User talk:Mattisse

Friendly Message

Go right ahead. I have no problem with that. What you can do to that paragraph is simply cut an paste and add it to the bottom like you had said instead of tacking it on to another paragraph. if you tacked it on to another paragraph, the paragraph would be woo big. So, go right ahead and add the note to the article. I have no problem with that. Just make sure you keep that old information that was there and move it to where I had suggested. With all you references and notes, this article will sure to be the best article out there on Wikipedia! Have good day! LovePatsyCline 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Words

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 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you found the verse useful. We all encounter people who do not care about us, who demean us or who ruin the fruits of our labors. I hope this verse will give you some comfort when such situations arise. It is a pleasure to be able to give such a gift to my dear friend. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Liquid Nitrogen?

Your father would bring home liquid nitrogen in a thermos? Heavens. I don't think I've actually seen liquid nitrogen except in science films. I remember the instructor on the film dipped a peeled banana in liquid nitrogen, then hammered a nail into a piece of wood with the banana! Have a good thanksgiving! Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. Please do not imagine that I am put off. You are certainly my dear friend, and I am honored if you count me among your friends. I understand why you have chosen to stop editting India related articles. Although I value the contributions you have made to India related articles, I am sure that contributions to other areas of the encyclopedia can be equally fulfilling if not more so. Please keep in touch. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Hi, could I recommend that you contact the AMA to request assistance? Addhoc 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. My advice is to complete the process of requesting an advocate. I think it is important that the advocate system be neutral. If you end up getting Geo, it obviously would not be neutral. I would tend to believe that s/he would not be so bold. However, in the unfortunate event that you did not get a neutral advocate, at least your efforts could be put to the good use of fixing a problem with the advocate system. In any event, I don't think any harm could come from completing the application. My friendly opinion. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. yes, I think you should complete the application. Then if you are assigned Geo as an advocate, we can go to the advocate people and say, "look, you've got a problem". Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Even if an oversight led to an initial assignment of Geo, no one who has observed his recent behaviour in this matter would keep him on the case. Can you specifically request Addhoc be assigned? Or someone Addhoc recommends? --Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫ 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for filling out the AMA form and I've accepted the case. Addhoc 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala Empire

Hi Mattisse. Can you find time to do a thorough copy edit/grammar check, redundancy in words, sentences check for this page. Its right now in Peer review. Once this is done I can do a spell check. ThanksDineshkannambadi 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala

Hi.I understand what you are asking. "They" in case would mean the Hoysalas (kings). In places where you are sure something is wrong, go ahead and make the change. In places you want a discussion, we can do just that and see if I have a reasonable explanation, if not You or I can then make the change accordingly. Dont hesitate to ask any number of questions, it can only help.Dineshkannambadi 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats right.Dineshkannambadi 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User BostonMA is also helping us. So lets work together in Sync.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you put what you think is suitable together and paste it in my user page?Dineshkannambadi 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

LEAD para for Hoysala

"The Hoysala Empire (Kannada: ?????? ?????????) ruled large parts of southern India at its peak in the 13th century. The Hoysalas were in power from about 950 to 1346 CE. Belur was their first capital. Later it became Halebidu, Karnataka. They were originally hill people from Malnad Karnataka. In the 12th century, they annexed large areas of Karnataka, including most of Kannada country and the fertile areas north of the Kaveri river delta including Srirangam and Kanchipuram. They succeeded in this by using the conflict between their overlords, the Western Chalukyas, and the rising southern Kalachuri as a wedge to divide power. They used the power struggle between the waning Cholas and the Pandyas of Tamil country in the same way. By this means, the Hoysalas were able to splinter the power structure and climb into the vacuum".

Much of this looks good and I have incorporated it. "they annexed large areas of Karnataka, including most of Kannada country" implies some portions of Karnataka was not Kannada country. So I am not using this portion.(Of course, this is not your fault). I have slightly retermed the rest of it but keeping it as simple. Since there was no real power Vacuum, I have not used it. This is so because there were four kingdoms waiting for the Western Chalukyas to weaken, to grab what ever they could (namely Kakatiya, Seuna, Kalachuri and Hoysala. Again, nor your fault) Now, take a look and see how it looks.Dineshkannambadi 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala links

Yes, I need to make sure the links are fully disambiguiated.Dineshkannambadi 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for your kind message. You give me more credit than I deserve, and you appear more grateful than you may imagine. Have a good evening. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Basavanna - Hoysala Religion

I can compress both Basavanna and Madhvacharya some and paragraph it, no doubt. As far as image goes, maybe to the right?Dineshkannambadi 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Basavanna

Ok, you may take a look at Basavanna now. We can deal with Madhvacharya paragraph later.Dineshkannambadi 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Basavanna

Changed format of subtitles. "He was erudite in Sanskrit and Kannada and so he went to Kudala Sangama". I dont think he went there because he was erudite. Just drifted frm his family I believe, but I can reverify.

"They" means devotees, I have included that now.

"By the time of his death in 1168, Basava had achieved..... (or whatever)". Need to verify this before I write this. Actually what happened was,

King Bijalla II supported the marraige of a Brahmin and non-Brahmin couple, causing an uproar in the Kings court by the orthodox community. There was also political confusion with Bijalla abdicating his throne to his younger son (I believe, but can verify). So in this confusion, Bijalla was assacinated, possibly by the Virashaiva devotees or by political opponents to his abdication. Dr. Desai feels the king was killed because he questioned Basava's intentions (by blessing a marraige that orthodox society was against). Dejected, Basava left Kalyani back to Kudala Sangama. Infact, Virashaivaism may have taken a setback in this period, only to reemerge later. I want to verify about Basavas life after Bijalla's death. Bijalla II died in 1167 and Basavanna in 1168. So there is not much time between the passing away of the two people. Take a look now at the paragraphs. They look simpler. I have fused our inputs.Dineshkannambadi 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I fully appreciate the questons and suggestions. The impact of the three philosophers was more "time released" and did not just impact the Hoysalas. I will put together something tonight when I have more time. I am now simplyfying Madhvacharya. Give me 15 minutes before you take a look.Dineshkannambadi 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion

The Philosophies effected Hoysalas as well as succeeding kingdoms. I shall write a small para on this tonight without going too much in detail. Religion is a controversial issue and I would not want this to get us into a debate during FAC review (in case soemone with strong beliefs or opinions is on the panel). I myself dont know too much about religion. There are lots of people who claim to but may have narrow views. So its better to keep it simple. As far as temples etc, architecture reflected the religions beliefs totally, the belief itself varying at times. Some temples that were built were purely Vaishnava (Somanathapura), others were more secular (Chennakesava, Hoysaleswara etc) where both Vishnu and Shiva are depicted. Religious philosophy also fuled Bhakti movement (devotional movement) that propogated thorugh out India in the coming centuries (I will mention this briefly). Religion/beliefs and philosohpy also fuled poetry and literature. This haas been mentioned in all para's for three saints.

