User talk:BostonMA/Misc Archive 2

This is an archive page. Please do not edit this page without permission. If you would like to comment, please do so at User talk:BostonMA. Thank-you.

Mohammed deletion

Please understand, I mean this in the most respectful way, and don't mean to pick a fight. But how can you remove a picture of Mohammed from his article because "it might be considered offensive", but then have this userbox on your main page:

This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship.

-Patstuart 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank your for your comment. I do not believe in removing subject matter merely because it is offensive to some. However, I fail to see how an image of Mohammed, regarding which image we know almost nothing, contributes to the article. In fact, it may very well be misleading, in that if this is one of the few images that can be produced by Muslims, including it in the article may give an erroneous impression regarding how common such images are. Be that as it may, I don't believe in being offensive merely for the sake of being offensive. What is the purpose of the image? It is hard for me not to wonder whether the purpose is really to serve Wikipedia. I hope this helps to explain. Sincerely, --BostonMA 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for writing back. It does clear things up, though I do disagree. I find it awfully convenient that Mohammed has no pictures of him to enhance the article, whereas other religious/historical figures of unknown characature do have them. An image, even if it's historically not accurate, is often a way to visualize a historical or religious figure. Take my count on the following articles; we know what none of these people look like:

• Jesus - 11
• Plato - 3
• Apostle Paul - 6
• Moses - 5, but 2 with his face
• Abraham - 1
• Confucius - 3

I hope, then, you can understand my frustration, as I feel Wikipedia is being censured. Does have a picture on penis really help either (who doesn't know what they look like?). But if it were removed, it would immediately be called censorship. Please understand I am not attacking you, I am just a little frustrated, as I think there's a double standard. -Patstuart 00:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad pics

Sure, always open for discussion. Best, The Hungry Hun 09:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you're right: I agreed to discuss the topic, yet didn't deliver any input so far, not even as an answer to the questions you raised - sorry for that, I simply lacked the time so far and could only take quick glances at the article & re-insert the pic when deleted.

Tomorrow, I'll have much more spare time and cover my points extensively; I believe that you can see from the article's talk page that I'm not afraid of lengthy discussions (a good part of it is already archived, though).

However, I beg to differ on the modus operandi: There was a somewhat stable article version with pictures. Plus, not a single objection has been raised in the last weeks beyond a general rejection of images in general. Hence I'll regard further deletions still as vandalism and will revert them. Please understand this approach of mine.

I propose having the discussion entirely on my talk page for the sake of a coherent thread. If you agree, I kindly suggest that put the page on your watchlist.

Best, The Hungry Hun 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I generally concur with the Hun. I'll see how the discussion develops but like he says, there has been absolutely no concrete objection raised, based on WP policies, why the image should be removed, other than a general iconoclasm based on a particular interpretation of a religion not shared by the majority of WP users. I believe removal would be outrageous- the image is souced and is a historical relic (made by, it should be noted, Muslims). Since those objecting to the image maintain that Islam objects to images of all of its prophets, are we to now remove images from Jesus, Abraham, etc.? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

From your latest message, I am not sure our views are at all reconcilable. In my opinion the image is neither offensive nor obscene; it was created by people who revered and honored Muhammad. The only reason it is "offensive" is because there are some people who object to all images of Muhammad, and by extension images of religious figures in general. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no contradiction between including the image and the policy you cite. My interpretation is that image must be both subjectively and objectively offensive and this falls far short of that standard. You also seem to maintain that while these images should not be included in the Muhammad article, they might be appropriate for a separate article on images of Muhammad. I encourage you to establish such an article and see if the attempts at censorship are any less frequent there. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Units in Kaveri River article

Hi Boston, Thanks for the note. Good that you brought it up. Shall we continue the discussion in article's talk page itself? Let me move the current discussion to the article's talk page. Thank you. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 02:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I's so sawwy massa! I's neva' goin' ta vanduhlize agin suh!

Re: Thanks for work on India articles

Thank you so much for your message. I don't mind at all if you correct my mistakes, as I am constatnly confused by many things in the India articles, only one of which is the multiple spellings of place names. (I understand why this situation exists but not how to deal with it.) In fact, if I could ask you questions now and then, I would be appreciative. I have several confused spelling situations going on right now. Maybe I could ask you what to do about them without getting into trouble -- which happened the last time I suggested a merge in a confused spelling situation.

Is there a standard way of naming places? I just noticed that Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary has been redirected to Muthanga. Maybe that is a nearby place. I wanted to write more about the sanctuary but I wish it were called by its real name, not Muthanga.

Other issues, like what to capitalize is unclear because links won't work unless the capitalization is consistent -- District vs district, Temple vs temple, River vs river etc. Often a district's headquarters is the same name as the district. Sometimes I can't tell whether the reference is to the city or the district.

Anyway, thanks again and any suggestions and explanations from you would be hugely appreciated. Mattisse(talk) 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the searching tips! I didn't know about most of them. Another question: Is Wayanad District a rather neglected area, information-wise? I have been searching for info on hydroelectric projects and rivers there and can't find out hardly anything -- even though rivers and everything else in Kerala is generally well covered. I can't even figure out what river the Banasura Sagar Dam is on. Maybe the Kabrini. Mattisse(talk) 14:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That greatly helps about the river. I understand your feelings about places becoming popularized. (It has happened to me in three different wonderful places on this earth, places I cannot even go back and visit as it is too painful now.) I'm hoping my small little articles will not have such impact. Mattisse(talk) 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be O.K. for me to put the elephant picture on the Kalpetta article, since you took the picture on the way to Kalpetta? Mattisse(talk) 19:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad pic

Hi BostonMA, hv gone through the arguments and discussions on the talk page of BrianGotts. My first feeling after reading it was that "I wouldn't have any objection to the image being placed on Depictions of Muhammad, just as I have no objection to Piss Christ or Ecce Homo being placed in the relevant articles, and not that of Jesus." I later read the discussion on Hun's talkpage and found that your position is also the same. Also, I believe you have done everything in your power and control to keep the duscussion going, and to take the issue towards resolution. You have answered all the questions put to you clearly, despite receiving only ambiguous answers from the other side. Based on my understanding of the discussion, I fully support your position; however, I do not know about the intensity and frequency of the reversions. Not withstanding that, I'd still feel that you've done what it takes and quoted the appropriate sections of appropriate guidelines to take the discussion further. You've been calm and civil. That's all that matters. --Gurubrahma 05:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Maome

I think you are doing quite well without my help. But if you get stuck at any point, drop me a note. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Boston: I'm very cross at you! This dispute resolution you requested ---with my name on it--- is not what you represented. This dispute resolution process should focus on any and all images of Muhowmud, not just the 'Maome' image you mentioned in your request. I suggest (demand!) that you edit the request to include the real issue here: the real issue is that some of us think images of Mohowmud should be included in the Article and others think no imges should be allowed. Before I accuse you of engaging in subterfuge or clever, sly manipulativeness, please respond to this grievous afront to our intelligence and good faith.DocEss 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Repeatedly removing sourced materials without consensus, as you have done in the Muhammad article, is tantamount to vandalism. I refer you also to this discussion. Your edits in Muhammad seem to be in sharp contrast to the principals you yourself assert therein.

I have engaged in no personal attacks on you. Calling an editor's edit what it is is not violative of NPA, as it is the action, not you, that is being called into question. Moreover, I find your attitude perplexing, in light of the fact that you devote a considerable portion of your own user page to an extended attack on another user, disguised as an attempt at diplomacy.

Please immediately cease your harrasment of me on my user page. Thank you. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus image in the article from August 2005 until the recent conflict. The image was changed without consensus, and repeatedly insisting that you have consensus does not make it so. Whether the personal attack was directed at me or not is irrelevant. Improper accusations of vandalism are disruptive to Wikipedia. --BostonMA ^talk 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your perplexity, statements such as "It figures that you should feel so strongly about my comment about "clueless Indians" since you are obviously one of them." are not civil. Therefore, I have an issue with the editor who made them. However, when another editor deletes an image that was inserted without consensus, and which does not have consensus, that is not vandalism. I hope that helps to clarify your perplexity. --BostonMA ^talk 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your position is clear to me. I still regard it as inconsistent and flexible to suit your needs of the moment. Cheers, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did not say there was consensus for keeping it. I said there was no consensus for removing it, and no one has yet articulated a reason consistent with a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia policy why it should be removed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how quickly "remove the one image but leave the other 'clearly relevant' one" becomes "let's remove all the images". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not call for removing both images, but was willing to give support to the compromise proposal made by User:HighInBC. However, you will note that I encouraged User:HighInBC not to remove the other images [1]. --BostonMA ^talk 13:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't at any point say that YOU called for removing both images, but this campaign has emboldened those who would like to censor Wikipedia in its entirety and they have begun to move far beyond what minimum accomodation you intended to make. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It had been always for removing each and every image showing Muhammad from Muhammad-article. It was BostonMA own point of view to remove just one and keep the other. --- ابراهيم 13:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Advice for a friend

Honestly, I think Mattisse quite enjoyed the situation. He (i'm assuming here) started to talk to other people, just trying to attract attention to the whole situation when he himself said he reverted the edits because he had some private information on his user page. You basically summed up my motive behind protecting the user page. You can see by the protection comment I made, that I had only good intentions, and that I did not want someone to see Cyde's comments and immediately act upon it. Also, Cyde is probably one of the higher up admins, and I would assume he has a good deal of experience and seniority here. Nishkid64 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it is true. Things could have been much worse had I not intervened. I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by "honest opinion" on your response, so I just told you what I thought of your comment. Nishkid64 00:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link!

rainwaterharvesing.org - I have never come across that particular page before and it is very useful. Also, their point of view is nice -- Any land anywhere can be used to harvest rainwater The fundamental reason: extend the fruits of the monsoon The basic principle: Catch water where it falls

I was starting to understand this as an ancient tradition of India in writing the Irrigation tank article (hate that name for it). Someone promised me a photo of a temple tank for it. Mattisse(talk) 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahound

Hi Boston,

This is embarkedaxis. Mahound term was used by one or two peoples so it doesnt mean that it is his name's variant. And it is already there in Non-Muslim veiw of Muhammad. So there is no point to keep this word in variant. People are villify by many people but that doesnt mean it is his name variant. Everyone know the defination of variant. And 2ndly some people add this just because they hate him and wikipedia policy is neutral. So i want to keep this article away from skepticism, So that both muslims and non muslims would not be offended. I hope you will understand

Thanks you

Embarkedaxis

AfD

Hi Boston! The AfD is going well, do you think? I mean, not from a wikiprocess point of view per se - and there's clearly a "no consensus" close on the horizon - but from the depth of the discussion and the interesting points raised, I'm very happy with the light generated so far. And I'll be saying so to all the signed-in contributors as soon as it has ended.

But, for the immediate article, did any of the options others have given catch your eye as useful compromises? Would any of the options work if modified? Or is a no-consensus-keep the best option? The latter, alas, could lead to the article being repeatedly nominated (not by me, obviously) but we can be ready for that.

As I've said, I'm impressed by your talent for compromise and mediation (so much so, I'd really like you to reconsider about the adminship thing - you would seem to have need of the tools, but it's up to you and I can wait if you want), so, being better at such things than I am, what would you advise for the best option you and I could work on when the AfD has closed?

(And it can be torn up if someone has a blinder of an idea in the meantime)

(And "keep" is perfectly valid as a response, of course, so don't hold back)

Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• And it's Diwali too! Assuming you are of south Asian heritage (the above messages suggest it!) then happy Diwali to you! (I never get these dates right... my best female Asian friend is Sikh and she's determined that others have the dates so totally wrong... although somehow she manages to make this a great excuse to party for the best part of three weeks. You've got to admit, that's cool... :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Boston! Me again, making your life miserable with too many postings here :o)

The AfD is nearing a close. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have upon it. I'm happy to close it as a "keep" because the consensus is clearly to keep it: the debate has, rightly, been about what form to keep it in.

For me, I really like Aminz's idea - move it (with redirect) to Medieval western conception of Muhammad - as this creates a great "seedling" article that I would be fascinated to read myself when developed.

However, I suspect that would lead to the need to create Mahound (disambiguation), a page that would need careful drafting.

Would you like to let me know your ultimate choice, based on the debate and the article (which RHaworth is currently expanding, I think) and I'll close the AfD as an obvious keep and then we can work on your choice together if you like? If you go for a straight "keep", that's cool - would you then like to co-operate in some way (I have no idea how) on Aminz's idea for a useful new article?

Let me know. And sorry to be constantly asking you - I respect your knowledge and neutrality on this matter too much not to consult you! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

From Richwales re: VP problems

Thanks for your post. Unfortunately, I've been having this problem with VandalProof continuously for several weeks now — I have absolutely never been able to get it to accept my login ever — despite many, many attempts and requests for assistance — so I really don't think it's something that is ever going to clear up on its own. Richwales 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried VP (unsuccessfully) on two very powerful PC's, so I don't think it's a CPU, RAM, or disk space issue. The error I consistently get is that my login attempt failed. It looks like it's reading the list of authorized users and doesn't find me there — but I've been assured several times that I am in the list, and my user name doesn't have any spaces (some people have had problems because of that, but that can't explain my problem). Richwales 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have tried re-logging in using the link in the yellow/orange "login failed" box. It says I successfully logged in — but right after that, it gives me the yellow/orange "login failed" box all over again, and all the tools and menus in VP are still greyed out. Richwales 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Maome

I have not changed my position. REmoving the images to avoid "offense" has only emboldened those who would impose their religious norms on the entire project,[2] as I predicted, and has served no encyclopedic purpose. I regard the recent actions taken in the Muhammad article as reprehensible and utterly indefensible. It is censorship of this nature that renders most of the Islam-related articles on Wikipedia laughable parodies of encyclopedia entries. I have no wish to engage in mediation regarding the image, which I regard as a waste of time. Having limited time to devote to Wikipedia, and waning interest in the project due to incidents like this, I prefer to focus my efforts elsewhere. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

On the mediating: How long will it take AND will result applying on ALL censoring editors? Otherwise deal only help side who dont keep their deals or AT BEST a big waste of time. No deals unless IF you can tell me for sure, all must comply with what we agree AND will enforce with no mercy.Opiner 04:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it and it sound pretty useless. Wish it didnt but it does.Opiner 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam links

Calton, do you know if there is a spam-link noticeboard?

