User talk:Mattisse/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_4) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_6)

• contains Hanuman Das razor threat plus discusstion between User:TomTheHand and User:Aguerriero now known as User:Ars Scriptor

[1]

Contents 1 Aihole page 2 I have made a complaint of harassment re User:Hanuman Das & User:Ekajati on admin notice board 3 linkspamming by Rosencomet - 4 Thank you for your ethics 5 History of administrative division of Russia 6 Kazan Governorate 7 Thanks 8 * Yaghnobi people 9 Been reading your user page 10 You're welcome 11 Amos Milburn 12 John Lee Hooker Birthdate & Place 13 Chennakesava Temple 14 Temple issue 15 Thanks!! 16 I'm OK 17 Pekmez 18 Please do not add empty sections to articles 19 personal websites 20 I've had enough of you 21 Your message 22 Somanathapura and Keshava temple 23 Thanks!!! 24 Okay. 25 identity 26 Peggy Sue 27 Shivasamudra 28 Selena Fox and Phyllis Curott 29 Preparation 30 Strategy for temples 31 Temples 32 Kamakshi Temple 33 Apology 34 Notification of User Conduct RfC 35 The Royals 36 Abbreviations 37 RfC 38 Reply 39 A&R and wikilinks 40 Yakety Yak 41 Ah... 42 Rosencomet 43 Wait a minute 44 Location, location, location 45 Answer 46 Personal websites 47 Tagging 48 Mons Venus 49 Your comment 50 Your RFC 51 Not 52 University sites 53 Re Universities 54 Reply 55 Ekajati 56 Time Machine 57 Voting for Tirupathy as a colloboration project 58 Thanks for the map 59 Temples 60 Hindu temple 61 Badrinath Temple 62 Sivasamudram 63 Arbitrary section break 64 Chennakesava Temple 65 Temple issue 66 Thanks!! 67 I'm OK 68 Pekmez 69 Please do not add empty sections to articles 70 personal websites 71 I've had enough of you 72 Your message 73 Somanathapura and Keshava temple 74 Thanks!!! 75 Okay. 76 identity 77 Peggy Sue 78 Shivasamudra 79 Selena Fox and Phyllis Curott 80 Preparation 81 Strategy for temples 82 Temples 83 Kamakshi Temple 84 Apology 85 Notification of User Conduct RfC 86 The Royals 87 Abbreviations 88 RfC 89 Reply 90 A&R and wikilinks 91 Yakety Yak 92 Ah... 93 Rosencomet 94 Wait a minute 95 Location, location, location 96 Answer 97 Personal websites 98 Tagging 99 Mons Venus 100 Your comment 101 Your RFC 102 Not 103 University sites 104 Re Universities 105 Reply 106 Ekajati 107 Time Machine 108 Voting for Tirupathy as a colloboration project 109 Thanks for the map 110 Temples 111 Hindu temple 112 Badrinath Temple 113 Sivasamudram 114 Arbitrary section break

Aihole page

I have added the reference info for the portion you tagged. Should have done it in the first place.Dineshkannambadi 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a complaint of harassment re User:Hanuman Das & User:Ekajati on admin notice board

I would like to add stuff of yours also, since they consider us the same person and when they harass one of us, they think they are harassing the other. (It's incredible the energy they have put into this!) It's very hard gathering all the evidence. Let me know of any I don't know about. Timmy12 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

linkspamming by Rosencomet -

A more pertinent issue to examine might be the probable linkspamming by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) of his website, often using the claim that they're "citations".

Except that Mattisse was the one to insist on the citations. And I can document that. She did it with multiple socks, too. —Hanuman Das 01:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mo, you and your sockpuppet are the ones that ruin wikipedia. Don't worry, you are about to get caught. —Hanuman Das 01:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused...why is Mattisse adding comments of Calton as if they are her own? [2] Metros232 01:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Mattisse and Timmy12 do that. They copy from other users talk pages, admin discussions, and put it on their talk pages on private pages. See Timmy's user page for example. Many links to material copied from other pages. —Hanuman Das 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your ethics

I had concluded that Wikipedia was seriously corrupt. So, thank you for having ethics.

Don't YOU start with the paranoid nonsense, either. "Not immediately agreeing to everything you say without question" =/= "corrupt". --Calton | Talk 02:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

History of administrative division of Russia

Hi, Mattisse! I am not quite sure what you mean by my "bunched up edits", but of course you are welcome to edit the article! This is wiki, after all—I neither own any articles here nor can (or want to) prevent constructive edits by others. Let me know if I can be of assistance, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Kazan Governorate

Thanks for your nice comment on my removal of whitespace. The cause of whitespace is always the same - two or more pics placed one under the other or two pics too close together. I don't know why but this can cause chunks of whitespace. I spotted that two of the pics had their code with no text between. Separating the code by a para or two removed the whitespace Then I had just one line of whitespace left and I solved that by pulling the bottommost pic down bit. It's just trial and error! - Adrian Pingstone 21:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the link. --BostonMA ^talk 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

* Yaghnobi people

• Yaghnobi people - keep losing them

Been reading your user page

(message copied) 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)

Thank you for the complement on my writing. When I am passionate, I seem to be able to write, but when I write about dams and such, I seem to fumble :-(. Which item on my user page do you have many feelings about? It is funny, because I wrote the industrial sabotage piece based on what seemed to be personal observation, and then a month or so later there was a scandal because staff from the US Capitol were discovered to be manipulating biographies of politicians. Not surprising of course. The other big item on my user page, of course, is my unresolved conflict with DBachmann. What can I say about that? I'm going offline now, talk to you again. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that there are groups of people who WP:OWN certain articles etc. I don't really know what to do about it though, other than to argue one's case. Do you have any ideas?

With regard to the second item, the other editor involved is not particularly anti-Indian. I think it is more the case that he does not care if he makes statements which are derogatory, insensitive or inflamatory etc. 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. In most respects, however, he is a very good editor, insists on scholarly references, is very knowledgable etc. However, as a respected editor and administrator, he sets an example to others. In some cases, discussion regarding the content of articles is extremely difficult due to a high volume of racial, ethnic, religious etc. remarks that are made, as if certain people from certain groups are thought to be incapable of rational thought, following policies etc. But like the previous issue above, I don't really know the solution. Sometimes it saddens me. --BostonMA ^talk 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the comment I was referring to was the one that I removed from my userpage upon request, i.e. the jihad comment.