From the kings point of view, its difficult to explain and also controversial. Kings normally "played by ear" and as such were tolerant to all religions. This is very true of most Indian Hindu kings and naturally so because they had to keep people happy.

An exception to the rule was Kulotunga Chola, the Chola king who may have had a disciple of Ramanujacharya killed (debatable with citations I have), forcing Ramanuja to flee to Hoysala country (if you notice I just mentioned he went to Hoysala country and did not use "flee", bacause some people may not like it and just providing a citation may not solve the issue). Similarly, the Chennakesava temple. Some scholars say it was built because of king Vishnuvardhana being influenced by Ramanujacharya, others say there is no such evidence..

As far as Basava is concerned, I have kept away from Bijalla's death again because many people dont like any referene to Virashaiva's having supposedly killed Bijalla though I can provide citation that Basavanna was innocent of this act. Why disturb a Hornets nest.

Madhvacharya comes with his own controversies. Many hindus believe advaita phi.. while others are avaita.

Its better to keep the the Saints paras' brief and simple and keep kings out of religion.Dineshkannambadi 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

kings-religion

As such, not much is really known about the role of Kings w.r.t religion and its propagation. whatever info there is is only from inscriptions and tit-bits in literature and may be beyond the scope of this article. I think we should focus on Architecture, conquests, growth, fall and other general details, barely touching upon details of religion.Dineshkannambadi 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

kings-religion

Ok. So I will include a few lines about Bijalla's relation with Basava, Vishnuvardhana relationship with Ramanujacharya both with citations. Madhavacharya did not have direct ties with any king as far I know. I may find something if I go deep into this and read his life story. I will also write a para about their overall effect on India at that time (the saints I mean) and tie it up neatly.Dineshkannambadi 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Architecture

Yes. I can explain how religion influenced architecture, afterall, the Hoysalas are known even outside India for this. In fact this is what people remember them by. Paintings of Hoysala art are present in Houston mueseum, for example but I may not have citation for this statement, I read it in a news paper but can't remember where.Dineshkannambadi 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala-impact

Please take a look at the impact section. Feel free to rename it if you can think of a better term. I have explained the impact of these three saints on modern India. I hope the article is not getting too long.Dineshkannambadi 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

compactness

Yes, "Founders" carries legends, "reasearch" of their origin and I think its important. Or the article becomes imbalanced. However as you say, if the FAC reviewers says the article is too long, there are ways to shorten every section. This way we keep it balanced. Can you go thru the remaining sections and see if there is scope for simplicity/reduction.Dineshkannambadi 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala

Yes, you are right. If it comes down to it, we can make "Founders" and "Literature" into a seperate article called "Origin of Hoysala Empire" and "Hoysala literature", but only after someone complains. I can mention only the most important literary works in the main page and all else in the attached article. I am following the Chalukya and Chola pages for guidelines.Dineshkannambadi 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

format of subheadings

I took care of it. ThanksDineshkannambadi 02:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

article length

I think we are shorter in length than the "British African-Caribbean community" article, with about same number of subheadings and TOC length. Yes I have enough citations there too.Dineshkannambadi 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

formating Hoysala

Consolidation and continuity could go under History. I dont see a problem there. Research could become "Early histroy", continuity could be "Hindu resurgence", because it is known that the Hoysala empire was essentially an undefeated empire that simply mearged into the newly formed Vijayanagar Empire.

Vaishnava Hinduism is a sect of Hinduism, where the main deity is Vishnu and the Philosophy is Qualified Advaita (as opposed to Pure Advaita and Dvaita). Infact, we could simplyfy it and change Vaishnava Hinduism to just Hinduusm, giving it a broader view.Dineshkannambadi 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala - format

Changed "History" paragraph. Please take a look.Dineshkannambadi 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion-Government

I compared Hoysala to Chola and Chalukya dynasty FA, there does not seem to be a hard rule. In Chola, Administration comes first and then religion.(This is because Cholas are probably known more for their overseas interests than in their religion, in that they were strict Shaiva). In Chalukya era , Architecture (mixed South-North style), Administration, Multiple languages (Kannada/Sanskrit) were popularised. I am open to both as such. However, from the point of history, the period 10-13th century, is very important for architecture,religion,growth of vernacular (kannada) etc. Administration leading to overseas trade, cross continental links, exchange of ambassadors was already popularised during the 5th-9th centuries. So in that sense, it can well take the "back burner", if I may say so. However, one issue regarding Hoysala empire trade has come out during recent research (I will try to find citation for this , or keep it to the user page only) is the existance of sculptural depictions in Hoysala temples where Hindu deities are depicted holding "corn" in the hand as an attribute, (apart from other Hindu religious attributes). It is well known to history that corn originated in S. America. This proves very clearly that Indian empires, especially on the western Sea board of S.India had trade ties with S. America, long before Columbus reached the Americas. Interesting!!

Regarding providing definitions for complicated terminology, I noticed this in the "african ..." article and is worth providing. First we need to put together a list of terms (which already dont have articles to wikilink to). These can be listed at the bottom with "term" attribute.I thibk Vaishnava already has an article, so does Malnad etc. ThanksDineshkannambadi 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

confusing names

Right. I will take care of naming differences.Dineshkannambadi 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

generic terms

"Speaking as a non-Indian, the terminalogy and the different names is very confusing and I end up skipping sections in Indian articles that get too involved. If there are generic terms for some of this, then I think those should be used (my opinion)"

Reply-->This is the hard part of an ancient culture. There are so many subtle differences, it gets confusing for me also. This is why I would prefer to just say Vaishnava Hinduism, so a reader could understand (from the top of his head) that it has to do with Hinduism. It is not just non-Indians who have this problem, even Indians like me have this sort of confusion. The same holds good for place names, names of saints, temples (I recently discovered that Madhvacharya is different from Madhavacharya (known mostly as Vidyaranya to me). These two are famous proponents of slightly diverging hindu Philosophies.Dineshkannambadi 17:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Actually, what you have been pointing out to me makes perfect sense as someone from the international community. When an Indian reads it, he instinctively knows these are Hoysala kings, but then this article is meant for the world community. I have changed the title of the box.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

place names-confusion

There is not much Indian government can do. Kannada documents reflect Kannada names, English documents reflect Anglasized names. A document in Tamil will refer to a place the way its pronounced in Tamil (Sivasamudram for example). Infact, The Indian government infact encourages this, because as you said, India and Indian culture is dynamic, ancient, flexible and so on. One simply learns to accept it the way it is. Out of all this confusion rises one of the most ancient, exotic, enduring cultures in History.Dineshkannambadi 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

subst'ing

Hi - the "subst" bit stands for "substitution" - basically, the {{template}}'s contents are actually placed in the page "wikitext" when "subst:" is used, rather than having the template just be included in the page. Subst: is just a modifier on all uses of {{links in curly brackets}}, and causes substitution rather than translcusion. I'll attempt to give a demonstration below, which you'll be able to see if you click the eidt link and look at the wikitext.