Not off the top of my head. There IS a feature allowing for the blacklisting of spam links -- edits containing blacklisted URLs can't be saved -- which has a page for nominating spamlinks, though that strikes me as overkill in this case.

Near as I can tell, one user (probably connected with the Starwood) was inserting multiple (and mostly uselessly tangential) references to this Starwood Festival -- much like a hypothetical "User:MelonvilleArtsCentre" would be inserting identical "X has played at Melonville Arts Centre!" text into multiple performer articles. Another user, instead of challenging the point of bids for attention, slapped on {{cite}} tags -- give the first user the excuse to insert the external links.

As far as I'm concerned, most of the references seem to be a form of internal spam, since they add very little to the articles and only serve to promote the Starwood Festival (I mean, what does it matter that comic-book creator Michael T. Gilbert went there?) Some references and external links obviously belong, but 78 external links? --Calton | Talk 00:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to drop a line to an admin (User:JzG, User:Georgewilliamherbert, User:Zoe, and User:SlimVirgin all spring immediately to mind) and ask for advice. Feel free to use any of my words above (they ARE licensed under the GFDL, after all...). --Calton | Talk 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good news

Sally Eaton has asked Rosencoment to take down her page for perssonal reasons. That gets rid of a bunch of links right there. Hope is brewing. Mattisse(talk) 02:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Are the above links found on Wikipedia - answer YES

Those are the ones I removed just now, (they have already been replaced). I haven't done much looking for a while, with the sockpuppet stuff and all, but the first few places I looked, there they were. They also use the <ref name="about"> (or whatever) to stick more than one actual link in an article. Timmy12 00:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

By hand - yes

I don't know any other way. But it shows you they must be all over if I run into them so easily. Timmy12 00:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I just wanted to know whether this is [3] a personal attack. I don't want any action as I assume Good Faith thinking that this is just a (mis)sense of comedy (this being the first instance) but just want to know your opinion as to whether such acts (such acts and not this one specifically) and are to be ignored or something (may be a message) be done  Doctor Bruno  17:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it as ill conceived humor and I decided to let it go by as I did not have a recurring problem with this editor, but you may have a look at this also Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lakshman_Madurasinghe  Doctor Bruno  20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Been reading your user page

It is very, very interesting. (Is that where I got the link to India - Constitution?) I would like to comment more on your issues as I have many feeling about what you are saying. You express yourself very well. You are a good writer. Mattisse(talk) 01:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Both topics are complex and I can relate to personally on many levels. The first issue I began reading in the light of more current, nonpolitical events on Wikipedia. There are subtle ways groups of people control the content of articles on certain issues. I notice the slant and the punishment that results when someone tries to change the slant. That disturbs me more than any industrial suppression.

To the second issue, I have many reactions and questions. As to your personal feelings, I relate to them strongly. It's upsetting that people use ethnic references pejoratively, and especially to you. Personally, I have not seen that. The only person who has ever even asked about my ethnicity was the guy who threatened to ban me for changing my own user page. So I am not really understanding what is going on here about India and the guy with whom you are having the dispute. Maybe if I knew the pages involved, I could see for myself and get the picture. Mattisse(talk) 18:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

{copied from your message} If you look at the most recent changes to my user page, you will see that he has made remarks which negatively relate to (non-Indian) Muslims as well.

I must not be looking at the right place. I don't understand what you mean. I know you were asked to remove a remark from your user page, which you did. Is that what you mean? {I was the person that put the drought photo on the Kaveri River page -- I think I'm the one that started the trouble there, and I've added things since that probably made it worse.) Is this a religious issue? Yesterday I saw somewhere the word "jihad" was used, but I can't find it now. Mattisse(talk) 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. I meant was the remark you removed from your user page, is that a religious issue? The river pic and issues stemming from that I took as a semi-political issue, in that it is difficult sometimes to admit problems. But I feel strongly that it is better to face the problems. Everything I did on that article is footnoted to show that I have a source which then can be evaluated by others -- that I'm not spouting off. I just did a little article today on Muppandal (where there are wind farms) because it is fantastic what India is doing in trying to deal with these issues. Did you know that India is the second biggest consumer of electricity in the world after China? Then I made sure the renewable energy and wind power articles had references to India -- those type articles are often written by Americans who tend to focus on the US and Europe and overlook that huge things are happening in other parts of the world. (That's not an ethnic or nationalistic comment -- just kidding! I'm not thinking you would take it that way.) Also, I started an article called Irrigation tank about India's ancient system of storing water for irrigation, a system that India is reviving today. (I need to spend way more time on it.) Mattisse(talk) 02:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember Salman Rushdie, the writer that had a fatwa against him in the 1990's and had to go into hiding for years? At a university near me a professor was deported for financially supporting the Palestinian jihad. I agree jihad is not a good term to throw around on Wikipedia. It doesn't arouse any emotion in me, but then the comment was not directed at me. (I get more upset about spam and commerical use of Wikipedia.) Wasn't that comment made by dab? Isn't he rather sloppy and loose in his use of language anyway? Mattisse(talk) 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I'm not meaning to bum you out. Truly I do understand how you feel. It's strange how personal it feels when an attacking individual is a "virtual personality". You have helped me incredibly lately with your support and I wish I could do the same for you. And I admire how you persist and don't freak out like I have done in the past. The fact you keep on going is wonderful, when I just shut down and detach. Mattisse(talk) 02:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Somanathapura

There is something wrong with this image you have put in. Clicking on the image takes you to an entirely different image. Please rectify.Dineshkannambadi 03:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a local copy of the commons image and it seems to work OK now. Not sure what the problem was. Take care -- Samir धर्म 00:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Re: Teardrops from My Eyes. How very nice of you! I would say more, but I'm scared. Hope you are O.K. as I sense complicated things going on. Mattisse(talk) 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, always drama. That's a good way to look at it. A dramatic vertual life! (But I don't trust this place anymore.) Mattisse(talk) 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know there are good people -- you are one of them, else I would cease to even try. Mattisse(talk) 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi there, looking forward to working on your case. In the mean time, can you point me to where I can read about the belief against depictions of religious figures? I would just like to get some background information. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

warning mistake

I don't know why/how you got a warning when I never saw your name while revert vandalism maybe a glitch in the software I will remove the warning ok --Kyle G 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Desired parties for mediation

I have left them notes. Thanks for the heads-up! --Aguerriero (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Not a problem. :) --Coredesat 02:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Maomé.jpg

I am confused. I know that depicting Muhumaad is offensive to some Muslims. But what makes this image a special case? It seems like a perfectly plain image to me, with nothing particularly unusual. Could you please clarify why this image is exceptional? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statement at mediation

Hey there! Could you please edit your mediation statement to be concise (2-3 sentences)? It would be much appreciated, for clarity sake. At this time, we are not debating, just getting statements out on the table. Therefore, it is not necessary at t[his time to rebut statements by other editors. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Boston, you've not only gone beyond your mandate, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said that I'd like to scornfully snub attempts at religious-based censorship; I did NOT say I wish to scron the sensitivities of others. Those two things are entirely differnet and your mis-characteristaion of my very-clear words is unfair.DocEss 21:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[4] --BostonMA ^talk 22:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a perfectly okay pic to me. Maybe I'll put it on my user page although its difficult to compete with the beaauty of lower manhattan. whats your problem with it?Opiner 11:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, adding a "huge" picture at the top of an article seems to me to be WP:Point. --BostonMA ^talk 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, that appears to be a mistake, see in the markup he put 200px, not too big, but due to a syntax error it came out actual size. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the size of the image might have been the result of an error. --BostonMA ^talk 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the hearfelt apology regarding that picture of Mohammud and mt inability to size it correctly. Now please deal with this from above: Boston, you've not only gone beyond your mandate, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said that I'd like to scornfully snub attempts at religious-based censorship; I did NOT say I wish to scron the sensitivities of others. Those two things are entirely differnet and your mis-characteristaion of my very-clear words is unfair.DocEss 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please state clearly what in my comment you believe should be changed. --BostonMA ^talk 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

BostonMA, if there is any particular topic which you would like to contribute, I would be more than happy to find and email you some articles. Regards, --Aminz 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can email you the article on "Qur'an and Polemics" from Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, if you are interested. But it doesn't explicitly focuses on the prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible, but it would be useful for some wikipedia article. Cheers, --Aminz 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think the description adequately describes the conflict. What do you think of my description? --BostonMA ^talk 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going off line now, so I won't see your response until tomorrow. --BostonMA ^talk 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it described it pretty well in theory, though, like I said, not in practice. That's why I said that if you agreed, I would too. But you didn't, so the matter is moot. Anyway, I'm not sure I exactly follow your statement, but from what I see, you want to characterize people into categories according to what their actions have been. That doesn't help, because we need to speak in theory if we're going to come up with a consensus. What I mean to say is, talking about a future proposal requires us to work more in the theoretical realm than in defining the past. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Finishing/continuing this discussion on my talk page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Category for articles created

Considering my contributions, i wonder if it is ok to create a category for adding the talk pages of articles i have created, much in the same way as Category:Medieval warfare task force articles, possibly naming it "Category:Articles created by User:Striver"? --Striver 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How are you?

Just wondering -- with your mediation going on and all. I have been following it. I think you speak extraordinarily clearly. Mattisse(talk) 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me what to do about theis?[5]

I'm rather startled. Is there a procedure or a proper way of dealing with such violations? Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 11:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree with you. I didn't know he had been blocked at the time. I don't think I would ever take anything to AN/I though. The experience there is always terrible and nothing gets resolved. Hope you are getting your equilibrium back. Although originally on the side of the "imagists" (reflexively}, now I have now been persuaded by your position in the image mediation. So even if the mediation doesn't go your way, you have opened up my world view. Thank you! Mattisse(talk) 13:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I would hate to see you drawn into the Starwood mess. Nothing good will come of it, it seems to me. User:Ekajati is the only person participating. He is the one that had me blocked a few weeks ago. And Hanamun Das has started his attacks on me and Timmy 12 again.[6] I freaked out (literally) and made a stupid mistake in August. But it will never be forgotten around here unless I acknowledge they "own" those articles and admit that I am not allowed to make constructive edits. Mattisse(talk) 14:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S.I agree that admins (or whose ever job it is) should have stepped in long ago. But they didn't in August and they aren't going to now (in my opinion). Most of the ones that stepped in recently have backed off. In August when I pled for help from several admins, I got none (hence my freakout and the reason why I will stay out of it now -- so I won't freak out). I want to detach and accept that Wikipedia is this way. However, I refuse to acknowledge that they "own" the articles and that I cannot make constructive edits now and then. (Do you think that I am being hard-headed and unreasonable in thinking this?) Mattisse(talk) 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That is good advice. I'll follow it. I never see these things clearly. Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 15:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your request

Following your request, I have Self Reverted, though I still think this Self revert is detrimental.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation update

Hi Boston, as you may have noticed, everyone at the mediation has agreed with our statements of the sides of the issue except you. I'm not exactly clear what your contention is at this point (everything seems to have been addressed via rebuttal) so would you be willing to either agree, or further clarify your position? It seems like you are trying to polarize the issue more so than need be - I have reviewed the participant statements again and no one seems to be making any kind of "all or nothing" claim - i.e., no one is saying "all images belong in the article no matter what" and no one is saying the opposite either. If we can all agree that encyclopedic and informative images can be included, then we can move on to defining what that means in the context of the Muhammad article. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you write "everyone at the mediation has agreed with our statements of the sides of the issue except you. That is not quite accurate. All of those who agree, (with one exception to be discussed below) are on the pro-image side. The one exception is User:ALM scientist who states that although he in fact disagrees, he is agreeing because he does not want the mediation to be deadlocked. I also do not want the mediation to be deadlocked. However, I would like my concerns to be heard.

You also write "everything seems to be addressed via rebuttal". I left this comment on your talk page, to which you did not respond. Perhaps you believe that DocEss's response is a rebuttal. Please let me know.

You wrote in this comment on the mediation page that "BostonMA seems to believe that there are some who want any images in the article regardless of questions of being encyclopedic, and my point is that no one seems to be taking that position." I will try to clarify my position for you. The first of the two bullets states:

"Encyclopedic depictions of Muhammad should be included in the article. Removal on the basis of relevance or notability may be discussed on a per-image basis."

The history of the dispute, I think is different. Several editors, including Irishpunktom and myself attempted to discuss the issue of the informativeness of the Maome image. The general response from the pro-image side was not to respond to this entirely relevant issue, but to argue that the issue was irrelevant, because a) Wikipedia is not censored, because b) other articles have images of their subjects that aren't accurate, because c) people have an alleged need to see images etc., because d) what will happen if Wikipedia "gives in" to a minority, because e) we can't discuss this over and over with every image that is to be added (how many images do they want to add?) and so on.

I thus think it is gross misrepresentation of the sides to place the demand for encylcopedicity on the pro-image side, and the forbid all (apparently without question or discussion) on the other side.

