User talk:Mattisse/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_8) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_10)

Re: Wikipedia:Survey_notification

RE:Wikipedia_talk:Survey_notification#Internal_spamming_is_not_a_blockable_offense You wrote:

It's been used recently by the School Project people to fight deletionists on the afd lists. Admins knew about it and no one was blocked. Mattisse 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me who the School Project people are? Thank you. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logging off

Hi, I'm logging off for now. Will talk to you again tomorrow. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Arbitration post about sockpuppet stuff

Thought you would be interested that I put up some stuff about you and sockpuppet investigations on the Arbitration talk page here. Thanks for the links/info you gave me on the earlier investigation which I don't think I was aware of. Sorry I don't seem to have any definite answers, mostly more questions. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these comments are about what you've done. And, not to insult you, I don't think you are that important in this case. I would call the continued focus by some people on you (and possible sockpuppets) to be a form of strawman argument, a way of diverting attention from the core issues of the case. I think the arbitrators will see this as long as they have the links and diffs in front of them. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence Review?

Hi Mattisse. I moved the discussion of evidence to User talk:BostonMA/Mattisse/Evidence. One of your comments sounded to me as though you were not going to present evidence. But then you added more diffs to my talk page -- so I assume you would like me to continue to review these. Let me know if that's not the case. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse. Yes, I moved your comment to the evidence discussion page. Originally 999 tagged User:Dattat as being a sock of User:Shravak [1] Later User:Netsnipe tagged the account as being a sock of User:Mattisse [2]. User:Shravak was only blocked for 12 hours and denied being a sockpuppet. He/she is still editting. --BostonMA ^talk 02:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page. --BostonMA ^talk 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will email you. That is not a discussion that really belongs here. It was probably inappropriate for me to share my opinion of James Brown as well. Expect an email soon. --BostonMA ^talk 02:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

z Me:The way I learned about the tags was looking at the history of the user page. --BostonMA ^talk 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC) You:What does your religion say about death? Whose user pages? Sincerely, Mattisse 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Answer:User:Dattat's user page. --BostonMA ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is how I learned about Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shravak. (Makes no sense.) What about death? (Or is that an improper question to ask?) Sincerely, Mattisse

Look at your email. It is not an improper question to ask, but it is perhaps not appropriate for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've often noticed that behavior. It's the sort of thing WP:POINT says not to do. --BostonMA ^talk 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Confusion

(from my talk page --BostonMA ^talk) Your last arbitration edit, I wondering why you disregarded Pigman's comment. To me that is an important factor, as Pigman clearly states. [3] Sincerely, Mattisse 19:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rosencomet received some bad advice and some bad examples, but now seems to be trying to work with the community. I don't see any benefit in keeping that fire going. I am actually somewhat disappointed that focus contiues to revolve around rosencomet. If there is a potential for continuing conflict, I think it comes more from the parties to the arbitration who previously advised Rosencomet. As always, take my opinions with whatever salt required. --BostonMA ^talk 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R&B

It's spelt out in the opening sentence, then abbreviated in parentheses. So there's absolutely no problem in abbreviating subsequently in every case; indeed, I'd advise doing so. You're balancing readability, clutter, and the need to remember what the abbreviation stands for—so the number of different specialist abbreviations should be minimal, or at least modest. Tony 02:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem, as far as I can see:

"Rhythm and blues (aka R&B or RnB) is a popular music genre combining jazz, gospel, and blues influences ..."

Makes perfect sense as is. Tony 02:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get when I hit your link. I checked it on the most recent log in the edit history, too. Clear your cache? Tony 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Eye movement in language reading: it's a stub that I created when I started Eye movement in music reading. I can write the language one (mostly), but need to find time to do that. My priority is the completion of the music article. Tony 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the article you're referring to. I think it should be spelt out on first occurrence, even though it's linked. The Eye movement article is just a stubby list of areas, and was started by medical-type people, I think. I added some of the psychological areas to that list, and created two stubs (music and language), one of which I've partly written, the other remaining a stub. I was very surprsied to see that the whole area is so poorly treated on WP. Tony 03:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A present

[4] --BostonMA ^talk 04:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year!!!

