transliteration? Mahawiki 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your empty rhetoric and if possible give a justification for having hindi/devanagari script there. Like I've already said before, this is an Urdu song and the English wikipeidia and the use of Hindi here is superfluous and meaningless. Sarvagnya 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time i am requesting u to tone down ur language.If u read my post clearly its not rhetoric and with a justification of why Hindi transliteration should be used here.

I do agree that Hindi is not our sole national language but it is a fact that it is the official and main link language of India [3]
Colloquially and linguistically, the distinction between the Urdū and Hindi is nearly meaningless[4] [5]
The song is ewually popular with Hindi speakers.In fact song is referred as tarana-e-Hindi [6]

Since u want to remove the transliteration, onus is upon YOU to justify why to remove it?According to me u r just showcasing ur hatred against Hindi.Morever there's a consensus to include Hindi transliteration.Remember, this is not hindi virodh sabha. Thanks. Mahawiki 06:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the reasons you give is acceptable on WP. WP runs according to its own rules. It does not run according to the Indian constitution. Moreover, this song has no special sanction even under the Indian constitution. This is just another song and it happens to be in Urdu. As for Hindi people singing it, I know it for a fact that people from all over India(of all languages, castes and creed) sing it. That doesnt mean we need to infest this article with transliterations of all the 200 odd languages in India. Also stop citing sources like this and this. They are somebody's private blogs and are worthless as far as WP is concerned. See WP:Citing Sources Sarvagnya 07:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what about consensus among editors here to include Hindi transliteration?I am sure none of us are taking help of sockpuppets to achive the consensus. Mahawiki 07:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy for like minded people to vote and push their POV. Wikipedia is about truth and it has its own policies and rules to ensure that people work towards that end. Like I said, the Indian constitution's writ doesnt run on the Wikipedia. Sarvagnya 07:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your accusations of sockpuppetry, I treat it with the contempt I reserve especially for you and your ilk(read arya, baka). I encourage you to go and file your complaint with any authority you want - even Jimbo Wales LOL. :D Sarvagnya 07:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not accused u of sockpuppetry here.I am talking about the consensus.Mahawiki
::Is that so???Then why did u talked about consensus thing HERE..? (Sarvagnya: And secondly, the consensus on this page seems to be that the Urdu translation is not required..) Any comments? Mahawiki 07:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus based on WP policies is different from consensus of a mob. Sarvagnya 07:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I didnt knew ur so concerned about WP policies and rule..especially when ur removing official warnings and the non-obscene message which u dont like?[7]Again do u remember u had adviced me once against removing official warnings?(see the link) Mahawiki 07:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bogus Warning !

Regarding your bogus warning - It would be much better if you'd appply the same to yourself. Please, don't vandalise my talkpage -AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

Stop. Stop the bickering between you. Stop arguing on each other's talk pages. Stop arguing on other talk pages. Stop arguing in public. Just stop. The point-scoring and general nonsense that would shame two 11-year-old schoolboys is just tiresome. You can seek mediation or just avoid each other. But you're going to have to stop the bickering as someone, somewhere, is going to assume that the pair of you are trolling Wikipedia and thus will make you stop bickering in the most permanent way: without discrimination, someone will block both of you. So give it up. Now. Stop. We're done. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied HERE Sarvagnya 20:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, now you are attempting to bicker with me. I'm not going to bicker with you. Don't post to my talk page again on this subject, please. I've got bigger fish to fry in RL. Honestly. No, really honestly. No, worse than that. I mean Big Stuff. So, here's a clue: stop bickering. You have better things to do than spat with the other user. The other user has better things to do than spat with you. This is a website. An important one, and then some, but it is not a nuclear bomb, cancer, global warming or anything else that might give one pause. Give it up. I'm not interested, and as I hinted, I'm happy to support blocking both of you to stop the bickering by either of you. So stop. Now. Really. It isn't worth it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

(Cross-posting my reply from WP:PAIN)
This situation looks to be getting out of hand. I'll be warning both of you for your personal attacks, because civility is not an obligation of only one editor. In my opinion, your statements including "I treat it with the contempt I reserve especially for you and your ilk", and others aren't helping to calm the situation down. Your warning had a very confrontational tone and heading; in addition, it's not quite clear to me that starting at {{npa3}} was the way to go. So please, all parties involved need to do the right thing and come at this with the right attitude -- calm talk and dispute resolution are the way to go. Luna Santin 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Nationalism and Pakistani nationalism

Could you participate in the discussion with User:S Seagal in both pages? This guy is spouting some revisionist crap from some Deobandi madrassa somewhere in both places.Hkelkar 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a heated debate going on in Talk:Indian Nationalism (see the history of that page) regarding whether Harrappans were Indians or Pakistanis. Plus, Look at the revert war on Pakistani nationalism over whether Rudyard Kipling was talking about India or Pakistan regarding a particular quote.Hkelkar

Watch out

For this User:S Seagal guy. he is highly disruptive and incivil and is trying the same kind of stunt in the Indo-Bangladesh conflict of 2001 article which he started and loaded with garbage.Hkelkar 04:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I've seen worse ;) --Sarvagnya 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trash

