Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:20, 22 April 2008

Welcome!

Hello Naadapriya! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Getting started Misplaced Pages tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Getting "adopted" by an experienced user How to: edit a page • upload and use images • start an article Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

User community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing!  Netsnipe  ►  18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Purastamp.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Purastamp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Karnataka/Carnatic music, you will be blocked from editing. Please do not remove tags unless a consensus has been reached by editors. If consensus was reached, the editor who placed the tag there will remove it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Warning Message

Sir, I think making a valid point is not vandalizing. I do not consider going back to ones own edit that had not been previously modified by others is vandalizing. Also I do not think Overstatements and unnecessary warnings will help anyone. To date there is no objection from the original editor regarding the 'tag'. Naadapriya (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Karnataka/Carnatic music, you will be blocked from editing. ✤ JonHarder 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We have multiple accounts by different users on this system with their own passwords. To the best of our knowledge no one has done an act that deserves the "nonsense account". Though I can not speak for all users of the system please unblock for naadapriya. Naadapriya (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

75.55.122.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "RealIndian". The reason given for RealIndian's block is: "nonsense account".

• Blocking administrator: Blnguyen (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Comparing the edits made by RealIndian and yourself, it is clear that you have violated our Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry policy which prohibits the abusive use multiple accounts. The editing block on this account has now been extended by two weeks. Sock puppetry is a considered a serious breach of trust by the Misplaced Pages community and further such violations may lead to an indefinite ban. During your two week block, please familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines as posted at the top of your talk page. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am focusing on building 'Karnataka/Carnatic music'. ('/' will be removed). To the best of my knowledge I do not see activity by anyone else other than me and those who are adding tags to this. Yes, I made several supporting statements against the merge but now I see forgot to sign one. I am interested in building the fact based Karnataka/Carnatic site and hopefully find a dedicated system. Current one is a shared system. However, I will leave the decision to Misplaced Pages for now. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

It is proposed to rename ‘Karnataka/Carnatic music' as ‘Karnataka AKA Carnatic Classical Music’. Feed back is welcome. ThanksNaadapriya (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Karnataka/Carnatic is Site Deleted

Looks like I need to rebuild since ‘Karnataka/Carnatic music’ has been deleted based on misguided information. The observation made by the deleting 'admn' is that 'naadapriya' is tainted with ‘sock puppetry'. I reviewed the histories of all ids named under ‘sock puppetry’. Absolutely there are no acts that can lead to ‘sock puppetry’ as defined by Misplaced Pages and there is no effort to vandalize the ‘Carnatic Music’ site as stated by others. I have informed this to the ‘admn’ who deleted the site and hopefully it will be revisited.

Still I and many others strongly believe a site is needed for Karnataka Classical Music based on the correct verifiable historical facts. Again I need to stress that the word Karnataka in ‘Karnataka Classical Music’ stands for the unique South Indian classical music not for the State of Karnataka as repeatedly misinterpreted by others. Since some have raised objection to Karnataka AKA Carnatic music I will work on an alternate name and discuss.Naadapriya (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Point by point rebuttal to unjustfied suggestion to delete the site

Answers in italics after consulting music experts

Comment 1. I hope you don't mind me voicing my suspicions, and making my requests here. I believe Reallindian is a sock-puppet of Knataka. Is there any way of checking this? Perhaps the information in the next paragraph may help a little.

‘Karnatatic/Carnatic music’ site is nothing to do with this.

Comment2 The Karnataka AKA Carnatic music article is a failed attempt to rename the Carnatic music article.

It is for renaming ‘Karnataka/Carnatic music’ site, not an attempt to rename’ Carnatic Music’ site.

Comment 3 After briefly looking at the history and the page itself, clearly, the latter is the most current and updated version.

It is arguable. ‘Carnatic Music’ site contains speculative information about what existed before mid 14th century. Current information about artists is incomplete.

Comment 4 I however cannot delete the attempt at a duplicate article, so am appealing to you.

Appeal is not justified.

Comment 5 Certain new and less-experienced editors (namely, the ones I mentioned in my previous para above, as well as Naadapriya, who refuse to familiarize themselves with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines) are persistently trying to push their POV that the Carnatic music article should be named Karnataka AKA Carnatic music.

Naadapriya is not pushing any POV. There could have been some inadevertant but correctable edits.

Comment 6 The form of music is most commonly referred to as Carnatic music, both in published reliable sources, as well as by modern day artists of this genre of music.