With regard to Kaveri, the conflict over that page was not religious, but was somewhat political and perhaps somewhat related to ethnic/linguistic conflicts. However, you did not start or even aggrevate the conflict on that page. Rather, the conflict on that page existed before you added the pic, and actually abated after you added the pic. The picture illustrates that during part of the year, some of the riverbeds are dry. That is a fact that is well known. You did nothing wrong, not even unintentionally. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The term Jihad which was in the comment that I removed from my user page is a Muslim term, and its use draws attention to the fact that the editor to whom it was directed was Muslim. Further it is a term that arouses anti-Muslim passions among many non-Muslims. In my opinion, such terms don't help to fascilitate rational debate.

Your Muppandal contribution looks nice. --BostonMA ^talk 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remember Salman Rushdie. He was actually in the news not too long ago... The word jihad may not arouse any strong feelings in you. However, I believe that for many people in the West, it evokes thoughts of the NYC world trade center, or similar scenes. Someone who has been labeled as engaging in jihad, in effect loses all credibility and becomes an object of contempt for some people. Certainly not for all people, but for some. Whether an editor is generally "loose" in his/her comments may shed some light on the intent of a comment. However, I think the effect is negative, regardless of intent. What a heavy conversation this is! --BostonMA ^talk 01:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindenting) Oh, I freak out. I freaked out =:o when you were removing the tag from your userpage. Remember? :D I actually admire you for your energy and persistance in adding new material to Wikipedia. --BostonMA ^talk 12:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

It looked like a spelling mistake so I fixed it. I suppose complicated things are going on, but I hope not too complicated. There is always drama on Wikipedia. --BostonMA ^talk 02:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a fair amount of deception. But there are also some very good people as well. --BostonMA ^talk 02:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I have to go now, which is probably a good thing, since otherwise I would leave you hanging while I'm trying to choose my words. Take care. --BostonMA ^talk 03:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Amos Milburn

I have contributed to Amos Milburn's article (generally in my more naive days - I have less than one year's experience of Wikipedia - and one does learn a lot along the way). Certainly it is not all my work - but as far as a source is concerned - I have a copy of "The Blues - From Robert Johnson to Robert Cray", written by Tony Russell, and published by Carlton Books in 1997 - ISBN 1-85868-255-X. A small amount of the wording has been copied, or slightly re-written (re-edited to fit) by me. Does this help, or hinder. Am I in trouble ?! Derek R Bullamore 23:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the book reference (first time I have been confident enough to do so), and was meaning to let you know. But I have been watching a live televised Rugby Union international - Wales v Australia - so I got sidetracked. Anyhow, I am sure Mr. Milburn's article is moving the right way forward. No problems. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore 16:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My only source is the book I referred to earlier. Milburn's article covers just two paragraphs in the 224 page tome, which backs up your comments about lack of information on him. It does state that "after the mid-1950s his recordings increasingly reflected the sound of his disciple Domino, while his day-to-day work became ever seedier". Perhaps he just fell out of favour with the public (as musicians often do), and he turned to drink (just a guess - I have no evidence). Do you want a full copy of the article sending via this medium ?

Derek R Bullamore 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, verbatim it reads as follows. "Milburn is an important marker on the map of black music in the first decade after World War II. His high-energy numbers about getting high turned on the lights for a decade-long party, jointly celebrated with his acolytes Little Willie Littlefield, Floyd Dixon and Fats Domino. After wartime army service he returned home to play music in his home town of Houston, but the huge success of his hipster's romp "Chicken Shack Boogie" in 1948 made him a black national hero: he was Billboard's Top R&B Artist in both 1949 and 1950. Among further hits were "Bad Bad Whiskey" (1950) and "One Scotch, One Bourbon, One Beer" (1953), a favourite of John Lee Hooker, but after the mid-1950s his recordings increasingly reflected the sound of his disciple Domino, whilst his day-to-day work became even seedier. In 1972, incapacitated by a stroke, Milburn returned to Houston. His last recording was an album for Johnny Otis, who had to play the left-handed piano parts for his enfeebled old friend." Excuse me for not utilising wikilinks, but it saves time ! Over to you, my friend.

Derek R Bullamore 17:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot. The recommended compilation album of his work - that I had previously placed in the article - is also lifted directly from my book.

Derek R Bullamore 17:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope my recent work adding wikilinks and categories finds favour with you. Whilst I fully understand you removing the second (and larger) paragraph to the talk page, surely the first is sourced (and verifiable) purely from the aforementioned book. Either way, the article continues to improve. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you come across this site (All Music Guide) in your research ? Generally, it is very sound in terms of accuracy, although its musician biographies can be full of POV. Anyhow [3] may be of further assistance to us (particularly for the references to Milburn's decline in fortunes). What do you think ?

Derek R Bullamore 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Had another re-working of the article, including adding further reference-linked wording. I think it looks pretty good now. Did you notice I asked on the talk page for a photograph to be added (there are several good ones on All Music Guide - click on one picture and another appears - but I suspect they are all copyrighted). Anyhow, adding pictures to Wikipedia is completely beyond my present capabilities. Also, I added a few more categories to Milburn's article. Possibly there are too many now. But it might be useful to you, if you continue to fill out the Charles Brown and Percy Mayfield pages. Although, I can not help you further on those two people ! Derek R Bullamore 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you work me hard ! According to the All Music Guide, Milburn co-wrote "Chicken Shack Boogie", "After Midnite" and "Hold Me Baby" etc., with Lola Anne Cullum; whereas "A&M Blues", "Sax Shack Boogie", "Aladdin Boogie", "All is Well", "My Luck Is Bound to Change" and "What Can I Do?" etc., was his work alone. Cullum was a 'manager' at Aladdin Records, and apparently "discovered" both Lightnin' Hopkins and Milburn. Will that do you for now ?

Derek R Bullamore 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

John Lee Hooker Birthdate & Place

Removed your "fact" tag from the John Lee Hooker page, because the citation is one paragraph below, where the bio starts. I originally put it on the first line, but another wikipedian put it in the first line of the bio instead, which looks a lot better. Please make sure you check the article before demanding citations, particularly when they are already there. Sir Isaac Lime 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, Sir Isaac, read this link: Citation Needed in John L. Hooker An administrator, User:TomTheHand explains in detail that the position you are taking on my talk page and on the article discussion page is incorrect. If you like, I can ask him to explain it to you again if it is not clear. Mattisse(talk) 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) See Paul McCartney for a good example of an article on a musician. User:TomTheHand recommends 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict as an example of a well-cited article. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Matisse, but I know what to look for. My point is, you were requesting a tag for something that was already tagged. Like the Paul McCartney article, the tag (birthdate & place) came when it was discussed in the article, not in the intro paragraph. Adding a "citation needed" tag in the intro sentence when the citation is already in the next paragraph is useless. You are jumping at conclusions. I am not, nor have I ever said, that citations are not needed. I am saying that the citation was already there. The discussion you are referring to regards whether or not citations should be present. The citation was already present.