Like User:ALM scientist, I do not want a deadlock. However, what I propose is that we test in practice whether we can discuss the encyclopedicity of a single image, i.e. the maome image. If we are able to resolve the issues with one image, then we may generalize our considerations to other images. Please give this proposal serious consideration. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this illustrates why I am approaching the mediation the way I am. Discussing one particular image before we agree on a principle is sort of placing the cart before the horse. I thought it would be more useful to agree in principle on whether any sort of images can be in the article before we move to defining the criteria by which we measure images. You have a valid point in bring up the history of the dispute, but I would rather base the mediation on the statements people have given, because I see those as statements of what they are willing to put forward in the mediation. For example, if someone has historically refused to respond to discussions of relevance, but then they agree in mediation to the relevance of that issue, then we can hold them to that agreement. Does that make sense? If you disagree that anyone has taken the position that all images should be forbidden, then we can remove that as a position. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I made the suggestion that we test in practice discussing the encyclopedicity of an image because I feel that we have different understandings regarding what the dispute is about, and it was my feeling that such an experiment might help to clarify for you the positions of the various parties. If someone has historically refused to respond to discussions of relevance, but then agree in mediation to relevance of discussing relevance, that is good. However, please do not ask me to state agreement to assertions to which I actually believe to be incorrect. Is my assent to your description of the conflict necessary to move forward? --BostonMA ^talk 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Boston, with no disrespect intended, I've seen your comments on the mediation page: wouldn't it be best to let the mediator decide what's relevant and what not? It is, after all, his job, And as for the case-by-case basis, shouldn't that come later, after we've all fashioned some sort of agreement? Please realize, that by saying this, I may be hurting "my own side", as I've taken away a bargaining chip (we can no longer say we want all images, so a mediation is to allow some) - but I think in the interest of expediency, it might be best to let Aguerriero, a seasoned mediator (?), decide what's relevant and what's not. If you find yourself on one of the sides, perhaps you could simply agree, as the text says, and bring up any ignored issues later. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patstuart. I do not wish to deadlock the mediation. However, I can neither state that I agree with something that I believe is wrong, nor can I encourage others to do so. I do not understand the value in asking for my assent in this case, or why it should hold up mediation. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't belong to the first group? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

I don't see the division between the groups as being descriptive of the conflict, nor do I feel that division according to those bullet points to be particulaly relevant. --BostonMA ^talk 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Boston, let me approach this from a different angle. If I'm not mistaken, what you are trying to communicate to me is that there are editors whose behavior does not fit into one of my groups. Is that correct? In that case, I will try to explain this mediation technique. By proposing the two groups that I did, I presented two options that are compatible with Wikipedia's policies. By doing so, and requesting that participants align themselves with one group, I automatically filter out positions that are not compatible with Wikipedia. Does that makes sense? So the effect is that no matter what the outcome of the mediation from that point forward, it is an outcome that follows our guidelines and policies. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is correct that I believe that there are editors whose behavior does not match either group. More than that, I believe that dividing editors according to your criteria does not do justice to the editors involved. Editors may as individuals hold positions which are not compatible with Wikipedia policies. They may believe that those policies ought to be changed. What is important is not what someone personally believes, but how they behave as editors, and whether those edits conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The fact that an editor believes that all images of Muhammad are offensive and uninformative should not be used against that editor when they argue that specific images are offensive and uninformative. Segregating such editors, when they have made reasonable and valid arguments on specific images, into a special camp, seems to me to be wrong. I will again repeat my request that you move on despite my disagreement, because it does not seem likely that we will agree on this soon unless you are willing to consider a formulation which more accurately reflects the conflict as it has actually appeared. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't move on, sorry. Because later, you can use that as an excuse not to follow what is agreed to in mediation. I have had that happen to me before - I'm not saying I think you would do that, I'm just saying you could do it, and it has been done in the past. After reading your earlier proposed changes to my groups again, it looks like your major point of contention is that I have people divided up into (and this is simplifying it but you get the idea) a) some images should be there based on being encyclopedic, and b) no images should be there. You see to want to add "removing any images is censorship". BUT. Note that even though that is not one of my two choices, the participants have agreed to my choices. So why is it an issue? Do you suspect that someone is going to bring out that argument despite the mediation? If we agree to a description of what is encyclopedic (and again I stress this will be LATER in the mediation), I see it as a non-issue. Everyone will have their say as to what is encyclopedic. You have used the term "informative", which is part of encyclopedic. It will all be defined. We don't need to incessantly wikilawyer the groups. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you won't move on, let me try to explain from a slightly different angle. The way the two groups are divided at present, DocEss and I would probably both say we belonged to the first group. ALM scientist would probably say that he belongs to the second group. However, in the real conflict, I have had no edit disputes with ALM scientist, and I have been in constant conflict with DocEss. Any grouping that puts me in the same group as DocEss and positions me to have a conflict with ALM scientist is a grouping that just does not correspond to the real conflict. I hope this helps, and I am sorry that I was not able to articulate this earlier. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. And that's okay, sincerely. By placing yourself in that group, you are not saying "I agree with DocEss's methods for adding/removing images". You are just saying that you allow that some images can be in the article, by criteria we will define. Placing yourself in the second group is saying that you do not believe any depictions of Muhammad could be encyclopedic in the article and/or that you find them offensive. The purpose of this exercise is not to mimic the conflict, it is to define what the positions are. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(De-indenting) The original statement read in part:

"Now. Sign below to indicate whether you agree or disagree that these two points adequately summarize the debate."

You are now asking my to sign on the basis that:

"The purpose of this exercise is not to mimic the conflict, it is to define what the positions are."

Is the purpose to accurately describe the conflict or not? If not, then I suggest changing the wording to something like:

Please sign below if you agree that the above two bullets represent positions held by one or more editors in this mediation. By expressing your agreement you are not agreeing to a position that the difference in these positions defines the conflict to be resolved by this mediation.

Also, I neither believe that at least one image belongs in the Muhammad page, nor do I believe that no image belongs on the Muhammad page. I believe that images should be evaluated on an individual basis for their encyclopedicity and the informative value they may add to the article. So, I would suggest changing one of the bullets to:

Depictions of Muhammad, if they are encyclopedic, relevant and informative in the context of the Muhammad article should be included in the article. Images of Muhammad which do not meet these criteria should not be included. Standards will be defined in this mediation.

However, if you are willing to go out on a limb, I would propose an even more drastic change. Here is my proposed summary in toto.

Depictions of Muhammad, if they are encyclopedic, relevant and informative in the context of the Muhammad article should be included in the article. Images of Muhammad which do not meet these criteria should not be included. The debate to be resolved by this mediation concerns the standards by which encyclopedicity, relevance and informativeness will be judged. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this description of the matter to be mediated."

[optionally include bullet items representing different standards that have been offered]

Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Boston, I have no problem with the changes you have made. I will not have very much time through the weekend due to family commitments, but I would support querying the other participants to see if they are okay with your change. I think there are at least 1 or 2 people who are of the "no images" camp, so that will still need to be presented as a position that is represented. In regard to my statement "Now. Sign below to indicate whether you agree or disagree that these two points adequately summarize the debate." I acknowledge that that was a misstep - what I actually intended was "...that one of these statements describes your position." and I have been held to task for that misstep. Oh well - lesson learned, and we can move on. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From DocEss

As I said in Ag's page, it looks like Boston's modus operendii is to continue making noise so that the orchestra cannot begin the performance. His insistance on arguing about one particular image instead of all images in general is just part of this diversionary noise.DocEss 18:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, is there something you particularly wish to discuss with me? --BostonMA ^talk 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there is not. All my discussion are for the whole group.DocEss 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is nothing in particular you wish to say to me, it would probably be more appropriate for you to comment where the whole group can see. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, while it is possible that BostonMA is trying to confound the mediation, it is also very possible that his concerns are sincere, and that he is working toward a better encyclopedia. Even when speaking in the third person about someone, it is not hard to accidently violate WP:AGF(I assume it was an accident). This issue is very contentious and assuming good faith is more important now than every before. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get your message sooner

I was getting so many at once and then losing my answers in editing conflict that yours got lost in the shuffle. About Sivasamudram Falls, I didn't know that -- one of the many frustrating things about not naming things after what they really are. For a while I was embarking on a complex river basin, dam, falls, water use project about India. But today has been so frustrating that I will not try it again. All this started because Dineshkannambadi asked me to help her with one of her temples. I should have gotten it through my head when Brihadeshvara Temple (which it is called at the UNESCO World Heritage Site) was turned into Brihadeeswarar Temple and subsequently became a mess. I think people in India do not want non Indians monkeying with their articles and I am getting the message. Well, I had a great time writing the article and although I haven't read the other one, I probably won't since I am not interested in wading through one of those town articles which it sounds like it is. Mattisse(talk) 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K., male. I guess I made that assumption, but I don't think I have said anything to Dinesh that would indicate that. Usually I assume everyone is male, so I don't know why I didn't in his case too. Is that something he would get upset about? Mattisse(talk) 20:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't receive an invitation to the Starwood Mediation Cabel. I'm sure I bookmarked it but I can't find it right now. The last time I looked nothing was happening. Do you think if I weighed in, that might encourage this confusion that continues to be generated that he and I are the same person, since he was on the list of invitees? Mattisse(talk) 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry to bother you again

Should I be preparing for something?[7] An RFC? How can I get help? After the 7 AN/I in one day on October 27, and the sockpuppet Checkusers since September, and being blocked by the yakety-yak person. What should I do to prepare? Mattisse(talk) 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no one to ask. I have tried before. I guess for the same reasons you expressed disappointment in you message on my page about AN/I 's not resolving anything and admins not stepping in -- everyone is too busy etc. Mattisse(talk) 22:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me the link. It's helpful just to deal with it. But I'm beginning to wonder if the guy isn't crazy. All that work over stuff for which I have already paid the price. Got this message from a friend: "DOn't worry about the RfC its all old news now delt with. They will shoot themselves in the foot with this. Just keep cool." Mattisse(talk) 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just reread your message to me about your Mediation Cabal and the feelings you are having. It makes me feel better to read what you say. It seems there was a flurry of activity today but I haven't had the chance to check it out. It appears you are right, though, in your evaluation of what is happening regarding the mediation you are going through. (I just discovered that if I give my refigerator a good shove, it stops sounding like a D.C.3 taking off for a while.) Maybe tomorrow will be a good day for each of us. I appreciate the contact with you. Mattisse(talk) 05:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Strike Outs

Please stop striking things out in talk pages. Nobody can know the reason for the strikeouts and you're just adding smoke.DocEss 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was adding clarity. Since I had to look in the history to find what had been removed, it seemed to me to make more sense to have a struck text than removed text. Especially since some of the comments referred to that text. --BostonMA ^talk 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the striking out of point three, I have explained on the mediation page. It is also explained lower on the page, and in the edit history. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I found point three in the edit history. Since point three is mentioned in the comments, it seemed to me that it would be more convenient for other readers if the text were present in struck out form, than simply replaced by a message saying that it was deleted. --BostonMA ^talk 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi BostonMA,

There is a dispute over reliability of sources mentioned here [8]. I think they are reliable but Opiner thinks they are not. I am trying to form a consensus. Would you please let me know what changes should be applied to this section[9] so that you agree with its addition (to *reformer* section here or to some other article). Thanks very much. I would like to chat with editors individually and when a consensus is achieved, request them to comment on the talk page that they agree with the section. --Aminz 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Third Holist Site AfD

Dear BostonMA. Thank you so much for your insightful comments in the Third holiest site in Islam AfD project page. I was late when I saw the page, since it was locked and I could not contribute. I have added a comment thread on the discussion page of the project. I am not sure what can be done at this stage, but I am positive that a civil resolution can and should be reached, rather than locking the discussion page with a "speedy keep" tag. Aboosh 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of this argument; I asked for some explanation of what was so biased about the artcle, but none was given. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Could you please archive your talk page? It's slowing down my browser considerably. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Making progress. --BostonMA ^talk 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Emperors do not archive pages, we will have to vandalise and archive during mid-night (in India) to avoid being blocked!!! --Bhadani 19:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

hello

Reading your last posting on Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, I am agreeing with your position, which you have whittled down to a clear statement of a general principle (it seems to me). I take your side on that general principle, although I did not at first. You are a talented communicator. And you keep your cool. Mattisse(talk) 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That is my understanding too -- that the rivers begin in the ghats, then flow across the plains, and (in the case of waterfalls, for example) plunge off the edge of the plains, and with tributaries conbributing, flow to the coast. Last night I was working on a Subarnarekha River and I had a sense of deja vue -- I know I have already written about the delta area before. I wrote a whole article but can't find it because I can't remember what I called it. It's very interesting what is going on there. I know we disagree on this, but I would like dams to be called dams, waterfalls called waterfalles, resevoirs called resevoirs etc. because the whole water topic is a network of issues and history that (in my mind) ought to be attched in a network of articles that would include the hydroelectric plants and irrigations systems etc. But don't worry about changing anything I write as I am figuring it all out as I go along. Mattisse(talk) 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[10] He still does not get it. The people who think they are helping him are actually enabling him to perpetuate his wrong-headed thinking. It is hard for me to understand this. Mattisse(talk) 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Q's

Sorry about that minor deletion, I think we got into an edit conflict. -- Avi 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis on my talk page, the reason I did not get back earlier is that my internet connection went down. A couple of minor quibbles in that I mentioned you added Jerusalem to the text, but it was already in' the article. Check the references, they all bring quotes, so I did supply that to the article -- in the reference section as opposed to the main text, but I personally have no issue with it in the text. Also, of course I meant one George E. Bowen in UofT, how do you think I found him? The campus faculty directory lists a number, but only one GE. I figured that would be understood. Once again, I am not arguing that a peer-reviewed journal, where available, is the best. Thank you for your participation. -- Avi 02:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to be pretty much a non-response to most of the issues raised here or here. --BostonMA ^talk 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I think I addressed each one of your points. What in particular are you still missing? -- Avi 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Um,

• you claim that this web page is a paraphrase of a paper named "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", correct?
• Have you seen or read the actual paper for which the above link you say is a paraphrase?
• Was the actual paper published?
• If so, when?
• If so, what was the name of the publication if there was one?

To which I will add

• What evidence do you have that such a paper exists?

