User talk:Venu62/Archive5

Chalukya

How does the FA main page look. Do you think we should replace the temple picture with the Chalukya territory map for best effect.?Dineshkannambadi 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Tamil Nadu

By the way, congrats for making this a FA. You have handled a vast topic well. I did not see the nomination earlier.Dineshkannambadi 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the good work! :)--thunderboltz ^(Deepu) 13:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Parthi. I'm currently on a limited Internet access mode, that's why the delay. Cheers. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Thorpe

Hello Parthi, I have created the redlinked stubs, and attempted a round of prose smoothification. Could you have anohter look please? Thanks for reviewing and your feedback. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a habit

Congrats!!

		The Epic Barnstar
		History of Tamil Nadu. Epic Barnstar from me for handling an epic topic well.Dineshkannambadi 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make personal attacks

Dear Parthi, Please don't reply to Bharatveer's personal attacks with further personal attacks. This just escalates the bad feeling among editors. Thank you. --Ragib 09:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Tamil Nadu

Thanks for the works on History of Tamil Nadu article to bring to FA status. But the template in the article seems a bit unpleasent because of its dark color. Isn't it better in any of the other light colors from brown or yellow series? - Paul 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Hello Parthi, I noticed the sentence about special case you have added to the proposal put by User:Utcursch. That special case, I'm afraid, again would result in the same problem of edit-wars and disputes. Reason is, it is almost impossible to define what is non-English name. For example see the introduction in Shiva. Would we be able to say it is English name or non-English name? Is this special case or not, for this proposed policy? Again, if it is a special case, should we be adding all the relevant scripts and how do we determine what are relevant scripts? Again, if we add relevant scripts, what order should be considered? I am sure, we are heading into same problem again. Similarly, so many India related articles (and may be others too), will continue to face the same problem, if we have that special case. IMHO, the special case mentioned by Utcursch is a valid one. My 2 cents. - KNM ^Talk 04:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your stand. That is why I am saying, the special case you have added is, IMO, taking away the intent of proposal made by Utcursch. Some people might use that special case as a genuine reason for adding vernacular script, which is what we do not what. I hope this clarifies my above message. - KNM ^Talk 04:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursch has mentioned the example of Satyameva Jayate probably because it is written in vernacular script, in the Indian national emblem (Image:Emblem_of_India.svg). However, I am sure, he has not meant that special case should be applicable for all non-English names. As I said, the very term non-English is difficult to define, and a wide range of articles like Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu can be claimed either way by conflicting parties. If you agree with this, I suggest you leave Utcursch's special case as it is, and remove the special case mentioned by you. As such Utcursch's special case does not have ambiguity, and certainly it doesn't talk about "non-English" names. Hope this helps. - KNM ^Talk 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Indian Cinema and Music Award

Dear Venu62: Just thought we'd need experienced Wikipedians to discuss about the introduction or removal of a new barnstar for South Indian Cinema and Music. Would appreciate very much you taking a look at the discussion and perhaps providing your comment here. Thank you. Best wishes, AppleJuggler 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keduvaan kEdu ninaippaan

I never called you a moron. I said morons sometimes have to be tolerated. You can imagine your worst, I cant be bothered by imagined offense. ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honourary vs honorary

The latter is the correct spelling worldwide. See User:Spellmaster for details. --Guinnog 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil people FAR

Parthi, I have very limited and infrequent internet access now. Please have a look at Featured article review/Tamil people and try to address the concerns being raised there. You can take Arvind's help too. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your edit on external links

Hello, I got a message from you that my edit to the external link is not allowed. I read the policy link you provided. I do not see where my edit is prohibited. The link you deleted is one of the premiere sites on carnatic music and a wiki user will derive tremendous value with the information at that web site. You wrote that the site might contain unreliable information. I admit that the possibility of that risk exists with any web site whether static one or a dynamic one. With static sites, it is actually worse since there is no one to correct the unreliable information. With dynamic ones like the one I included, any unreliable information is quickly corrected by the participants. That is in the spirit of wikipedia, isn't it?. Could you please revert your edit? ( on a tangential note, I also added a link to Sangeetha sampradaya pradarshini which also was deleted. ( not saying you did that just venting ). I do not even know who did that. It is exasperating for me that such useful edits disappear and it is quite discouraging to spend time at adding content ).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.102.138 (talk • contribs)