If there is any part of this that confuses you, please ask. It is absolutely great than an admin agreed with you on a previous dispute. I agreed with you too. So did Wikipedia's policy. However, that dispute has no bearing on this rather small point I am trying to make: If you demand a citation, make sure the citation is not already there. And it doesn't hurt to look for it yourself, if you can.

Oh, and once you define a citation as a name, you can cite that reference again by saying <ref name="whatever" /> Saves copying and pasting the whole book citation many times, and makes it easier for others to edit the article.Sir Isaac Lime 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sir Isaac for your reply. My point was that the information in the introduction was somewhat incorrect, so I changed it and gave a reference to try to deflect the criticism I suspected was heading my way from people who "own" the article. If you look in the edit history and the actual code, I think you will find that I did use named references. As I look through the article I saw more that was incorrect as well as important elements of the history of black recording ignored. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I want to improve an article about an important black artist, an article that seems unaware of the behind-the-scenes business issues which with black artists had to deal as well as other elements of the person, John Lee Hooker's, life. Thanks again! Mattisse(talk) 13:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Chennakesava Temple

Hi. I see that you have created a nice page here. There is a small problem. The image you call Chennakesava temple is not the Chennakesava but one of the minor shrines within the same complex, whose name I cant remember right now. So you need to show the image that has the shrine along with the tall Gopura in the back ground instead(I realise I took those photos myself). Of late I have been concentrating on temple towns in Karnataka. Normally instead of creating a page for a temple itself, I create a page for the town, give a brief description of the town, location, before dwelling on the temple architecture in detail. Examples are Balligavi, Somanathapura, Belavadi, Kambadahalli, Amritapura etc which I recently created. I am planning to elaborate on Belur with the Chennakesava temple and other minor shrines in the complex. I have a great book on "Hoysala architecture" by Gerard Foekema, a renowned expert on Hoysala art to help me. As such I understand the terminology quite well both from the book and my visits to various Hoysala temples in person. Shall I maintain the Chennakesava Temple page as such and expand on that or shall we merge it with Belur page and then elaborate on all shrines in the complex, emphasising on Chennakesava as its the center piece, along with the Gopura, Temple tank etc. The same issue with Hoysalesvara Temple. Halebidu has many shrines including Kedareswara temple and two Jain Basadi's as well. Focussing only on Hoysalesvara gets others lost to the reader and we should probably include all shrines into Halebidu page eventually. This strategy helps us to cover multiple temples/monuments in one page for a "temple town" while giving the reader a brief idea of the locality, town , trade, agriculture etc as we keep expanding.Dineshkannambadi 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Temple issue

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I see your problem. For lesser known yet ornate temples, its very easy to resolve. The best thing is to create a page for the town, add some details about the town, locations etc and then add to the same page info for the existing temple(s).

For famous temples (like channekeshava/Hoysaleasvara) its a bit tricky. Getting citations is not the issue as I have the book for it and minimal experience to write up something. The issue is how to go about writing it. Here are the choices,

• Create a seperate page for the town, give a brief account on all temples in the town and create sister article (attaced as main article) for the most important temple. This way both the town and the temple are covered. Anyway w.r.t. to Belur and Halebidu, the towns are known worldwide, While the temple "names" are not.

The same temple having multiple names can be covered by "redirect pages".

• Create a page for the town and put all info on all temples in the town in the same page as one does not expect noramlly to have too many temples in one location (exceptions are Vijayanagara, Khajuraho etc)

• Just create a page for the most important temple and let the others out (which sometimes does not cover the whole picture). Often as in Hoysala temples, the architects were smart enough to create parallel temples, with one acting as a prototype. The Kappe Channigraya temple (commissioned by Queen Shatala devi) to the right of Chennakeshava temple is actually said to be a prototype for the main Chennakeshava temple (built by King Vishnuvardhana). Also leaving out the Tank/Gopura which was built by Vijayanagar Kings hides the continuity of patronage to the place. This is important to detail out.Your opinions are welcomeDineshkannambadi 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• (answered on user's page)

Thanks!!

Thanks for your confidence in me. I am learning myself.Dineshkannambadi 18:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK

Thank you for your note. You seem to have more confidence in my language skill than I have in those skills. I'm OK, but there have definitely been times when I have been more optimistic. I may have lost my balance a bit with the mediation. I see you have been editting Autumn Leaves. It was once one of my favorites ;-). --BostonMA ^talk 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Pekmez

Can you check the recent changes on Pekmez article? Pekmez Kola stuff was put there and now page looks awful in my opinion. I will discuss with author of the changes but first I want to hear your comments.Ugur Olgun 19:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks..Ugur Olgun 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add empty sections to articles

as you did to Oberon Zell-Ravenheart. Since several styles of citation are permitted by WP:CITE, and not all of them use a notes section, adding such an empty section is rather presumptive on your part in an article of which you are not one of the regular editors. WP:CITE clearly states that it is the regular editors of the article who get to decide which of several citation methods will be used. Some of these use inline citations without footnotes... Please read WP:CITE more closely and don't assume that a particular form of citation must be used. —Hanuman Das 05:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

personal websites

Personal websites of the subject of the article are not only permitted, they are required. Stop being a dick, please. —Hanuman Das 06:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of you

Stupid and inconsiderate remark removed by original poster —Hanuman Das 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed comment: [4] from Hanamun Das on 11-9-2006

Hanuman Das blocked for this see [5]. --Salix alba (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, I'm sorry that you received the above message. I see that the user has been blocked. Yes there is a procedure, which is to file a report at WP:AN/I. However, since the user has already been blocked, you should not file a report. The purpose of the report is to hopefully get the attention of an admin, something that has already occurred. Again, I'm sorry for the abuse. --BostonMA ^talk 13:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and I am also sorry that I failed to remove the title of this attack from my edit summary. Now it shows up in history lists. Yuck! --BostonMA ^talk 13:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Hi, I'm not sure I disagree with you regarding posting things on WP:AN/I or even other noticeboards. I think the admins who review these noticeboards tend to be overworked, and so cases which are at all complex don't usually get the attention they deserve. In the case of the user's comment above, however, it is such an obvious personal attack that an admin doesn't need to go through the user's talk page history to see if he's ever been warned, if he has reformed etc. etc.