And you may optionally address the issue of your commenting on your imagination of me as an editor on your questions page, rather than simply answering the questions I raised. --BostonMA ^talk 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I have not read the actual paper. The evidence, nay the source citation itself, is the paraphrase hosted on the the university's own server. This is not a personal e-mail or blog hosted on the server, this is an official page. In general, I think one can presume that the University of Tennessee would not allow blatant falsehood about one of its decorated scholars on its own site. We use pages from university sites constantly, for example, when editing the bios of notable professors. This is not different. Thanks. -- Avi 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You refer to "the source citation". Could you describe to me exactly what you mean by this. In particular, a citation is a very brief description of a written work, which usually includes at least the name of the work and the names of the authors. Could you quote to me here such a citation? --BostonMA ^talk 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Bowen, George E. (April 3, 2001). "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus". Patrick S. O'Brien on the University of Tennessee server. Retrieved 2006-11-12. Three historic churches and monasteries are within the city. Just outside the city is the location of the Hala Sultan Tekke Mosque, the third holiest place for Muslims in the world. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Um, that is you making a citation (of a paper which has not been proven to exist). What I want is a citation that was written on a server. The link you provide is not to a citation, is to a summary of research. That summary of research does not say that there exists a paper that was written by George E. Bowen with the title "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", nor does it conatain a citation for such a paper. --BostonMA ^talk 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

/sigh. Once again, the paraphrase itself is supporting the statement, the way that a newspaper article can support what it talks about. -- Avi 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, the webpage or "paraphrase" as you call it, says nothing about a paper and does not even mention Prof. Bowen's first name. How does it support your claim that there is a paper by Prof. Bowen? --BostonMA ^talk 11:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks it might be better to hold off on this discussion. From looking at the deletion review on this article is appears that a consensus is forming that it should be relisted. (→Netscott) 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not followed this discussion, but it seems we are using newspapers in order to identify the third holiest place in Islam!!!! We have academic encyclopedias around!! Newspapers have no religous reliability and authority whatsoever. I have sometimes seen crazy things in newspapers. --Aminz 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Instead of just reverting, I'd like to point out that this edit is written more in essay format than in encyclopædic tone. I'll try and redo it, but you may have a better idea. -- Avi 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means improve it. I am not the most gifted writer. --BostonMA ^talk 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look; how badly do you think I messed it up -- Avi 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Given your edit I can no longer assume good faith on your part. --BostonMA ^talk 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain, you are referencing your OWN edit in the above diff. -- Avi 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. It appears to have been screwed up by the move. Fixed now. --BostonMA ^talk 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly you need to compare with this string of edits as they were contiguous. Secondly, please explain where the lack of good faith is. I re-wrote it as less of an essay, which is not allowed, and more of an article, and then specifically went and asked you for comment. If anything, moving without discussion is more of an issue per Help:Moving a page#Wikipedia-specific help. Remember, good faith does not mean that one has to edit asa you see fit, butthat the edits are meant to improve the article in accordance with the guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPA, WP:MOS, etc. I would appreciate an explanation of what it was that caused your comment, as I am under the obvious misunderstanding that I may well be the only editor trying to fix this article who is not being driven by a a priori political agenda. -- Avi 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hadith and Quran

Also, can you respond to my question about Hadith and Quran on the articles talk page? Thanks. -- Avi 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, might I ask, are you asking me questions about Hadith and Quran? --BostonMA ^talk 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The only way for someone to learn is to ask questions. There is no shame in saying "I don't know" and asking, which is what I just did -- Avi 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

university sites

Just happened to get caught up in reading your talk page (always interesting) and noticed an editor's statement that information posted on a site hosted by a univeristy must be true. People seem unaware that persons associated with a univeristy have access to the university's servers and may post their own websites and say whatever they want. How is it that you understand these things and others don't? It's your ckear-mindedness, I guess! Mattisse(talk) 04:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been assuming you did work for a university but it is nice to learn it is a fact. Mattisse(talk) 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To a very impressive person

"Defender of the Wiki" barnstar awarded by ALM to BostonMA for his struggle to protect the encyclopedic quality of articles and work always as a true neutral person. --- ALM 13:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Response from Rosencomet

I find it wearying to hear the double standard your comment and your acts show. I see you and some of the people who have joined you in deleting my citations protecting your own work,

To which work are you referring? --BostonMA ^talk 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

so why tell me it's improper to have the same attitude? I also don't see a general demand for "third party sources" in similar instances to those where I have provided these citations.

I have repeatedly pointed you to policies requiring third party sources. If you look around Wikipedia a bit, you will see many instances of content being deleted on the basis of lack of sources satisfying WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. I invite you to spend some time following the discussions at WP:AfD. --BostonMA ^talk 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my argument that a 3rd party need not be cited simply to establish that a speaker appeared at an event or an entertainer at a concert, and that the fact may be notable without a newspaper or magazine reviewing it.

I agree that a fact may be notable without a newspaper or magazine reviewing it. Reviews are evidence and there may be other types of evidence. Do you have other evidence that you can offer, that we can all objectively evaluate? --BostonMA ^talk 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Many facts are. (Now if I stated "this was the most important appearance in this artist's career", THAT would need support.) Furthermore, knowing how you guys have acted in the past, such reviews would probably be criticized because they would compliment the event in general, and you'd call them "ad-like" or "promotional". Give me a break. Rosencomet 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you Assume Good Faith and give yourself a break. If you address the issues and arguments raised instead of thinking that those who have argued with you are blowing smoke, I think you would experience fewer problems. --BostonMA ^talk 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

hello again

Another strange day here. You had the right word for it. You said there is always "drama". Tomorrow. Mattisse(talk) 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that Rosencomet seems to be having an actual dialogue with you. That is a step forward. Mattisse(talk) 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghats and Plateau

Hills of India

Now I get what you mean. Mattisse(talk) 11:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No apology necessary

I figured it was probably something like that. It's no problem at all. My emphatic wording and quick comment removal was meant to make it clear to the assembled throngs that the discussion should be moved, not an expression of frustration with you or a believe that you'd done anything wrong. -- SCZenz 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sivasamudram Falls

Would you be adverse to taking the merge off Sivasamudram Falls? If you look at the edit history you will see the merge was slapped on there by User:999 within minutes of my creation of the article -- 6 minutes to be exact -- back in the days when he was stalking me and able to make my life miserable. Mattisse(talk) 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it will turn out like your other merge at Hanuman Das's request when you turned a UNESCO World Heritage Site into an unrecognizable name (because he told you I was a sockpuppet) and the article became such a mess, Brihadeeswarar Temple, that now no one will touch it. Did you even read the discussion page on the proposed merge, where User:Dineshkannambadi is against the name change? (Its probably the same reason the UNESCO temple name should never have been changed.) ... Well, never mind. O.K., I get the drift. Do with it what you want. I'll bow out. Mattisse(talk) 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for apologising. I appreciate that greatly. I know you mean well. And I truly appreciate all the support you have given me lately. I'm not working on any more India articles though. (I hope Dineshkannambadi understands my decision, because he is trying to do right.) To change the name of a temple from one that the World Heritage Site recognizes to one that it does not . . . (because someone says I am a sockpuppet) . . . I don't get it. And now you want to do a simalar switch with the waterfalls locatation despite what your compatriot Dineskannambadi says. Maybe I am too academic but that type of looseness drives me up the wall, maybe in the same way the loose language of dab does for you. Anyway, since your authorities for India are Texans in both cases, instead of people from your own country who are trying to be responsible, I can't agree with your way of making these spontaneous decisions that wreck articles. Plus I am truly surprised, as in the temple case, you do not bother consulting with people involved with the article or the reprecussions of changing names. Hope you understand my decision to withdrawn. It is for my own safety. I can't trust anythong that is happening in the India articles and am no lomger willing to endure the negavite consequences. Mattisse(talk) 05:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dineshkannambadi on the issue of names as presented on the Discussion page of the merger proposal and with the fact that he has a rationale for his choice of name. He is not going on the suggestions of two Texas friends. And I agree with his method of discussing it with others and not acting abitrarily and alone. Mattisse(talk) 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You write "I agree with his method of discussing it with others and not acting abitrarily and alone. " To what are you referring? --BostonMA ^talk 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To what do I refer? I refer to User:Dineshkannambadi's using the Discussion page of Sivasamudram Falls to communicate, and to the fact that he takes it upon himself to sent messages to someone like me out of courtesy to apprise me of proposed changes on articles I have been involved with, soliciting feedback first, before he makes changes. Mattisse(talk) 13:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good way to proceed. However, I am trying to understand what is going on. I asked you whether you agreed that it is not good to have two articles on the same subject with different article names, what would be your solution to this problem, and whether you understood that I do not mind what name is used. I didn't get the point of your answer. I know it is sometimes frustrating to try to communicate, when communication does not seem to be working. So, if you would like to take a break that is fine. However, if you would like to continue, we could either go back to the questions I asked above (about two articles on the same topic), or perhaps you could help me to understand the point you would like to make regarding acting arbitrarily and alone. I feel bad that this seems to be difficult. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 13:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Dineshkannambadi, [11] This was his response (to my response) to a proposal he had made and discussed with me and others over this very issue you are asking me about now. If you want, I will try to layout what he is saying, but he says it better than I would. Maybe you would explain why, if you don't care what name is used, your choice is 999's, the name less recognized and rather incorrect according to Dineshkannambadi, who looked into the matter? 999 had already wiped out one of my just created articles maybe 10 minutes after I created it and a few minutes before the incident on the Falls merge occured, and I am guessing now that you were involved in that also. (I thought I was going crazy - at the time I couldn't figure out what was happening.) I'm not accusing you of being against me because I know that is not true. But my opinion, since you are asking for it, is that incident is an example of sloppy behavior (not fully checking things out) and such incidents contribute greatly to the bad feeling at Wikipedia. (Plus, and this really bothers me, 999 and Hanuman Das were able to use you to harass me - I know it was unwitting on your part. Not fully checking thing out opens you up to this. And I wonder now why you would choose Hanuman Das as the ultimate arbitrator on the temple issue. He is a neopagan from Texas and knows nothing about temples in India. Mattisse(talk) 14:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. Let me reiterate that I am not attached to one name or the other. I do not understand why you say "your choice is 999's". That is not my choice. My choice is to not have two articles on the same subject. I have not seen anything notable about the village of Sivasamudram that would indicate that it is appropriately notable for its own article, nor is there any significant content that I know of to fill such an article. So please explain why you say "your choice is 999's".

With regard to your discussion with Dineshkannambadi, I think that is very good. However, it seemed that one point was not covered, and that is where there is a temple which is notable, in a village which is not notable. Perhaps we do need articles on even small villages. That has not been the impression I have received from other editors, but if you believe such articles are appropriate, please let me know.

I don't know what article you are talking about that 999 wiped out.

I am surprised by your comments suggesting that my decisions on India related articles are somehow based upon the opinions of Hanuman Das or 999.

You say that Hanuman Das or 999 were able to use me to harass you, that I did not fully check things out, was sloppy etc. What did I do that you think I ought not to have done? That is something that I am trying to understand. Please help me in this. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think there should be two articles on the same subject. However, when the original name is wrong, then that is likely to happen. I'm starting to get lost in this discussion. O.K. Here goes from what I have observed. Dineshkannambadi and I had a discusstion about the temples vs towns issue because I have written so many articles about temples. He want to know if it was all right to combine some towns with temples in the cases where the temple was not notable enough to warrant an article and the town had many temples. He noted that town life revolves around the temples and he thought that made more sense. He said some of the articles I had created were on temples notable enough to deserve their own article. Neither of us was proposing that every town has it's own article. This was a dialogue we were having.

On the subject of Sivasamudram, Dineshkannambadi and I had just finished agreeing moments before that I would create a short article on Sivasamudram because he has temples he wants to put there. I did so. (Neither of us knew an article already existed, because under the correct name, there was not an article. I did so and immediately a merged was slapped on it by 999 with an alterative spelling of the town, an incorrect one, according to Diseshkannambadi who researched it. The discussion on the Merge talk pages seem to be ignored. A few minuites later I created an article, Sirvasamudram Falls, a famous falls. Immediately, it too was merged into the incorrect spelling by 999. You seemed to be agreeing with 999 but maybe I misunderstood.

The point you say we had not covered, that is, should every town have it's own article, was not resolved. I personally have run across cases where the town needed an article but the name of the town was already taken by a temple, or a wildlife refuge. or something else. Just yesterday I saw a plea from a town requesting that they get their name back as they wanted to write about their town but the name had been coopted by a lake or something. Also yesterday, a person asked to change a temple name from the town's name to the temple's name because he felt people would not realize the article was about a temple unless it was call a temple. This is why there are so many unfixed links that need dab in India articles. A word can mean a town or a district or the location of a dam, lake, waterfall and so on. When you click on one, you never know where you will be sent. (I used to spend a lot of time trying to fix this.) Also, how is the significance of a town determined? Not enough people in it? Nothing notable there? So much is happening every day in India, that a town can become notable quickly. But then one finds the name has been already used by a picnic area.

I don't know if I am answering your questions or not.

My question: why can't dams be called dams, waterfalls be called waterfalls etc.? It is so much easier to locate dams if they are called dams.

Regarding Hanuman Das, you asked him about the temple name and you accepted his answer that I was a sockpuppet and therefore you should not use the UNESCO name. You did not contact me. That one act start Hanuman Das on his next big wave of attacks against me. Again, I am not blaming you for any kind of intentional act. But again I ask you, why do you consult a neopagan from Texas about temples in India? (Forgive me if I am not wording this in the best possible way as I was away and just got back and my thoughts are not straight yet -- if they ever are straight.) Mattisse(talk) 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I will copy this to your page when I am finished. I may take several edits. I'm going to be away for a bit. I will look to see if there are more points that I should address when I get back. In the mean time, feel free respond to what I have written, or to draw my attention to things you would especially like me to address when I return. --BostonMA ^talk 18:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You write about "the right" spelling and "the wrong" spelling as if there is in fact a right and a wrong spelling. This is simply not the case. There may be a preferred spelling for Wikipedia, but that doesn't make the other spellings are wrong.
2. I did not ask Hanuman Das what he thought the temple name should be. I asked him about you. Nor do I think I would be unduly influenced by opinions Hanuman Das might have regarding temple names. I recognize that Hanuman Das has limited familiarity with India. However, if he may be a neo-pagan that would have no influence on my decisions one way or another.
3. I think it is a good idea that dams be called dams, waterfalls called waterfalls, and temples be called temples.

