User talk:Sarvagnya/Archive 14

Political history of medieval Karnataka

Thanks for your support.Dineshkannambadi 11:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please help in formatiing one of my article

I have created a article chronolgy of karnataka.please format it. Nrupatunga 06:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need more info

What portions of the Tamil language article are in violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:CITE ? Please specify that in the talk page. Lotlil 22:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get information out of you, as to why the weasel and citation tags are needed. Since that doesn't seem to be forthcoming, I assume that it was added by mistake and am going to revert them.Lotlil 14:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Language

Are you trying to say that Hindi is not India's national language? Article 343 states that Hindi in devanagari script is the official language of India. [1]--Indianstar 07:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from Personal Attacks

I'm surprised at having to mention this: your template on my talk page is a blatant personal attack. I called your edits as vandalism, based on WP:VANDAL policy. You should probably read the policy and look under "Abuse of tags", before you "warn" people that take the time to cleanup such acts. I had given you enough opportunity to justify the weasel and citation tags here and here. But, not only have you ignored my request for information, you have gone ahead with pasting the tags without any explanation. And, not just that, you now are threatening me with a block. If you don't stop this behavior, I'm going to have to report it to the admins. And, oh yes, I should point out that this post of mine is in line with WP:DTTR - just mentioning it because we seem to be too eager to go around warning users, don't we ? Chill out. Lotlil 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even a glance at the talk page will reveal why the tags have been added

Rather than making such vague statements, why don't specify clearly what parts of the article are so bad that you had to bless it with your tagging. I've "glanced" at the talk pages enough times to know that you're tagging is totally unwarranted (other than the neutrality tag which I had left untouched).

Now since you've branded some edits as vandalism, can you point out which one/s and can you explain how it is vandalism?

I didn't realize it was so difficult, but anyway let me help you here. You added the "weasel" and "citecheck" tags and even after repeated (at least 4) requests for explanation, you've not explained yourself.

You've only just landed here, so stop shooting your mouth off about policies and guidelines without even reading or understanding them.

Since you had landed here a while back, how about actually following those policies rather than just tooting your horn at every instance ?

You'd be better advised to not dive headlong into these things and spend some time reading policies and observing people.

Yeah, well said... I've been observing you for instance and have learnt how not to behave around here.

Lotlil 01:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotlil: Let us work together to improve the article. Let us address all concerns of Sarvgnya.--Indianstar 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Language

I want to understand what clarification is required in the following statement mentioned in Tamil Language article.

More than 55% of epigraphical inscriptions in India were found in Tamil language

My understanding is that given ciation says that around 55000 of 100000 epigraphical inscriptions in India is found in Tamil language. Epigraphical inscriptions were used in old days. I believe this statement is inserted to emphasise ancient nature of Tamil.

Also please list down other weasel words in Tamil language article in Talk pages so that we can work together to improve the article. --Indianstar 05:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First thing is, 55000/100000 being Tamil seems highly suspect to anyone except people who want to believe it(like PP, aadal, venu et al). I have citations to the effect that 30000 inscriptions are from Karnataka. I also have citations that most of the inscriptions in Tamil Nadu including those of the Pandyas was either purely Sanskrit or bilingual(where Tamil was relegated to secondary position. For example, the gold and silver coins of the Pandyas used to have Sanskrit markings while tamil was used only on copper coins) or purely Tamil(this was at a later stage - after around the first millenium). Also, if you add it to the 55000 from TN(its safe to assume that atleast 99% of them are in TN) then, it leaves the rest of India with only 15,000 or so inscriptions! This 15000 will have to account for inscriptions from all over India from all the rest of the languages, sanskrit and all the prakrits included!