On the same subject of admin overload, I have reluctantly agreed to Salix alba's request to participate in the starwood mediation. I am reluctant primarily because I think the matter should have been resolved by admin action long ago. I'm not blaming any admins, but it often seems that they do not have the bandwidth to keep watching a situation. I felt really bad that Timmy12 was so diligently removing rosencomet links, only to have them re-inserted, and yet there was no admin involvemet. I was especially saddened by the lack of involvement resulting from a post to the the spam noticeboard that I made. I'm sorry to say that I felt that if others, beside yourself, Timmy12, myself and Calton, did not step forward, that removing the links was like trying to empty the sea by lifting buckets of water and emptying them on the shore. There is always a risk when making such efforts without admin backing that one will be labeled a vandal. Again, I'm not blaming any admins for not being more active. They are volunteers. However, I am saddened by the fact things are as they are.

I'm glad you liked my writing regarding the image mediation. The reason why I became somewhat disturbed is that I am the person responsible for bringing the mediator to the issue. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time. I had hoped that instead of skipping over the arguments and proceeding fairly quickly to attempts at compromise, we would evaluate the arguments in as neutral a fashion as possible. Of course my impressions are colored by my preconceptions. However, it is my impression that many of the issues that have been raised have not received direct responses. So I was disappointed by the direction in which things were going, even though I was the one who set things in motion. However, it is inevitable that we make mistakes in judging what we ought to do, and I ought not judge myself to harshly. So, how is your day. :-) --BostonMA ^talk 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are being hard headed. One has to choose where one will expend energy, and if a given effort seems to lack value, there is nothing wrong with avoiding it. However, if you don't participate in the mediation, the other editors will be able to hold it against you should you wish to continue editting the articles related to starwood. They will say that you did not particate in estsablishing the consensus, and therefore your edits are disruptive. It is therefore a tough choice to make whether to participate or not. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Somanathapura and Keshava temple

There seems to be a overlap here. Could you merge them. Generally people know the name Somanathapura very well over most parts of South India and defnitely in Karnataka where as the name Keshava Temple is common to over 10 hoysala temples and hence confusing. So we should keep the page under the town name or call it Keshava temple(Somanathapura) or something. The same applies to Chennakeshava temples.Dineshkannambadi 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Hi. We will have to work out a strategy for each case I guess unless there is something very obvious that requires no strategy. At the same time there is nothing wrong in having individual temple pages depending on the situation, for example: Somnath temple in Gujarat.Dineshkannambadi 15:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay.

We can have Keshava temple(Somanathapura). But then we can always have a page called Somanathapura with a redirect the the first page. There are times we may want to mention (and have mentioned) Somanathapura without having to use Keshava temple in it.Dineshkannambadi 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

identity

Hi. Its kind of difficult to give an identity to small towns though, because there is so little data on them.Dineshkannambadi 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply:OKDineshkannambadi 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case of really famous temples like Chennakesava, Keshava etc this strategy of giving seperate identity to town an temple can work, but for lesser known temples it may not be possible, one example (among hundreds): Anagi town in Davangere District with the Ishvara temple.Then we have to go with a "temple town" strategyDineshkannambadi 15:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Peggy Sue

You need to explain to me, explicitly, what exactly you are complaining about. The information is taken from the book, which I highlighted for you so you would see it, and you're still complaining that it's unsourced. What do I have to do, scan the page from the book and post it in the article? Wahkeenah 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(copy of answer on users page}

• -- Sources -- some examples --

This is the only example I can think of off hand Dust My Broom but I saw some really good ones recently and I'll send the articles to you when I get the time. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Shivasamudra

I see that this multiple name thing for a place is a big problem. I guess you should contact the guys who have edited the page Shivanasamudra and see if you can get concensus about what the merge to what. Which name is more popular? Locals call it Shivanasamudra, though we tend to call it Shivasamudra/samudram. See what news paper articles call it (which may again lead to same confusion). I will look today in my KA map and see what the map says. By the way, what are those ^{[citation needed]} tags doing on the page you created.Dineshkannambadi 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to break this to you. See Shivanasamudram. --BostonMA ^talk 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see you are already aware. Yes, the name thing is unfortunate. --BostonMA ^talk 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, in this page, Shivanasamudra falls, is the same as the Sivasamudram Falls that you added. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry the naming situation is so frustrating. A minor point. Dinesh is usually a male name, so I am strongly guessing that User:Dineshkannambadi is male. Please, I am not trying to embarrass you, but I thought you should know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think he would get upset about that. No need to worry. --BostonMA ^talk 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Selena Fox and Phyllis Curott

I noticed the reference to WP:EL in the edit summaries of your edits removing the links to their official webpages. WP:EL states, "An article about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to that entity's official site, if there is one." I would assume that nearly all organizations and persons would publish their own official website - isn't that what makes official websites official? So I see no justification in WP:EL for removing those links. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Selena Fox I copied that edit summary from one of the edit summaries of User:Ekajati because she is thought to be an expert. But maybe I was wrong in doing so, as looking through WP:EL right now, I don't see it. So maybe she is wrong. In any case, the article has been reverted by User:Hanuman Das and the link is restored. I will check into it more, but I apologize if I was wrong. In the case of Phyllis Curott there are no reference citations per WP:V and WP:CITE. Ralph Bass is an example of a referenced article. There are better examples and I will find more if you want. In any case, that article also has been reverted by User:Hanuman Das and what was there before my edit is now restored. Hope this helps Mattisse(talk) 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew the links had been reverted, but I wanted to make sure that you got some explanation for it. You're right that the Phyllis Curott article needs verification, and I've added it to the list on WikiProject Neopaganism. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very appreciative of your reply and glad that you seek to improve the article as all work in that direction helps us all at Wikipedia. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 04:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Preparation

Occassionaly I have good advice for people, but in this situation I'm afraid I don't know what you should do to prepare. I think your best bet is to ask someone else for advice, perhaps a few someone elses. I will try to keep your question in mind, and if I have any thoughts I will relay them to you. Sorry to be of such little help. And please do not worry about bothering me. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an admin User:Glen S that left a friendly note on your page once. Try him? --BostonMA ^talk 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also you might try to get advice from User:Redvers. He (I assume it is a he) gave me a barnstar so he must be decent ;-D. (Only kidding, but I do think he is decent. --BostonMA ^talk 22:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though they are filing a RfC here. They need to notify you when it is complete, and they need to certify it. After that, you can respond. I think once they notify you, you should send messages to Calton, Samir, JzG, and a few others notifying them that a RfC has been put in place against you, and could they please comment. --BostonMA ^talk 23:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --Salix alba (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Strategy for temples

Hi. I though over this a bit and here is what I think we should do.