--BostonMA ^talk 18:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Just going by what Dineshkannambadi explained on the Merge talk page -- the most common spelling in India and througout the world. He seemed to feel the spellings being used where the spelling common only in a particular area of India and not widely used in India or outside of India. Mattisse(talk) 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sivasamudram is the most common spelling. However, as Dineshkannambadi points out "Locals call it Shivanasamudra". Neither is incorrect, but one may be preferred for Wikipedia. Same with Brihadeshvara Temple.

Glad you are back

There already are two articles about the village, the one I wrote for Dineshkannambadi, and the one that already existed under an alternate spelling which have Merge on them. (So all I did that day was waste my time, get freaked out, and cause double trouble for myself!) When I asked about removing the merge, I was just trying to clean up any loose ends remaining in India articles for which I may be responsible. The other Falls article is a mess, unsourced, probably copied from somewhere, a trivia section - ugh! I don't deal with articles like that. Have someone do it who doesn't care about those things. As for the village, why don't you ask Dineshkannambadi whether he even cares about the village -- he was just upset about the incorrect name (from his point of view) it seemed to me. Mattisse(talk) 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Other article

Just Shivanasamudra where everything was to be merge into. I threw away the rest of what I was writing for the town as soon as I saw what was happening. No way was I going to contribute to that. I get upset just looking at it again. Mattisse(talk) 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I saw this [12] with the gratuitous "citation needed" tags I new something was going on. I stopped writing the article and didn't keep the information because there was no point. That was the last straw. I am not going through that again because 999 can get away with it. (That's what I mean when I say by only look superficially, harm is done.) All you are doing right now is bring back into my memory how awful things were that day. So I am not open-minded to your defending 999 and in no way am I going to be involved in these articles again. Sorry! But this is quickly becoming a bad day just reliving this. Mattisse(talk) 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you see that Sivasamudram and Somanathapura are not the same place? And that the Falls are a third place? There is lots of interesting possibilities there, a power plant, dams... If a person is interested in water and energy and such as I am, then it is a joy to explore and dig up information -- to round out and figure it out and connect it all up. That is what this "merge instantly" method snuffs out completely. It takes away all joy. If there were a point I would merge articles if you wanted me to, but everything interesting, all possibilities of learning something new and fascinating, of a world opening up are now removed. (This is aside from 999 using you again.) Mattisse(talk) 22:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:polaria

Hi - I've asked him to produce a source (fast). I'm inclined to delete it as there are no Google hits for Polaria disease, but we should give him an opporunity to get a source. Rama's arrow 03:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. Call me suspicious but how come a recent find already has full diagnosis and treatment methods discussed? I couldn't find the doc's name either. Rama's arrow 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving this to your page as it has to do with you

(I don't know what is being talked about here but probably you do -- so here is the information, as this person is telling me to do something that has nothing to do with me. Mattisse(talk) 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Hi Matisse, I havent yet read the extended discussion above. But I just wanted to tell you that the correct name is 'Shivanasamudra' and not 'Shivasamudra'. Shivanasamudra literally means 'Shiva's Samudra(sea)' while Shivasamudra is a little vague coz it just means 'Shiva-sea'. Also please check Shivanasamudra if you havent already and merge this with that or that with this and finally move 'Sivasamudram' to 'Shivanasamudra'. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matisse, sorry for having added to the confusion by not reading the extended discussions. I concur mostly with what Boston says above. ie., unless we can find enough information or establish enough notability to justify an article for "Shivanasamudra - the village", these two articles should be merged to "Shivanasamudra falls" because imo, the falls is far more famous and notable than the village. If however, notability can be established for the village, I wouldnt mind an article dedicated to the village too.

Either way, the article/s should be moved to "Shivana samudra <whatever>" from the present "Shivasamudra" because "Shivasamudra" I am sure is plain wrong. "Shivasamudra" is at best just colloquial usage for tired tongues... so it can probably be used as a redirect to "Shivanasamudra <whatever>"

Hope this helps. Sarvagnya 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Boston, I am sorry about yesterday and apologize to you about everything. I guess I wasn't able to listen to what you were saying and I am sorry. I moved those comments to your page because I do not have a clue what that person is talking about. It fries my brain even to look at it -- that is, when I can even find it on my talk page -- everything is so mixed up there. I can't even figure out what we were talking about yesterday. If I can't even figure out that, then I don't see how I will be upset over how anything turns out. So don't worry about that. I'm going to archive the whole mess and forget about it. I hope I haven't made anything more difficult for you. Never do I want to do that. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Boston, like I said, Shivanasamudra is the correct word. That is what you'll find on boards if you go to the village/falls also. As for what google says, I really think we shouldnt be relying on google in cases like this where this is a village that is practically unknown outside Karnataka. Its not even that well known in South India. In cases like this I feel opinions of native wikipedians should count more. As for not merging the two, my only concern is this - Shivanasamudra the village, as far as I know has little other than the falls, dam and power plant as its claim to fame. All these(falls, dam and power plant) will go into the "Shivanasamudra-the falls" article. So "Shivanasamudra-the village" might end up being a stub all its life. So my suggestion is, merge them for now into "Shivanasamudra-the falls" and later if anybody has any info to add about "Shivanasamudra-the village" they can always create a new article for it. Sarvagnya 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• And like u said(somewhere), we can have redirects for whatever spellings google throws up. Sarvagnya 06:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Before I finally get away from this darn computer (I can't turn it off because I'm not sure if it will start up again) I want to say how wonderfully tactful you are. But I would also like to weigh in on the side of User:Dineshkannambadi. He seems less ideologically driven (of course, that is a judgment in the eye of the beholder) ss he is thinking of all the rest of us in the world who use maps and world database sites. So whatever the "right" or "wrong" of a particular name, please remember the rest of us who are truly fascinated by India, but who end up being driven away by this name-bickering stuff. My wish is that you would strive to make India accessible to us "others". Have a good night, Boston, as you deserve some rest. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 03:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (and I am really leaving my computer now!)

I am more interested in research and finding information. The redirects are good if you want to find an article on Wikipedia. But even in those cases, the redirects for a district send you to a town, etc. I have to go now but will be back later - I'm already late. (Sorry, I posted on the wrong page again.) Mattisse(talk) 13:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Zora issue

No problem! To think - the vandal did all that when Zora gave on warning. I wonder what'll happen to me! Martinp23 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You've benn approved to use NPWatcher. When you log into the program, wait a few second while it queries wikipedia before screaming at your PC for crashing (unless you see an error, of course). Please give me any feature requests, bugs, etc. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the appliction page to see if I've made a new release. Finally, enjoy! Martinp23 01:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

When you click on a button, the prorgram can tke some time to make the edit. In future releases, I'll have it grey out the buttons, but for now, it's best to just click once :) Thanks Martinp23 20:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

New release - please download from the same link as before! Thanks Martinp23 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

hopeless mediation

Hi. I wrote a question on the Starwood Mediation page and got an unsatisfactory answer from Rosencomet. Plus I notices another article waiting in the wings: Musart. Do you think we should ask for another mediator? Ours seems to be missing in action. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I must agree. It is hopeless and would be a waste of your time. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

hahahahaa

Hi BostonMA - you have nothing to apologize for. You acted with responsibility, seeking to protect the article content. Yes I have been criticized but its a very acceptable technical discussion. I certainly don't feel I did anything wrong and I'm not concerned an iota becoz I know that situations are best resolved without blocking. I performed the block, I'm responsible for that (you are not) but if 172 is more careful from now on it is much better that the block was revoked. Rama's arrow 13:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation update

Hello there. I noticed that you have made some disparaging remarks to other editors about how I have handled your mediation case. Is there anything you can communicate to me directly that I can address? If you are completely unhappy, I would be happy to ask for a different mediator or close the case outright. Thanks --Aguerriero (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I only recall making one comment regarding the mediation [13]. Is this the remark to which you are referring, or am I missing something? Please be aware that the Muhammad images mediation is not the only one in which I am involved. I will respond under the assumption that the comment to which you are referring is the one mentioned above.

I think the Muhammad images mediation has been making good progress in the last day or so. In particular, I am pleased with the format of proposing amendments and "voting" on them. I think this greatly helps to clarify the arguments. I greatly appreciate your efforts and the time you have spent to help us with our conflict. If I have any criticisms of the mediation, they are not meant to reflect upon you personally. Please feel free to discuss with me more. However, at the moment, I need to go out. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That was the comment I was referring to, yes. No problem - I just like to keep the air clear so when the mediation is over, no one feels that things were overlooked. The Muhammad issue is obviously very complicated, and I have tried to pursue a direction that will resolve various conflicts in a logical order. I have never had a mediation case where all of the participants were agreeable - that's usually why things end up in mediation to begin with. :) But, I think in the end things will turn out in the best interest of Wikipedia, which is the goal we're (hopefully) after. No reply necessary - just hoping that if you do have concerns, you talk to me freely. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Q at PINQ

Your last Q on PINQ was just too great... Linking "யாதும் ஊரே யாவரும் கேளீர்" (I assume you can read Tamil!) to the Mitochondrial Eve was great thinking... Kudos !!! -Natrajdr 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :D --BostonMA ^talk 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Temples

I believe you weigh against the views of User:Dineshkannambadi, judging by your message to the awful person, but he (Dineshkannambadi) is completely professional and only interested in content and not religious or ethnic wars -- not at all like the high-handed manner of the awful person. (You seem to have a side in this although you profess neutrality.) I'm only slightly criticixing you for this -- really, only a bit. It's just hard for me to accept that you do not value his professionalism and respect for fact. Boston, you are a great, good person, but my opinion is that you are emotionally invested in issues that have no place on Wikipedia -- at least the articles I am concerned about. Have a good night, and don't worry about eating birds on Thursday! I went shopping today with a friend who is doing the bird thing at his house. I don't even eat meat but that isn't the point. He, my friend, is doing this for the rest of us and it is a wonderful thing. I will be thinking of you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 03:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. I value Dineshkannambadi's professionalism and disinterest in religious or ethnic wars very much. If every editor had the same attitude, editting at Wikipedia would be much more enjoyable. However, I try not to let my judgement regarding editor's personal demeanor affect my judgement about the content of a dispute. In real life, people who are virtuous sometimes make mistakes and people who are vicious sometimes speak the truth.

I hope we all have personal investments in things outside of Wikipedia -- friends, family, interests, ideals. Our interest in our family should not cause us to add articles about them if they are non-notable (and if they are notable, it is probably best for someone else to add the article). It do attempt to avoid letting my personal feelings, biases, etc. adversely affect the project. However, it would be foolish of me to think of myself as faultless. If one of my blind spots is particularly noticable to you, then by all means please help me to see myself as others may see me.

If you are off for the next few days, I hope they go well for you. Sincerely, BostonMA ^talk 13:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The blindspot issue -- I am thinking about how best to respond as I do think you have one. On another subject, I find that I cannot edit India articles. I've tried some in the last few days but I am too anxious. I wish I could get over the fear and unhappiness -- at least enough to help out Dineshkannambadi, since he asked me to do so and I said I would. Maybe there is something you could say to me to help me to get over the terrible feeling I get whenever I try. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You ask for some words to hearten you. I have written words, then erased them, then written others. Perhaps in the future I will have more to offer you. But at the moment, I think I can do no better than to offer you these words from a Tamil poet:

To us all towns are one, all humans are our kin,

Life's good comes not from others' gifts, nor ill,

Man's pains and pain's relief are from within,

Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Boston. The words are true and help center me back from an off kilter feeling. It's me I know. You are a wonderful friend. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 20:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have made this day a better one. Thank you. I learned to find images and upload them today -- very frustrating at first but then I finally got how to do it. That was a distraction, maybe not as good as nitrous oxide! (My father used to bring home liquid nitrogen in a thermos bottle - we used it to burn warts off.) Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nitrogen dioxide

Thanks for dropping by. Ah yes, I've seen that site before, but I think the equation does not tell quite the whole story. I think I might actually dig a bit further into this... --HappyCamper 22:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I have a feeling this will be quite a fun treasure hunt! --HappyCamper 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Bio Board

Hi, I noticed your comments at the WP:BIO board. I'm getting familiar with the contentious article on SSB and I've nearly finished reading the archive of the mediation that you supervised. Job well done as far as I could see! Its one of the reasons why I suggested a separate section on saints/godmen under WP:BIO. Other admins have said that the contention is mainly a battle between opposing editors fighting tooth and nail and that the article needs "more eyes" for it to be a well-written piece. Would you consider checking in from time to time and helping to maintain NPOV and adherence to Wikipedia policies? Ekantik 02:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO? Did you mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism? Thank you for the compliment on the mediation. Unfortunately, I became pressed with other matters and had to bow out, and the conflict eventually went to arbcom. I don't count it as a success story, although some things were resolved.