It is not true. There is no authentic reference to say that name ‘Carnatic music ’ existed before ‘Karnataka Sangeeta’ came to existence. Modern day artists including the senior most legendary musician use ‘Karnataka Music’. There are evidences. ‘Carnatic’ is an anglized version of word ‘Karnataka’ does not represent real history.

Comment 7 It is also referred to as karnataka sangitham, which we have mentioned at the beginning of the article, however, this has not stopped these editors from making disruptive edits to this Carnatic music article that some of us editors (myself included) have worked so tirelessly on to bring up to the level it is at.

‘Karnataka Sangeeta’ name came first followed by 'Karnataka Sangitam' and then about 200 years later it somehow got a parallel name ‘Carnatic Music’. Therefore the title of the site should be ‘Karnataka Sangeetha or Sangetam AKA Carnatic Music’. To make it short on accurate web sites one should keep the original title ‘Karnaataka Sangeeta’ given to Sri Purandara Daasa’s invention and mention the rest in the text.

Comment 8 The sock-puppets/other editors have also created a new page with the title they so desired (i.e. Karnataka/Carnatic music, even though the content is already covered in Carnatic music article, and this latter article contains more information.

Comment 9 Any topic in encyclopedia should have clear boundaries. ‘Carnatic Music’ site has speculative historical background. Karnataka/Carnatic music has clear boundary conditions as explained several times.

Comment 10 Could you please delete the duplicate article?

Arguments given are not justifiable for deletion.

Comment 11 Thanks heaps - Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:53, 9 Jan Yeah I deleted it. Yes, RealIndian and Knataka are the same person. I checked it. RealIndian is already blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya's editsare nothing to do with other ids mentioned. Comment is mute

Request for Correct Action The suggestion for deletion is not justified. Sincerely hope that ‘admn’ reconsiders and allows the site. ‘/’ will be removed in the new title.Naadapriya (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop.

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Please stop. If you continue to recreate pages with bad titles before discussions about the title have ended, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ncmvocalist sir, specific comments without assuming ownership of on Misplaced Pages are requested. Discussions were posted here since other edits were temporarily blocked by mistake. Vague and abstract comments can not be answered. Naadapriya NEVER did any disruptive edits in 'Carnatic music' article nor created a bad title. Naadapriya has already shown valid evidences to create a new needed article, on Karnataka Sangeetha, the original name of South Indian classical music. Repeated false accusations need to be stopped to continue meaningful discussions. Unwarranted notices to editors will not help. If such acts are not stopped, it will be brought to the attention of Misplaced Pages managers.Naadapriya (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, in Misplaced Pages, you are not allowed to recreate articles that already exist (you have no valid 'evidence' to suggest that this article is about something other than Carnatic music). The proposal to have an article named in the way you desired has been rejected by consensus. Your continual disregard for this fact indicates that you are assuming ownership over Misplaced Pages (which leads to disruptive behaviour) - please don't assume ownership. Misplaced Pages is not a court of law that deals with 'objective evidence' - it is an encyclopedia. It is not for you to decide whether an article's deletion is justified or not - the admin decides that. The 'notices' have all been warranted. Please take care not to violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies or procedures again, as you are aware of the consequences if you do. Cheers! Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No reply to repeated 'make believe' accusations, vague/abstract comments and unwarranted notices. Naadapriya will stop replying to this editor unless there is a specific rational/logical/technical/comment. Goodbye for now until a meaningful discussion takes place. vanakam poyitu varre (Have a nice time)Naadapriya (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Your proposals for renaming Carnatic music were rejected twice now, and you still insist on pushing POV in other articles, such as Music of Karnataka - please stop vandalizing Misplaced Pages in this way. Your 'hard evidence' is both questionable and unnecessary as there is no dispute over the accuracy of the first sentence on its own, so you will find that the undos of your disruptive edits are indeed valid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

copy of discussions posted on Badagnani's talk page with correct order

Need to add to article: etymology of "Carnatic"/"karṇāṭaka". Most Tamil Carnatic musicians claim the term is not derived from Karnataka but is an indigenous Tamil word meaning "homeland" or something similar. Badagnani (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic word came from outsiders