Done

Done

You'll see that on the face of it, both are the same, but the wikitext is very different. If {{done}} were to be edited, the top one would refelct these changes, and the bottom one would stay this same. Hence substitution reduces load on the servers (they don't have to replace the text on every page) and prevent vandalism (one bad edit to a high-use translcuded template could have major implaications). There are many cases where substitiuation is not deisrable, but for a general rule, messages to user talk pages are subst'd. I hope I've been able to help. This page may explain more/better :) Martinp23 19:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad to have been able to help. If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks Martinp23 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Arekalla

You are right. This was on my mind and wanted someone to point it out before addressing it. Arekalla is the earliest founder technically speaking. Meaning, the earliest inscriptions, mention him as early as 950 CE. Not much is known about him though. But then, the more popular name one finds in web sites, blog sites is Nripa Kama (without mentioning Nripa Kama I or II) and is dated by about 1000CE. But this accroding to researches is inaccurate as Nripa Kama I ruled 978-1006 and Nripa Kama II betwen 1026-1047, by which time the Hoysalas had already established themselves as tribal chiefs as feudatories of Western Gangas and later Western Chalukyas (from what i read). Also, the legendary Sala himself is not acceptable to scholars (the man fighting the tiger) It is the same issue with Chalukyas. One can always argue that Jayasimha I and Ranaraga who ruled in early 5th century were the real founders of the empire, not Pulakesi I(their grandson and son respectively) from whose time inscriptions are very clear.

So I can either take out the entire line mentioning "founder" or say "unknown". And, in the Table of Kings, remove Munda and Nripa kama I and start from the Nripa Kama II from whose time, their history is very clear.I dont think this will cause a commotion.Dineshkannambadi 20:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

legends

Here while comparing Cholas to Hoysalas and Chalukyas to Hoysalas, we need to be careful. The reasons are,

1. In the line "Vidyapati Bilhana, the famous poet in the court of Vikramaditya VI of the Western Chalukya dynasty of Kalyana, mentions a legend in his work, Vikramankadeva Charita..." This legend was popularised in the 12th century regarding a dynasty that originated in the 6th century. Hence its is a "real legend" or as one may call a "myth". Meaning everyone knows that no one is born out of anybody's "palm".

2. "Chalukyas claimed to have been nursed by the Sapta Matrikas.." This is again a myth. The sapta Matrika are also heavenly mothers probably from Hindy Mythology.

3. "According to a Kalyani Chalukya inscription of Vikramaditya VI, the Chalukyas originally hailed from Ayodhya".

This is again a myth as there is no real definite inscriptional evidencd other than a fleeting mention of the word Ayodhya in a Rashtrakuta inscription of 9th century (ref:Dr. K.V. Ramesh) and one inscription from the 12th century Kalyani Chalukya inscription. This is why most scholars have discarded the Ayodhya theroy as fictional.

4. Regarding the Cholas, there is too much controversy regarding the date of early cholas and dates of Sangam classics itself that mention them. So it is not possible to date the earliest ruler when the earliest text making references to them itself under controversy.

In the case of Hoysalas it is different. The time difference between Arekalla and Nripa Kama II is hardly 75 years. So there is much more certainity about the record from Angadi (Dr. Kamath). Also, there are no controversies regarding the founder. Actually, most dont even care to address it as it is deemed unimportant. The real history of Hoysalas starts from their successes as feudatories of Kalyani Chalukya (around the time od Nripa Kama II). Only serious History buff like me like to pull up deep down "earliest" founder issues. This is the reason I prefer not put Arekalla and immedietly succeding kings in the legends column as Arekalla is not a legend, Sala is a legend. Now-a-days guides at Hoysala temples try to justifysala was Nripa Kama, though they are not sure if it was I or II. I really dont think we should call a proven inscriptional record a legend considering it is dated to mid-medieval era just because not much info about him is available. I hope I understood your previous cut and paste large note, though I did not understand the last one.Dineshkannambadi 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Legend

In fact an eastern Chalukya record, while it also confirms that the earliest earliest (no typo) Chalukyas ruled as some 59 kings in Ayodhya, starts with the first king as none other than the Lord Vishnu (Hindu God, per Dr. K.V. Ramesh). So you see why it is in the legends column.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

English document

I understand what you say. An English document can have an English name only if every town/village had an English equivalent name. But it does not. The English stayed in India for a fleeting instant in Indian history. Even many of the cities/towns they renamed are being re-renamed back to Indian names as they were before British rule. Eventually, even these English names which one may find in books etc will go away and be replaced by Indian local names.

New Delhi in English is Nava Dehali in my language , Kannada. In Hindi, the language of Delhi, it is Dilli. Even an English document is dynamic and has to adjust to changes. But then, this all this is besides what we are trying to achieve here.Dineshkannambadi 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

map

Good you noticed. The reason I did not put it up front (but lower down) is not to over emphasise on the map. Chalukyas and Cholas are great empires even geographically speaking. At their they ruled vast areas, approximately half the size of present day India, (which is larger than western Europe, approx=1million-1.5million sq. kms). The Hoysalas are a smaller mid-sized kingdom covering an area of no more than (approx=400,000 sq. kms), twice the size of Great Britian, I would say. So that brings up the next question. Should we call the Hoysala page Hoysala Empire or Hoysala Kingdom. There are 48,000 google hits for empire and 19,000 for Kingdom.Dineshkannambadi 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Empire-Kingdom-Dynasty

Chola and Chalukya were called Dynasty because of succession of ruling familes carrying the same name, Early Cholas--Medieval Cholas->Later Cholas Badami Chalukya-->Eastern Chalukya and Western Chalukya