Common sense tells me that the fantastic claim made by nameless author of The Hindu article is false. So I want know more about what you mean by the numbers. Are you counting all the inscriptions found in Tamil Nadu as Tamil and what is the nature of these inscriptions, are they stone inscriptions or copper plate or something else or what? And the so called Tamil-Brahmi cant count for much because there have been only a grand total of a few dozen or so TB inscriptions that have been found. And many of them are supposed to exhibit deep influence of Kannada. Anyway.. i could go on. But these are things that will sound very uncomfortable to the likes of POV pushers like PP and venu and aadal et al.. and I dont expect them to react sanely to anything that differs from their Tamil nationalist worldview. Until that changes, the article is probably better left to its fate. Also, a citation from a historian or a journal or something will help greatly. And oh, btw.. let me repeat that i have citations for what I wrote above, not from suspect sources like a faceless junior journalist on a 'national' newspaper, but from historians and peer reviewed research journals. Thanks. Sarvagnya 05:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would request you to keep my name out of your rantings. You don't know what I believe in. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvgyna. So you are clear about the meaning of that statement. Clarify tag is not applicable in that case. You feel based on commonsense that it won't be correct. I feel all updates to article is based on citations and not based on our commonsense. If I have to use my common sense, I would have blanked out Ayyavazhi article because I have not heard about it before. So either you can contest that statement with more reliable citations or leave it as it is. Does it make sense? Can you also update other weasel statements in the article. --Indianstar 09:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what in my reply makes you think that I am 'opposing' it based on commonsense. If I was relying on commonsense alone, I'd have simply blanked the tall claim just like you'd have blanked the ayyavazhi article. That I have only chosen to tag it for a clarification means that I am not acting on my POV. I have explained to you that inscriptions can be of different types. And since we are talking about the language of the inscription, I've also told you some facts(based on citations, not commonsense). Unless you can clarify it, the tag will stay. Sarvagnya 10:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe citations clearly says 60000 inscriptions are found in Tamilnadu, out of which 95% in Tamil. I or anybody cannot give breakup of those inscriptions. If we give based on different articles then it will become Original research. I cannot go and findout breakup of remaining 15000 inscriptions. can you update your citations with your comments in the article's Talk page. If we cannot come to agreement on open issues then we can approach Media cabal--Indianstar 16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folk arts of Karnataka

I want to collaborate with you to improve this article. But I am not very happy with the current structuring of the article and have left my comments in the article's talk page here. Please let me your inputs on the same... -- Amarrg 06:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalapuram

Pls don't remove that malayalam name from Mangalore page. -ARUNKUMAR P.R 06:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panchapeetha and history of Lingayatism.

Dear Sarvagnya,

I have come out with following solid citations/proofs regarding Lingayatism. Please refer following evidences for existences of Veerashaivism prior to basava.

1. Allahabad high court ruling in 1920: regarding kashi jangamawadi math, says about anciency of Kashi Vishwaradhya peetha is about 6th Century AD, 600 years before basava. 2. "Shasanagalli Panchacharyaru": Ph.D Awarded to Dr|| Rajeshekhar swamy gorata by Bangalore. University
3. Pancha peethagala parampare: By A.S.Hiremath Chenna chetan prakshana Ranebennur.

You need further more clarifcation, i am always at your disposal.

Regards,

Please reply,

Veeresh Hiremath

Nrupatunga

Is having a problem with the Kadamba script he has uploaded. He needs to specify the source of his info and also how he generated this copy. Please help him with this if you have time. I have left a message for him.Dineshkannambadi 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Ok. Sarvagnya 16:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Sub-divisions

Sarvagnya,

The four subdivisions of Karnataka seem to be no longer existent according to this report by the planning department. This was news to me too... We need to verify this and change the content of the Karnataka article appropriately -- Amarrg 03:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of India is a candidate for WP:ACID

Hi,

Did you know that the article History of India is a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive (shortened to WP:ACID)? If you want it to be the article for the week (and perhaps get it to Featured Article status), perhaps you would want to go the page and vote. Thank you. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of Sockpuppeteering...Again

Hi,

As you can see from the title of this comment, I am accused of being a sock, this time of two accounts: Johnsmithcba and KnowledgeHegemony. The place of the accusation is User talk:Fowler&fowler#Once_more. This is a reply of what F&F posted on User talk:Aksi great#Once_more. I want to go defend myself (BTW, I am totally innocent of any sockpuppeteering), but I do not know what to say. So, I am seeking your advice in this area. Thanks. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hello, I have applied the image for deletion. ARUNKUMAR P.R 10:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gangas

What you have done is correct. This is how it was an year back before someone moved it around.Dineshkannambadi 12:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Maps of Ganga

Thanks for flower and compliment! I added Western Ganga Dynasty map and take a look. I added double shade for feadatories area. Let me know if you want to keep it. mlpkr 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the double shade as requested by Dinesh now. mlpkr 00:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]