Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Venu62 (talk | contribs) at 22:08, 20 October 2006 (→Watch your language: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:srkris is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hello Kris. I had outlined in my previous message why forum links are disapproved of. Anyhow, you might be interested in opening a request for comment ticket on this issue. You could also ask at Misplaced Pages talk:External links for comments. Also, it is not necessary to remove previous conversations from your talk page. See Misplaced Pages:Archiving for instructions on archiving talk pages. -- thunderboltz 06:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnatic music

The changes you have made today to Carnatic music goes against extensive discussion held in the talk pages. The information on the Tamil music and Tamil trinity have been fully cited. I will be reverting your edits. If you want to make such extensive changes first discuss and let us reach a consensus - Parthi 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

btw, am not sure Venu is an admin. I may be mistaken though. Sarvagnya 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Any user can revert anybody's edits. Even you can revert his edits if you want. What I am not sure is that he is an admin. Atleast I dont see it mentioned on his user page. Sarvagnya 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

btw, it is not just Carnatic music. Similar chauvinistic colour is being given to Bharatanatya article also. Atleast that was the way it was when I last saw it. I havent checked that article in a few months. Sarvagnya 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To use an aussie expression, don't get your knickers in a knot over this. All wanted you to do was go through the past extensive discussions that have happened in the past in the Carnatic music page before you run though the article and make extensive changes. All past changes have been discussed and agreed. Any mention of the Tamil music influence in the evolution of Carnatic music has been cited properly according to WP:CITE. You cannot arbitarairly change content without discussion. That is my only point. I am not trying to impose my so called POV here. FYI I am not an admin. I am just a productive editor. Not a spammer. - Parthi 23:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me warn you gently not to indulge in personal attacks. Don't call me names. You may get banned if you do that. If you have something useful to contribute to the article, please do so. Most of all assume good faith in other editors. You may try and gather support from other users. But eventually consensus will prevail. - Parthi 23:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a liar is considered a personal attack. Always comment on the edits, not the editor. I never called you a spammer. I said 'I am not a spammer'. Read the Carnatic music talk page calmly. Read User:Aadal justification for inclusion of the Adi Trinity. The article does not claim that the Tamil Trinity were suprior than the Carnatic Trinity. - Parthi 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kris, this is what I had written long back. If anybody says that a consensus was reached about adi trinity and that I was part of that consensus, then, fair to say, its a lie. Sarvagnya 00:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One more. note that in this I've brought in Appar.. that is probably an error. But my main argument holds. btw pardon the harsh lang in this diff, if it hurts you as a Tamilian. Also note that in this diff also I've asserted that tamil isai is NOT Carnatic music. Sarvagnya 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

While we are indulging going over past history, let me also include a diff to give the other side. This is from User:Aadal . Nowhere did the article claim that Ancient Tamil music was Carnatic music. All it said was the evolution of Carnatic music was influenced by Ancient Tamil music rather than any northern islamic influences as Hindustani music was. Now, if you want to mention that Ancient Kannada and Telugu music also had influences, by all means include them and write separate articles about these similar to the Ancient Tamil music article.

The article also does not claim that the three Tamil composer who happen to live before the well known carnatic Trinity were superior to the Trinity. While outlining the history of Carnatic music, it is essential to include major contributors to the evolution. The Tamil composers such as Muthu Thandavar do belong in that mention. It is not POV, but fact. There is no claim of Tamil superiority in this. In fact I am the one who had done major clean up of the article and created the dozens of articles in the List of Carnatic composers. I have no POV to push. It seems to me that you and Sarvagnya have a POV against Tamil contributions to Carnatic music.- Parthi 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kris

I had removed the extreme povs of this pov pusher few days ago.It looks like I have to repeat it again.-Bharatveer 06:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnatic Composers article

Hi Kris, I 'restructured' the article on Carnatic composers thus. Please take a look and see if its okay. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary Edits on Majestic Kambhoji

Hi

I think you are being unnecessary sensitive and making uncalled for changes in the articles for no valid reasons (For instance on Kambhoji). And the nomenclature Majestic Kambhoji is not POV. Other noted Musicologists also call Kamboji as Majestic Raga because it's definitely so.

For Instance, P P Narayanaswami remarks on Kambhoji: A major rAgam that enjoys the same status as those of the “big four” meLams, tODi, kharaharapriya, sha”nkarAbharaNam, and kalyANi. KAmbhoji gives ample scope for detailed AlApana. Therefore, it is well suited for rendering a major k.rti, or an elaborate pallavi exposition, both of which call for a detailed improvisation. It lends itself to excellent tAnam renditions. It can be sung in any tempo. It is a “varnana pradAna “ and a tristhAyi” rAgam. Being a popular rAgam, all sorts of compositions exist in kAmbhOji. Every composer has snatched an opportunity to contribute to this rAgam. In essence it is indeed a majestic rAgam! (See Majestic Kambhoji, by P P Narayanaswami )

Hope you will stop unnecassirly editing the articles.

Sze cavalry01 03:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

If you find other Ragas qualified as Majestic, let it be so too. It does not hurt anybody. Since Kambhoji has been qualified as Majestic, Royal, noble etc (wheter for subjectve reasons or otherwise) by many Musuicologists, the Majestic qualifier is therefore not out of place and should stand. That only means that Kambhoji is indeed ragarded as such by the Sangit maestros. Hence it is not out of place to refer to the Raga as such in Misplaced Pages if the Raga finds similar mention in other sites also.

Sze cavalry01 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Ariyakudi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ariyakudi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Vedanta

Hello Skris - Sounds like an intersting project. Just a small note: please could you post project tags on the discussion pages of articles rather than in the articles themselves. Many thanks, ys GourangaUK 09:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nātyasāstra

Revert the article title to Nātyasāstra from Bharata Natya Shastra. Sreekanthv 08:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sangam article

1. I don't need you to tell me what original research is
2. If you want to improve an article, simply tagging it is not enough.
3. The article says 'Sangam Legends'
4. The second paragraph says that there is no archealogical evidence found to support these legends.
5. The OR tag is not appropriate for this article. I am removing it

-Parthi 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Watch your language

Regarding this outburst, I am warning you sternly to mind your tone and language. Commenting adversely on other editors is considered personal attacks. Try to hold a congent dialog with User:Aadal with civil language based on facts. Simply screaming 'propaganda' won't get you anywhere. Try to contribute usefully to some articles in WP. All I have seen you do so far in WP is spam hundreds of pages with links to your forum website and abuse other peoples vies on the Carnatic music talk page. - Parthi 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)