Here, there are nor such issues. The Hoysalas as just one dynasty. In terms of size, they far exceed the Israel Empire for instance, but are much smaller than many on the list of Empires. If you notice, Chola has been added as an empire and dynasty. So I am not sure also. Yes I think the article is flexible enough. I dont see how many more subarticles can be added. looks like all the important ones are already there (my thinking)Dineshkannambadi 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

peer review

All redundant words can be ironed out. Actually, this is a part of peer review. I submitted it a few days back and someone did a automated review and stuck many recommendations. I have taken care of some. Click on discussion page for Hoysala Empire, at the top of discussion page, click on " request has been made" . This will show the peer review comments. I went thru this for Chalukya dynasty also. No problem about Hoysala emblem. I have a more striking picture for it. There were many India related terms in Chalukya page also, but it went thru. There are many Indians who review India related topics and they understand that many terms will be "not transperent" and may ask us to wikilink it and create a page for the linked items. I can bet you they will be on this one too.Dineshkannambadi 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for the compliments. What we need to do now is 1. Weed out weasel/redundant/hazy words 2. Decide if we want to create any more sub-articles (I already have Hoysala architecture, Chenna..temple, Somanathapura, Hoysale.. temple, all three religious leaders as sub articles) 3. Do a spell check. What we have been doing is a copy edit anyway. So that is fully satisfied once you go thru the remaining paragraphs below religion and nail down wording, format etc. 4. Submit for FAC review(or just wait untill the Peer review request gets archived after some days automatically, and submit for FAC review, which is what happened with Chalukya). At worst, FAC guys will want change in wording, citation, image change (may be), wikilinks etc., all of which can be handled. Most importantly, there is no controversy on this article and we should keep it that way. FAC guys hate edit wars and controversies.Dineshkannambadi 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalized your user page

Hi, I vandalized your user page. I see that you don't keep any awards there. Please feel free to move it elsewhere. I watched your collaborative effort from afar, and it was quite inspiring. --BostonMA ^talk 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For a fantastic collaborative effort in Hoysala Empire I award you this epic barnstar BostonMA talk 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala literature

I will be writing a 16-20 line (multi para) section on Hoysala literature explaining only the greatest scholars and explaining in a line or two their work(s). As such, the scolars mentionde now are all famous, but all need not be mentioned. I will create a sub-article for the existing material under literature though, where people can go and find all famous scholars and their works. This will be complete today. This is how Chola page has modelled their literature.Right now, to an non-indian, the literature section may look like a mass of italics and hence confusing.Dineshkannambadi 15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

redundant words

I think that would be a good start. I took care of many such words. Please make sure the meaning does not change though. I am putting together literature information now.Dineshkannambadi 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Vishnuvardhana

I have no problem if you make a suitable change. Normally, apart from Vishnuvardhana (the most famous king) dont spend time on other kings (with the exception of Veera Balla II, as most people wont have patience to look so deep). The FAC will be concerned about the main Hoysala page only I believe.Dineshkannambadi 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood

In the past it has seemed as though the pro-link editors listened only to each other. I hope that will change. I wouldn't get too worried. I think the community has spoken quite clearly in the mediation, even if the two sides have not agreed. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. In the short run, negative language can harm the reputation of the person at whom it is directed. In the long run, the community learns who is making positive contributions, and who is being disruptive. Negative comments can then boomerang upon their maker. If you can, please try to not let negative comments ruin your day. Negativity is the concern of the whole community. I think that in time, if you continue to make the positive contributions that you do, the community will grow weary of the negative comments toward you, and will take corrective action. Please have a good day. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your serenity comes first. My wish is that the actions of a few editors would not disturb your serenity. But if it does, I am sorry. Please take care. --BostonMA ^talk 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

After your thorough copy edit, feel free to go to the "peer review" discussion page I pointed you to yesterday and add your comment that the Cpedit is done. This way they know that more than one persons views are being input.Dineshkannambadi 18:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

On a totally different subject

You mentioned that you were working on a new user page, so I took a peek. The picture of the suspension foot bridge reminded me of one that I saw with my son a few years back at Canyon Sainte-Anne. I have been looking for images that I could use for that article, but I'm not sure how to go about it. (I don't think I have any of my own). Google images has a number of images, but I'm not sure how to find an image that doesn't have a copyright problem. How have you found images in the past? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry to hear

I am not sure exactly what you are going thru right now. Whatever it is, it would be a real pity if you dropped out, just when you were making solid contributions. All the best. Hope to hear good news.Dineshkannambadi 22:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope

It is not sad when you are hopeful, but sad when you are discouraged. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know how you are feeling. Sadly, I sometimes have difficulty understanding what might upset you. Please accept my apologies if I have offended, and my regrets that I may repeat my offense until I have better understanding. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your analogy. I don't think the case about not negotiating with murderers is all that clear cut. Suppose a group of unarmed people are confronted by a group of armed murderers. 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? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. I think I have some understanding of your position, although I am certainly not confident that I understand it fully. As inaccurately as I do understand, however, I have been unable to reconcile my wish not to offend you, with my wish to do my duty. As I see it, it is my duty to attempt to use discussion to resolve disputes, even if the attempt is likely to fail. If I have not misunderstood your position too greatly, then I must ask for your forgiveness for how I will behave. Please do not feel obligated to grant such forgiveness. I will not think of you less one way or the other. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood stuff

Hey there, just dropping you a note about the Starwood Festival stuff going on, since you have been pretty much involved from the beginning. User:Paul Pigman asked me for advice on dealing with it, and I basically said that he should consider opening a simple RfC on the Starwood talk page asking whether it's appropriate to place all those links everywhere. If the consensus is no, then they should be removed promptly, and anyone adding them back can be blocked for disruption. I have also said that if he decides to do this, he should ask Salix Alba to withdraw his mediation case for the time being. He may take my advice, he may not, but it might just solve this problem. --Ars Scriptor 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that an RfC has been opened on the Talk:Starwood Festival page. I'm a little unclear exactly how this works but there is a place for editors to state their views on the matter. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious

I'm curious why you have never admitted to wrongdoing with respect to your use of sockpuppets or apologized to Rosencomet and others for manipulating them using sockpuppets. Do you not think it was wrong? Do you not think that the people you used them on don't deserve an apology? Personally, I think you are completely unrepentitent about your past actions, and don't even see or want to admit that much of the current situation was manipulated into existence by your actions (i.e. demanding citations in a threatening manner). Rosencomet was a newbie and you bit him in a quite nasty manner. Can't you see yourself from the outside view? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ekajati, the RfC clearly supported Mattisse - I suggest you get over this. In future, could you avoid posting on this talk page. Thanks, Addhoc 15:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Starwood Festival Request

