User talk:Dineshkannambadi/Archive18

Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire

Images looked pretty good; I took care of a few things:

I added a complete tag to Image:Karnataka Hampi IMG 0730.jpg
I found the original version of Image:Vijayanagara.jpg at te.wikipedia and uploaded to Commons.

Image:Purandara.jpg is the only problematic image, as it doesn't have proper source information (needed per WP:IUP). How can we confirm this is indeed in the public domain and not a (relatively) contemporary work? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 1 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ratnakaravarni, 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.

--Royal broil 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raghavanka

On 3 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raghavanka, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 5 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harihara (poet), 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.

--« Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 23:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KanakaDaasa photo

Hi Dinesh, Please take look of the 'Image:Kanaka.jpg.' If it is OK with all we can post it with the article. Naadapriya (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compound word en dashes

I don't know why compound words get en dashed in articles by some copyeditors; I don't do it. It's not required (or even mentioned) by the Wikipedia MoS, but it must be one of the standard writing styles. I think you can leave the words as they are, and let any reviewers who are bothered by it change to an en dash if they want, or request the change from you. Maybe the reviewer will be less likely to nitpick somewhere else if they are a part of catching a deviation from what they believe is correct. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: circa. I have never been educated, at least that I remember, on the finer points of using circa. Unless a professional copyeditor tells you otherwise, I'd go with a firm date where a reference gives a firm date, and a circa or c. where the reference(s) also say circa or about. This approach gives you a reference to point to if someone bothers to question the exact date. FA content justification in a debate is very heavily dependent on references (as we've recently seen). You can always concede to adding a circa later on as a negotiating point, since it shouldn't be a big deal in a WP article. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 7 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andayya, 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.

Congrats! --Gatoclass (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC threading

I hope you see the benefit in keeper a cleaner, well threaded FAC; it improves the chances that others can read and understand, and will prevent it from turning into the lengthy threaded messes we've seen on some past FACs. Compare the effect on the reader of this to this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janna

On 9 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Janna, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCookie

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookie.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What is a power link ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the info Dinesh. I'm glad to see that the FAC is going well, barring one or two hollow objections. AreJay (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada language

Dinesh, with respect to this, the citation provided in the article is a dead link. I think my edit summary indicates that as well. Am not going to revert your reversion of my changes, but can you check and if possible, fix the link, please? Also, 2 of the links (to Deccanherald webpage) in the References section don't work, as well. --Madhu (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will do gladly.thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dinesh, I've fixed the probs with Jnanpith.net and the Deccanherald links. However, I have no idea what the intamm.com link is supposed to be. --Madhu (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got busy over the weekend and could not deal with those links. The INTAMM link seems to be on and off but seems ok for me now. Perhaps we should remove that statement entirely from the article or find a book citation for it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 11 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bhattakalanka Deva, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some cite

I ran into this whikle doing search. It talks about certain Yadava dynasties supporting Kannada in Maharashtra in page 318 (in the notes section) . Just for your uinformation.Taprobanus (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey =)

68.250.178.85 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just wanted to say hi, hey. =]

DYK

On 13 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lakshmisha, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Chalukya Empire

The protection will expire in a matter of hours, so you can swap the refs then. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. It has been a pleasure working with you, DK. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harihareshwara Temple (Harihar)

On 17 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harihareshwara Temple (Harihar), 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doddabasappa Temple

On 18 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doddabasappa Temple, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tripurantaka Temple

The hook fact is uncited. Please add a citation just after "These depictions are considered rare in Chalukyan art." in the article. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I reworded the hook. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tripurantaka Temple DYK

On 20 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tripurantaka Temple, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Temples

Hi, you look like have good knowledge about temples. Can you suggest some reliable source about temple vanadalism by islamic invaders ? Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that sounds like an interesting topic. I look forward to your recommendations, too. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This type of a topic is generally not written about by experts on architecture, who focus on the architectural aspect of it. However, time and again, some meagre information on temple desecration does crop up in these books, but only a few lines. I am not aware of any books dedicated to temple desecration by invaders. If I do come across something, I will let you know. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahadeva Temple (Itagi)

On 22 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mahadeva Temple (Itagi), 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

great work

Hi Dineshkannambadi - I just want to congratulate you on the excellent articles you've written. I really enjoyed reading them, and I never imagined one could get exhaustive accounts of subjects like the Political history of medieval Karnataka anywhere on the internet. Vishnava_talk 13:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your latest featured article