I wish you the same. Myself and a couple of guys will start the final push for peer review of Vijayanagar Empire in a couple of days. Feel free to jump in. Currently, I am cleaning up citations per wiki format etc and the copy edits have not started. Should be ready in a couple of days.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you as well! :-D. --BostonMA ^talk 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Thank :)

hello sir , thanks so much for having care upon the article AL-Balad, Jeddah :) , i never expected that someone from Cuba would be interested in such places someday :) thanks again and have a new new year :) Ammar 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more sources? i think the main article Jeddah contains enough information about that subject , i joint AL-Balad, Jeddah with the category "Jeddah" Only considering AL-Balad as the old part of the city , not a city it self :) Ammar 00:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Coasters searchin.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Coasters searchin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Coasters searchin2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Coasters searchin2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara Empire: Dont mind others working on the article, I have full faith in you. The guys who have shown interest are also good at this stuff. Feel free.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara Empire

Thanks for coming on board. Keep on going with the copyedits, I will take a look later. BTW, I am currently being bothered by the same guy who tried to discredit me (unsuccessfully) on the Hoysala FA review. Dont let his edits bother you. He currently goes by the name Vishu123 but may have other accounts as well. While we face this problem, we need to make sure you dont waste your precious time copyediting his content, if and when he adds it. He had tagged the Language section today (which is already well cited by me) which I reverted. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vijayanagara

Hi. I though its better to merge "Successors of Vijayanagara" currently at the bottom with the History section and just write it in prose. what do you think?thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the second person to ask me about "Bakground" so maybe its in the wrong place.

I wanted to bring out some details of the background of the city of Vijayanagara, the reasons to choose it as capital and important legendary associations of the place with hindu mythology. If you feel its out of place, we can create a sub article out of it.

Yes the History section is too long. So we should first just do a clean up of grammar,typos etc and then create a subarticle for it.Then we can compress it significantly on the main page. What do you think.? Do you think creating the History subarticle is not necessary as these details already exist in painful detail under each king in the infobox. We did not create a History subarticle in Hoysala case.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, the "Background" secton is better inside the attached subarticle "Ancient city of Vijayanagara". On the same lines as Hoysala, we should probably bring out the contents of "Life in Vijayanagara" subarticle and display it as "social life", "Economy" and "Administration" on the main page. What do you think?Dineshkannambadi 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, we should compress the "Religion" and "Architecture" sections to accomodate Social life there. However before doing this, give me some time to go thru current changes.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had many subarticles in Chalukya also and this is actually encouraged. The Vijayanagara, Hampi, Haridasa are important. We have to just make sure thay are placed in the right places, thats all. If we yank out the contents of "Life in Vijayanagara" which contains the data on Social life, Economy and Governance, then we dont have to include this subarticle anymore. We can shift the "background" section into "Ancient city of Vijayanagara". This would save us a whole lot of space on the main page.What do you think.?Dineshkannambadi 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not understand your last message. Do you mean we continue to use "Background",

"Life in Vijayanagara", "Ancient city of Vijayanagara" as is? May be you could just put together what you think is a good subheading list (and a good subarticle under subheading) like you did in your one of your previous messages. work has been rough today. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the phrase "classical and local" for languages in LEAD section. Tamil and Sanskrit are today recognised as classical. Kannada and Telugu, although ancient are yet to receive this tag. May become controversial. Not your mistake.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The literature section needs help. This era produced extremely prolific literature in South Indian languages and Sanskrit. Please Think about how best this can be portrayed. But let me give you some background. Its hard to mention some kinds, sects of literature and leave out others as this may offend someone or the other. At the same time I tihnk we should concentrate on only the most important from a "world view". Here again there is an issue, balancing quantity of literature described for Kannada and Telugu, the prominent languages in the capital.