When I put the small, intended as neutral, paragraph at the top of the "comments" section of the RfC on Starwood, I hoped that people would take the hint and mostly allow editors uninvolved in the situation up to now to comment. I am disappointed to see replication of the arguments detailed rather thoroughly by mostly the same parties from both sides on the Starwood Festival Mediation page. The reason I linked to the mediation page in my short summing up of my position was to forestall such duplication and long-winded back-and-forths. I am putting this notice on the talk page of everyone who has posted in the comments of the RfC so far and who has also participated significantly in the mediation. I'm asking you to please refrain from using the RfC comment area. If you feel compelled to post there, please attempt to keep it short. This isn't a demand. There's no penalty for going against my request. I sincerely want to hear different voices on this matter and I am concerned that we are discouraging others from speaking up. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Das, et al

Just letting you know that Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hanuman Das has been opened by BostonMA (talk • contribs) to document the fact that Hanuman Das (talk • contribs) has stated that he intends to create disruptive sockpuppet accounts, and has indeed done so already. This disruption was petty and silly, but it should be noted that he believes you got away with similar behavior and therefore he is justified in doing the same. Regardless of what happened with your checkuser and RfC, I intend to put a stop to any harassment you are experiencing, especially while dispute resolution is ongoing. Please do not hesitate to inform me of any harassment you experience, or other disruption you witness that violates policies. --Ars Scriptor 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the taglines he was placing everywhere. I asked him about it on his Talk page but he opted to ignore me. I do not intend to step on your advocate's toes or duplicate his work; my purpose is to end the harassment of you. It is quite possible that Hanuman Das (talk • contribs) and 999 (talk • contribs) are the same person, but I haven't looked at their contributions in enough depth to speculate. I'm confident that in all matters, due weight will be given to the comments of established users, new users, and uninvolved other editors.

Sorry about that, multiple people posted on my talk page overnight and I simply didn't notice your comment. In case you haven't seen elsewhere, I'm done with the whole thing. Let the others thrash it out. No need to reply. I won't post on your talk page again (at least on this topic). My apologies for missing your comment. —Hanuman Das 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I advised Pigman to open the RfC on the Starwood page to accomplish one thing: get the view of outside editors about all the Starwood linking. And I mean the internal links too, not just the spam links to the rosencomet site. If the community supports it, most of the links can be removed. --Ars Scriptor 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes For Etta James

A while back, you added to the Etta James article about the article missing notes of references, as you called them. In case you don't know yet, I have added one of my notes or "references" to you "references" section of the article. Now, thanks to you, I know how to add notes to an article. LovePatsyCline 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Exhausted

I'm exhausted. I apologize for not have responded to the note you left on my talk page earlier. Please allow me to unwind a bit. I will not forget. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for replying back to me. I agree that we needed other references to that article, I just didn't know what to add yet. I agree with you on how influential Etta James was to Blues and R&B. If Etta James never existed there would probably be no Bonnie Raitt or Janis Joplin. She was of course influential, like many female singers of the time like Aretha Franklin, The Surpemes and Patsy Cline. LovePatsyCline 23:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

but I'm not interested. I seem to have proved that you are the darling of the admins, allowed to get away with 18 socks while I can't even make a single joke edit with one. I am completely withdrawing from having anything to do with the Rosencomet links and mediation (though that doesn't mean I won't edit the articles, I won't add or remove Starwood links though) and will let the rest of you thrash it out. I make it a policy not to play with a stacked deck, and yours is clearly stacked, even though that may not be of your doing. Please refrain from posting on my talk page again. Sincerely, —Hanuman Das 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe later

Not right now. I still think that because of your mistake in August, you should also withdraw and let others worry about it. That's my last word on the matter. Now I am going to focus on something less controversial (I hope) - Alfred Hitchcock movies. Did you know that the house in North by Northwest never existed? —Hanuman Das 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Okay, this is really the last word, but I figured I should tell you that I closed the RfC on you. —Hanuman Das 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lster in the movie. The house looks like a Frank Lloyd Wright house and is improbably set on top of Mount Rushmore. Ring any bells? —Hanuman Das 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rent it some time. It's a really excellent one. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Special" Page

This shows I don't know as much as I think. All it's supposed to link to is Wikipedia search page results for the words "starwood festival", no quotations and no capitalizations. Just plug the words into the "search" box at the left at the top of any Wikipedia page and hit the search button. There are 178 hits at the moment. A number of them are duplicates, redirects, false positives, Mediation page mentions, that sort of thing. When I counted actual pages, I think it came out somewhere in the upper 70s but I don't remember precisely at the moment. I'll see if I can insert it differently on the mediation so it links properly.

While my actions in this matter are not motivated by it, I think you have been treated extremely badly by a few of the people involved in this. I'm sincerely sorry about that. I hope you won't completely give up on Wikipedia because of your experience. I'm sure you know such behaviour is not the rule but I'm sure that's cold comfort to you at the moment. If there's anything I can do for you, please drop a note on my page. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... The link seems to work for me. I don't know what to tell you. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I use Firefox too so that shouldn't be the problem. Usually I "right-click" on the link and then open it in a new tab but just clicking on it works for me. I'll make it an external link, that should work more consistently. Obviously your browser is handling the link differently than mine. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Try the one on the starwood mediation page now. It should have a lock next to it. Tell me if it now works for you. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't think it's that scary because I have almost all of them on my watchlist. I haven't bothered to do a search on ACE or Winterstar but I should. I'm looking into Musart at the moment. I got the broken link to sort of work with some tweaking but I don't think the Musart in the link is the same Musart as in the article. Still poking around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Your life experiences

Hi Mattisse, I am sorry to have delayed so long in getting back to you. Nothing personal, but I must say that I hope none of my students ever has occasion to require your services in the capacity you describe.  ;-).

I have very mixed feelings about recent events, and especially wonder if I took the best course. My instinct is to help someone who is drowning, even if he or she is not someone for whom I particularly care. I want to avoid acting out of anger or revenge. However, I am also concerned that I should avoid acting out of a sentimental wish that I might melt the hearts of others. Such a course risks prolonging conflicts in which many people suffer, and the project suffers, for the sake of indulging my own desire to avoid injurious actions. Perhaps I failed to do my duty.