My comments on the Hinduism board were meant as a warning. Now that you are more familiar with the intesity and longevity of the conflict, I leave you to exercise your own judgement. I just didn't want a rush decision made without knowledge of the risk of disruption that may be involved. Feel free to discuss this with me further. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi BostonMA, for reasons of disclosure, please view Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ekantik. Thank you. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 04:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi BostonMA,

I have a simple question if you don't mind. I am involved in a dispute in which some editors consider Paul Johnson (journalist), a conservative journalist who has a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method at Stonyhurst College at Oxford, to be more reliable than Bernard Lewis & Encyclopedia of Islam for the following reasons:

Johnson's publications are have likely outsold those of Lewis by a wide margin

Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill academic publisher, is a POV teritary source. The article there is written by Claude Cahen

In fact, the quotes from the Encyclopedia of Islam are removed and quotes from Johnson are replaced. I would be thankful if you could comment about it. Thanks very very much. --Aminz 03:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. here are the diffs: Please see [14] and [15]

And this is one of the edits in dispute [16] where Encyclopedia of Islam was deleted in favor of Johnson because Encyclopedia of Islam is a POV teritary source. Thanks --Aminz 03:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Boston. Even if Johnson is a reliable source which I don't think he is (because he just has a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method), removal of Claude Cahen and replacing it with Johnson is unjustified. These users are so quick to accuse me of misrepresenting the sources, so here is what Cahen says (the whole paragraph; you might be able to access it here [17]:

It cannot be denied that from the last three or four centuries of the Middle Ages there was a general hardening against dhimmis in Muslim countries, helped materially and morally by the change in numerical proportions. Before proceeding further, however, it must be noticed that this hardening of opinion was contemporary with that which appeared in Christendom against the Jews and against Muslims where there were any, without our being able to say to what extent there was convergence, influence, or reaction. On the other hand it must be emphasized that the populace were more easily excited as a result of the deterioration in the economic climate, and that generally changes in the Muslim attitude had been occasioned more by political than by religious considerations. Hitherto there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism.

Cheers, --Aminz 03:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. At least including the encyclopedia of islam is one level progress but i don't think Johnson is a reliable source per WP:RS Cheers, --Aminz 04:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good bye and Have nice times, --Aminz 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bananas?

That sounds interesting -- hammering a nail with a banana. Have a happy tomorrow! Mattisse(talk) 04:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you are not put off by me as you are my only friend. Hope you underdant my actionss -- probably not. I miss the words from you. I know you have other preoccupation, which i unnderstand, but I miss you. Mattisse(talk) 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed . . .

Chamundeswari Temple and Chamundi Hills look like they fall under your merge categories. (I'm trying to disposed of temple articles I started.} Happy day after! Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 15:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another. Just wanted to be able to take it off my watchlist. Thanks. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Prove that all geologists...

Quote from you:

(rv weasel words. Unless you can provide citations that some geologists believe in Lemuria, words like "most" are inappropriate.)

Obviously, I can prove that most geologists support the theory of plate tectonics.

Obviously, you cannot prove that all geologists do.

Perhaps accuracy is weasel-like. If so, call me THE WEASEL.

What could possibly make you think words like "most" are inappropriate? What could possibly make you think that, in this venue, an inaccurate (and probably false) statement is more appropriate than an accurate one? Besides, the article itself provides citations that some scientists believe in Lemuria. Perhaps you ought to "un-weasel" these as well.

Jim Pettis born in Lynn, MA B.S. in Physics WEASEL —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPettis (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:Weasel. If there is apparent consensus by experts in a field, we don't write "most experts". We only write "most experts" believe X, if we can cite *some* experts who don't believe X. --BostonMA ^talk 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

maybe

Perhaps you wouldn't mind weighing in on Talk:Andrew Cohen where there is a discussion on what kind of external links are appropriate. Andrew Cohen is a Starwood Festival speaker. Mattisse(talk) 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I hope you feel free to disagree with my opinion. It's not clear to me in these "iffy" cases. Your feedback is valuable. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 00:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you here? Someone just asked me to summarize the Starwood Mediation. Can you help? Maybe it's a new mediator. I feel so tired though and probably you do too. Mattisse(talk) 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Muhammad mediation

Hey there, sorry I have not communicated much but real life has had me on overload since the holidays. We have slowed down somewhat due to several participants either not responding to me, or getting blocked and thus not being able to participate. I am going to have to put out the feelers again and find out of various people still want to participate. In particular, both Captainktainer and Irishpunktom put forward proposed changes to our criteria; Captainktainer has not responded to my queries nor edited since the 22nd, and Irishpunktom is going through some block/unblock/Talk page blanking ordeal. Will try to figure out where we are within the next 24 hours. Have a good night! --Ars Scriptor 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:the Return of Sturm

No problem. His edit to the user page marks him as clearly a vandal - there's been a series of them who scrawl "The revolution is here" or some such message together with a large image on user pages. Kimchi.sg 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

my summary

In general the issue is User:Rosencomet and his suite of articles that promote his festivals:

• Starwood Festival
• WinterStar Symposium
• Association for Consciousness Exploration

User:999, User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati have been protecting him and reverting pages back to spam. User:Timmy12 removed search engine links within these articles [18] and seems to have been driven away from Wikipedia by the harassment and many complaints filed against him by the above users.

Many of us are concerned with links in the articles:Check Rosencomet linkspamming.

Also, all the internal linking Check on performers at Starwood Festival.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival was opened. Almost immediately Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse was filed. If you look through that you will get an idea of the scope of articles involved and the amount of energy they are willing to put into harassing someone.

We were hoping an out-in-the-open discussion of what constitutes following WP:V, WP:RS etc. as well how to decide issues of notability. Now it is WP:OWN and WP:STALK as people who attempt to do anything to these articles get harassed. I saw a comment by User:Kathryn NicDhàna somewhere that summed it up as she is starting to experience it over a current AFD on one of the protected articles.

BostonMA is better at explaining than I am. Please ask him. I am still intimidated by all the harassment and discouraged. Hope this is what you meant by a summary. If you wanted something else, let me know and I will try to do better. Mattisse(talk) 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what I sent as a summary. Hope it was O.K. However, I don't know who he is. I'm getting scared again Mattisse(talk) 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

something strange is happening

It's all very strange. After the mediator was taken off the case, he sent me a message under a disguised name (I'm not kidding). I though he was the new mediation, but now I know he is not. My message ended up on a strange page and I just now reverted it. I discussed it some with a Medication Cabal person -- it's very very strange. Don't go to any trouble. This is very nuts. Thanks for replying. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the page it ended up on: User talk:Geo.plrd/Esperanza which is up for AFD. I don't get what is happeninng but I think you are right -- mediation is not going to work in this case and it is very draining. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the mediation guy: User talk:Kylu. He seems really reasonable, with a humorous touch. Asked me if I wanted to be a mediator! It would be a cold day in hell, as they say. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Do you know that our ex-mediator just sent the following message to Rosencomet. I quote:

hi Rosencomet, if you give me a list of the folks you want to create articles on, I will help with finding external sources. Geo. 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you thinK? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You sent him a wonderful, kind and constructive message as only you can do. I wish I had your ability and mind. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just read your commendable message on my talk page. Unfortunately I know somewhat more through the Cabal Coordinator. They have had a great deal of trouble with him before. Plus he has changed so many things on my talk page that it is impossible to follow the nonsense that was happening yesterday. Sorry for not being as gracious as you are. Hope so much that you still are my friend. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of the last 10 edits to my talk page 8 have been from him. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Off of 999's talk page:

-- Matisse --

Would you be kind enough to look in my talk archives, 6 and 7, and tell me if Matisse's comments (to me)are rational? Geo. 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to determine if the comments to me show that this person needs to be blocked Geo. 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But Boston, I got sent to his page. His name, which I had tacked on to the list of the four I have disputes with, turned into "Welcome". Even after I removed his hame completely I could not get off his page. What is that? Maybe it's his day to take cases or something. I don't know. You think I should do it again and complete it even if the same thing happens? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I think you should complete the process, even if Geo is assigned to you as an advocate. Then we would go to the advocate people and say, look, you've got a problem. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the link to that page to file again. Do you know where it is? Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 23:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I filed. I see that Geo has now signed on as a party with 999 and the other on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse

Hoysala

Thanks. I shall incorporate your statement. To better understand the TN country, I will also look at the TN map today and locate Kannanur Kuppam and Tiruvannamalai (which were also secondary capitals of the hoysalas). This way I can improve the LEAD.Dineshkannambadi 14:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

November 9

Why I stopped editing India articles (yesterday someone showed me how to use "diffs") These edits were done within minutes of each other (or so) to articles I had just edited. A couple are to article's editor's talk page explaining how awful I was. I got a message from one of them, who suspected something was up. That's how I started to catch on. That person was the 3rd one to sign the RFC supporting me.

• November 9
• [19]Peggy Sue
• [20]Tom Collier
• [21]Sivasamudram
• [22]Ruthless
• [23]The Coasters
• [24]Sivasamudram
• [25]user Wahkeenah
• [26]Peggy Sue
• [27]Sivasamudram Falls
• [28]Shavanasamudra
• [29]Rasor
• [30]user Wahkeenah
• [31]user Wahkeenah
• [32]user AdelaMae
• [33]- Personal attack on me by User:Hanuman Das

Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification of my statements in the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. However ungrateful I may seem, it is not true that I don't fundmmentally realize that you have saved my soul. Truely. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that you got one of those "random" Smiley Awards too. That makes three of us. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

More credit than you deserve? Certainly not true! Not enough credit, in my opinion. I wish you a good evening and some rest. As you said before, there is always drama on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Hoysala emblem

Good point. In Chennakesava temple, the tower (Bhumija type) has fallen off. So the emblem is no longer there. You are right in that the large sculptures depicting the same fight are also at the entrance in front of the friezes, but this is exceptional. Also, the word "often" merely means in many temples the emblem has fallen off or vandalised, from a present day perspective. Yes there is reference to the quote "The Hoysala emblem is located on the sukanasi" and I shall add the citation.Dineshkannambadi 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoysalas -All of South India, south of Krishna

Good point. I will take a closer look at this statement. The map merely shows their power base during 1200-1250, at their peak and in fact is slightly inaccurate as my book shows they had complete control over northern TN. The map has to be fixed. I am not allowed to scan my book or I would have done it. This is a pending TBD item on my list. But we are allowed to draw it with an online tool. I will refer to all my sources and see if the Pandyas simply paid tribute for some time (before formation of Madurai sultanate) and were still independent or were they completely taken over by the Hoysalas. I believe its the former. However, My sources defnitely say they completely dominated the region mentioned in the title above.Dineshkannambadi 23:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala territory in TN and Vedic Hinduism

Territory:

Dr. Kamath: Ballala II gained Tamil Nadu territories by helping Cholas defeat Pandyas. Intermarraige between Hoysala and Cholas familes also happened. Ballala II becomes "establisher of Chola kingdom". Vira Narasimha II (1220) defeats Pandyas, levies tribute on them and sets up Hoysala capital in Kannaur Kuppar, near Srirangam (central TN) and marches all the way to Rameshvaram. Hoysala army stationed in Kanchi. Hoysalas become arbiters of S.Indian politics (BSK Iyengar). Pandyas are a local kingdom in the Madurai region. Hoysala kingdom splits into branches between brothers, with Narasimha III in Halebidu and Ramanatha in Srirangam as kings. Ballala III later combines both kingdoms back for central rule.

Prof. K.A.N.Sastri:During the rule of Vira Narasimha II, (1220-1235) agrees with above and says Narasimha marched up to Chidambaram and defeated Pandyas. Somesvara, son of Vira Narasimnha II earns honorific "Mamadi" (uncle) from both Pandyas and Cholas. Complete Hoysala hegemony over South India between 1220-1245 before Pandya uprising. Hoysalas loose much Tamil territory during rule of Sundara Pandya between 1250-1290, only to regain it in rule of Ballala III, who made Tiruvannamalai his capital. But all this is disrupted by Muslim invasion from north in 1313.

Not much is said about Kerela, except it was controlled by Sundara Pandya during his successful rule. Does this mean the Hoysalas controlled it before and after Sundara Pandya? not sure.

Dr. Thapar: Hoysala domination over Southern Deccan from Ballala II to Ballala III (inclusive)

Conclusion: TN was a battle ground for southern rivals, Hoysalas and Pandyas, though Dr Thapar clearly mentions Pandyas remained a local power for most part. Will reword the line of concern in the main article to reflect changing scenarios.

Religion: I am merely quoting from Dr. Kamath. I will call it Vaishnavism as it is mentioned instead of Vedic Hinduism.Dineshkannambadi 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala-->Religion

I have removed the unnecessary words "many backword classes". In fact my book (Dr. Kamath) says that Vishnuvardhana may have embraced Vaishnavism not just because of of Ramanujacharya but also to be able to do major Yagnas and take on titles (like Maharajadhiraja for example) which would not be possible as a Jaina. Dr. Thapar confirms that this may have been a valid reason that even Jain kings patronised Hinduism, across centuries. This way he wanted to equal his overlords, the Western Chalukyas who had similar titles. Prof. Settar attests that the Chennakesava temple was built also to out do the Chalukyas in arts, and hence the Vaishnava temple (not just because of his victory against Cholas at Talkad). He also claims Vishnuvardhana never met Ramanujacharya. I get the feeling that decisions were made by kings with multiple reasons (killing many birds with one stone!!).Dineshkannambadi 14:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

yo so i have a question.. how might i talk to you? becuase i have a question and a comment.

I'm sorry, I have been experimenting, and posting some nonsense. I want to know if other users know about ActivOn. I also edited the HeadOn page, and mad a few mistakes hear and there. Feel free to delete them, although I think it is true. Sorry once again.

so i wood like to let you kno. i workd real hard to make a page on hear. for my compoter class at skool. it was for my final grade in the class. i made it about are skool. and my acount was deleted and then the page. becuase i cant spell. i think that is descrimination of my skool. beall high school of frostburg, md. we do not have the smartest people becuase it is a skool for people like me with autism. and i was deleted for vandilism. it realy hurt my feelings and i failed to. thanks to you guys.