I read the policy again. I see a mention of 'discussion forums' under 'sites to be normally avoided'. I do not know why you interpret that as 'not allowed'. Since you are an experienced user and editor at wikipedia, can you confirm if discussion forums are "prohibited" in wikipedia as a whole, meaning 'is that how the 'to be avoided' is interpreted in practice?'. The reason for my asking is, during my reading of other sections of the wikipedia I have come across references to forum sites. I can not recall a specific article now, I will have to look.

Regarding your statement "all I see is some self indulgent postings by its members.", I think that is grossly unfair. Yes, there are some self indulgent postings by its members but generalizing it to "all" is not correct. There is material available there that is not available anywhere else: examples include Jayachamaraja Odeyar (Mysore Maharajah) section, Compositions & Works of Jagadgurus of Sringagiri Sharada Peetham, extensive discussion on the rhythmic aspects of carnatic music which one can not find anywhere else etc. I have not read through all the discussions here about the actions of prior editors, so I will take what you say about that on face value but why you do want to deprive a wiki reader from all that wealth of rare material on carnatic music?

Another related question: I have seen many other wiki articles provide a link to DMOZ. So, is it acceptable to include a link to "http://dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Styles/C/Classical_Indian/Carnatic/" in the carnatic music section?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.102.138 (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks for your note on DMOZ. I have added that link and also sangeetha sampradaya pradarshini(SSP). Can I ask you for a favor? I do not have time to visit wikipedia often, I am a bit dismayed that my edits disappear. Hope it is not too much to ask you to watch out that these two links, DMOZ and SSP, are not deleted.

Great. Thanks. Actually I spent last night some time copyediting the main content of the article. It can use lot of work in clarifying the concert format, learning methods etc. But this morning, all my edits disappeared. Anyway, I will work on the article later when I have some time. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.210.102.138 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Edits to Ramanuja

Hey! Thanks for removing some of the more egregious POV on Ramanuja, though be aware that I plan on replacing those entire sections shortly. More to the point, I understand there's some debate on the use of native scripts in Indic articles, but I think the Sanskrit text ought to be kept. Ramanuja isn't a Tamil name, despite the fact that Ramanuja was born in modern-day Tamil Nadu; he was born in a culture that's rather more Vedic and Sanskrit-oriented than most South Indian brahmin families today, and was called both Iḷaiālvān and Lakṣmana (of which Ramanuja is a form) in his youth. Indeed, none of his extant works are written in Tamil, though pious Śrīvaiṣṇavas believe that one of the earliest commentaries on the Divya Prabandha, the "Six Thousand," is based off of lectures he gave (presumably in Tamil).

Additionally, some of the copyediting changes you made were sort of inaccurate. Śrīvaiṣṇava is the name of his specific sect; it's not a synonym for "Vaishnavite." Also, as far as I know, in the academic literature, the ISO 15919 transliteration is overwhelmingly the most commonly used; usage on the internet varies. Also, I deliberately didn't wikilink Kulothunga to Kulothunga Chola I, because if you read the following paragraph, you'll see it's a matter of dispute exacty which Kulothunga it referred to. (Also, if we're going to spell it "Kulothunga," let's be consistent!) In any case, thanks for catching some of errors, like the wikilink to the dab page. --Xiaopo (Talk) 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Parthi, thanks for working on Tamil people. I may not return until next week. Please take care. Regards. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Carnatic music TOC

I think you should suggest it on the discussion page of the article. Ncmvocalist 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil People

Venu, I have been requested by user:Dwaipayanc to critic on this article. I am taking a look at it and may post a few comments along the way.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

civility

Look who's talking! The pot is seemingly calling the kettle black. ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts

Have some patience and take a look at the message at the top of my talk page before you start shooting off about etiquette, vandalism etc.,. As for my reverts, I really have nothing much to say. We had been discussing it threadbare until aadal took a break for a week(and returned) and then I got really really busy and the admin(Sundar)-moderated exercise to arrive at a consensus really got nowhere(yet). And if you were dozing when all the discussion was going on(see the archives), let me restate my stand.