Dear Badagnani: Some make up 'Carnatic' means 'Pleasing to ear'. Others fabricate as 'Ancient music'. Some go to the extent of calling it Vedic music. Now we hear it as ‘homeland’ by specific group. However there is no evidence that the original name for South Indian Classical music, ‘Karnataka Music’ was formally given a parallel name ‘Carnatic Music’ by any learned music scholar. Historical evidences show that 'Carnatic' is a name given to certain provision in South by an outside invader to India(~17th century) while other outside occupiers anglicized.For political reasons some are illogically replacing ‘Karnataka Music’ by ‘Carnatic Music’ since Mysore State was renamed as Karnataka State in 1970s, about 500 years after ‘Karnataka Music was founded by Sri Purandara Daasa using Kannada language. Also in native Kannada Language it is written as 'Karnataka Sangeeta' in other South Indian native languages it is written as 'Karnataka Sangeetam' but none of the South Indian languages has provision to write 'Carnatic Sangeeta or Samgeetam'. Therefore 'Carnatic' is a word came from outsiders. Please withdraw or correct your comment in 'discussion' of Carnatic Music article Naadapriya (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, angry as naadapriya may seem, he/she is not way off the mark either. The above description is a fairly accurate description of the situation, but it just has to be cited. I think I can help with that. In the meanwhile, I've made a request on the Carnatic music talk page calling for some calming down and collaboration. Please feel free to pitch in. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating comment. I'm not in a position to "withdraw" anything, as I was simply asking that the name of the music be properly explained (currently, it's not). If it can also be properly sourced, that would be even better. Badagnani (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Badagnani. Thanks for clarification about your comment posted on my talk page. I understand your concern about the use of a word 'Carnatic'. I am carefully listening to Sarvagnya's recent comments. I agree all should be ready for some compromise but never at the cost of hard facts. Again I need to iterate that the issue in so called 'Carnatic Music article' is not about language but it is about embedded distortion of truth using abstract, evading and deceptive means. Justice is not done to Misplaced Pages users by ad-hoc blocking 'Carnatic Music' from the legitimate edits from editors. As an accompanying musicians I play with great respect for all South Indian languagesNaadapriya (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SignedNaadapriya (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Carnatic Music

I am not going to comment on the content itself. I did however notice the edit warring between multiple users and thus, to prevent further disruption, protected the page for 2 weeks. Please discuss changes with the involved user(s) and come to a consensus for changes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. Like I said, discuss with the involved users. I have no opinion on the content, just a firm opinion against edit warring. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussions are going on intensivelyNaadapriya (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just I forgot. Hope it will not happen againNaadapriya (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Carnatic music

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Carnatic music. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. Also, comment on relevant content, not on contributors, as Misplaced Pages has a no personal attacks policy. Please stay cool and keep the above in mind while editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again this is an effort to stall the progress and take the discussion to a different path. Hope the commenting editor understands that a generic assessment of public domain information in the context of the discussion is not a personal attack. Comments are made only based on information provided by editors and are applicable to the editor to respond not the original author since they are not involved. However, naadapriya never made/makes any personal attack and will withdraw if any word is rationally objectionable to others. Editors should stop dragging unrelated references that are weasels and those created just to change the original name. Naadapriya firmly believes that a reference which changes anything in 'Karnataka Sangeetha Pitamaha Sri Purandara Daasa' and contradicts the strong followings of Karnataka Music by Trinity, MS, RKS, BMK and Chembai is not reliable. He will not answer further comments on this topic since it just stalls the on going progress. He will remove them with Misplaced Pages permission.Naadapriya (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya does not own Misplaced Pages, so claiming something as being unreliable for such reasons you have suggested is not justified, and not in keeping with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. In addition, Naadapriya has again failed to assume good faith by conveniently suggesting that editors are trying to stall when this is not the case. A final warning has been given in the talk page for the multiple violations Naadapriya has been pushing for. Any further violations may result in Naadapriya's ban/removal from Misplaced Pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To date naadapriya has NEITHER exercised any ownership NOR violated any Misplaced Pages rules/guidelines. He has interpreted all comments, rules and guidelines in good faith. Except from one editor he has not received any adverse comments similar to above from any other editors. Naadapriya sincerely requests editors/admns and visitors to ignore previous comments since they are mute.Naadapriya (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Carnatic music

Your recent edits to Carnatic music are not valid. Synthesised, WP:POV, WP:OR material is not allowed. There has been no consensus so please stop assuming so. You have already been told that this is the case on numerous occasions on the talk page of the article.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carnatic music. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. You may be blocked if you choose to ignore this warning.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya has discussed this topic in detail since Feb 3, 2008. Except for Ncmvocalist no one has opposed to the needed correction. Ncmvocalist has opposed it without giving any valid evidence. From history one can see there are many such repeated 'undo' of valid corrections without giving justification. Warning given above applies clearly to Ncmvocalist not to Naadpriya. To date Naadapriya has not reverted any edits by others. He has made justified corrections and defended against unjustified 'undo'. Admns will be requested to review discussions.Naadapriya (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Bagagdani