Kannada-->The most important development is "Dasa Sahitya" and carnatic music.
Telugu--->The most important development is Prabandamu style of literature, but there are 8 important poets here. Leaving out any one can become an issue.
Sanskrit--->Vedic writings 1)Sringeri order 2)Udupi order
Tamil-->This is probably easy as it was more provincial in nature, geographically seperated from the capital. I think a suggestion you made earlier about writing about a trend rather than poets themselves is a better idea, though we can just mention the names of poets as we write about trends. Then I can clean up the "literature of Vijayanagara" subarticle for those more interested. Enjoy!!.Dineshkannambadi 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara : how do you like this

non-indented headings are main sections
Items in {{ }} means attached subarticle
Indented items are subheadings under main sections
sorry to take up so much space

LEAD
HISTORY

  {{ORIGIN OF VIJAYANAGARA}} {{Choice of Capital}} {{Battle of Talikota}}

summarise existing content

ECONOMY

extracts from Ancient City of Vijayanagara and Life in Vijayanagara Empire+other sources

ADMINISTRATION

extracts from Life in Vijayanagara Empire+other sources

CULTURE
- RELIGION

{{Haridasas of Vijayanagar Empire}}
summarise cexisting content

- SOCIETY

extracts from Ancient City of Vijayanagara and Life in Vijayanagara Empire+other sources

- LITERATURE

{{Vijayanagara Empire Literature}}
focus on trends

- ARCHITECTURE

{{Vijayanagara Architecture, Vijayanagara, and Hampi}}
summarise further existing content

LANGUAGE

The {{choise of capital}} will be a page created out of current "BACKGROUND" section. the two sections Ancient City of Vijayanagara and Life in Vijayanagara Empire re currently sitting there with mixed information.

thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

I noticed when looking at pages that link to my user page that you have me listed on two of your user subpages, User:Mattisse/me6 and User:Mattisse/Working on/See. Might I ask why? I would like to let you know that I find this creepy and it feels like you are stalking me. Please desist. Tunnels of Set 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been so rude as to ignore this query, I have removed myself from your "shitlists". Please do not attempt to stalk me again. If you do, I will have to bring your behavior to the attention of whatever powers-that-be here. I don't know who you are, Sir, but I dislike your behavior. As far as I know, I've not even edited any of the same articles that you do. What, precisely, is your problem? Tunnels of Set 07:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gajanur

Hi, the article could be called Gajanur, Karnataka or Gajanur, Shimoga District (or any alternate spelling of the same.) My preference would be Gajanur, Karnataka unless there is another Gajanur in Karnataka (this is a possibility, as there are other towns/villages with duplicate names in Karnataka, such as Begur -- yes, I know that is a problem -- sorry, it's not my fault ;-) ). I guess I would still go with Gajanur, Karnataka until/unless a duplicate is found. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara

Hi. I will start working on the literature section first thing tommorow morning. By the end of the weekend, I hope to have atleast one of Administration/Society/Economy addressed. By the end of next week, the article must be all set, hopefully. Keep on going with your copyedits in the meantime. I am hoping that for FA review, we dont have to spend that much time, this time around.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to add the {{Under construction}}

tag while you are copyediting in large chunks. If a reader comes across the current partitioning, he may mistake it for vandalism and do something.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I dont understand the term "survey article". Unfortunately, India history related articles can be quite confusing, what with various terminologies etc. But there is only a limit to what one can clarify it before it becomes too basic. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you back

Yep, I'm a real human being just being human. Well, I'm sort of making a home here on Wikipedia. This is where my 20 years of online community building stuff comes in handy. I know how to be polite, courteous, and generous in my interactions with people online. I also know how to not take sh*t if it's thrown at me. My flamewar days are behind me mostly but some online behaviours make me coldly furious. Bullies and abusive people set me off a bit as you may have noticed.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to put all the information you gave me into the arbitration evidence. I had to pick and choose between different bits of evidence to create a cohesive presentation of what I thought were the strongest examples. I am also limited by the suggested size of the evidence statement, under 1,000 words. I greatly appreciate your providing me with the info though. We'll see how it shakes out. I've never participated in this sort of thing on Wikipedia and I have don't have a clear idea of how Arbcom prioritizes evidence or enforces their decisions. The outcome of the conflict of interest and the links issues feels uncertain to me but I'd be surprised if the harassing behaviour wasn't addressed strongly by ArbCom. Again, we'll see. It feels a tad like presenting to the Supreme Court or something.