• For lesser known yet ornate temples, we create a page for the town with a header explainig the location of town and what it is famous for, and write up on the temple(s) with some photographs. As such, lives in such towns/villages generally revolve around the daily temple activities. (example; Nuggehalli, Belavadi etc)
• Temples that are extremely famous, (Chennakasava temple, Hoysaleswara, Virupaksha of both Hampi and Pattadakal, Mahadeva of Itagi, Kasi Vishwesvara of Lakkundi just to name a few) can have their own individual page with a main article include for the page in the town/city article (where the temple exists)
• Temple towns like Hampi and Vijayanagara, Pattadakal, Aihole, Badami etc that have many famous temples, though not all are equally famous can certianly have its own page (which already exists), there should be enough literature for that and have main article includes for the most famous temples. For other temples in town they can be explained right in the same page itself.

How does that sound? This way we preserve Chennakesava, Hoysaleswara etc you have created too (I shall be expanding on these big time shortly from my source "Hoysala architecture")Dineshkannambadi 20:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Temples

Dont worry, we all have bad days. I understand your problem regarding temples being related to their nearby towns, waterfalls being related to their nearby towns, forests being related to their near by towns etc. India is an ancient culture and certian things have stuck (for better or worse) and sometimes things go on based more on tradition than on convinience or logic. To understand India, you need to visit India and then things start falling into place. Just assume for now that temples can be represented by the temple itself or by the town it exists in and sometimes both and sometimes neither. Dont be afraid to merge your contents with those of others based on concensus and remember, whether the name is the one you think or the one someone else chose, you are still making a contribution.Keep contributing.Dineshkannambadi 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kamakshi Temple

As mentioned in the discussion page, for the last one week, I've sat day and night :) in creating content for all famous temples in Tamilnadu and AP - see the articles in Tirupathi, Srirangam, Thiruvanaikaval, Palani, Thiruchendur... Kamakshi temple is one among them. What made you think that it is created by a non-wikipedia creator? As you see from the time of creation, the article is still being filtered out by me.

Balajiviswanathan 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand your take. I've given the online links in the article and you didnt even bother to view it. I'm not in the process of confrontation. No one had written anything for the last many months and I wanted to give it a form. No one stops you or from anyone from contributing more. I didnt go against colloboration. I saw it as a stub for a long time and took time to write it. The article is still in the stub form and I'm working on it. I wrote the article, because I know about the temple since childhood.

If you want the article to still remain as an one line stub and no one bothering to write content on such an important article, it's not my problem.

Balajiviswanathan 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Currently my main projects had been Samayapuram Mariamman Temple and Tirupathi Venkateshwara Temple. Probably by tomorrow morning, I could focus more on Kamakshi. See if it suits. I myselft have filled the citations by finding appropriate sources for many other articles. Thus, I welcome you to add "citations needed" tags appropirately. I'm also planning to add the "cleanup" tag to prevent the readers from thinking this as a final version. Btw, the official page (the first link) was the source of much of the information, which still need to be condensed and I dont know why you are unable to access that page. I checked even now and its up. Probably recheck after a few mins.

Balajiviswanathan 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.srikanchikamakshi.org. As I already said, I put that content as a starting point, while I'm working on rephrasing. As a graduate student who had published papers, I understand the copyright issues. However, they are in a stub article and I'm working on it. Give me 1 day time and dont give too much to the current content.

Balajiviswanathan 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the article completely, and due to an edit conflict, everything is reset. I'm working on it. Kindly dont edit for the next few hours. Already, due to the conflict lost an hour of work.

Balajiviswanathan 05:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Write the article in a text editor (or always copy it first to a text editor). I learned the hard way too. But understand why there can be no copyvio, right? Mattisse(talk) 06:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten once again. Kindly see if it suits.

Balajiviswanathan 06:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Please accept my apology for that personal attack. However, please also note that I continue to find your behavior unacceptable and support the RfC opened by 999. —Hanuman Das 10:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Notification of User Conduct RfC

A User Conduct RfC has been opened against your behavior in regard to articles related to Rosencomet and Starwood Festival. Please respond with your defense of your activities in the Response section. Thank you. —Hanuman Das 10:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Royals

Well, the article should be accurate, but The Royals could be a redirect to Hank Ballard. Just bold rather than italicize The Royals and that should do it.

By the way, I want you to know that I've got nothing against you personally. Only your behavior. I personally would have assumed good faith on the part of Rosencomet and taken up any issues on his talk page. In fact, I did. That is really preferable to tagging all of his articles when there is one person involved and he has a talk page. Or do I have to continue to demonstrate how frustrating it can be if I tag every article in which you use an abbrevation instead of trying to work together with you to fix them? —Hanuman Das 01:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on user's pag)

Abbreviations

It's simply common sense. It's probably stated somewhere, but whether an article needs something is an opinion, right? Just like how to interpret the line between WP:V required citations and the WP:CITE guidelines for footnoting. Not everybody agrees. Even the admins don't agree on it. Tom the Hand represents one extreme of the range of opinions. The other end says the a list of references is sufficient. Thus, your tagging of articles with references as if the were required to have something more was an expression of your opinion. If I tagged every article of yours with abbreviations with "cleanup", it would be no different. But I won't, as now I've discussed it with you, and to repeatedly tag the articles would be a violation of WP:POINT, don't you think? —Hanuman Das 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know what A&R means, so yes. One has to remember that someone turning to an encyclopedia may know nothing about the subject. Now, one would think that most adults would know what R&B means, but that is quite an assumption. How about a young person researching. Or an extreme case, someone born and raised on Niihau (residents of the island are required to maintain a native, low-tech life style) who has never had a radio, record player, etc., but chooses to leave the island and join modern civilization. They shouldn't have to click a link in the article to find out what R&B stands for, should they? —Hanuman Das 02:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

RfC

By the way, I'd be happy to drop the RfC (can't speak for 999), if you would simply apologize to Rosencomet and start discussing with him instead of what you've been doing. I know you've targeted Rosencomet, you know you've targeted and stalked Rosencomet. Why take refuge in the illusion that everything you've done was justified by "the rules"? Why not assume good faith and actually engage him in conversation? —Hanuman Das 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Reply