(Since you really ask for it)Carnatic music owes next to nothing to Ancient Tamil Music(or AKM or ATeM or AMM for that matter). It owes plenty to seminal contributors like the authors of all the treatises(starting with Natya shastra) through SR to CP etc.,. It owes plenty to Purandara Dasa. It owes an awesome lot to the trinity. It owes an awesome lot to the Vijayanagar empire kings for their patronage(then centered in the Hampi area), it owes an awesome lot to the Haridasas who took Purandara Dasa's music far and wide(across south india; you may note that Thyagaraja himself has sung in praise of Purandara Dasa and also considered him his adiguru). It owes a lot to the traditions that existed all over India and all over south India(Tamil Nadu included). Modern CM(20th century and later) owes an awful lot to Tamilians and Tamil Nadu. Without a doubt, Tamil Nadu(Madras) is today the power center of CM. But like I said, it owes next to nothing to Ancient tamil music(I'm talking of pre-purandara dasa).

Any similarities between CM and ATM is purely and merely incidental. Nothing more nothing less. And the right place to discuss these similarities(without going overboard and claiming that ATM gave birth to CM) is the ATM article - not the CM article and definitely not in as much detail as is being attempted. For that matter CM has been influenced by various schools, including HM and western music. But that isnt enough excuse to load this article with 200 words each about HM and WM. So unless it can be proven by some extraordinarily ridiculous fabrication that the authors of the NS, SR, Purandara Dasa etc.,/et.al., were influenced by ATM or worse, simply plagiarised from ATM, stop pushing half truths into the article.

CM is not just a random existing tradition like folk art or folk dance etc.,. It is a highly evolved science governed by extremely sophisticated rules and guidelines many of which are mathematical. Putting a finger on anything(ATM in this case) and claiming that it sprang completely(or 'almost' completely) from it is the height of POV pushing. Serioiusly, do you really think that during the times of the ATM, there was no music at all in the rest of India/South India? Do you think Tamilians were the only ones in all of India who were, by some divine intervention endowed with the gift of music? This pushing of POV is really unbelievable.

Hope I've made my stand clear. I will be removing it from the article. Do not keep reverting it. Let the article atleast reach some stability. There is plenty that needs to go into the article. Once we have a well written and taut article, we certainly can find ways to weave in some consensus-prose about all the ancient musical traditions of South India and even the rest of India if necessary(and only in enough measure as not to disturb the NPOV of the article). Thanks and btw, I am really very busy this coming month and infact will be on a wikibreak, though I hope to keep checking as often as possible. So please note that I may not be really quick to reply. Thanks. Sarvagnya 06:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First you said this(see your edit summary) . I/we have discussed/been discussing these edits/reverts at excruciating length on this page and you know it. These portions, regardless of the history/background you concoct for it here have always been disputed and were precisely the subject of the discussions on that page. In this light, you mouthing off on the edit summary that I was reverting without discussions is as ludicrous as it is false and I justifiably called it a lie(in the edit summary). You responded(in the edit summary) calling it a personal attack(!!) which was a bigger joke(note that I hadnt called you a liar).