Anyway, you seem to be doing good work on Wikipedia. You have, what, over 14,000 edits? That's stellar in my book since I only have about 1,400 mainspace edits. Although if you're anything like me, you probably have a few poorly considered or executed edits in that total as well. Um, that's not a criticism, just an observation, perhaps more about me than you. Be well. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 05:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vijayanagara

Hi. I noticed you have dashed out some sections. While the lower two sections can be chopped or heavily summarised, the top portion containing origin sources is extremely important.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the top portion can also me summarized somewhat which I shall undertake.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean that you should move to a sub article. The origin theory can be condenced, especially the foreign travellers etc, but the theories from Indian scholars needs to be there or the issue will come up sooner or later and hold up the review process (the funny part is it is a contested theory and while I like to avoid conflicts, sometimes not mentioning a conflict can cause a conflict) I will reword that portion to reduce the content. I am currently working the literature portion as per your original Idea in Hoysala peer review and should be done by 6PM.

But the other dashed portions can go I think. Also we can heavily condence what was the DECLINE portion. If you like to work on a subarticle, then what is now "BACKGROUND" can go into a new article called "Capital of Vijayanagara Empire". Some sections of "life in Vijayanagara Empire" and "Ancient city of Vijayanagara Empire" can also be fitted there to give a overall description of the capital city, its geography, legends and choice.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with the literature section if you feel like copyediting it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a first round of summarization of the lines you had dashed out, with the exception of the origin theories, which I shall look at tonight. Your skepticism often helps me understand a better world view, only I am also torn apart by the need to provide as much info as possible.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The most important contribution from Kannada poets and scholars of this period is to the Vaishnava Bhakti movement fostered by the haridasas (devotees of Vishnu), Brahminical writings and continued growth of Virashaiva literature"

I meant it to mean that the most important contribution from Kannada poets and scholars was towards the Vaishnava Bhakti movement (the Haridasas being the poets) and the Brahminical literature and Virashiva literature. There are three topics here.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dasas are Devotees who wrote the poems. I will define Ragale for you. They are poems in blank verse. I shall add a citation for it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The portion you have striken out explains the most famous poets of the other two categories, Brahmin poets and Virashaiva poets. We need that, though it could be condensed.thanksDineshkannambadi 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its debated. You can re-word it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be writing three sections "social life", "Economy" and "Administration" over the next couple of days. Once we are done with the copy edits or during final copy edits before FA review, I shall add definitions for all complicated words (like dasa (devotee)). Dont worry about this now. Also, the HISTORY section can be crunched down quite a bit to make it 70% of what it is right now. You can start on it. I shall follow your changes to make sure the meaning remains the same.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are doing the right thing by flagging something with dashed lines. I will then take a look and see if it is really needed there or can be cited somewhere else or totally removed.thanks.Dineshkannambadi

I will be out from 7PM (New York time) to 10PM and wont be able to answer your Questions.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have full faith in you.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized HISTORY. I have tried to reduce usage of detailed names of feudatores like "Reddys of Kondavidu", "Velamas of Rachakonda", "Chiefdom of Ummatur" names that will only confuse a reader who is not aware of the south Indian territory. Instead I have tried to use terms like "defeated feudatories in the eastern Deccan, Western Deccan etc which can be hyperlinked making it easy for the reader to grasp the content.The detailed pages of each king describes all this in detail anyway.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I have deleted the sentences you felt were redundant. However I have reverted one edit you made where you linked Reddys of Kondavidu to Reddy dynasty. There is no such evidence the Sangama brothers were Reddys. The Sangama dynasty is the first Vijayanagar dynasty whose origins are debated. We have to be careful what we link to. There are lots of bogus articles running around without correct references and a lot of POV.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

I accidentally responded to this on Pigman's talk page. I've clipped the entry here (without his snippy accusation that I did something "highly unethical", in bold yet, by establishing a link on "Rosencomet" and "Ekajati" so I could look up what you were talking about in the first place).