You're welcome. So you stumbled on Mr. R.C. by accident, but after you put it together is what I'm concerned about. I also stumbled on RC by accident, and even reverted one or two of his additions before I saw the pattern. But once I did see the pattern, I went directly to him. I suspect our conversation is still on his talk page. Then I did a little research and found that Starwood is a notable event in the pagan community. So I was much less concerned. I suspect that if you talk it up with him, the two of you could figure out boundaries for when and when not to mention Starwood in an article. A solution that leaves about half the mentions and half the links might be reasonable, don't you think? After both you and your socks tried to get articles deleted, he must feel that he must protect all his work, don't you think? And many of the articles you went after with importance tags are actually notable and known to be notable in the pagan world. I used to work in a bookstore and recognized many of the names from the magic & witchcraft area. Would you agree that authors whose books are carried in Barnes and Noble and/or Borders brick-and-mortar stores are notable enough for WP? I mean, what about all the little towns in India? Are they really that notable? Someone not familiar with India might well be justified in tagging every short article on small Indian towns with importance tags, don't you think? If they tagged 40 or more on your watchlist over a few hours, would you welcome it, or would having to take them all off frustrate you and make you angry? —Hanuman Das 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

A&R and wikilinks

Nope, I don't. Really. Or at least I didn't until I just looked at the article. :-) A good guideline is to go by the title of the article. I note that R&B is a redirect, as is A&R. The first mention should be a wikified link to the actual title of the article, not a redirect. Subsequent mentions don't need to be wikified and can be abbreviated.

Remember that the GFDL allows people to make a paper encyclopdia from Wikipedia if they want. Could happen. Or the article could be printed out and the wikilink thus inaccessible. So the answer I think is "yes and no" - the wikilink shouldn't be needed to understand the term, simply to get more information about the term... At least, that's what I think. I could hunt through the MoS for a policy on use of abbrevations. Of course, this is WP, so if I don't find one, I could write one and then.... presto, new rule and new articles needing cleanup. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, actually A&R is not a redirect. I wonder who I'll upset when I move it. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yakety Yak

By the way, you may not believe this, but I'm listening to the radio (KUT) and Yakety Yak just came on... —Hanuman Das 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users pag)

Ah...

You really don't understand the pagan mentality. Pagans frequently use egregores or give a name to a collective effort. Rosencomet is a play on both "Rose and Comet" and Christian Rosenkreuz and probably Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead as well. It is a typical form of magic to give a name and personality to a collective effort, especially in cases where no one is really in charge. It's possible that the names many so-called gods and spirits originally came from such a process. (Did you know that in Latin, J is pronouced Y and V is pronounced W. So how do you pronounce the name of the god Jove, then?) In any case, it's not particularly unusual in the pagan community, and certainly not intended to be deceptive or evasive, but rather symbolic and expressive.... —Hanuman Das 03:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users pag)

Rosencomet

Well, I do think an apology and working together would help dispel the idea that you may still be using sockpuppets. I've not yet seen anyone be that disingenuous on WP, (i.e. make nice with one account and still attack with the other). But then, I've really not been here that long... —Hanuman Das 03:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Wait a minute

You don't suppose one of your grandchildren took it upon him or herself to take up the battle independently, do you? Could Timmy12 be someone you know? —Hanuman Das 03:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on useres page)

Location, location, location

Must say I do know people in Ohio, and have driven through it, but no, never been to the Starwood Festival and don't know R.C. Driving out of Texas is a chore. I've been here since '97, and have only driven out once...this year to Chicago... Fly to NYC, Seattle, Hawaii, even New Mexico, which is relatively close. Takes a whole day just to get out of the state driving... :-( —Hanuman Das 03:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Answer

Removing the links to the subject's websites from multiple articles. That was clearly vandalism, since WP:EL requires linking to the subject's website. —Hanuman Das 14:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm don't remember? It was just a couple of days ago! Here are the edits: Stephen Gaskin, Anodea Judith, Raymond Buckland, Oberon Zell Ravenheart, Isaac Bonewits, Deborah Lipp, Selena Fox, Jeff McBride, LaSara Firefox, Phyllis Curott, Rusted Root

Was your grandchild over again?

As for 999, I only know him online, from Wikipedia, but have exchanged emails with him as well during the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" edit wars. He ended those wars practically single-handed, by breaking up a single article about mulltiple offshoot of the order into individual cited articles and then simply reverting the addition of any uncited material (one group was adding positive uncited material to the article about themselves and adding negative information to all the others, including calling one group "Satanic"). I have quite a bit of respect for him because of that. He's mostly interested in the occult so probably had some of the articles you hit on his watch list. But neither of us does the other's bidding as you put it. We ask each other to watch problem articles sometimes. In fact, I asked him to watch Dattatreya when your sockpuppet User:Dattat started to harass me there. You really laid into him on his talk page for that. —Hanuman Das 15:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Answers -- without checking them all, I assume it was me. I had copied yakety yak's edit sommary "rm link to self-published personal website, not permitted by WP:EL". But that is wrong I guess. I apologise, really, if that is the case. Mattisse(talk) 15:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Things would be much less acrimonious if you would simply do 1 or 2 at a time rather than 10 to 40. That would give people time to respond and work out the issue rather than be overwhelmed with changes they believe need to be reverted. When you tag 40 articles, people are less likely to look into the merits of each one, but when they find that a number of them are questionable or invalid, will simply revert them all. If you did the same thing a few at a time, the result would be better for everyone. (I think). —Hanuman Das 15:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites

Ekajati is indeed correct about personal websites when they are used as sources of criticism of a living person. The reason for that is that anybody can set up a website criticising anybody about anything, true or untrue. WP:BLP requires stricter standards for sources when the person is still living. I've helped her out with stubborn cases where people keep putting what is essentially slander into an article.

But in general, personal websites are not acceptable as sources. That would include websites hosted on free services such as geocities, freeweb, etc. or sites in a user directory (i.e. with ~username in the URL). The reason is that they are usuallly not reliable sources per WP:V. The exception again is auto-biographical sites of a person or group, but any questionable info should be qualified with something like, "According to their website, they were in London in 1983. But other sources place them in Birmingham during this period."

But, such site are acceptable in external links when they are the site of the subject of the article (or site of a member of the band), etc. So you have to be discriminating about what function the site is being used for. —Hanuman Das 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Tagging

Right, but the bad responses were mostly when you tagged a bunch of articles at once, whether Starwood or Blues, right?