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bagagdani, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bagagdani is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bagagdani, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic Music

You may be undoing others' edits repeatedly in Carnatic Music article. Please be aware of 3-revert rule and use talk page for discussions and gaining consensus. Thank you - KNM 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should be concise. Etymology and history should go in the "Etymology" and "History" sections. The name "Karnatak" is favored by Western scholars of this music (many links already posted), and that can be explained in the "Etymology" section quite well and comprehensively. Such a section was proposed several weeks ago and should already have been added, since we have excellent researchers working on this article. Badagnani (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The etymology should go in the "Etymology" section. Badagnani (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought up etymology in every posting I made, going back many weeks and weeks. Badagnani (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Links regarding the top ethnomusicologists focusing on Carnatic music, and their preferred spellings for the name of said music, already provided. Please read the entire discussion carefully. Badagnani (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely related to etymology, which belongs in an Etymology section. Badagnani (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In spite of several requestsBadagnani has not answered why my edit is affecting the 'etymology' section that did not exist in the article. Also he has not identified the scholarly article to support his statement that 'Karnatak Music' is English equal of the original and currently used name 'Karnataka Music'. It appears that he is taking ownership of the 'Carnatic Music' article by repeated disruptive 'undo's of edits of corrections for which he has rarely/randomly participated in discussions. It is requested that he should first focus on creating an 'etymology' section with consensus and discussions rather than arbitrarily deleteting other valid edits.Naadapriya (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Please stop

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Carnatic music, you will be blocked from editing. Removing the image of Papanasam Sivan was not justified. Please take care not to do so in the future. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Carnatic music, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Purandaradasar was not the founder of Carnatic music as has been discussed, and consensus does not exist when no comment is made by other editors. If such claims are made, please ensure a valid reference is given that explicitly states so, as this would otherwise constitute synthesis. Please discuss this on the talk page again to avoid being reported. Thank you.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Above comments are not valid. Please see rebuttals posted on Ncmvocalist's talk page.Naadapriya (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy of Reply posted on Ncmvocalist talk page that someone has removed.

Reply to message posted on Naadapriya's talk page and request to withdraw inappropriate statements

False warning does not help anyone. It was not a question of removing photos. It was about having the appropriate photos within reasonable size of the article. All senior editors have agreed on this.

Except you no one has opposed the corrections to the article. Constructive comments made by some were incorporated. No opposition from some other editors who participated in discussions (since I proposed the changes on Feb 3, 2008) implies consensus. To date you have not provided any valid evidence to support your opposition. All who have knowledge of English know that ‘father of’ literally means ‘founder’. The article already includes references for ‘Father of Karnataka Music'. It is difficult to understand why this answered question is repeated just to stall the progress.

Finally you should have discussed before making recent unilateral changes to the corrected article. You have reworded the lead with no reason and removed an authentic reference with ISBN# that was endorsed by other Sr editors.

You should have left the corrections for other editors to review in the context of article rather than hastily reverting it.

Please withdraw inappropriate statements made to date.

Please stop giving repeated unwarranted and annoying notices. It is not constructive. To-date you have made following offensive comments and not withdrawn in spite of requests.

On ‘Carnatic Music’ discussion page:

Repeated use of unwarranted notices ‘You will be blocked’.

Offensive statement ‘It seems you have a problem with reading comprehension’

On talk page of user:Blnguyen with reference to Naadapriya

‘This editor has (as predicted) started dribbling his nonsense in Carnatic music. ….. He has not come spewing to my page.’

Please immediately withdraw above inappropriate, offensive and uncalled for statements.Naadapriya (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply: forward

Hello Naadapriya,
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are referring to as 'forward'. Also I don't remember placing any such requests for any of the articles. Could you please tell me what is a "forward" and give me the link where you think I have placed such a request. Thanks - KNM 14:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Now I got you. I suggest you open a discussion thread in Talk:Bharatanatya and move on from there. Thats a better approach, instead of directly removing the #REDIRECT. My 2 cents. - KNM 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead was fine previous to your edit. Regarding your new large paragraph, the English is not good or clear, and the subject should probably have its own page to discuss in such detail. Badagnani (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Thank you for the support.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you have taken up Purandaradasa and Kanakadasa articles. Please do the utmost you can for these two all important articles.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"In Purandaradasa article, you have the "references" and "notes" sections switched. Your inline citation notes should be in "Notes" section.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In the lead sentence, He among other dasas such as Sripadaraya, Kanaka Dasa, Jagannatha Dasa, Vijaya Dasa, and Kamalesha Vittala promoted bhakti (devotion) to God and tried social reforms through music.

