This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ravichandar84. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Since topics with the same name don't share article pages, we have disambiguation pages to inform readers what the articles for those topics are called. Disambiguation pages list topics referred to by the same name. Like the city Chicago and the band Chicago. (See Chicago (disambiguation)).
To keep search results the most relevant, disambiguation pages should never link to pages other than the search terms. Nor should they have pipes ( " | " ) in the wikilinks which conceal the actual topic name. Also, avoid including distracting information. Definitions should be concise.
Cheers. That would work out and save me time, the same user also makes weird OR edits consistently on the BJP article. Nice work on the Iyer article by the way, it has to be the best article on any Indian non-linguistic community I have seen on WP. KBN (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Noticed your proposal on barnstar for Wikiproject Tamil Nadu on Taprobanus' talk page. I have another design connecting Muthamizh as in Iyal, Isai and Nadagam and as well as the design of the star reflecting commonly found designs on handlooms from TN. Let me know on what you think about it. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ05:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, you are right, it doesn't look like a medal at all (it would only if we are cartoon figures!). This is what you get out of a cartoonist .. haha. I will do something about it. Thanks for your comment. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ05:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
About the creator's pov, I would ignore it because Tamil civilization is the only forum that brings all Tamils irrepective of re;igion, country together. We can work on the POV issues away Taprobanus (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On 8 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Audrey Stubbart, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 10 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Gyfford, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
sorry fi i hav been offensive, but i think that my edits were valid and i honestly would not edit a page if i was not sure about the facts
thnx man Thfrang (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Sneha.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
During a ten-minute span a short bit ago, you rated about 14 articles, including the Gene Derricotte article. The Gene Derricotte is a very long article with about 25 in-line cites, so I'm not sure one minute (or less) was enough time to adequately review this article. I would ask you to take another look to see if you think that "Start" is really the appropriate rating. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I received your reply. My comment about the length of the article was not meant to suggest that length can or should be equated with quality. I simply wondered whether one minute was adequate time to conduct a review. I note, too, that another review looked at the same article and rated it as a "B" for another project, but if you feel you have taken the time needed to do the review, I respect your opinion.Cbl62 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:AvestanIran.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted this image. Images from that website are usable only for non-commercial purposes, and so are incompatible with Wikipedia's aims. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's not actually from the same site, but the bollywoodblogs thing is just a big mess; I'm guessing that image is related. I've contacted an OTRS volunteer and I am looking into the matter now. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I could not help but notice that you had taken some interest in countering the vandalism spewed by the user Vyaghradhataki. Having been at his receiving end for some time over the article on Vadama, I tried reasoning with him, only to be receive incivil retorts and speciously argued statements. I did observe that you had brought his case to the attention of the Wikipedia Administrators over Iyer, yesterday. If it would lend any strength to the complaint, I would also wish to draw your attention to his messages on my talk-page, particularly his statements to go on with his disruptive activity in spite of all action against it. I earnestly solicit your assistance in checking him, for he appears to be very far from willing to settle matters amicably by discussing them. Voltigeur (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely thank you for your support. All his contributions lead me to believe that he is a borderline monomaniac in matters concerning the Cholas and Pallavas. If you were to check any of the pages on the emperors of those dynasties you can easily identify his contributions glorifying them and vilifying their opponents. He has been using this account and the I.P. 203.101.110.2, besides a varying I.P. connection in carrying out his libellous campaign. I have tried accomodating his viewpoints to date, but I am now seriously rethinking the matter.
What makes his anti-Iyer campaign worse is that he appears to be a Tamil Brahmin himself, from his extensive contributions to the page on Sholiyar, though none of them are encyclopaedically worthwhile in content or language. It appears that anti-Brahminism will never stop dogging the Iyers, even if we leave Tamil Nadu to itself.
I entirely concur with your opinion of the administrators, but as they say, when you are on the right side of the law you have to work at its pace and wait for the enforcers to catch up with you. Lastly, thanks awfully for reminding me about Ramanuja; I think his name is not there in the 'Eminent Vadamas' list. Voltigeur (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly what I told him to do - to introduce all the material he wanted to, as long as he could produce some sort of published reference, even to his own research (should he have any that befits that name). Nevertheless, he appears to have desisted for the past two days. Let us hope the weather holds, for he is more of a nuisance than anything else.
He seems to have shifted his focus to the Chola Emperors now. I am no expert on that subject, but I am sincerely of the opinion that somebody who knows it go over it, once he has finished his work on those articles. From what I can see, they do not appear to be very balanced, after he executes his job. Voltigeur (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The newsletter has been redesigned. Thank you to WBOSITG, MFC, and IMatthew for your design contributions. This shiny new newsletter is a result of their combined efforts.
Thank you to Enigmaman for participating in the previous Award Center Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please note that if you wish to be given credit for work completed, you must sign up for the collaboration first. This week's collaboration is Luc Besson.
Apologies for the late newsletter. The editor has been swamped lately due to school and vacation. If in the future a fortnightly delivery schedule cannot be kept, this newsletter will be delivered monthly.
A lively discussion about the future of the Award Center is currently being being hosted on the Award Center talk page. Input is always welcome.