I will return shortly. --BostonMA ^talk 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Flinders

Hi Mattisse, I just saw this explanation. Please let me know if you do not appreciate some unsolicited advice. You refer to the Flinders account as an account identified as a sock puppet of yours. Although this is ambiguous, someone might interpret that as a hint that the account may have been misidentified as yours. I think you should clearly state whether it was or was not your account, just to keep the atmosphere clear. Just my opinion, and please feel free to disgree. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am confused by this comment:

I am not always aware when one of my sockpuppets created an article. [1]

I would understand the term "my sockpuppets" to mean "me, using an account under an alias". It is not clear whether you are using the term the same way that I would understand it. I know that you explained yourself to an admin back in August. I don't mean to pry. I am just a bit confused. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse, I appreciate your explanation but with all due respect, what do you expect me to do in this situation? What would you do in my shoes? You haven't outright denied that Flinders is you, nor have you admitted it, but surely you can't claim that it's just a coincidence that a confirmed sockpuppet of yours happened to create an article that discredits people you are having a dispute with? I will take whatever action is necessary, as I did with Hanuman Das, to prevent this from wasting anyone else's time. I have posted to WP:AN/I asking for advice as well. --Ars Scriptor 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm not sure what is expected of me either. As it happens I've prodded the article. If anyone wants to salvage it, that's fine - I won't take it to AfD. Hope that's ok. Addhoc 18:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Mattisse, I thought I should let you know that you are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mattisse redux. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in the same boat as User:Addhoc, trying to make sense of the situation. --BostonMA ^talk 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I will explain what is going on to the best of my ability. I'm sure I don't have to rehash the entire background of the dispute between Mattisse, Pigman, Timmy12, etc., and Rosencomet, Hanuman Das, Ekajati, etc. The history is available in the RfC and mediation case, for the most part. What's more, sockpuppets have played a frequent and ugly role in all of this. Mattisse has used sockpuppets to present the appearance of support for her side of the dispute, and has been blocked for it twice, as is documented in my post here. Hanuman Das also created a disruption by creating a "joke" sockpuppet. I blocked the sock and would have left it at that, but another admin came in and indef blocked Hanuman Das. The block was reversed, but it effectively drove Hanuman Das away from the mediation.

Since the use of sockpuppets in this entire dispute has been well-known, well-documented, and indeed extremely tiresome, everyone is extremely wary of it. In particular, interested parties are looking out for other sockpuppet uses to see if they will be treated in the same manner as Hanuman Das's case.

I realize that no new abuse of sockpuppets has occurred. The actions taken under the Flinders account are in the past. However, I seriously question the motives of Mattisse in suddenly posting about an article that the Flinders account created. Mattisse has to know that everyone has the Talk pages watchlisted of everyone involved in this, and would see the post. If anything, I would expect that she would want the matter forgotten.

Of course, no action taken by any editor in this dispute is going to be treated as an isolated incident. The history and track record of editors has to be considered in determining if they intended a disruption. My gut feeling is that Mattisse intended to cause a disruption by posting about the article. I don't like taking unilateral actions unless the circumstances are clear, so I have asked for opinions from other admins. If anything is unclear after this post, please message me. --Ars Scriptor 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse, please don't take what I've said as an assertion that you should not edit a watched page, or any other page for that matter. At this point I'm only interested in ceasing the disruption surrounding the Starwood pages. That is part of my job as an administrator. If I see something that might be a disruption, I act on it. Since I'm not clear what your motives are, I asked for opinions. It appears at this point that no one agrees with me, so I'll just drop it. My instinct was wrong and I have no problems admitting that. I will continue to watch this group for harassment (of anyone, not just you) and for disruptions. --Ars Scriptor 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(copy of my reply)

Please do not post on my talk page again. I have learned some how to copy diffs now. [2] I feel like you have a total misunderstanding of the situation. I don't know from where you got it but it does not seem neutral or very well informed. Furthermore, you seek to enlist others to support your misguided beliefs against me. Please respect my wishes. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday

Yesterday was a very sad day. I am certainly to blame for contributing to your woes. My vanity and pride told me, "I am smart", "I know what to do", "I am good at conflict resolution". I listened to my pride and so I gave you advice and asked you a question that I thought would help resolve the situation. I was a fool and the situation became worse. I am deeply sorry. If our paths do not cross again, I will miss you as well. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Yesterday weighs heavily in me, but I think I ought to function again rather than withdraw. --BostonMA ^talk 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am back, and I hope you are feeling OK today. --BostonMA ^talk 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your notes to me

You asked me not to post on your Talk page, but you keep leaving me notes. Are you inviting me to talk again? --Ars Scriptor 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can tell me what you want to do, I can tell you how to do it. Honestly, it took me forever to figure out a lot of the "tricks" people use around here, especially diffs and that kind of thing. I can't remember if it was you who said it, but someone said that people who know how to use those technical features are at a great advantage in debates here - that is definitely correct. It's most useful in lending credibility to what one says - for example, if I post somewhere "User JohnDoe is making personal attacks on me" by itself, people are less likely to take it seriously because I didn't show where and how. It's like a lawyer making a case in court - you have to have your evidence. Most people use "diffs" when they are trying to show that something happened, because then anyone who's reading it can just click the link and see what you're talking about.

I'm honestly sorry that you were offended by my "Mattisse redux" post. I was only asking for advice, and I didn't mean to embarrass or ridicule you. I offer you an olive branch, which I will understand if you do not accept, but I'm here to help you if you need it. --Ars Scriptor 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are using your watchlist the way most people do - to keep track of articles you have edited. You can see if someone reverts one of your edits, for example. There is a preference you can set to automatically place pages you edit on your watchlist. Click my preferences, then click the Editing tab, then select the Add pages I edit to my watchlist checkbox to set this preference. Some people also watch pages that simply interest them, and vandal-fighters watch articles that are frequent targets of vandalism, so they can be quickly fixed. No one can see what is on your watchlist other than you.

From what you posted about 999 (talk • contribs), it looks like he was using your Contributions page to see what you were editing. Whenever you are looking at someone's user page or Talk page, you can click User contributions in the toolbox and see what edits they have made. This is part of the transparency of Wikipedia - anyone can see what anyone else is doing. Everything is public. Since you felt that he was purposely following you around and reverting your edits (sometimes referred to as wikistalking, that would be a time when you would want to contact an admin and let them know what's going on. --Ars Scriptor 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to spend some time thinking about your message about Peggy Sue before I respond with the best way to deal with situations like that. I am taking a brief Wikibreak so I will message you when I get back. --Ars Scriptor 20:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed some of your comments on BostonMA's talk page. Being a big snoop and buttinski, I noticed you're a prolific writer here as well as being a psychologist. I have some things on my To-Do list that I'm planning on enlisting help for. I've only done the preliminary research, and have yet to even fully research the absence of these pages on Wikipedia[[3]].

Should they interest you, please feel free to drop me a note. If not, drop me a note anyway. Either way, I'm confident that I'll get the help and collaboration I need. Despite some previous experiences I've had here, I know that are many excellent and kind editors willing to lend a hand.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm very sorry to you hear you say that. I hope you can feel more comfortable editing here soon. I certainly have had my share of fear and discomfort in my time on Wikipedia, but the "good" far outweighs the "bad". Even the "bad" turns out not to be so "bad" with a bit of a turnaround in perspective - or at least that's been my experience.