[1] Glad to see it! Thanks for having invited me to participate. Risker (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What wonderful news and thank you so much for your kindness in remembering me and my small contribution to the article's success, Keep up the ~~good~~ featured work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!! - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, and thanks for the BD wishes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 and BLnguyen.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on another great featured article, and again demonstrating your talent for successfully navigating through the troubled waters thereto. -- Michael Devore (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navalinga Temple

On 26 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Navalinga Temple, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhesvara Temple

On 27 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siddhesvara Temple, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Chalukya Empire images

I've transferred the images to Commons, removed the date tags and brightened a couple of them up. Is there anything else that needs doing? Papa November (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the bot message. It's because I used CommonsHelper to move the images across to Commons. The message is essentially just telling people to check that the image was moved correctly. I'll get rid of the messages later, when I've checked the image pages properly. Papa November (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vithoba

I found references of Pundardasa's literature in praise of Vittala or Vithoba in Kannada literature. Is there any more devotional Kannada literature related to Vithoba? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. One of the previous editors has added in the lead "A very substantial segment of spiritual literature in the Marathi and Kannada languages is dedicated to Vithoba." I found a large segment in Marathi, but nothing except Purandardas' in Kannada. If you come across any such literature, please add it to the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunagangiyam

Hi Dinesh. Just a very small note - the references to Gunagangiyam are actually in Gunasagarar's commentary to Amitasagarar's Yapparungalakkarikai, not in the text itself. Gunasagarar was a pupil of Amitasagarar, so it doesn't make much difference to the dating, but I though you might want to know for the sake of accuracy. (It's mentioned in Kannada literature and Extinct Kannada literature)

On a totally different point, while reading an article by Sheldon Pollock's on the death of Sanskrit literary culture, I found the following rather startling claim about the lack of courtly support for Kannada during the Vijayanagara period:

"Literary production at the (Vijayanagara) court during these three and one-half centuries was largely restricted to Telugu, Tamil, and Sanskrit. It is a striking fact that, though ruled by men who belonged to Tulu- or Kannada-speaking lineages for much of this period, the Vijayanagara state seems to have done little to promote the production of courtly Kannada literature. Krishnadevaraya (r. 1509–29), the "Karnata" king as he is consistently called (Karnata being a Sanskritized form of Kannada), may have had at court a Kannada poet, Timmannakavi, but Timmanna's one accomplishment was to complete Kumaravyasa's enormously popular Kannada Bharata of the preceding century (and ineffectively at that, in the eyes of Kannada literary historians). The emperor himself used Telugu for his most important literary-political work, the Amuktamalyada. This is not to say that Kannada literary culture outside the court did not show considerable vitality during this period, at least when we consider the production of the poetsingers of the Madhva religious order, such as Purandaradasa and Kanakadasa, and Srıvaishnava poets like Laksmısa, author of one of the most popular Kannada literary works before the modern period, the Jaimini Bharat. It is in fact the very vitality of that culture that makes the penury of courtly production so manifest." (See The Death of Sanskrit), the section starts on p. 400)

This is quite contrary to what I've always understood, which was that the Vijayanagara kings actively patronised (and indeed, even wrote) Kannada literature. Do you know whether Pollock's view is generally accepted, and are there any sources you could recommend which discuss it? This is just for personal curiosity, it has nothing whatsover to do with Wiki. -- Arvind (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would surmise that these views are perhaps Sheldon's personal opinions, not very supported by literary evidence (much like his opinions on pre-Kavirajamarga Kannada literature) or broad scholarly opinion considering the rule of Devararaya II was considered an important period of Kannada literature. In fact, as far as I am aware, apart from one or two Tamil poets supported by Krishnadevaraya, Tamil literature in Vijayanagara, the royal capital, is virtually non-existant and mostly relegated to local provincial courts of Tamil Nayakas. However, Sheldon also notes, rightly so, that it was during the rule of Krishnadevaraya that Kannada took a back stage to Telugu and this is widely accepted. Ofcourse, it was in the area of non-courtly literature (Haridasas, Lakshmisa, Sarvagnya) that Kannada literature set many trends. Not to forget, the kings gained their legitimacy through the Sringeri order initially and later through the Madhva religious order and this is widely accepted. Apart from Thimmana Kavi, Chatu Vitthalanatha was also supported by Krishnadevaraya.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That ties in with what I've always thought. Thanks a lot for the quick answer. -- Arvind (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into the Gunagangiyam issue tonight.Thanks. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Advice

First of all you should practice what you preach to others. Initially whenever I made any contribution you arbitrarily deleted the same by dubbing it POV material and you have also called the ASI website as a POV website while using contents of the website whenever it suited you. Indeed I am willing to stand up and discuss my contributions before anyone be it ANI or a UNI, but also do not forget that the same applies also to you.

