User talk:Mattisse

Thank you for adding my pics

To White Springs and Welaka, that is. I was doing them for the NRHP Wikiproject, but I guess they could be used as well for the cities. I didn't add any to Fort Cooper 'cause... I think I forgot. Thanks again! :) --Ebyabe 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there's bucketloads more where that came from. See Commons:Category:Registered Historic Places in Florida. I'm trying to get pics of every site in Florida, and there's folks in other parts of the state helping, so it ain't just me. I keep track of what's left to do here. Have fun! --Ebyabe 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The search function isn't always that great on the commons. That's why I categorize the hell out of any pics I add. You'll see what I mean if you go to the category I mentioned above. I even subsectioned it by county, and in some cases city. Thanks for reminding me of something, btw. I did a major reorg of my galleries, and I don't think I put the userpage category at the bottom of all the new pages. Oh well, something else to do. If you need any advice on using the commons though, drop me a line, and I can share what meager bits I've managed to gather. Cheerio! --Ebyabe 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Click on the "Commons" link above; it should take you right there. --Ebyabe 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta-->I have added a section for Language. please take a look. As and when I find new info, I will add it.Dineshkannambadi 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta

What do you think of the map. The capital Manyakheta is not clearly depicted I feel. I will work on the subarticle The great Karnataka Expansion tonight and tommorow. Then go for DYK. Perhaps we should rename this "Age of Imperial Karnataka" (because its been called so by a historian).What do you think? After that I will look into branches and descendent stubs.Dineshkannambadi 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it started out as conquer but later became cultural and architectural.

Many kingdoms were created by Kannada dynasties in various parts of India. This is why Kamath calls it age of "imperial Karnataka". In addition devotional movements such as Virashaivaism later came from here.Dineshkannambadi 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven't done much today actually.Dineshkannambadi 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually started off on a new article that we discussed earlier this day. Than stopped half way. And was just surfing around. Now time to hit the hay.ByeDineshkannambadi 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete my citation for the moon river master card commercial? User:TheSecretFile

Kama Sutra

Greetings. I notice that you have helped with vandal cleanups and editing on the Kama Sutra article. I recently proposed removal of the detailed chapter titles, which are not reliably sourced, as a step to reduce the juvenile interest in this article (See: Talk:Kama_Sutra#Chapter_titles_can_be_removed). I am wondering if you would support such a step? My suggestion has gotten no feedback and I hesitate to just edit the titles out without having at least one supporter for the idea. Buddhipriya 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You have mail.Dineshkannambadi 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or wait till tommorow and see the whole file to copy edit. Thats better I think.Dineshkannambadi 00:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a trial. I dont understand "your box" method.Dineshkannambadi 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How does a "Age of Imperial Karnataka" FA sound to you. Throwing in a few good maps, a few neat inscriptions images, a few friezes and sculptures. What do you think?Dineshkannambadi 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Box is good, but is it secure? Normally you want to use the box if you feel you dont want to be disturbed and dont rely on the "inuse" tag to prevent inbetween vandalism and such.

Also, I am thinking, I will forward what I have put together tonight before I leave for the weekend. Hopefully it wont be difficult to copy it into the box and then copy edit. I will try to make sure that the citations are in order (I mean the syntax). If there is anything that can cause gross jumble up's in the page is wrong syntax on inline citations. But I am sure you can handle that.Dineshkannambadi 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea on the article is

LEAD

HISTORY OF POLITICAL EXPANSION

Early Native Kingdoms

Kadambas/Gangas

Start of Imperialism

Chalukyas

South conquers North

Rashtrakutas

Domination of the Deccan

Western Chalukyas

Hegemony over southern Deccan

Hoysalas

Consolidation of the Peninisula

Vijayanagara Empire

Post Vijayanagara

Post Vijayanagara Empire

Birth of Modern Karnataka

Independence and reorg of states

How does this look.Dineshkannambadi 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and use your box.Dineshkannambadi 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok.Maybe I should not be paranoid as the phrase is used by a historian.Dineshkannambadi 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey?

Really? Well when I first posted the link I did not see a survey. Oh well.

