User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 8

Talk:India

Howdy! Please use care when picking your language, this edit seemed to negatively characterize the nature of another users edits in what might reasonably be considered a pretty denigrating manner. I'm sure it was accidental, this is just a friendly heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense?

Please could you provide further explanation on the Sandalwood page rather than words in an edit summary, thank you SatuSuro 03:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandalwood

Maybe you know more about it than I. Your explanation was a bit lacking, I did a revert and left comment on talk page. Let me know what you think. Regards Fred 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

thankyou for your response. Your position seems to have changed. Mine does with any new information. In this case, as I try to do elsewhere, I assume good faith. I am no expert and yet I was familiar with the sanskrit derived word Chandana. The person who made the edit may know more than me, or you. It occurred to me, also, that usage in english is what appears on our document. I need not tell you of the many exceptions and why, I assume. These plants were important to people in the region well before english speakers turned up. First nonsense, then foreign. Anyway, someone else has put in their 2 cents worth now. Faithfully, Fred 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the polite response. I will let you know what I find out. Sandalwood is important in Western Australia also, something not mentioned in the article. Regards Fred 17:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Removal of topics

Please do not add glitches to the html code for the Dravidian topics template. Thank you. Wiki Raja 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

“ To Wikiraja : I am not adding any 'glitches' to any code. I am only removing non-dravidian items from the box. Thanks. Sarvagnya 04:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ”

Please do not remove Dravidian items from the box by adding glitches to the html. Also, please reference your deletions with legitimate sources stating that the Dravidians do not have any form of dance and martial arts. Otherwise please refrain from deleting items from the Dravidian topics template. Thank you. Wiki Raja 04:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:India

Hi - your comments directed at user:Fowler&fowler are very incivil and rude - please see WP:CIVIL - your comments are of a taunting and demeaning nature. Please do not behave in such a rude and confrontational fashion. To solve any persisting conflict or content dispute properly, I advise you to use dispute resolution. Rama's arrow 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have reason to be upset or frustrated, in which case it is fair to walk away. But making demeaning comments towards and about your fellow editors is unacceptable. Also, please do not engage in edit-warring. Rama's arrow 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I can appreciate your sentiments and I know that Fowler is not blameless, but you must not use another user's conduct as an excuse for incivility - there can be no "eye-for-an-eye" here - and that approach will hardly solve a problem. If (and I assume you do) you find it hard working with Fowler, I strongly advise you (as I have advised Fowler) to use dispute resolution, possibly an RfC on Talk:India to resolve the content dispute with the input of the wider community. Rama's arrow 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My warning on edit-warring seemed natural in lieu of the content dispute you're having. Obviously, Afghan Historian and Fowler are tettering on the edge of an edit war. Again, seek dispute resolution while keeping your own cool. No good will come to you or the article if you erupt into incivility. Rama's arrow 21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Reply

Well then you might as well having an official RfC - ask for other people's input at WT:INB. If some more people agree with you, then you'll be justified in disregarding Fowler's views. What I'm saying is not acceptable is your incivility to him. If he is incivil, he will be reprimanded for that. Rama's arrow 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

[1], [2], [3]

Yeah all that is fine - I'm not interested in the content dispute itself. My only concern is to see proper dispute resolution and proper user conduct - no disruption, incivility. That's all I expect you to be careful about. Rama's arrow 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dravidian topics

“ And for heavens sake stop talking of 'glitches' if you dont know what you're talking about. Sarvagnya 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ”

Sarvagnya I am not arguing with you. Why are you showing incivility towards me? Wiki Raja 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been talking of imaginary glitches which I am at a loss to understand. I've asked you more than once what you're talking about, but you simply keep repeating the accusations. Again, what on earth are these 'glitches' you're talking about? Sarvagnya 08:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These glitches you put in parts of the template html: [<! -- -- >] Wiki Raja 09:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bharatanatyam was formed by the Tamils, originally called Cathir. It was not till the early 1900s when this dance form was brought back to life by the Tamil Brahmin community who spoke Sanskrit and Tamil. Therefore, this dances origins are Dravidian, but is also practiced by Dravidians who speak Indo-Aryan languages, and Indo-Aryans who have learned the dance from the Dravidians. Other beautiful Dravidian dance forms are Yakshagana classical dance of Karnataka, Kuchipudi classical dance of Andra Pradesh, and the Mohiniattam classical dance of Kerala amongst many others. Odissi is an interesting art. Nice example of a combination of a Dravidian dance form and Hindustani (Indo-Aryan) music. Carnatic Music was created by the Dravidian people while Hindustani music was created by the Indo-Aryans. The term Dravidian does not necessarily mean a single ethnicity, but it is a family of related ethnicities and languages. Just like the term Indo-Aryan is a family of related ethnicities and languages. Also, there are Dravidians who speak Indo-Aryan languages for example in Gujurat and Maharashthra. I hope this was helpful. Regards. Wiki Raja 10:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Page 20 of the PDF article tells that the interim order DID INCLUDE a monthly ration. The rediff.com article by Mr.Shenoy states that months of distress werent met. Thanks Wikiality123 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:A warning.

Ok! I've had enough. You not only seem to be tied up in knots with your understanding of the Dravidian issue, you also seem to be ignorant of some of the most basic rules of WP. First of all, realise that what is going on in the "Dravidian" related pages between you, me, that ip user and other users is a 'content dispute'. I dont know if you've noticed, but everyone there is against your views. Even Bakaman with whom I dont share a very cordial wiki-relation seconded my stance. As for you, I dont see any support forthcoming.

I started reverting only after I explained on various talk pages at length. Calling my edits vandalism is most uncouth of you and filing a frivolous checkuser just because you cant address the issue to convince others on the talk page is juvenile.