I have a request to make; could you, should it not be too inconvenient, go through the list of people mentioned under prominent Vadama, and remove those you are certain do not belong to the group? Excepting a handful I know of, in that list, I have no idea as to the provenance of their communal affiliations. I would be very grateful for your assistance. Voltigeur (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is sadly so. The problem lies in finding references, which are hard to come by. If, for that reason, the article is stripped of its content, the field is left open to malcontents to fill in unreferenced defamations, which was how the whole problem with our friend arose. I look forward to your assistance in this regard. Voltigeur (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr.Ravichander,
I strongly advise you against cartelization. I will and have partly taken this up with wikipedia as well as with international security agencies. I understand wikipedia is not a closed internet mailing group nor is it something like an orkut.One editor ridiculously has asked me not to voice my opinions on any subjects(i wonder what one is supposed to do?).Pls understand thati write onlywhen i have confirmed truth with me. I'm not bothered about citations because of misleading info and possible and definite forgery and manipulative writing. I know how to go about doing my job. In fact i would be justified in asking a few questions about the origin and existence of the "brahminical group" that you seemingly represent and adore. In your vijayanagar inscriptions however misleading they may be in available form, we only hear of terms "ayya" and "ayyangaru" , the subsect name called "vadama" is total absent. For the purpose of rebutting m they may preent forged writings containg the same, which is like writing out contemporaneously a document similar to tencommandments in hebrew and attributing it to moses. This apart in the inscriptions of cholas/pallavas we do not hear about the word "ayya/iyer" or "ayyangaru".Giving a date of more than 300-350 years for this group is absolutely ridiculous. conversion of people from other sects/castes due to high level of sholarship or utility is not at all ruled out. many iyengars were actually from different sects/castes. For that matter viayanagar dynasty is a complete fraud. Their persian style governance was loathsome.Neither were they justified to come in place of great clans of cholas/pallavas(which they never did). technically the above mentioned group cannot be considerd as a tamil brahmin group as their colonization is illegitimate, and they were actually from kingdoms that were held to be wicked by previous clans of chollas/pallavas . Lastly Mr.voltigeur accuses me of being anti-brahmanical" which i find most silly.
-vyaghradhataki
The old man has clearly lost his bearings and has started threatening. I have no idea where he picked up the precious idea of his pet article on Sholiyars, being deleted, and started spitting fire, not only at my talk-page, but the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which he has vandalised as well. Please refer to my talk-page for further details he has kindly furnished. He strictly needs to be put in a strait-jacket, unless he had rather be confined in a padded room. I request you to do the needful. Voltigeur (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, Sholiyar is barely the only article he has extensively worked upon. I have been keeping an eye on him ever since he brought his unwelcome attentions to Vadama, and from what I have seen, each one of the pages on the Chola Emperors, Parantaka, Rajendra II, Kulotthunga I & II, to name but a few, have been extensively reworked by him. It would be advisable to mark at least some of these pages as being in need of a re-check.
Secondly, Sholiyar necessarily needs to be amended because he would never let anybody correct or tone down the language it uses and the claims it makes, or at least used to make, for the present is a much milder form of what existed about four months ago. Please let me know where to locate the discussion on the pending deletion and I shall put in my word as well. And yes, I would certainly be very glad to assist with what I can, in any new article on Sholiyar as well as on the Presidents and History of Madras Presidency, which I notice to be one of your interests, and which entirely fit with my abiding interest in British Indian history.
Coming to the question on Vadama, I thank you for your suggestions/complements, in getting Vadama of the hook. In keeping with your advise I have made some changes to the References section of the article. If there are any more, please do let me know of them, as well as what needs to be done to bring them in keeping with norms. I shall implement the same. I have been trying to find more references but have been unable to locate many. Most of the material under Origins is based on traditions that are recounted on religious occasions and, it is extremely difficult to find any published references to them in English. I did locate an Indology discussion-group's postings, which substantiate much of it, but I do not feel that would be acceptable as a reference.
Lastly, I had a look at your rejoinder to the old man's nonsense right on the day you posted it, and while very fitting, there is just one observation I would like to make - while the Vadama speak Tamil exactly the same way as other Iyers do and there are some like Syama Sastri who used to speak Telugu primarily, there are also a few who speak only Malayalam and not Tamil. These are people who come from Trichur and Palghat. But even then, the fact remains that these are then people who migrated into Tamil Nadu from the West and would better merit the term Merkumas, than Vadamas. Sincerely, Voltigeur (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Robert rezinski, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert rezinski. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rnb (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Robert rezinski
Yeah, I know you didn't create it. You got the message above because you moved the article to a new name space (to properly cap it) while I was AfD'ing the original article. Once the article was moved, it (apparently) assigned the old namespace to you, my AfD got stuck to that and you got the message. Sorry about that. Rnb (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have posted my opinion and indictment of the article at the discussion site you had indicated. I hope it gets the pillory at the very least. Voltigeur (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Since it is a question of choosing one of the two options let me state at this juncture that I am in quite a quandary. I do not want the article retained as it is, full of garbage, but there is no denying that the subject is of encyclopædic value. If there is any possibility of it, what I would personally prefer is to have Sholiyar entirely re-worked, removing all the tall claims from it. It was on this account that I merely recorded my observations, not taking sides, since I believed the discussion for deletion did not require such a clear-cut specification. I would like to have your suggestions that I may then take a decision.
In other developments, the devil is again on the loose, now using a switching I.P. Connection. Please refer to the edit history of Vadama. I think it would not be inadvisable to seek a permanent block on I.P. editors for Vadama. Voltigeur (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Alea jacta est, to quote Julius Caesar. By the way, I am surprised to note that a page on Francis Day, the founder of Madras and Chief-Factor at Madras and Masulipatam, is still to be created. Perhaps that should be attended to, as soon as possible. Voltigeur (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Good job, though a disambiguation page is required. Mere 'Francis Day', links up with the botanist. Further, a few corrections are required and more information is available about the old man. I cannot provide any references now, but will do so in ten days time and introduce fresh material then. Voltigeur (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ravichandar84. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