On the removal of external links, I only listed the ones I disagreed with. I agree with you about Amazon links. But subject links need to be included even if they promote or sell their own books, as long as there is personal content or information about the subject not available elsewhere. Also, I think a link to the business website of the subject is appropriate. It's there to inform, not to sell. The same link would be inappropriate in any other article... I refer of the Ravenheart-Zell's "Mythic Images" business.... The link serves also as a citation of the fact of their business and what it does. —Hanuman Das 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users pag)

Mons Venus

I don't think that one was his. I guess it would be utterly non-notable except for the Supreme Court case. Strip clubs - seen one, seen 'em all... —Hanuman Das 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Your comment

I again thank your for your comments which are more flattering than I probably deserve. We will see how the mediation goes. I see that a great deal of progress has been made with your communication with Hanuman Das. That is very good, and I imagine it brings quite a bit of relief. Thank you again for your work on dams and rivers etc. I hope you don't mind that I made some adjustments to Sivasamudram Falls the other day. Also, there is one other phrase in some of your articles that I'd like to correct, but I'm not sure of the proper way to rephrase it. The Western Ghats and the Eastern Ghats are mountain ranges. I am not sure if there is an exact definition of the Deccan plateau, but in my mind, the plateau per se does not include the Ghats. This is not to say that there are no mountains on the plateau, there are, but these are mostly the isolated remains of extinct volcanos, and stick out very suddenly in an otherwise relatively flat landscape. There is nothing at all flat about the Ghats, and so I would not include them in the plateau. Of course, others might differ with me. So, regarding various rivers, I would say that they begin in the Eastern/Western Ghats, and then flow across the Deccan plateau. --BostonMA ^talk 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be frustrating to explain something repeatedly only to have it ignored. Hopefully, there will be better communication soon. --BostonMA ^talk 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RFC

Hi, Matisse, thanks for alerting me about the RFC that's been opened on you. This is just to say that I'm interested and am trying to get my head round it, but I probably won't be able to comment. It's very complicated, as you say. And a quite ridiculous amount of material and links have been posted as background, making it prohibitively difficult for somebody not already on the inside track to read it all, or to know which bits are important. Maybe I can contribute on some limited aspect. For instance protest about the way the format of the thing actually excludes the community at large from commenting! Regards, Bishonen | talk 19:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

• (answered on uswers page)

Not

It's not another person. It's already a gang effort, on both sides. Has been going on for some time, check the histories. —Hanuman Das 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, he thinks User:Rottentomatoe is a sock. Could be. Looks like User:Pete K has been holding his own for quite some time against a couple of editors, but recently, two or three new single purpose accounts have appeared, all on the same side. That's rather suspicious, don't you think? —Hanuman Das 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I posted an article RfC to get some more eyes on it. I almost always do that when 999 is trying to stop a revert warrior. If a few other people show up and try to keep order, it tends to improve everything. That and getting the revert warrrior out of the way for a day or two. Sometimes other editors mysteriously dissappear at the same time (due to autoblocking). Curious, that. —Hanuman Das 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's info on article RfCs: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles. —Hanuman Das 05:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is simply not true, Hanuman Das. You can spin what you and 999 are doing, but it's pretty obvious to many people. (I've done some research on you two)

And regarding you calling me a sock and revert warrior, I'd like to inform you that there's MANY MANY people who feel exactly the way I do about this issue. User Pete K is in the extreme minority. We were all talking about it on a Yahoo BB and this is how I found out about WIkipedia to begin with. Rottentomatoe 17:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

University sites

I respectfully submit that there is a difference between a user's personal page on a university server, and an official university page on that same server. -- Avi 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• responded on user Avi's talk page. Mattisse(talk) 13:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Re Universities

Hi Mattisse, I work at a university. --BostonMA ^talk 11:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

1) It's on the religion and philosophy page. 2) If you read WP:3RR, you will note that if you have just broken 3RR by mistake or through lack of knowledge, it is considered acceptible to self-revert back to the other version to avoid getting blocked. I'm wondering if you actually read the policy pages, or just base your ideas on what you see others say and do? —Hanuman Das 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Ekajati

Well, at least she moved the quotes to Wikiquote. I was too lazy to create a Wikiquote account and just deleted them. —Hanuman Das 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. You might want to archive your old talk entries, this page is getting really long...

Time Machine

I happened to seen a note on Calton's talk page saying "I have spent six months one way or another trying to draw the Rosencomet thing to someone's attention -- until I just gave up and felt hopeless." It was dated October 26th. Calton pointed out that my comment belonged on your talk page, not his, as I mistakenly left it. (Of course, as always, he took the opportunity to insult me once again.)

The comment was: You must own a time machine. My very first Wikipedia input was August 13th. How have you managed to spend 6 months on this noble crusade of yours by October 26th? Rosencomet 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, these external links to provide citations were begun because YOU kept demanding them. I certainly didn't need the extra work citing every appearance, and then preserving the citations against revertion so that the entire thing was not deleted due to lack of citation. I've said to Samir and to Hanuman Das that if I could be assured it would not cause the information to be deleted, I would be glad to take down many of these external links. But I have also been told that the citations were NECESSARY. How do I preserve my work and satisfy contradictory criticisms? Rosencomet 16:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on Rosencomet's talk page) Mattisse(talk) 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting for Tirupathy as a colloboration project

Hi, can you join me in nominating Tirupathy Venkateshwara Temple for the colloboration of the week. It is a shame that such an important article is still not near the FA-category.

[here] Balajiviswanathan 07:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the map

Hi, thanks for the map. Yes, it illustrates well the difference between the Ghats and the Deccan. Yes, R. and I are talking, and hopefully communicating. Things seem to be relatively quiet at the moment, not too much drama. Who knows how long the calm will last? ;-). Sincerely --BostonMA ^talk 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Temples

Thanks. I will let you know how you can help. Right now I am working on a different topic (this week). Next week I shall take up Halebidu Hoysaleswara temple in depth. Right now if you have time could you do a copyedit and look for grammatical/syntax etc errors in the temples/temple towns I have already created/worked on? (Somanathapura, Chennakesava Temple, Belavadi, Amritapura, Balligavi, Nuggehalli, Kambadahalli, Doddagaddavalli.Dineshkannambadi 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

