This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sarvagnya (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 5 September 2006 (Your comment on the Notice Board). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:43, 5 September 2006 by Sarvagnya (talk | contribs) (Your comment on the Notice Board)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Archives | |
|---|---|
Ahmedabad
Hi AreJay - could you please spare time this weekend to help on this article? Akash and I are hoping to prepare for an FAC by Monday. This Fire Burns Always 23:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
HSR Layout
Hi AreJay,
Can you please spare some time and add relevant info to HSR Layout so that it can be saved from deletion. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Sikhism
O master of Portals! Can you please have a look at this baby - its got some format problems that I don't understand. This Fire Burns Always 05:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hail to the King! Thanks man, This Fire Burns Always 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Land of Confusion
Hi AreJay, I was wondering if you could add your opinion on the Land of Confusion talk page; someone has split off the Disturbed section, and I opened a discussion on whether to re-merge it back to the main article. If you could also provide any assistance towards improving the article (merge or not), I'd appreciate it, as I think it's worthy of at least Good status. Hope to hear from you soon. Anthony Hit me up... 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge (Old medley)
Thanks for your comment. I've added a few merge suggestions today, so I will go back and put them all right! -Ladybirdintheuk 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yo
Yo friend - hope everything's going well in Atlanta. If/when you have time, do check out WP:POTUS and Portal:Himalaya region. As for me, I've turned into a Wiki-Basil Fawlty.... Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 06:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure - feel free to make any changes you like. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:NANO
Yo friend - do check out Portal:Nanotechnology - will really appreciate your advice and help. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 03:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Bangladesh portal
Yo - request your help in making Portal:Bangladesh featured! Please check out Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Bangladesh portal Rama's arrow 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
re: Hi
AreJay, your message brought me a smile. :) I've been busy too with non-wiki stuff and could only manage occasional edits here. I'm also editing Tamil Wiki and Tamil Wiktionary as I find time. If you're working on some articles, just drop a message and I'll try copyediting it. -- Sundar 07:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I am ok with ur stand. Adding of 'opinion' is fine as it doesnt shows Belgaon strugge and Maharashtra in bad light. Frankly speaking,i thot u r one of those kannadi chauvinists who were deliberately converting that article to pro-Karnataka.Just to let u know,Belgaon controversy's very essence is that Maharashtra thinks that there is majority of Marathi speakers there. Thanks. mahawiki 13:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It was surely a compliment.I dont insult anyone unless others do the same to me.Kannadi is a word extensively used to term speakers of Kannada atleast by Marathi and Hindi speaker.In fact 'Kannad people' this term is used by English speakers.Kannadiga is supposed to be a Kannad word(do we tell americans to call us Bhartiya).In fact many Kannadis refer Maharashtrians as 'Marathis', 'Maratis' etc.Since ur language name is kannada,its obvious to use an 'eekar'by us just as in Gujarati,punjabi,bangali marathi(s),tamil(s) etc.This summary is to confirm u that I didnt mean any offence to Kannadis.(I was happy though,as that Sarvagnya didnt appreciate it) There's no reason to bother anyone because no one's bothering me now.So going by ur word,I would term Kannadis as Kannadiga here after. Thanks. mahawiki 13:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Your comment on the Notice Board
Thanks for opining on the issue. But your post there is a little ambiguous in that, it deals with 'translations' of the said articles, but is posted under "Sanskrit and Devanagari". Please take another look at your post and if possible move it to a more appropriate heading among
this, this or this I mean, your post is already under the third one, but i guess it was meant to be under the second one. Also you address two issues in your post 1) native translations 2)script used in original. I didnt fully understand your point about (2). Please clarify if its not too much trouble. Also please say something about this(if you have anything to say ie.) Sarvagnya 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)