Hello Sarvagnya! I noticed that you move certain messages (possibly those that dont interest you) to a page titled "trash". Could you please reconsider doing this in the future, as some users might consider this as a personal attack? Thanks! PS: Hope this message doesnt end up there too.--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are still continuing with the practice [8]. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they are put here because other editors think that your behavior needs improvement, and we're giving you the courtesy of letting you know. Please respond by changing your behavior, and please stop removing these messages. If you continue, I would have to resort to protecting the page from editing. Please be advised that actions might also be taken in accordance with WP:NPA if necessary.--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 08:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lighted path

I thank you for your greetings. I wish you All The Best on the ocasion of the Indian festival of light, Diwali. I am sure that the light of hope, confidence, and all positive attributes shall always remain inside you – lighting your path and guiding you to attain higher and higher levels of excellence in all your endevours! All the best! --Bhadani 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know

..."RL" means "real life", as in "away from the computer". DS 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vigilance

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Hi Sarvagnya. This has been due for some time. Thanks for your constant support and vigilance.Dineshkannambadi 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Wikistalking is going after the contributions of someone with whom one is in dispute and raising some issue or the other because of the earlier dispute. I haven't called you incivil. but, I'd say that occasionally Srkris and you have been very hawkish and confrontational. I see this whole episode be a lot better, if the initial tone of Srkris assumed good faith and was not presumptuous. He seems to have got fed up with chauvinists and has started seeing chauvinists in everyone. I'd have preferred a more amicable solution through draft proposals that happen iteratively as what happened at Talk:Tamil language. I don't say that Aadal and Parthi didn't use strong words or that they didn't have a POV, but they had some provocation to make them rigid. Everybody has their POV, howmuchever we deny that. But, when we're willing to listen with an open mind and avoid escalating conflicts, things get solved easily.

Any way, my intention is not to raise disputes but see an end to the current dispute through mediation. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that you should not edit the articles that are being edited by those with whom you're in dispute. Just that the past disputes shouldn't lead you to pursue their contributions aggressively with the intention of raising disputes; not that you do that, nevertheless my suggestion was to prevent that from happening. As you point out, Arya and Mahawiki could be doing that already. I think Blnguyen is an active Indian admin now who can help you out in this. If there are clear violations like 3RR etc., I can do a quick fact check and take admin action. But, I'll not be able to engage deeply into controversial issues and mediate myself. Thanks for taking my suggestion in the right spirit. I do hope that your positive gestures hereafter are reciprocated. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Sarvagnya. Thanks for the message. Do message me if you need help on anything. Tell me if you think I am going wrong anywhere - I am always open to any suggestions. Cheers. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyedit

Can you give Hoysala architecture a thorough copy edit? user Taxman felt that I should get rid of all lists (list of this, list of that). I took out and explained in simple language two of the lists but kept the list of famous temples (explained by Gerard Foekema in this book) and list of inherited features. What do you think?. Should I explain two or three famous temples in detail (may make it lengthy)Dineshkannambadi 02:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

questions about hoysalas

Good questions. Ofcourse these kings had beautful palaces, though not like the Mysore Maharajas, but most were lost because of fire to wood construction, perhaps destruction by invasion. But we need to keep away from temple destruction/desecration topics as it is a controversial issue and if anything will hold up the article. There is a seperate page I believe for this (Islamic invasion of India or something to that effect). Also lot of local vandalism has happened though as an after effect of invasion. Yes the Hoysalas (and more so the Western Chalukyas) built many temple tanks. Hoysala example being at Hulikere in Hassan district (recent discovery I think). If we have to make a article on tample tanks it has to be w.r.t. Kalyani Chalukya (next years topic after my visit) because they built more than 50 in Lakkundi alone. There is a vast difference between temple tanks of Karnataka vs Tamilnadu. In Tamil country, they were wide with shall flight of steps where as in Karnataka, they were deep tanks and not so large. Irrespective, they have well decorated shrines in them as each tank had a diety also. Without visting these structures, it very difficult to make mater out of it, even if we have a book for it. A template for important temples, their builder, king , time frame is a good idea. I can get the info from my book for all temples mentioned in the list and may be some more.Dineshkannambadi 03:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Infoboxes for Taluks of India

Replied on Oct 13. Was archived to Archive 17. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops. I have not worked on Kar box yet. I have plans to find missing fields in Kar box and include them in the Indian districts box. I will let you know when that is complete. -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT BLANK COMMENTS FROM TALKPAGES

You are warned not to blank comments from talkpages as you did here. You are requested not to indulge in such behaviour as it is called "vandalism". Please, if you have anything to test, test it in the sandbox. Talkpages of articles are not the place to experiment. AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 04:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from the diff you've provided in this frivolous warning.. I've reverted some blatant trolling from some disgusting troll who's been at it for the last three months. This troll is an itch me and everyone else at the Kannada talk page have learnt to live with. And if reverting without an edit summary is likened to a slap on the face of the editor, then thats exactly what I intend to do to the troll. And on top of all that, you choose to "wikistalk" me and even warn me for something that doesnt concern you in the least. Sarvagnya 05:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I must remind you of your wikistalking on Marathi people page and now on Belgaon talkpage ? AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 07:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. My edits on the Marathi people page was even corroborated by the admin. And Belgaum page, I've been editing there before you landed there. Huh. Sarvagnya 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Revert Rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from using popups in content disputes, and using that "trash" bucket. This is your final warning. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Districts box

I have moved all params to the jurisdiction box. Please read this. -- Ganeshk (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]