I wish you would find this out for me. I have tried everything. Further, there is a User:LiftWaffen that is called my sockpuppet but the template was applied by Hanuman Das. Recently an article called What Witches Do turned up that was created by LiftWaffen. User:Rosencomet and User:Ekajati discussed it but since they liked the article, they even created a Category for it (Wicca Books, I think). I need to know who exactly was an actual sockpuppet of mine. I am so surprised no one is concerned about real users who could be hurt by this, like Timmy12 and perhaps LiftWaffen. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this. I don't know where you got the idea that I "liked" the article, or that I had anything to do with the creation of a category (something I have no idea how to do, and never discussed with Ekajati or anyone else). And what in the world does this sentence mean?: "I need to know who exactly was an actual sockpuppet of mine." Rosencomet 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the demanding and demeaning tone of your message to me on my talk page above nor do I like your chararcterization of User:Paul Pigman as making "snippy accusations". I have always been friendly and civil to you. Please do not post on my talk page again. Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is nothing demanding or demeaning in the above sentence; you said I liked something and that I did something, and I said I didn't know where you got that idea. I also asked what a sentence you used meant. (Perhaps I should not have said "what in the world", but the sentence is quite baffling to me).

Second, Pigman seems to agree with my characterization of his accusation of "highly unethical" behavior, and we had a civil interaction about it, one that was really none of your business.

Third, aside from your apology of the 22nd, your behavior towards me and my work has never been anything like "friendly and civil" and you know it. You have caused a great deal of unecessary trouble for me and many others. Your slamming of BostonMa for editing out of the Starwood Festival article the introduction of unsupported mentions of Satanists and members of an organization unrepresented at the event further indicates that you are not sincere.

Fourth, as long as I see mischaracterizations of my actions like the one above, or the one when you accused me of creating and/or linking the Musart article, I will comment. I have never done anything to you except react to your treatment of me; never harrassed you, never messed with articles you are a primary contributer to, never started a mediation or arbitration about you, never did anything but try to stop you from tag-bombing and chopping away at whatever I did, and rallying others to help you, and accusing me of things I didn't do, which you started doing within a week of my first edit. Rosencomet 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you for the second time please to refrain from posting on my talk page, Rosencoment. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned something about LiftWaffen on the arbitration case. --Salix alba (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vijayanagara (con't)

Try focussing on "Architecture" section for now. This way we make progress on all sections instead of just the HISTORY section. I am now starting work on "social life". So you can copyedit this section next.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture for now. Social life after a few hours.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put together the SOCIETY section. Large as it may seem, this gives us the opportunity to remove what is trivial and keep the rest. This is a vast topic and I have as such left out some other topics such as schools/education etc.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

If you wish Rosencomet to stop posting to your talk page, you should also post your "Do not post to my talk page" on his talk page to make sure he receives it. The Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page goes through the various steps one can take. Part of the "disengagement" would be to stop responding to his posts. You don't have to respond to him; you can just ignore his posts. It's your talk page, not his. If just having these posts on your talk page is bothering you, I believe it is your prerogative to delete them from your talk page if you desire. Personally, I'm not a big fan of deleting things from talk pages unless they are blatant vandalism, but people draw that line in different places and even in different instances.

The next step would be to take it to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. This doesn't have to turn into full scale community mediation. I believe they provide third parties who can be useful in this sort of interaction. An RfC on his actions seems inappropriate at the moment, particularly considering the arbitration in-progress and because it hasn't been a longterm problem (?), but I think that's a judgment call. The downside of the Cabal is their page says there is currently an 8-14 day response time period. There's also the problem that Rosencomet seems to view mediation as an endurance event rather than a resolution process and he has shown an erratic record of following the results of such processes.

I think those are your options as I see them. There might be others I'm not aware of since I'm not thoroughly familiar with every option. (although I seem to be getting reluctantly more familiar as time passes. *sigh*) An informal option might also be to call an Admin you know personally in, just to look at the situation and give advice. I don't think an Admin brought in under these circumstances would take any "official" action but a warning from an Admin, if they think it's warranted, could be useful. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. I think just ignoring them is probably my best option, as I don't have the patience to read through the overly elaberate and labyrinthian arguments in them anyway. Thank you for your (now familiar to you) analysis of the options. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secular arch