For myself, I came to realize that true anonymity on Wikipedia (or maybe on the net itself) is a bit of an illusion. Everyone can be found. Since everyone can be "revealed" in some form or fashion, everyone turns out to have somethng to lose. So in a weird sense, the community protects each other, simply by protecting themselves as individuals.

I hope I'm making sense - I tend to get a bit deep for my own good;). I hope by sharing my personal insight, I've given you a bit of comfort.

In any event, should you change your mind I'd be happy to hear from you.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - my pleasure.

I can't help being a bit befuddled though. The editor in question seem so...nice - from the looks of his user page. Have you considered this [[4]]?

NinaEliza 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

Please stop telling other people that I am stalking you. I am not. If you post a comment on a user page that I am watching, I will see it and may respond to it. I don't even have you on my watch list. —Hanuman Das 23:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop stalking me and I will. Thanks. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you Mattisse. I have Ars Scriptor, Addhoc, CheNuevara and BostonMA on my watchlist. I will see whatever you post on those pages. That is NOT STALKING! —Hanuman Das 23:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hanuman

Well, I'm sorry that this is happening. It looks to me like two good editors (and probably good people) have a lot of ill-will towards each other right now based on past experiences.

However, the reality is that the editor in question doesn't feel they can edit because of you. I say this is reality because the "source" is the editor themselves, and I assume good faith as much as I can.

I could "dig" for more "truth" in user contributions and page histories, but that's enough truth for me right there. I encourage you to do what I asked the editor in question to do. Find some way to extend an olive branch in order to make yourself and the editor in question more comfortable here.

I could give dozens of ways to do it from the Kindness campaign to Esperanza, but really, I'm sure you know how. This situation, like any change made to Wikipedia, is not intractable. I intend to copy this message on the talk page of the editor in question.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi Mattisse, I was able to find pictures of Canyon Sainte-Anne with Creative Commons licensing. Hope your day went well. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a few days ago I saw on someone's page a specialized watch page. I set one up for myself at User:BostonMA/India Watchlist. Just click on the link in the instructions, and it shows you the recent history of all the articles mentioned on the page. It is much more detailed than the "my watchlist" at the top of your page, (I assume at the top of your page), but that also makes it longer for the number of articles you are watching. Anyway, I can show you how to set one up if you are interested. Goodnight my friend, --BostonMA ^talk 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are fun pictures. One thing that I often find disappointing about pictures, however, is that the sense of proportion one has in real life is often lost in pictures. In the picture looking down from upstream of the waterfall, you might not think there was a 84 meter drop between the two levels of water. You might get the impression that this is picture of a small stream. The log in the picture helps to make the proportions clear, but still, there is something of the grandeur lost. I'm sure you know what I mean. Goodnight. --BostonMA ^talk 03:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright

I'm snooping. What do you need? Are you in mediation or arbitration? Are you looking for someone from mediation cabal, or an advocate? I'll see what I can (and can't) do. NinaEliza 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to my talk page

No problem - don't worry about it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ars Scriptor

Hi, I don't know why he left. It could be that he/she needed to take care of real life issues. Or perhaps he had an conflict that made him feel like quitting. It is very hard to tell. --BostonMA ^talk 12:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is some more information and/or rumor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ars Scriptor retirement --BostonMA ^talk 12:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The latest post there requests no more discussion, and if you need info, to email Crzrussian. --BostonMA ^talk 15:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

When a page is deleted by an admin, the edits that were made to that page "disappear" from "user contributions", "watch pages" and the like -- at least for normal users. --BostonMA ^talk 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay

I don't know the particulars of the situation, but I do have concerns about it (and you). Please email me.NinaEliza 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala

Nice to have you back.Dineshkannambadi 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala

The article is in FAC review. The reviewers wanted more sub-articles created and a summary only on the main page for many topics like Administration, Economy of Empire which they felt too elaborate for main page.Dineshkannambadi 16:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

They also wanted Administration, Economy, Society above literature, architecture sections. I believe you had suggested this also.I am learning to listen to others.Dineshkannambadi 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

hoysala

Go to the discussion page for Hoysala Empire. At the top, click on "please leave comments" link in the "featured article candidate" field. That will take you to the converstions that have taken place and are taking place. With in a few days this article will be in good shape. I am working with two very experienced guys who know how the article should be presented to the world. Feel free to work with us and we all can learn. Leave all comments on the FAC discussion page though.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Dang it, should have checked. It's fine now. NinaEliza 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

first edit day

You have a minute or two to wish me first edit day! No one else has. --BostonMA ^talk 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My first post as a registered user 11 Dec. 2005. :-). I did read the FA review. I will let you get back to work, unless there is something I could do to help. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

religion

"To me it gets very confusing quickly because of all the Hindu detail, then it mentions the decline of Jainism and Buddhism, but later it talks about sumptuous Buddhist monestaries. What? I thought they were in decline? I'm joking but hopefully you get my drift"

When a few monasteries are mentioned, it does not mean the religion is flourishing. There were hundreds of monasteries during their heyday. Eventually, after a decline, only the most important once remained and some still do. Jainsim and Buddhism are not dead in India. I will make a few corrections to your copyedit.thanks. Dineshkannambadi 23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

copy edit

Please take a look at the last two paragraphs in the HISTORY section. I just summarized it for simplicity. The para starts with "Major political changes....".thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have cut and paste your para's with one word change.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool

That's good to hear. Ride this "peaceful day" like a carousel pony - it might just get you to the next and the next and the next. :) NinaEliza 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A contribution to your peace.