~TheSecretFile

No survey exists

I just went to the mastercard link I posted and I didn't see any survey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSecretFile (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Oops

my signature for the last post:

~TheSecretFile

you have emailDineshkannambadi 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you there?Dineshkannambadi 00:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw your User:Mattisse/BoxD. Why dont you plop in the email I sent you into this one. Or do you want me to do it?Dineshkannambadi 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am uploading now.It will take some time.Dineshkannambadi 01:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

With some 80 citations, does not look like a DYK!! Any way we will see. You are going to be shocked at my atrocious spellings in places. I was typing hard. As far as the reference books are concerned, they are all in my user page.Dineshkannambadi 01:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just reliased, in none of the paragrahs have I explained the period of the rule of each kingdom.We have time. By end of next week we should get this ready as a first pass. During that time, Rashtrakuta will slide into Peer review.Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For pleasure. Taking the family out to Pennsylvania for spring break. No break for you?Dineshkannambadi 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Sarvagnya's user page. He has an image of a nice tiled roof home.

Also look at Bhadravati I think there was a nice picture there. I will look into my albums and see. I can give you some images of a log homes in wildlife Sanctuaries I have visited, but they are modern cottages built in olden style. Let me look around.Dineshkannambadi 03:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Vattaparai Falls

Thank you for the effort but, Everything in this article in wrong except that it is in Kanyakumari district. You should correct it or remove it. I will remove the link to it on Palani Hills National Park-Marcus 07:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AMA sock

Hello Mattisse! Thank you very much for all the evidences you presented. I've read it and now I am indeed convinced that these editors are indeed sockpuppets and did many of disruptive editing. Sorry for my questioning before. However, in these pages I did not see a single trace of AMA's involvement, can you point out which passage was written by AMA advocate? Sorry if it gives you trouble, but thanks! Wooyi 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks again, and I have to say I'm sorry again for giving you so much trouble on the AMA case. I've read the evidences further, and I will look for further records myself and review them. Certainly, I agree that knowingly advocating an obvious troll/sock/vandal is reckless and irresponsible. As myself has been editted articles on politics/law, I've confronted numerous vandals/disruptive users. Again, thanks! Here is a barnstar for your efforts to investigate in this case. Wooyi 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Wooyi, hereby award Mattisse this Barnstar of Diligence for his diligent investigation on the AMA MfD case and the past misuse of AMA by disruptive users. Wooyi 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Hi! I saw your talk in Dinesh Kannambadi's page and went to that article Indian vernacular architecture. The scope of the article is very good. I shall try if I can get some more photos of the rural buildings of India. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet controversy of paganism

I just read it, and it was indeed painstaking to get all these straight. Not long ago I've seen the arbitration committee has "admonished" User:Rosencomet on a case, hopefully he wouldn't start it all over again. Regarding to the AMA thing, I have stated there, that I will not object the shutdown of that project, if the proposed "editor assistance" (which will not "advocate" for disruptive users) is to be established. I think this thing should be over now, and it is time to move on. Thank you for all the work again! Anyways, just btw, who was User:WeniWidiWiki that was quoted? Just asking. Happy editing! Wooyi 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also in that one the principal perpetrator of disruption is User:Ekajati, seems like he is both an expert in paganism and wikipedia insider knowledge who runs a sock chain and all of its progeny. Wooyi 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the rest of the saga, I find this edit rather subtle and interesting, showing Ekajati isn't the normal dumb kind of puppeteer, that he actually tried to establish a difference from his suspected socks. Happy editing! Wooyi 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Salix alba has had a soft stop for Ekajati all along. I can't complain as he has for me too since last August and has helped me out greatly. Go figure. That is one of the interesting aspects of all this -- the psychological connections. Why people supported me when for a brief time I did have people operating sock puppets on my computer. I appreciate you and your quickness of comprehension. You are not average and I would trust your judgment regarding AMA. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the case as well. It's getting very long now. No matter what the outcome is, we all should keep this issue debate reasonable and civil. Happy editing! Wooyi 03:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The AMA

I've replied to your comments in the AMA MfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You've certainly explained the reasons for your viewpoint clearly and civilly, and I commend you for that. I have several responses:

• I can understand your feelings about the case you mentioned - the advocate in question certainly stepped over the line in asking another user to e-mail him to get "the sad story" about you, and behaved unprofessionally in congratulating his/her advocee. I also looked into some of the diffs you provided and the records of the case, and it looks like you were subjected to continued harassment by several users. So I sympathise.
• However, all I can do is repeat my statement earlier; no system on Wikipedia, or indeed the real world, works perfectly. Yes, there are bad advocates. There are also bad admins, bad mediators, and so on; every system on Wikipedia has flaws. But that doesn't mean the system is inherently bad.
• I'd have to say, however, that the major problem with AMA is the lack of entry requirements for advocates, and the lack of training. When I joined the AMA, no one gave me any instructions, checked into my record on Wikipedia, or asked me anything about policy; I just went in at the deep end by taking on a case, and handled it largely by using common sense and diplomacy. Given that situation, I'm not surprised that there's a fairly high percentage of inexperienced and/or incompetent advocates, compared to other positions on Wikipedia. However, I don't think that's a good reason to delete the whole thing. Maybe it needs restructuring, with some kind of entry requirements for advocates (say, 1000 edits and a clean record), clearer rules, and a training programme to ensure that advocates follow WP policy. If you argued for that, I'd support you. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re AMA Suggestions

A first draft of a new framework for the AMA might be as follows:

• Anyone joining the AMA must have at least 500 edits, and a clean record of editing with no blocks.
• All new advocates should work alongside an experienced advocate in their first case, rather than taking a case on their own. This will allow them to get to know the procedures.
• A Handbook for Advocates will be put together, with specific guidelines for how to resolve disputes.
• There will no longer be an "advocate-advocee" special relationship. The advocate should communicate with other users involved in the dispute as well as their advocee, and should attempt to resolve matters through acting as a civil intermediary.
• Advocates should be strongly discouraged from communicating with their advocees through e-mail, IRC, or any other off-wiki channel. I've never felt the need to do this myself, and it's better that all advocate-advocee correspondence should be available for viewing by the whole community.
• Advocates should not be set against each other. As such, someone named as a participant in a dispute cannot open a separate request for assistance on the same dispute. Instead, the advocate already working on the case should make an effort to hear both sides' arguments.
• In cases where help has been sought with an arbitration case, a team of at least two advocates will work on the case. Only experienced advocates will be allowed to work on arbitration cases.

I may propose this on the MfD page. Obviously it's only an initial draft and will be altered, but I think it addresses all the problems with the AMA. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

RE AMA suggestions (continued)

I apologise, I didn't mean to alienate you, nor to give the appearance that we advocates "seem vested in [our] own point of view rather than doing a professional job". Although I can't speak for other advocates, I know I try my hardest to be professional, and will always accept criticism. I would respond to your points as follows:

• You're right that 500 edits is quite low, but 5000 is massively high - I've been here more than a year, and an advocate since November, and my editcount is somewhere around 3900. I borrowed the 500 threshold from WP:ADOPT, but on reflection you may be right that around 1000-1500 would be a better figure. As for mainspace vs. talk page contribs, that should probably be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I don't really want to make it too difficult to become an advocate, else few people will bother to do it at all; it's hardly a position of authority.
• A formal internship period would be a good idea - would you prefer that this be for a fixed period of time, or across the new advocate's first couple of cases?
• As to a "renegade mentality", I haven't seen too many things like that, but the term could certainly be applied to some of the diffs you provided earlier of advocate misbehaviour. I think that the no-secrecy idea would solve that to a certain extent; it would reduce the threat of Wikilawyering and fighting your advocee's corner. However, I certainly wouldn't advocate banning off-wiki communications (how would we enforce that anyway?), just discouraging them.

You say you don't want to get any more involved in this dispute, which is fair enough; I'm certainly not trying to browbeat you into agreeing with me. I'm just disappointed that the AMA, an organisation which I belong to and believe in, has let you down and alienated you in such a big way, and I really want to make amends and resolve the situation. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On WP:ADOPT, I don't think you really need that service - you're well-established here, while adoption is really for newbies who need some help getting to know how Wikipedia works. But in terms of the AMA (and in general), I don't think it's fair to judge users on editcount alone; some users might have a high editcount due to lots of minor edits and vandalism reverts, while others might have fewer edits but more awareness of policy and dispute resolution. (By the way, I'm quite impressed that you've got 20,000 edits in eleven months. Do you use VandalProof?) As to your second point, I agree that there don't seem to be any serious reform proposals going forward for the AMA. The MfD closed today with no consensus; the only solid outcome seems to have been that MfD was an inappropriate forum for discussing the AMA's need for reform. However, the proposal at Wikipedia:Editor assistance still seems to be active; if it becomes a significant project, I may move there from the AMA. Its mission statement seems to clear up some of the problems with the AMA ethos (e.g. fighting your advocee's corner). Would you consider it an acceptable alternative to the AMA? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)