These are the elephant stables. I have all the images we can possibly use for Vijayanagara arcitecture and from close quarters (from my visit there, dont mean to brag). We can consider all images as we go along. I also have one for the Mahouts (Elephant keepers), watch towers and the most beautiful of them all, the "Lotus Mahal" from close up. Look at the Keladi Nayaka page which I created (not secular). The Yali columns are in Vijayanagara style, built by their feudatory. I need to finsh the Secular portion of Vijayanagara Architecture page.thanksDineshkannambadi 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ambika Mata Temple Jagat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ambika Mata Temple Jagat.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you can take it out. I was a bit busy with kids etc. I shall spend tommorow and day after writing up on AMINISTRATION and then a couple of days for ECONOMY. In the mean time we can keep busy with subarticles which we can copy edit to first order. No need for detailed copy edit there I think. If you think we need citations anywhere, just tag it and let me know. I cut and paste the Background section into Ancient City of Vijayanagara and did a little copyedit there but the page needs citations which I did not put when I created the page. This page can be a DYK. I need to complete the ARCHITECTURE sub article with "secular structures" which can happen in the background even during FA review. Then we can do a quick look into Vijayanagara, Hampi for general syntax/construct.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Vijayanagara Metropolitan City as it is the same as Ancient City of Vijayanagara. When i created the former article, someone complained that the word "Metropolitan" is not correct. So instead of getting into arguements, I created a new page called by the later name. I believe the article Vijayanagara Metropolitan City was to be deleted but is still hanging around. Do you know how to submit a page for deletion?thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be writing up on administration today and partially tommorow and complete typing it in tommorow. So untill then, we should focus on the subarticles. Please go thru Ancient City of Vijayanagara, Vijayanagara Architecture and do copy edits, tag for citations, make general suggestions to what you think I may have missed out generally speaking. The Economy section which will come later this week will be more exiting I believe from a copy edit point of view. There is so much to write there.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have aded some info on Governance. Whenever you have time for copyedit, feel free. I shall scratch around for more info tommorow.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will take a look. sub articles like these are less prone to cpedit mistakes anyway.Dineshkannambadi 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. sorry to say that your last three edits were lost during a revert. Someone was trying to remove cited information anon. Please watch out for these spurious edits while making yours. I am going to ask for an anon lock on this page. I shall try to reinstate your last three edits.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! sorry, the main article, Vijayanagara Empire. I have added another paragraph for "Governance".thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women Unite

Hi, I put up a stub article on the band "Women Unite" from South Africa, which I went to a concert with here in Ålesund, Norway. I see that you have questioned their significance. This has happened before, and in the talk page I have argued why I think that although they are a small, "unimportant" band, they satisfy the wikipedia notability criteria. They have gone on an international tour to South Africa, Swaziland, Mozambique and Norway, and were invited to play at the 100-year celebration of independence of Norway from Sweden. Links are in the talk page.

I would like to hear from you whether you think this satisifies the criteria, and if not, why.

I see that your talk page has been semi-protected. If I do not count as an established user, I can't reach you. In that case I will post this in the Women Unite talk page instead and remove the notice. Vintermann 09:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was not the person who proposed the article for deletion. That was NickelShoe. If you remove it, most likely NickelShoe will nominate it for Articles for Deletion. That is the next step.

Every article on Wikipedia must satisfy the non negotiable policy of WP:V through WP:RS using WP:CITE. All of this means that you must show the encyclopedic importance of the article through verifying the statements in it by referencing third-party sources. In addition, if the group is music-related, it must satisfy WP:BAND. If you have any questions about this feel free to ask me.

My page being semi-protected just means that non-registered users cannot edit it, so that does not apply to you! Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back in the article's history, I guess I was the one who put the tag on in August, 2006. Anyway, what I wrote above still applies. Wikipedia's policy is that "verifiablity" not "truth" is the criteria for referencing. This is because Wikipedia is an encyclodia. Read WP:NOT - what Wikipedia is not. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copy edits

I will be starting work on "ECONOMY" section of Vijayanagara Empire today and completing it tommorow.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to bring the Hoysala architecture page to peer review next. You may want to keep busy with that article for a while. As it is not about Kingdom stuff you have worked with me on so far, you may have more questions, though I have tried to explain all terminology as best as I can. There may be cases where I may not have, so you can point it out, apart from correcting the prose.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to decide to use "mandapa" or "mantapa" consistently. Not sure which is acceptable from larger view point. Mantapa is a Kannada word, Mandapa is more north Indian. Or we could simply use Mantapa and dab link to Mandapa.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]