--BostonMA ^talk 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Administration

I have cut and paste the original contents into a sub article and summarized on main page. Please copy edit main page summary for Administration.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Siraf

Looks good.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Topographical Map

The map you posted on my page is accurate in a way, but is confusing. Here is how it works. The Deccan plateau is fairly high. Bangalore, for example is at an elevation of 1000 m. or so. (I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment). That is why the topological map shows a giant brown area with the Deccan plateau. The Wester Ghats rise much higher than the Deccan plateau. But these are mountains, and in between the mountains, there are valleys. The Western Ghats don't stand out that clearly on the topological map, which is confusing and perhaps unintentionally misleading. The Deccan plateau slopes (very gradually) downward toward the Bay of Bengal. The Eastern Ghats rise above the low edge of the Deccan plateau, and these are also obscured by the topological map. I hope that helps to clarify the geography. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Literature

I was following the Chola and Chalukya way where a few works are gently explained. The reviewers have not discouraged this yet. May be we should hold off and see if they dont like going into specific works of literature. It woud not be difficult for me to come up with another paragraph (in addition to the first one in literature section) generally explaining the direction of the flow. I know what you say is quite compelling.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Coins

I am ashamed to say this but in my large collecton of Hoysala architectural photographs (over 200), I dont have a single coin. But I will look for other unique images. Also, look out for American-->English spelling issues. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First Family inscription means first family writing on Stone describing their lineage, family details, kinship, grants of land , victory/defeat at war etc which are generally considered official "records" (Shila Shasana).Stone inscriptions (found in most ancient temples in India built before 1600 CE). They were also written commonly on copper plates (tamara shasana) but more likely private records like loans. Copper plates are almost like note books except they are a bunch of copper plates tied together with a string. See Tamil Literature. The top right image is what copper plates look like.Dineshkannambadi 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

literary works

Maybe I should have added this earlier and I am tempted to now. Some of the earliest works on Mathematics in Kannada language are from the early 11th century by great Mathematicians like Rajaditya (patronised by Hoysalas). Do you think it would be too many works in one section.? The other authors already mentioned are also famousDineshkannambadi 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

But I have been reducing my talk page. See [5]. I guess that when you are as far behind as I am, it isn't that noticable :-(. I think the word "opine" is a bit unusual, but would certainly be understood. --BostonMA ^talk 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorting my messages probably has no significant value, and is probably just a waste of my time, so I did a mass archive.  :-) --BostonMA ^talk 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Q and A

is mathmatics a literary work?

Reply Yes, from what I read. Maths is classified as secualr works.

If there is something remarkable about it -- something that stands out. If there were a place where you dicuss scientifc, agricultural, engineering advances and such it would fit in. Is is mentioned in the literature article? The problem is, for a person like me, there are so many names. That would be my reservation over adding another. On the other hand, it seems there is so much concentration on the arts in this survey article, and I secretly believe the Hoysalas had to be more accomplised in other areas than they are given credit. Else, how did these "hill peoples" pull this whole thing off, conquer lands etc. They could not have had the luxury of building fabulous temples if they did not have a strong grip on other areas. So, bottom line is, I don't know. You could try it and see if you can work it in someplace meaningful. (Experimentation is O.K.!) Sincerely, Mattisse 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply India was highly advanced in Math and architecture at this time. Its no wonder the Hoysalas had such good architects under them. In addition, Soapstone the material they used for their sculptures is found in plenty in the Mysore Plateau (South Karnataka).It is soft when mined and hardens over a period of time, a sculptors utopia!!! Hill Peoples does not mean "Hill billies". In fact, Hill people always had an advantage in that they controlled the sources of water, had all the vantage points. In one of your edits in the Architecture para you wrote "modern interest in the Hoysalas". There in lies the key to your question. Today we are only concerned about their architecture because it encompases all their intelligence such as math, astronomy, soil engineering and religious fervor. You will understand this only if you visit the temples. Every thing in the temple, every sculpture, pillar, bracket, decor has a logical reason. Most of the sculpture work was not just for beauty but also as "metallurgical stress relief" to the material itself.

P.S. Did the Hoysalas originate or promote the Kannanda language or was it coincidental that it flourished during their time? Was it related in some way to social factors, like the empowerment of the "locals"? (But as the FA editors stuck in, the caste systme remained firmly in place.) Sincerely, Mattisse 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ReplyThe hoysalas were native to Kannada speaking region of South India and hence they encouraged their native language. Kannada has a recorded history of over 2000 years. Please read Kannada when you find time (my mother tongue).

port cities?

I realised from the Sarif article that trade of consumer goods in this area started very early and was flourishing big time by the 4th century. The Hoysalas were probably benefitting from all this activity and foreign contact. Archiologists have found relics (is that the word?) from India in Sarif. Did the Hoysalas have port cities specifically?. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->Yes, they traded freely on the western sea board. The map does not show this but the coastal Karnataka was under Hoysala control as the Alupas and Santharas who ruled the coastal areas were a Hoysala feudatory. This is mentoned in one of the sub articles.

government

I do remember one of the reviewer complaining about this sentence:

The Hoysala centralised administration was similar to that of the Western Chalukya and Western Ganga Dynasties in matters of cabinet and command, local governing bodies and division of territory into provinces and districts . . .

The specific complaint was that the sentence does not say anything if the reader is not already familiar with Western Chalukya and Western Ganga Dynasties form of government and that you cannot assume the reader is. Can you rephrase it to be more specific without the references to the prior dynasties? Sincerely, Mattisse 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->The complaint was before my edits to the line. I can reword it anyway.

I understand

I understand your curiosity and position. Also, the edits you made to the ECONOMY section may not convey the meaning intended by the cited author. I think the original matter was more accurate. The land grants were made to Jain and Brahmins for religious and other services offered by them. The Landlords were Gavundas etc who today are called "gowdas".thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

The Assesment of agricultural land was not just for tax purposes but also for yield, water supply feasibility etc.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Same side

These things happen. I'm not a priori opposed to you, Mattisse. I just think you (and TomTheHand for that matter), read more into the requirements for citing references than is actually written. You know from comments on AN/I that not all admins read it like TTH. Many think a list of references at the end is sufficient, especially if there is nothing unusual or unlikely in the article. Anyway, if you want another location to remove links from, I just noticed that Robert Anton Wilson has a lot... —Hanuman Das 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tantra massage

Also, if you want to help make sure this article doesn't keep getting replaced with an article composed 3/4 of B.S. with no citations, I wouldn't mind. :-) —Hanuman Das 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wilson

Oh, yeah, sorry. I met the man once many years ago. Quite the character. —Hanuman Das 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!!

Oh no! That was'nt my intention. You have done a fine job so far. I just pointed out something I noticed. In fact the actual wording is in the sub-article attached. Feel free to continue. Just that after several copy edits, sometimes the meaning is lost. Thats all!!thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

copy edits

In fact, can you do one more thorough copy edit keeping an eye on Americanized spellings. I think we are almost there.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how to get the Image of Sala fighting tiger to move above the Kings info box?. I believe FA requires an image visible up front.Dineshkannambadi 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Caves of India / Hindu cave temples

Hi Mattisse, I took a look at existing categories and made your article the first entry in Category:Hindu cave temples. I also made that category a subcategory of Category:Caves of India and moved several cave temples that were in the latter to the former. Also, I hope you don't mind, but I commented out the category on your copy of the article in //myboxa - when you copy articles to user space make sure to comment out the categories as user subpages shouldn't show up in the article space category system. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)