I can only see all this as a perverted attempt to malign me in the eyes of other editors/admins who werent party to those discussions. Stop playing to the gallery and stop crying wolf. And for heavens sake, stop lecturing me about etiquette, vandalism etc.,. You are the last person I'd want to take lessons in etiquette from. Sarvagnya 16:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revrets

If you noticed the reverts, in each of my edits I asked the reason. Notability, etc are the reasons stated, but which are cited with University papers many many times before and in the articles. Even then the reverts continued without discussion though I clled out to discuss before reverts. It was all happened there. Still if you believe you are right you may proceed. - Paul 19:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic Music

Please give me some time to look at the situation. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venu, I rarely come to WP of late, and anyway my knowledge of the subject is not great. I will not be able to help much in resolving the matter. I am glad you have sought mediation from BostonMA in this matter and I hope that this will afford you some much-needed respite. Best regards, ImpuMozhi 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyavazhi

You are going onediting out Ayyavazhi from the Tamil people article. An Ayyavazhi festival is declared as a Holiday for three dsitricts. Ayyavazhi is autonomous religiously (as per its religious studies), and it has thousands of worship centers all over India mostly in South India densily in South Tamil nadu. All these are cited with university papers.

Then how it become unnotable? Tamil people mainly focus to the population of Tamil Nadu. In that state three districts are dsclared holiday for a festival in their temple. No other temples in Tamil Nadu have a holiday for three districts. Nearly 9% of the people of Tamil Nadu recieve this holiday in the three districts(Kanya kumari, Tirunelveli and Thoothukkudi). An official holiday itself covers this much population. Then how it become unnotable. I've told you all thease many times. Then what is the value of valid third party sources in wikipedia. Then how it become unhelpful in mentioning Ayyavazhi?

Please don't revert the edits. - Paul 20:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even the few thousand jains aare noted in the article. Also the minor christian domination Syrian Orthodoxy(when compared to Ayyavazhi) are also noted. Muslim minor denomilations such as sufi are also noted. Then why Ayyavazhi is non-notable which has majority of followers in three districts? Aso the University Papers says that "thousands of worship centers across South India" which notes Ayyavazhi many times notable than those mentioned in the article(jains and syrians).

Why you are so harse towards Ayyavazhi? Please don't revert. - Paul 20:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFR/D notification

This message is to notify you that a stub template that you created ({{Carnatic music-stub}}) is up for renaming at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain this revert?

Why did you do this? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't like pop-ups since I put it active on my acct. I'm afraid I'm going to bump the rv spot one day while checking a diff. Cheers! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auschwitz concentration camp

You just reverted the vandalism back in. I was briefly unable to keep up with the vandal and keep the good edits in at the same time, so I have a few reverts in a row. I know it looked bad, but you should probably look before you automatically revert. Thanks. Robert 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hi this is Nadirali.I checked my history page regarding the attacks.It seems you removed them and warned the user. Thankyou for doing so,I appreciate it.

I believe that user is a sockpuppet of kumerator.Im hoping to provide the evidence I have on the incidents board.

And dont let the flags on my user page offend you.The purpose of me keeping them there is to attack governments and not the entire civilian population.

Again thanks for helping out.

Nadirali 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali[reply]

please see User talk:Srkris

bye Pluto.2006 10:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Sangeetha

I was only asking others to block you. Looking at the taalk page it appears that it is you who need to keep the cool. Thanks for the sermon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raguks (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 December 2006 ~rAGU

Gozu

Hi, please don't just click on a revert button without looking. If you don't think the article should have a graphic explanation, please comment on it on the article's talk page. That edit, while I don't think it's particularly well-written, isn't vandalism in any sense, since it just explains events in the film. Thanks. - Bobet 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

While it may not have been your intention, it appears that you haven't let go of POV pushing concerning Sangam literature and Carnatic music. While it was discussed in the Carnatica link, it isn't necessary for a summary article of this kind. ATM's relation with/to raga and tala has already been summarised (these are the significant points) - please avoid putting a POV tint onto the article. I also suggest that in the future, you discuss changes that were established as controversial in the past, before making them. Ncmvocalist 00:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic Music - Composers

Reasons have been given as to why your recent edits were not accepted, and you have failed to discuss these changes in detail on the article's talk page. The reference you provided in my talk page is insufficient, as it still does not discuss your change in detail.

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss any controversial changes before making them in the future. Ncmvocalist 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]