Re: Thanks for taking care of Iamnathanschellhaus

Glad to be of help. In the future, AIV is the best place to report obvious vandalism. You can always drop me a message if you need something, too. --Slowking Man 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, Boston. You continue to amaze me. I am working on a user page in my sandbox that I got from someone I worked with on Fidel Castro. It is for when and if I decide it is safe to have any identity at all here, besides the huge one I seem to have by not having an identity. So if I continue on Wikipedia I will use the new user page and put my awards there. I'm very discouraged though. People continue to accuse me of targeting pagan articles, so obviously not one of those editors making this accusation is responsible enough to check my edits. It is fine to sling accusations around with no proof. Sorry for being downbeat! I think I need to go away and think about whether involvement in Wikipedia is worth the emotional toll. When I got your message, I was just sitting here trying to get going on helping Dineshkannambadi but I don't know if I can even make myself to that. Mattisse(talk) 14:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

the decision seems to be that Mattisse, socks and Timmy12 were wrong to insist on citations - Ekajaki

[34] Sorry, forgot to sign. I am getting upset again. Maybe I should contact my advocate. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 17:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My hands are shaking. I'm just going to continue closing down my page. My apologies to Dineshkannambadi, but I can't focus anymore. It purpetuates the sockpuppet thing. Just like you asked HD about the temple - it spreads around and I lose credibility to the point it interferes seriously in my ability to work. Everytime I left a comment on an article talk page that sockpuppet tag would appear under it - I'm talking about 3 months later. This all occurred in August. This is December. After that administrator tried to block me from taking it off my page in October -- totally irrationally -- I got someone to remove it from my article talk page comments. It's going to be more of the same. Someone will stick a sockpuppet tag on my page, then some one will try to block me, as Geo has aready a few days ago. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can clarify what is the short and long run. I have done nothing wrong since August, 2006. I make a mistake in August. Before and after that my work and behavior was excellent. This is December. So it is still the short run, you are saying? Repeatedly defending oneself has no effect here. I am exhausted. Maybe I will just start another account and desert this one. Many people wrote me advising me to do that, saying their experience was that this type of thing never goes away -- that is what they ended up doing, they said. I think they are right. Well, now I know how to collect diffs at least. I have to think about this. Truly. My health is suffering. Sorry. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 18:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The actions of a "few editor" are exactly the same ones that have stalked me since August, left messages on other's talk pages slandering me, gotten me blocked, taken away my credibility, done five or six formal sockpupped accusations (each time after an admin said they had to or stop slandering me) before finally requesting a checkuser which they were told months before to request, probably at least 10 or more (that I know about) ANI reports against me -- all of these ANI's, Sockpuppet Reports, RFC's, Mediation Cabels, etc. providing endless opportunity to discuss me to death over and over and over again. No one looks at facts, evidence, edit histories. They just opine until they are tired. Then a new group moves in and opines over the same old ground. It's the same "few editors" that keep it going for a new group to get to discuss. What has changed? Even you were worried once, remember? You were more worried than me because I had already been through it so many times before. All it takes is one gullible admin. It has never let up and it is not going to. Everyone just likes to discuss things endlessly. And nothing ever comes of it. And if I weren't so upset I would help you with pictures. I have searched for and uploaded a bunch. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe there is hope

The person who wrote this is the only clear thinker among those admins (if she is one).[35] She tried to AFD one of the the Rosencomet articles and she got the 999 treatment like I did. So now there are a couple of people who are not afraid to speak up. The other is User:Paul Pigman on the Starwood Mediation Cabal page. So now I'm hopeful again. (Sad isn't it, how easily I become hopeful?) Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

colossal waste of time

It allowed people to spout off over something that was obvious to begin with, if one believes Wikipedia has policies. And at my expense. So now I have no hope again, if you condone any of what has gone on. Very depressed now. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. Maybe it is my background or training. To me it is like negotiating murder. If it upsets some people that murder is against the law, let us negiotiate, compromise, and make it all right if they murder in the situations they want. If Wikipedia is to have any credibility at all, and to me right now it is hanging by a thin thread, then policy must be followed. WP:V is policy, or so my advocate says, but I have trouble believing it when such a spectacle as the Starwood Mediation has just taken place. To me, it is very clear that a huge ongoing violation has occurred and the response has been to negotiate which seems ridiculous. And, believe me, I am not clear about very many things at all. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'll help you find pictures if this ever lets up and I get some peace. Sorry. Mattisse(talk) 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Boston. Maybe it's because I've worked with sex offenders most of my career. I've learned that there have to be rules and that rules are to be followed even if a person does not agree. If everything is up for negotiation all of the time, then we can not get on with our lives. It is anarchy. Maybe you believe in that, I don't know. But I see that Dinesh is so frozen with anxiety about POV issures that it makes it more difficult for him to write clearly. Is that the world you want? A person who loves architecture cannot write about it clearly because of religious issues that he admits he does not know much about? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am not underestimting all you have done for me, which has been huge, even if it may not sound so at the present time. I value you enormously, an untold amount. Forgive me, I am at the end of my rope. (Sounds odd, I don't know if I am saying that right.) Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe hope

I just receive a message from User talk:Ars Scriptor informing me what is going on. Usally I am not informed by anyone. Maybe hope? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

negotiating non-negotiable policy

(quote):Would it not be appropriate to try to reason with them, to attempt to persuade them voluntarily not to slaughter the group? Of course the situation is different if you have the power to stop the murderers and voluntarily allow them to murder. Moving from the analogy back to Wikipedia, I think it would have been very risky for a small number of editors to battle with the 4 pro-link editors until it drew attention. Without the express backing of the community, such a course risks blocking and banning. Does that make sense?

To my mind, no. Meanwhile, they are murdering people while you "negotiate"? Societies have to have enforceable rules. If Wikipedia were a serious organisation, rather than a knitting club, the situation would not arise that a small number of editors have to battle a blattant policy violation with no support from on high, nor would blattant systematic abuse of an editor be allowed to continue unchecked for four months with no sign of abattment. This is like saying I and a few others have to either battle the four murderers down the street and risk arrest for doing the same thing they are getting away with, or negotiate with them while the police sit and dither and discuss (or worse, do nothing, just simply do not turn up as has been the case here).

To my mind, there are some things that it is not appropriate to negotiate like murder. That is why we have police, Also, there are types of behavior that when exhibited indicate that person is not able to negotiate. Again, sex offenders fall into this category. The editors invested in the Starwood Festival to my mind do also. To me that was clear very early on. They started their blattant abuse immediately and continued it. This is not the type of person that negotiates. In fact, it is harmful to attempt negotiation in these situations because it allows the violators to "play the system" and continue their behavior while everyone else expends an enormous amount of energy in pseudo negotiation. Wikipedia has not only the power but the duty to enforce so-called non-negotiable policy or else it is a joke. Non-negotiable policy, as WP:V theoretically is, is not negotiable. To treat it otherwise debases the whole Wikipedia enterprise and allows individuals like me to be deeply harmed. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 10:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to change. I know you do what you think is right. Meanwhie the harassment of me continues. This is on my Advocate's page from Paul Pigman: [36]At least it is spurring me to implement my new user page, since people will be clicking on it now. When I recede I want things to be inorder. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we seek to understand eachother. Our lives are so different. Last week a guy I've know for about 10 years (a heinous murderer, but I liked him) was executed in a death penalty case (he sang his last statement to reporters) and another one who has keep his case going for over 16 years, got sentenced to death again and probably this time it will not be overturned. Both I knew quite well over a period of years. How different we are, you and I. I've had to learn certain ways of being and dealing with these situations. So forgive me if I don't always do so well here. By the way, I see HD is at it attacking me again. Hopefully, my advocate will step in. Athough there has been only one RFC on me, I've lost count of the formal sockpupped accusations. Plus on one day alone, October 27, there were 10 ANI's filed against me. On the Dinesh's article, he does not want a copy editor -- I could do that in a hour. He wants something else and I only know how to operate as a normal copyeditor. So I hope you let me off the hook on this one. i would like to help him but I only know to copyedit professionaly, not his way where I can't make a move without checking with him first. Sorry. I've successfully copyedited many articles on Wikipedia, but never by his rules. He needs an editor that can accomodate his method. Sorry. I need to find the joy again. I wish I could give what you ask from me. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala temple Names

Hi. I believe we had briefly discussed about this some time back and the issue regarding Somanathapura and Kesava temple is back in a copy edit session on Hoysala article. The sentence reads like this in the Lead section (2nd para),

"Over a hundred surviving temples are scattered across Karnataka, the finest examples of which are the Chennakesava Temple at Belur, Hoysaleswara temple at Halebidu and Keshava temple at Somanathapura".

Now the two hyperlinks lead to the same temple written very differently. May be the time has come to just cut and paste the entire section in Somanathapura page pertaining to the temple, along with inline notes, citations, references etc into the Kesava temple page. I just wanted to let you know since you created the disambiguation page. Then we could just leave Somanathapura as a stub page for the town with a short note on the temple and a subarticle link to the temple. What do you think?Dineshkannambadi 22:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't want to make any changes on my own. However, I still believe that the most appropriate name for the temple would be something like Chennakeshava temple (Somanthapura). Like the temple in Belur, the temple in Somanathapura is also widely known as Chennakeshava. Please see this google listing. Some of the links are to pages that happen to mention both Belur and Somanathapura, but certainly there are many references to the Somanathapura temple as a Chennakeshava temple. A good number of these google hits are tourism packages. But this hit from the Archaeological Survey of India, on an official government website, refers to the Somanathpur temple as a Chennakesava temple. Not that it counts for anything, but my personal experience is that the temple is referred to as Chennakeshava. --BostonMA

Kesava temple

Hi. I hope I am not making an issue out of this but, when I do a google search on keshava Temple at Somnathpur I get 5 times as many as for Chennakesava temple. So I guess we can go on and on with out any consensus (which I really want to sekk here). Anyway, I will surely use the templename(placename) strategy for all other temples I will create with same name in the future.Dineshkannambadi 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It would help me if I could understand why you prefer "Keshava" to "Chennakeshava". Chenna is just means beautiful. The two names are used interchangably, and so I am reluctant to label one temple as Chennakeshava and others as Keshava. It seems to be perpetuating a myth that there are two different names. Consider, the most commonly used name for Tiruchirapalli is Trichy and the most common name for Ootacamund is Ooty. But at Wikipedia, we use the more "correct" name for an article, even if it is less common, and have a redirect from the alternative name. In my opinion, Chennakeshava is more correct. I do not wish to obstruct. I am just presenting my point of view. --BostonMA ^talk 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm always happy to discuss any edits to articles which I've made. —Hanuman Das 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Kesava or Chenna Kesava

Actually I am not really inclined to any one name as opposed to the other. To me the content of the page matters most. My only question is why is it called Keshava so many more times than Chennakesava if there was not something to it. Unfortunately my book does not describe this. Maybe you are right. There may be nothing to it at all. Why dont you go ahead and change the name to "Chennakesava Temple at Somanathapura" for the sake of prose, instead of the brackets. Is that ok with you?. If someone comes back and starts an arguement, we can handle it at that point. I just want to move ahead with this.ThanksDineshkannambadi 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

hi. Any way is fine for me so long as all my cited material is intact.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Actually, everything important mentioned in the Kesava Temple page was also mentioned in the Somanathapura page that you just moved, and with citations.Dineshkannambadi 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Oops

It's no problem. The blocking was a given, but it was important to document it as well, especially if he creates other socks. Thanks --Ars Scriptor 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For showing extraordinary patience and diligence in matters, and attempts to be neutral in point of view. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And I will still never get over just finding out that you're Indian, with a username like BostonMA.

Hahahaha :-D. --BostonMA ^talk 18:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so concerned whether a person is Indian or not, or what user name they chose? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

Please cease your harassment. There was a decision in the case of Mattise that sockpuppeteer tags are only to be placed on blocked accounts. I have not been block and can edit my user page at will, thus the tag may not be replaced per that decision. —Hanuman Das 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong!

here is the discussion which states that the tag should only be applied to blocked users, and that unblocked users are free to remove it. WP:3RR applies, and I will report you for it if you revert it again. Seems that there are different rules for User;Mattisse both about the use of sockpuppets and removal of tags. Why is that? —Hanuman Das 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have notions about how Wikipedia works, and about Wikipedia policies that do not correspond to my own beliefs. My suggestion to you is to either a) wait things out, or b) acknowledge that you threatened to use sockpuppets in a disruptive way and state for the record that you will not use sockpuppets. Of course there is always option c) which is to ignore the advice that is given to you. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman, that situation to which you refer here occurred because I was blocked and labelled a sockpuppet in August. I waited out the appropriate time and the template was removed. I did not notice that you had reapplied the template on your own to my user page on September 10. On October 18 I noticed it. That is when I tried to remove it, User:Ekajati reverted it and a gullable admin (believing User:Ekajati} protected my page so I could not remove it -- the discussion you refer to took place over two months after the template had expired on my page. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Formal request

Please refrain from posting on either my user page or talk page from now on. If you believe I've committed a serious policy violation, take it to AN/I or an admin. If it's not serious enough to do that, then please don't bother me with it. Thanks. Sincerely, —Hanuman Das 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!

I thought I was posting on his page, not yours. I don't know how I make mistakes like that. I apologise. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean you, BostonMA. I didn't mean to post on your page. Sorry! Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK...

...this is something governed by guidelines rather than rules. This tends to indicate that a majority agree with the pages in question, but not a consensus of editors.

To my mind, that gives discretion either way.

As such, I don't think the 3RR applies to user pages; but I do think that the removal of justified warnings or substantial sock notices or other good-faith messages is grounds for action of one sort or another.

The mileage of others may differ. If you object to my actions, you can appeal to me directly or indirectly by email, or on WP:ANI or shop for another admin. I don't mind! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you sort of asked for those rotten tomatoes, mate! ;o)

Nevertheless, I haven't forgotten what we talked about last month. I'm still convinced I'm right and you're not. I'm just lacking enough round tuits to do anything about it (I've got horrible RL rubbish you don't want to know about going on. No really - you don't want to know!). I really will get on with this shortly, but will discuss stuff with you first before anything happens. But I know I'm torturing you with this... but, honestly, I am sorry. Really. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

My cookie was delicious - but fair warning! I'm a thief as well[[37]]. NinaEliza 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

for tomorrow

I see you gowing by huge leaps. I never doubt the intent behind your efforts. I'm sure you will be an administratior soon, if that is what you want. I have only complete respect for you. I try to explain myself to you, however ugly giver my involvement with murderers and my inability to dislike (most) of them on a human level. I feel you accept me as I am, I have that hope anyway. Making judgments on life and death, or even more difficult decisions has taken its toll on me. I am looking to you for balance and I hope you feel free to advise me on these matters. I have learned so much from you that I cannot express. If I knew how to send you a barnstar or cooke or what ever for playing scupulously by the rules when there are so many tempations not to do so, I would. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood

Thanks for your response. I've set up a mediation page at Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation where I've addressed the issues raised on my talk page.