Now I want to tell you one thing clearly, your habit of deleting anyone else's contribution and trying to act as some kind of a super cop is very deplorable. If you want you can follow what you preach by discussing historical events and their sequencing, accuracy etc. on the discussion page of the concerned article. Unfortunately, it seems that you just want to keep what you feel is right and that others have holes in their head while the opposite may be true. Have some spirit of accommodation and kindly do not treat others as illiterate, for we too can have access to history books and can also read and write.

Last but not the least, do not arbitrarily delete and start preaching on my talk page accusing me of vandalizing. I feel it is you who is vandalizing the history of Tamilian Kings by imagining them to be some sort of subordinates to Kannada speaking kings.

If you want to argue express your views on the concerned discussion page of the article. DO NOT VANDALIZE MY TALK PAGE BY BARGING IN THERE, LOCK STOCK AND BARREL AND START ADVICING ME, WHICH IS THE LAST THING OTHERS NEED FROM YOU.

Restrict your advice and if possible genuine discussion on historical events on the talk pages of the Hoysalas, Cholas, Chalukyas etc. I have asked several pertinent questions to you on the Chalukya page, if you do not want to bother answering them, then the same ANI, UNI OR VNI principle will apply to you also. I am even prepared to go to court in case you feel like it.

Reply only on the discussion pages of the Cholas by commenting and discussing on my contributions, additions or deletions and discussing the merits of your views and those of others. I know, as usual you will run to agents on the South China sea who still think that Saigon is under occupation of the Vietnamese and exhort them to ban or block me. Surely, such shameful and despicable behaviour can be prevented by the holding an ANI which can ask the 'experts' from the South China sea as to what they know about the history of the Cholas and most of all the imaginary 'Chalukya Chola kings'.

I expect your reply ONLY on the Chola dynasty discussion page or on the Western Chalukya Empire page.

13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)~

User Kannambadi, please do not try to frighten and justify blocks on me. Did the person who blocked me on two occasions (first of all I do know, it was you and your other friends who cannot tolerate a counter opinion, who prompted the irresponsible blocking on the previous occasions.... you are again giving a seemingly sage advice for first discussing before carrying out edits.... do you remember what you told the user mahawiki??(I forget his name, but he was from Maharashtra)? You wrote: I borrow from Kamath, you go and get it from a good library. I have a good library near my home and town, where the book is available. Thus, you left it all on the person countering YOUR opinion to prove otherwise.... Why not do the same thing this time around?

As regards bringing sources, page numbers and books, I have indeed borrowed from two books called Ancient India, one by K.A.N.Sastri and R.C.Roychowdhuri. These are two books of the same name by the above named two authors with Roychowdhuri borrowing extensively from Sastri. I also think that the book by K.A.N.Sastri is dated 1959 while the one of Roychowdhury is either 1951 or 1961, probably it is 1961 edition. Roychowdhuri's book is quite different from the edition of the same book available on the internet at books.google.com/.

Please also try preaching the same to the irresponsible user who blocked me in that he should also have practiced what you are preaching me.... that is first indulge in a discussion before taking action to block contributors like me. Did he do that? He simply barged into my page like a bull in the china shop and blindly commented that I have made personal commentary on the Chola page and hence he was blocking me. This after I had painstakingly borrowed from noted epigraphist Huntzsh's summary of the rule of the Chola empire where he had sought to dispel the notions that they were devout Saivites by saying that during the rule of the second Chola king i.e. Aditya I itself, two temples i.e. the Siva Temple of Chidambaram and the one at Srirangam being a Vishnu temple and regarded the most important Siva and Vishnu temples, were both declared as Kuladhanam (family heritage sites) for the Chola kings (ordaining in a way that the kings of this dynasty one after another will look personally after the upkeep of traditions at both the temples and their well being). Indeed, I made the mistake of not quoting Prof. Huntzsh (again courtesy the site you love to deride calling it a POV website despite using it to support points on Chalukyas and Hoysalas) but on my very next visit on the same day, I found that the 'department of dirty tricks' had prompted Blinguen to block me for the second time blindly yapping that all of what I contributed was my personal commentary, on what basis and material did he come to such an irresponsible conclusion? Does Blinguen have any knowledge at all of Indian history, most of all of the history of the Cholas, Hoysalas or Pandiyans and most of all of your beloved Chalukya Cholas? Certainly I would have loved to engage him on a one to one debate on Indian history especially that of South India. I also wrote to Taprobanus wanting to prosecute Blinguen and requested for his address. It is a shame that cowards contacted him it seems on the email or on phone to complain about me, but no one ever wrote about it in the open, no one contacted me and most of all no one ever wanted to discuss the matter. Rather, people who scarcely contributed to the Chola page like user Earth etc. started advocating this and that. Mind you, user Earth himself was adviced by another admin when he complained about me that the contributions made by me were in good faith only, but it seems ultimately the dirty gang on wikipedia bent upon converting it into some sort of monkeypedia finally had their say.

