User talk:Dineshkannambadi/Archive11

Note: [1].

Oh, if only User:KNM treated all editors of Karnataka articles alike! Your cut and pastes of my contributions were accepted as O.K., unlike the care User:KNM took in his diff presented above not involving you. As you said in you emails, it was User:KNM who constantly updated your user pages with your glorious achievements and not you at all.

I drastically failed to understand my lowly editorial status in the eyes of you and User:KNM. I had been feeling increasingly uneasy and unhappy being in any way involved in your work for Karnataka (and uncomfortable with what seemed to me your non-neutral political views). I do thank you for that last massive cut and paste (plus your explanatory emails emphatically outlining your opinion of my role), making it clear to me that my desire to copy edit for Karnataka was at an end. I am very sure Karnataka will do excellently as the Indian block seems to be enabling Karnataka (and related articles) in its quest to take over Wikipedia! Sincerely, Mattisse 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, I believe, you have misinterpreted my edit and edit-summary.

Article contents must not be blanked out by cutting its contents and pasting it into another article, with a different name. If we do this, then the article history doesn't get moved. For this, we should always be using the "MOVE" tool (link present in the top of every article, just beside the history link). When we use this tool to move an article, even the history of the article gets moved.

For better explanation on what I am trying to say, please refer to: WP:MOVE#Page_histories

I fail to understand what made you upset over this edit of mine. Anyways, I hope this clarification gives you the clear picture on what I have done. I have a high respect to you for all your massive contributions to Karnataka related articles, which have helped Dinesh on several of his FA drives. I do not want any misunderstanding between us, and you will continue to have high respect from my side. If you still have any questions, or if you still have any doubts on the integrity of all editors of Karnataka articles, please let me know. Cheers - KNM ^Talk 18:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:KNM, I am quite aware of WP:MOVE#Page_histories and discussed it with Dinesh before his cut and paste. Your edit happened to catch my eye because it was a minor example of the very situation that I endured with Dinesh. I am upset with you because you undo the cut and paste for others, but did not do so ever for me on Dinesh's articles. For example, my last copy edited article for Dinesh was under a temporary name in my sandbox. (If you have ever copy edited one of Dinesh's articles you know what horrendous work it is.) Although Dinesh and I had discussed the Move option, he decided to cut it out of my sandbox and paste it into a new wiki page with a totally different name without consulting me. The article edit history were blanked out by this cutting of its total contents and the pasting into a blank page under a different name. It looked as if the author had created the whole article from scratch and there is no indication of my contributions in the cut and pasted article. This occurred despite the fact that I had explained the Move options as in WP:MOVE#Page_histories and the reasons for using it to Dinesh. I complained at the time to Dinesh and expressed my hurt to him. I had mistakenly thought we were in somewhat of a collaborative relationship as I contributed far more that the copy editing although he wrote the draft articles and referenced them. All I received from him was a figurative shrug.

As perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are explaining about above (as I am not getting a clearer picture of how I am missing your point), I would appreciate your explanation of how I have misunderstand the WP:MOVE#Page_histories option, if this is the case. In any event, my edit history is gone from an article that became FA. This episode and others have personally saddened me greatly. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh..I see what you are saying now. Earlier I did not clearly understand why you were mentioning about me and my edit. But still your explanation is not clearing me these two statements, "I drastically failed to understand my lowly editorial status in the eyes of you and User:KNM" and "if only User:KNM treated all editors of Karnataka articles alike!". Honestly I am not aware which article you are referring to. Whether it is Dinesh, or anyone else, if I had found that cutting and pasting from one article to create another, I wouldn't keep quiet certainly. You can see one more example, here. It is exactly the same scenario. User:Gnanapiti, unknowingly had cut and pasted the contents from Ha Ma Nayak to H.M. Nayak. I immediately went to his talk page and informed him that, that was not the right way to do it. I hope this clarifies my stand. To end my clarifications, I never had lowly editorial status for you, nor do I have now. You are a very good editor, and your contributions to Karnataka related articles are always appreciated. I just want to repeat again that, I treat all editors of Karnataka articles alike. After all, we are all building an encyclopedia and learning a new lesson each day. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My reply

Mattisse, I am sorry to read the kind of stuff you have posted on my talk page. I though when you left editing KA related articles, we had parted as friends. I really think you should direct your frustration and grouse against the people who had harrassed you no end before you came on to helping me on Karnataka related articles. And as to imbalanced views, all the citations are there to prove the balance. I dont want to go on about this issue with you, as you seem to be getting more and more petty after all the effort I took to involve you in Karnataka articles. I think you did a great job. Lets leave it at that and stop throwing mud at me or the Karnataka work group. I wish you all the best.Dineshkannambadi 19:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Illogical

1.Do not forget that Adluri's webpage was used by you and your team to push "old Kannada" theory. Now, you repudiate its validity. On the contrary, I still believe Adluri's contribution has its own merits. Convictions should not change according to convenience.

2.You also conveniently ignored that Durga Prasad's book (which you cited in many articles) also talks about Andhra as Chalukyan original home.

3.In addition, the origin of Vijayanagar empire is a highly controversial topic which you yourself agree. I recently found a book by Bangalore Suryanarain Row (1881), a Kannada scholar, who dwelt at length on various theories but did not venture to make any conclusion (I added this citation in the article).

My original objection that Vijayanagar empire was not a Kannada empire still holds good. Is it logical that you yourself revert the article back to its orignal state? That implies you made the earlier change without proper reason. Do you agree?

The condition you made smacked of bargaining. Is it scientific?

If I offered a compromise that one can use Telugu-Kannada script, also known as Old Kannada script it was based on the availability of citations in favour of both the contentions. Same thing holds good for Chalukyan home because I could find two independent sources in its support. I believe truth cannot be bargained.

I leave the matter of considering Vijayanagar as Kannada empire to your reason.Kumarrao 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Respect for others' views

I respect the views of others including Adluri and you. One should appreciate the diarming honesty and humility of Adluri who must have spent considerable amount of time collecting and collating information. I wish some WP Users emulate him. If he wanted to be biased he would have selectively ignored Kannada-centric theories. Allegations can also be made against Arthikaje and Potpourri sites which you copiously cite. One can gather additional authentic sources to support "Old Kannada". WP users will appreciate that. Irrespective of numbers (Minority or majority) inputs backed by authentic sources cannot be brushed away. Prasad mentioned that the Kadambas and Chalukyas were natives in the context of the theories that they were Aryan migrants from Parthia, Bactria etc., I shall not question the scholarship of Stein, rice etc.,

Your comments, edits and articles have a strong undercurrent of bias, lack of respect to others etc. Change that attitude. Glorification of our history (truthful or otherwise) has been going on since time immemorial. If you look at Indian/South Indian/Vijayanagar history from Turkish/Persian perspective all the articles eulogising the past glory will crumble to dust. So, let us be objective, impartial and unbiased.Kumarrao 07:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)