Peace! - Che Nuevara 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. I will take care of the situation. - Che Nuevara 23:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mail

Hello. I sent you a mail yesterday. I hope you received it. Please reply to the same email account. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala

Thanks for your award. Makes all the effort worth it.Dineshkannambadi 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I clicked on the name, Flinders, and it was identified as a sockpuppet of my account. I don't know what else to say. I was not aware of all the accounts identified as mine - rather I should say I recognise the names now but I don't always know what they have done. I am not clear what was going on at that time. At the time I explained my role in the matter. The result is though that I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article. If will explain the situation in any degree of detail you desire. I don't know what level of detail is appropriate here. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation: That I personally did not create the sockpuppets but they were created on my computer, as proved by CheckUser. There was an unusual sitation. Relatives, including my daughter and her children, suddenly were in my house. In the middle of this was when I was doing backlogs in the wikify bin (to get away from real life stress) and AFD'd Philip Farber. This was just after Netsnipe had identified a suite of similar articles and ADFed the whole suite. I asked him what to do but he was busy with his admin election. I used bad judgment and tagged too many articles. 999 attacked me. I became upset, being already upset because of outside events. I talked about it too much to my visitors, none of whom were involved with Wikipedia. I don't know really what happened. Part of what was going on here meant that I was not home always. I do know that I left my granddaughter alone, at that time not realising that Wikipedia was such a dangerous place, so she did somethings on Wikipedia unsupervised. I guess I should look back and see exactly what. Someone emailed me that she put her age on her user page and that I should delete that. I tried but was not allowed. Then an admin believed she was my granddaughter and did delete it or do something with it. To tell you the truth, I don't really want to know what these various accounts did because it starts to give me bad feelings about my family -- whether they were trying to harm me or help me I don't know. And it has affected our relationship since then. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me for butting in here, but this is the same excuse she used for the previous sockpuppet incident (pre-Rosencomet). See Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin. I believe that User:Salix alba was involved in that incident. —Hanuman Das 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion and I don't quite get what I did that was so wrong. I asked Paul Pigman a question. At the time I didn't know it was a Flinders article. Flinders did whatever in the past. In any case, I would not have done anything to a Starwood article myself. That is why I asked someone. If I repeat the same story regarding events around that time, what else should I do? It's only because Musart Records came up on my watch list as "unsourced" that I even looked at it. Because I write and edit so many record label articles, I did not get the connection at first. I do not understand this place. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Das

Fortunately, it doesn't look like the user did take up their threat of sockpuppetry - which is a good thing for Wikipedia and all involved. Hopefully the warnings against it worked. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, didn't and won't. It really ws intended as a joke (otherwise I wouldn't have used such an obvious username, doh!) But I must say that my attempts to do something else aren't turning out too well (see WP:AN#March 15 in film) :-( —Hanuman Das 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So it was a template problem?

That is sort of what I am understanding from your links on the Technical Pump page. Does that mean every article that had that "ISBN too short" message ended up with the same gallery? If so, that is very clever I guess. But maybe I am misunderstanding. Thanks for fixing it! Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it was a vandalized template, and every page with that template got pictures of Bush. Definitely a vandal with greater knowledge of how Wikipedia works than the average vandal. --BostonMA ^talk 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I now realise that my replying to your questions honestly just got me in more trouble today. So, from now on, if you want to communicate with me about anything other than trivial matters, pleasue use the email. I'm sorry that it has come to this. Wikipedia operates at a level I never suspected. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I regret it

This is the most painful of all. However, contact with you is too dangerous for me. Now twice it has resulted in severe trouble for me. I can not risk it any more, though this hurts the most and I will grieve this the most. I will miss you extremely You have been a shinning bright spot. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad mediation update

So, how do you feel about how things are going? The question of whether to include images at all seemed to be popping up at every turn, so I hope you don't mind that I decided to open it up for full discussion. If the consensus is that we can include at least one image, I hope to turn back to our interpretation of WP:Profanity. There seem to be very clearly defined camps - those who want no images, those who want to compromise about the number of images, and those who would favor any and all images as long as they don't violate any policies. It will be challenging to find a common ground. Going back to the your original statements on the mediation page on unresolved issues - I wonder how you feel today about the Maomé image? --Ars Scriptor 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

it is my fault

I had misgivings after the first episode with the admin who tried to block me who you mistakenly trusted. And then you appeared to believe his misrepresentation of the truth. You thanked him for saving me, when really he was told he was wrong by others. When you asked me that question yesterday to answer out in the open like that I thought you knew what you were doing so I trusted. But I did wonder why you would want to expose me like that since I know use do use email. Now I feel like my life has been dragged through the mud, and I am being made fun of by Mattisse Redux. Everyone seems to enjoy making fun at my expense with witty words. I cannot take Ars Scriptor seriously after the way he worded that complaint even if he felt he had to make it "on his gut instincts".

I am still amazed that no one has bothered to look at the evidence. So I am going to amass as much of it as I can, although I don't know how to find it well. I don't have the technical stills. This watchpage stuff, the way people use it, I just learned yesterday. And I never used diffs on watchpages. I'm trying to learn now. But I will never have the skills necessary to protect myself here. That is what I was hoping the Advocate would teach me. Now I know it can't be done.

I have removed my email as I do not want my Advocate contacting me and I have requested the Advocate to withdraw. He has done a few helpful things but when I ask for real explanations and advice he gives generalities and platitudes. I asked him a specific question and he gave me a meaningless answer. I will not work on articles any more, unless in my sandbox. Maybe I will just play around with the toys like many people do and not add nor subtract from Wikipedia until I get sick of it and move on. And massing my evidence is unpleasant and I will be a good way to get through Wikipedia withdrawal.

What ever I do here, and I have not decided, I will do by myself. No one can be trusted. I almost prefer Hanuman Das to the others -- at least he has been clear and direct from the beginning without false politeness about his agenda, unlike what Ars Scriptor has done, and he clearly enjoys what is going on now. I am not sure what Ars Scriptor's offical role is but he appears to be another Geo and the new mediator does not seem unbiased either. I am sad about you but I hold nothing against you and know you did what you did because you are naive and not from malice. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You are not a fool, as you say in your note to me. You are a wonderful, good person and I respect you totally. You are by far my greatest loss here. I am taking this too seriously now and will read your words again from the Tamil poet. (Wish I had not written what I did above.) Maybe I can help you find the pictures you want. It would give me something to do during Wikipedia withdrawal and perhaps repay you some for all the beauty you have given me. Sincerely and with deep feeling, Mattisse 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again

I'm not very capable yet when it comes to images and templates, so consider this link:[[38]] my feeble attempt at a gift. Please read the page, when you have the chance. Sincerely, NinaEliza 14:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

glad your back

It's not so lonely here knowing you are back. Thank you for returning. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I don't know what to do. You are the only person I trust. I wish there was a help program. There is something called a Mentor Program but it does not seem active, or else you have to be "put" into it for bad behavior. And if I ask too many questions, then Hanamun Das and Ekamati and 999 (if he weren't on vacation) will start following me around. Maybe I'll get on my feet again. It was just such a shock. I have to learn to keep strictly to myself. I reinstalled my email so we must never speak of anything here because it is watched, as you can see, by everyone. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Move

Hi, I'm glad you don't think that my act was egregious, and IMO it is not worthwhile to discuss whether that overweening disbalance of importance exists. I do plan on correcting links to reflect the various individual temples, as soon as I have created the stubs (which I was doing in the few minutes since making the move) and hopefully after that you will have little cause for complaint. Regards, ImpuMozhi 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanamun Das

Because he is stalking me I am no longer going to communicate at all my message. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your help needed

Hi BostonMA, I need your help in dealing with a difficult situation in Carnatic music. There are a couple of users wo insists on deleting referred NPOV statements from it. the paagraph in question is this:

Ancient Tamil works like Cilappatikaram, Tolkāppiyam and other Sangam literature works describe how a modal shift of tone (shifting the reference Shadja) from an existing scale can develop new scales.[6][7]. Inscriptions dating back to the seventh century CE found in a cave at Kudimiyanmalai, Tamil Nadu, has an array of musical notation. The Tevarams from the eigth century CE contains more than twenty scales with Tamil names that are equivalent to the present system of Carnatic music.[8] The rhythmic meters found in several sacred musical forms like Tevaram, Thiruppugazh, etc., resemble the talas that are in use today.[9][10][11] These works also give Tamil names for the seven notes in the octave.[12] The concept of Pann relates to the modern Raga in Ancient Tamil music.[13][14][15] Due to this there is a belief that Tamil music has also influenced the development of Carnatic Music in its early years.[16][17].

You can see this version here. User:Srkris, who is under one week block, insists that these references are fake. They are however from books by reputed musicologists. This paragraph simply attempts to give a NPOV picture to the evolution of Carnatic music. Please see the discussions here. Can you please help find a resolution to this on-going dispute? Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Drama

More drama, as you would say. One good thing: I am learning about diffs and watchlists and using User Contributions (which someone tipped me off to). I can't quite figure out the watchlist thing, as a person must use User Contributions to keep up -- I had not realised that. Much does not show up on the Watchlist for whatever reason. Glad to see you remain on top. I sent a complete list (as far as I know) of all my sockpuppet checks to the Mediation guy. Whatever the consequences, just putting everthing on the table feels better. Let them sort it out. Plus another of my suspected or real sockpuppet articles emerged today What Witches Do so I thought I should report that. Good night, dear friend. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, no need to reply tonight but great pictures! Isn't the picture thing fun? Sincerely, Mattisse 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pictures no matter what are not real life. Goodnight, really goodnight! Sincerely, Mattisse 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

I am leaving Wikipedia immediately and permanently. Please find another mediator to deal with your Muhammad situation. Ars Scriptor 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't quite understand

Looks like your mediator over the image issue and our mediator (or whatever he was) on the Starwood issue has retired from Wikiepedia. [39] He had changed his name and once I caught on I did ask him if he were biased, considering his previous efforts to harm me. The change of name initially confused me, but I had detected his previous biased associations and noted them to him. I don't know what to make of it. I'm not sure what his role was anyway. What do you think? Is this real? Sincerely, Mattisse 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh what a acomplicated web we weave! Sincerely, Mattisse 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the ANI page. I don't know what to think. I just finished looking through all his edits through August and he was biased against me. He never should have been involved in my situation now. (His name change confused me.) But as far as the rest, I don't know. You are the only person I trust here. (Hanuman Das is on an upswing -- I can tell by his behavior.) Sincerely, Mattisse 14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably no point and possibly some harm from emailing for more information. I don't know what he was supposed to be doing regarding Starwood Festival or me anyway when his (or her) first act is to initiate an ANI "Mattisse Redux", the title of which I feel makes a joke of me. Looking back at his past edits to and about me, they are alway scornful. It was not ethical, in my opinion, for him to get involved. There is so much to this that does not make sense. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits to his Talk page don't seem to show up in my user contributions. How can that be? He deleted his page? The Starwood stuff from yesterday? Death threats? Sincerely, Mattisse 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I had a feeling and have copies of what I posted there as well as of most of his past edits pertaining to me. I'm copyediting Dinesh's article again today as he got a big dose of reality from the editorial review. I wanted to ask your opinion on the Irrigation tank article. That is a good link for Dinesh's article but it is in a state of merge. I don't know what the right name for it is. I notice Dinesh uses "irrigation tank" several times. What do you think? Sincerely, Mattisse 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

first edit day?

What does that mean? I do wish you first edit day. (I'm looking at Dinesh's article and hoping I'm not huring it by editing -- it has a serious problem with flow and continguity that I don't know how to fix. Did you read the FA feeback on it?) Sincerely, Mattisse 00:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I screamed

and clapped my hands - no lie. Thank you!NinaEliza 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pix!

My mother was French Canadian - but in her childhood days her status in the US was like Mexican "alien" today. Her family went to Massachusetts and back to Canada on some sort of migratory basis. When I was little someone called her "poor white trash" and that upset her. (Actually at the time she had a degree in Mathmatics from the University of Michigan but being labelled, as you have elequesntly written, doesn't have much to do with facts but rather with painful emotions.) I checked out the neat website for your article and I see what you mean about the photos not representing the reality. The website is cute and I like their site map that does more dramatically depict what you describe. A strangely quiet and nice day here. Must mean all heck is going to break out tomorrow! "But I'm still here" as the song goes. Good of you to sent NinaEliza something for her user page. You are so thoughtful and she (I'm assuming she rather than he) is very kind. Good night! Sincerely, Mattisse 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Aren't you claiming to be reducing the size of your talk page? Don't notice much effort in that regard! Sincerely, Mattisse 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

India's Constitution (a Featured Article): [40] Sincerely, Mattisse 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This image confuses me as it does not seem to match the Deccan Plains map. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Topography of India

I see by my watchlist (which now I know enough to check minute-by-minute) that you have been doing things here -- but not reducing your talk page! It's been another strangely subdued day at Wikipedia. Where is the drama you said was always here? It must be lurking around in the background. I've been trying to help out Dinesh but worry about going too far. I think the article will make it to FA as he seems determined. Do you think the work "opine" as in "historians opine" is normal or stilted English? Your very admiring (of you) friend, Mattisse 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was looking at (your activity which you pointed out) and expecting to experiene a lessening! Maybe on your anniversary your should just archive the whole thing! Just kidding. Other people can find things on my talk pages that I can't even find. (I used to be a very organised person but have lost it!) Is it my computer or what? I can barely type here -- everything is delayed. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)