(So if a king born as an Eastern Chalukya prince became the King of Cholas and was a person of character enough to name himself Chola not Chalukya which practice was followed by his succeeding kings which is borne out by not a single inscription or reference of Kings after Kulothunga I among Cholas named himself a Chalukya or Chola or even Chola Chalukya. By the same token, Veera Ballala II was son in law or father in law of Kulothunga III, then why were the Hoysala kings after him not called as Chola Hoysalas or Hoysala Cholas... or even as admitted by you in the Chalukya page, Vikramaditya VI was son in law of Veera Rajendra then why were his successors not called Chola Chalukyas or Chalukya Cholas. Going by the same analogy, not a single Chalukya king after Vikramaditya VI deserved to be called only Chalukya or Western Chalukya, but only Chalukya Cholas. May I again remind you that not a single friend of adversary of any king from Kulothunga Chola I has called Kulothunga I and his successors as a Chalukya Chola but only Chola or by their epithets like Tribhuvana Chakravartin etc. etc.)

What you basically always do is you want to write and not just that, you want whatever you write to be retained at all costs, but in the process, you forget counter opinions by other historians as well. K.A.N.Sastri has written in his book (as opposed to what you wrote quoting Kamath that Satyasraya defeated crown prince Rajendra), that Rajendra Chola defeated Satyasraya (he wrote something like: next was the turn of Satyasraya who fled the battlefield near the fields of Hottur-??) and hid in the jungles of Kogali and Kadambalige. I would say 'exactly' for you find among the limited number of inscriptions available of Satyasraya (courtesy: the site you always try to trash inscriptions.whatsindia.com/) which are indeed found at Kogali and Kadambalige and in fact in a couple of these inscriptions Satyasraya even is called as 'ruling from Kadambalige'. Kindly access this information in the same manner as I have done and exactly in the same manner as you expect others to do, i.e. access appropriate information from appropriate sources. Even in this, I do not want to claim whatever I say is correct, indeed if Satyasraya is attributed by Kamath with victory over Rajendra then kindly also quote other sources where Rajendra claims victory over the Chalukyas including the most important World Heritage Site inscription at the Tanjore temple where almost all Chola kings have left their inscriptions. Mind you I have also gone to Tanjore and met the office and museum of the current heir (king of Tanjore Kshatrapati but king only in name and not in status - he is just a protector and guard of the Maratha palace and all artefacts and preserver of heritage items) where inscriptions not just in stone but also in metal mainly copper are present till date and can be seen by anybody where Prof. Huntzsh and his successor Prof. Vijay Reddy who was appointed by the ASI to study monuments, temples and countless artefacts have visited and have based their summaries given in inscriptions.whatsindia.com/ and their numerous books. These findings rise far, far above parochial 'history' books, be it those written in Kannada, Tamil or any other language. But it is even more of a pity that someone who calls himself a 'Senior Wikipedian' should have stooped so low as to call the whatsindia.com website a POV website especially when used to contend in support of Cholas or Pandiyas but scarcely so when supporting Chalukya/Hoysala history. Kindly remember, sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. You also gave a very sheepish (quite shameful you will admit) argument when you clarified probably to Nishkid when you mentioned that the inscriptions of Cholas are detailed about victory but silent about defeats.... I wonder why that should not apply to Chalukyas or Hoysalas too? tsk tsk tsk....????

Hope you will learn to accept points of views of others also..... which I am sure you will do because you are a SENIOR WIKIPEDIAN.

Srirangam99 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]