Anyway, you seem to be new here(you atleast act like one). As for me, I've been there, done that. As you can see on the checkuser page itself, you arent the first one to try the vengeful tactic on me. Each time I've come out clean. Go ahead and do your worst. Or better still, ping your frnd Parthi for pointers. He'll probably tell you not to get your 'knickers in a knot' on this. Happy trolling. Sarvagnya 16:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have not engaged in any personal attacks against you other than you throwing peronal attacks at me and pushing your POV on this academic site. My reports against you are strictly following Wikipedia procedures in dealing with chronic vandals, trolls, and sock puppets. So far, you have not been able to give me any referenced sources to back your claims. While I have, as per request from you, have provided referenced sources well in abundance. You stated that if I provide referenced sources you would stop vandalizing pages relating to the Dravidian civilizations. However, that was not true and you continue to vandalize pages. Lastly, I do not appreciate your threat against me and admin Jpgordon here I also disagree with you that the talk page on Dravidian topics template is juvenile since I had provided well referenced sources. Unlike your posts with no referenced material, except for rash claims. Wiki Raja 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia content regulations

Please let me recommend the Wikipedia:No original research to read in regards to your unsourced material. This section on Wikipedia:Citing sources helps a user to cite sources properly, but I think you should first read about no original research. No original research is basically no making up stories and posting it on Wikipedia's pages. Also, please show more civility when dealing with other users including myself. I have never threatened or attacked you. So, far I have had personal attacks from you here where you called me ignorant. Also you have generalized the Sri Lankan population and called them terrorists here and here. I am sorry, but that equates to racism, especially when one generalizes a whole population. A good site to read would be Wikipedia:Civility. Please also let me reccomend visiting the Uncyclopedia. There are lots of fun articles on there, and the best thing about it is that the user does not have to cite any sources. Truly an ideal site for those who into fiction, sci-fi, and humor. I hope this info has been of help for you. I just want you to remember one thing that racism hurts. There is only one race which is the human race. Kind Regards. Wiki Raja 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:References! references! references!

First of all, the title you have presented References! references! references! shows me that this is a sign of frustration. I'm sorry, but it was you who kept asking me to provide references. I have already provided all the references I could possibly find. With your refusal to look into the references I have provided as per request, it proves to me that your rash claims of Carnatic music and Bharatanatayam coming from the moon is outsourced with no references. Maybe I put too much references to back up my claim. I hope this was not too much. Please accept my humble appologies for disproving you time and again. Kind regards. Wiki Raja 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I thank you for your feedback to me regarding vandalism. I do not consider that as warning. It is unfortunate that you have removed something which is not your POV without discussing it on the talk page. Also, since you are here for long time and involved in many other controversial edits like Belgaum, I assume that you read and understand WP:COI. If not, please give it a try before editing controversial topics. Thanks Praveen pillay 01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for till Sunday and sincerely hope that you write that in neutral POV. If you don't then I'll have to change it to NPOV. And you have not answered my question regarding your speculations such as Griffin etc... And I am confident that I will not be banned. What ever you write in WP, its not going to change the tribunal's award :) Take care and sleep well.

70.125.103.189 04:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely I didnt dream up Griffin myself. Thanks. And about COI, I can assure you and you will have to take my word for it that I am not a paid agent of the Karnataka govt., nor am I a party to the dispute. And btw, did I suggest that you'd get banned? I dont think so. Not unless you're a POV-pushing, edit warring, rule breaking vandal.  :) Sarvagnya 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand you didn't dream up Griffin yourself. But, you do seem infer something from his ruling (I contend that the quote itself was quoted out of context). Please see Wikipedia's stand on original research here. Also, see previous version [[4]]. I quote the section of interest

In his award, Sir. Griffin concluded thus,

In conclusion, I regret that it has been impossible to arrive at a settlement satisfactory to both the parties. Each party set out claims which, on examination, were found inadmissible in whole or in part. The claims of Madras, if allowed, would probably have resulted in making the Mysore Project impossible: those of Mysore, in seriously impairing the interests of Madras. Throughout the proceedings, there has been a regrettable lack of the spirit of compromise…

Further making no secret of the underlying basis for the judgment, he went on to say,

The resolution we have arrived at, recognises the paramount importance of the existing Madras interests, has for its primary object the safeguarding of those interests and does, we believe, safeguard them effectually.

In other words, it was made clear once again that British (and hence Madras) interests came first and scant regard, if any, would be shown to competing interests.

This section at least provided some balanced context before jumping into original research (I.e. the portion where author says In other words, it was made clear once again that British (and hence Madras) interests came first and scant regard, if any, would be shown to competing interests.).

Also, you didn't answer the question regarding the biased statement

While all these discussions went on, Tamil Nadu’s irrigated lands had grown humongously, while Karnataka’s had stagnated. Tamil Nadu’s irrigated area stood at a huge 24 lakh acres while Karnataka’s irrigated area was a mere 4.2 lakh acres. The one sided nature of the so-called agreement was there for everyone to see.

And btw, I agree that vandals may get banned. But, I believe that there are still some POV pushing vandals who do not have any real life lurking in WP trying to push their POV. Probably it may be because of their inability to change the ground realities :) (For eg. The Cauvery tribunal's award) Thanks and have a nice time. Praveen 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Whew! If you would hold your horses and stop filling my talk page with things that you've already raised on the article talk page. Just fyi, I do believe that the article can do with a couple of rounds of cpedit for tone etc., and that is exactly why I've been living with the {{NPOV}} tag at the top of the page(in case you didnt notice). The way I see it, the article just needs more comprehensive referencing and few changes in tone, wording etc., here and there. I do not foresee any major changes. So dont come back Monday expecting the article to have changed drastically. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel you have given a nice constructive reply in Kaveri dispute. Thanks Praveen 19:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)