citation points to a web link. It is not acceptable to have links in the middle of text. Please convert that link into a citation using the below syntax,

{{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)

Any of the KA featured articles will give you more details how to use it, how to provide the access date, etc. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A good source of info on Dvaita saints including Purandara Dasa and Kanaka Dasa is

'History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and Its Literature By B.N.K. Sharma' can be useful..Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal falls

Hi Naadapriya,

I am writing here as a final resort in my pursuit to amicably solve the dispute in the article on the waterfalls. Let me list the concerns one by one so that things will be much easier.

1. Your first concern on the which state does the jurisdiction of Hogenakkal falls come under. To split that further down,

• according to Tamil Nadu –
• according to Law Ministry of the Indian Union (refer points 6.1 c and d)
• according to Karnataka State Tourism Department

If you can show such government links then we can proceed further discussing about this.

2. Then the shoots the question on why in the heavens are people then talking about a survey.

• The survey is about an island near the falls which both state claim to be under their control. References and

3. If the island is the root of all trouble, was there a survey earlier?

• Yes
• But what happened to the survey then? Read for yourself here, because I don’t want to be shown guilty of blaming any single side of the dispute.

4. So, if the waterfalls is on the TN side of the border, are they barking mad to ask approval of Karnataka?

• Because the any use on the Kaveri river has to be authorised by all the four Kaveri dependent states involved
• Mover over as you can see Karnataka itself wanted approval from TN which is a lower riparian state for using Kaveri for Bangalore

5. So did Karnataka approve of the scheme?

• Yes, as per reliable press reports again and one more .
• The Hindu report on top will also tell you that the Union government approved of it.

6. Then your next concern that the article is on the waterfalls and there is no need to say about a project, but as I mentioned to you earlier it is usual practice in an encyclopaedia to mention every detail including water projects. For this entries on Niagara falls was shown.

Naadapriya, I would like to see the issue solved with no further trolling and dispute, but the ball is at your court. If you can show good references of any of your claims, you are more than welcome, but otherwise, please do not waste precious time of your fellow wikipedians. Cheers Wiki San Roze 14:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not claiming anything new. I am pointing out inaccurate information posted in the article and suggesting corrections. None of the above quoted references justify the section on non existing water project in Hogenakkal falls article. These were already discussed. As a trained irrigation engineer I do not see a relation between water project and water falls. Since all state and central Govt have acknowledged that there is a dispute on the land at the falls it is premature to make conclusive statements in the Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages is about existing facts not speculations and judgments by the editors. Readers are referred to the detailed discussions of Hogenakkal falls article.Naadapriya (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no conclusive statement there. It clearly uses the word proposed, which is true. Moreover we have been through your stance on relation between water project and water falls. If you are in any doubt of this, you are free to ask for third opinion from a non-Indian admin (which I have already done through email to admin John Carter - you are free to check with him). You may also want to check Shivanasamudra Falls which mentions about the hydroelectric project. This would prove beyond doubt that a project can be mentioned in a waterfalls article. I still believe talking to you is not a waste of time. Don't make me feel as if am barking up the wrong tree. BTW I take that you agree on the other points that you haven't raised in your reply. Thats a good move ahead in this issue. Cheers Wiki San Roze 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment was about conclusive statement on disputed area not about the water project which does not exist. For Misplaced Pages it does not mater if the editor is an Indian or not. It is about the fact.

1)The water project does not exist and as shown in discussions with reference there is an on going dispute between two states about it. Even the references quoted by above editor say that. Therefore water project should not be included in the wikipedia article.

2) As it was mentioned earlier it is logical to talk about hydroelectric project since it has to be at the falls. There is no relation between a water falls and water project.

Except above two issues other issues mentioned in previous comments are not related to the present discussion. Therefore the section on water project has be removed from the article. Still it is not clear why above editor wants to keep the speculative information in the current article. If water project becomes a reality he can write a separate article.Naadapriya (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied in the article talk page. I have asked for editor assistance for another third party comment. I guess we can solve it there. But one thing, please see at your own posts from the past on this article. You started with saying that the falls belongs to both states, then that the project was not aproved and now your claim is that its on hold and hence non-existance. I will keep this for the record. Thanks Wiki San Roze 07:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)