{answered on Dineshkannambadi's page}

Hindu temple

The aim is to create content for every major Hindu temple. Many of them have immense historic value and considerable religious importance. So, I'm trying to build articles on them. It is not possible in a day, but over the course of next one year, it is possible to build a detailed article for around 100 major temples in Tamilnadu, with their historical and religious significance. It is as simple as that. Balajiviswanathan 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the articles that exist already? There are many people interested in temples and you don't want to exclude them from your plans. Articles are supposed to be collaborations, not single person projects. Also, you have to cite references for your material per WP:CITE. Did you look at the links I sent you? Mattisse(talk) 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For the last few days I'm checking out the various categories where Hindu temples are there and doing my assessments. I've also moved a number of India-struct-stub and other categories where Hindu temples were there to Hindu-temple-stub. I've also added more categories based on deity, location etc and re-categorized a lot them from top level categories - Hindu temples and Hindu temples in India. In this process, I found dozens of duplicate articles and I've merged them with the main article. I'm also changing titles to dissambiguate better. Regarding multiple temples with same name, I'm adding the city name at the end and for temples with multiple names (Thiruvanaikaval, Tiruvanaikkavall,Jambukeswarar temple...) I've created redirections. I believe that Wikipedia should contain info on all these temples as these are all 1000 year old temples of significant value to Hinduism. And, I'm slowly trying to get these into colloboration modes, starting with the most important one, Tirupathy. Balajiviswanathan 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I'm now getting irritated by your repeated messages. I've never said these are non-Wikipedia projects. I'm also not stopping colloboration and indeed trying to get more people involved in the process and slowly trying to get them into WP India WikiProject Hinduism projects. I've moved them appropriately, as many of them were abandoned months back. If someone had been working on them, I would surely try to revert it back. Most of these were stubs and there are no discussions on them. If you have any questions about an article, point them directly. Balajiviswanathan 19:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Badrinath Temple

Regarding Badrinath Temple, I just moved the contents from the existing article Badrinath, as we wanted it to describe about the town. I didnt spend much time on editing that. You could comment all the contents out, and I'll work on them, when I find time. Balajiviswanathan 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound like these are your articles. They are Wikipedia's articles. It is wrong to move contents from one article to another without consulting with other people on the Discussion page and getting consensus first. Mattisse(talk) 19:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new Badrinath Temple image that is compatible with the fairuse requirements of Wikipedia [[6]]

Sivasamudram

Hi Mattisse, I think the two articles really are duplicates. There is a village by the falls, but it is small. If it is notable enough to have its own article, there are many other villages that would also deserve there own articles. I have refrained from adding articles about small villages because it seemed to me somewhat of "fancruft" or "vanity" and probably would not be considered notable by a large number of editors. (On the other hand, in my mind they are more important than Pokemon characters -- but then who am I to say so?) But getting back to Sivasamudram, I think if you want the article to have the name "Falls" in it, you should just merge the two into the "Falls" article and leave the other as a redirect (so it isn't recreated). That is my opinion, but I am always willing to listen to alternative views. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, I hope you are not angry with me. I merged Brihadeeswarar Temple and Brihadeshvara Temple because they were both about the same temple. (Both names are recognizable to Indians.) If the article is in poor shape, that is my fault, because I'm not that great at writing articles. Your version stated that the temple was at Talakaveri, and so I was skeptical of it's accuracy. That is why I merged into the original article. I didn't care about the name, but only that there not be two articles about the same subject with almost identical names. It was only after I made the merge that I noticed comments from Hanuman Das and contacted him. I feel the same about Sivasumadram articles. I don't care about the name, but there shouldn't be two articles about the same thing. One should be a redirect to the other, and no useful information should be lost. I hope this helps to explain. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, I believe you have made a great many good contributions to India related articles. I think you certainly do a better job of organizing an article and making it readable than myself. However, if you are frustrated with working on India related articles, and wish to stop for awhile I understand. I do believe, though, that you are misunderstanding my position. Do you agree 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? You do understand that I do not mind if the name is one thing or the name is another, don't you? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 12:18, 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 13:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Dineshkannambadi, [7] 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 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Back again. I left a short note about spellings on my talk page. You mention that you are getting lost in this thread. Maybe it is time to take a break? Please let me know, as I don't want to be argumentative. To kind of reorient the discussion to it's beginning, you wrote:

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)

To which I replied that I thought the two articles should be merged. You have recently said that there shouldn't be two articles on the same topic, so perhaps you also agree that the articles should be merged, I don't know. (By the way, I don't think 999 did anything wrong by putting a merge tag on. It may have been his intent to make your life miserable as you say, but in itself, I think he did the right thing. Even if the articles are not merged, it is certainly appropriate propose a merger, as this draws attention and discussion around the fact that there are two articles that appear to be about the same subject. But that is all an aside).

On the other hand, if there are plans to write an article about the village which isn't essentially about the waterfalls, for example if it were to discuss temples in the village, then I would not object to separate articles. --BostonMA ^talk 20:29, 16 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)

It does help. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Hi, I found this article but I didn't see another. Is there another article on the town with more details? --BostonMA ^talk 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I saw this [8] 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) 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the discussion has stirred painful feelings. I will try to avoid mentioning it in the future. I hope your evening goes better. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's drop it for now. I need to go eat anyway. Please take care. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. No harm was done. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in my "youth" as a Wikipedia editor, I used to involve myself in naming disputes, but came to feel involvement in such disputes was not something that I wanted to continue. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, I hope your day has gone well. The issues in the message you left me are related to things that you said made your day yesterday unpleasant. If I handle those matters, they may not come out the way you desire. If that is OK with you, then I will handle them, but if you care about the outcome, you should be involved yourself. Please let me know whether you desire to be involved. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Chennakesava Temple

Hi. I see that you have created a nice page here. There is a small problem. The image you call Chennakesava temple is not the Chennakesava but one of the minor shrines within the same complex, whose name I cant remember right now. So you need to show the image that has the shrine along with the tall Gopura in the back ground instead(I realise I took those photos myself). Of late I have been concentrating on temple towns in Karnataka. Normally instead of creating a page for a temple itself, I create a page for the town, give a brief description of the town, location, before dwelling on the temple architecture in detail. Examples are Balligavi, Somanathapura, Belavadi, Kambadahalli, Amritapura etc which I recently created. I am planning to elaborate on Belur with the Chennakesava temple and other minor shrines in the complex. I have a great book on "Hoysala architecture" by Gerard Foekema, a renowned expert on Hoysala art to help me. As such I understand the terminology quite well both from the book and my visits to various Hoysala temples in person. Shall I maintain the Chennakesava Temple page as such and expand on that or shall we merge it with Belur page and then elaborate on all shrines in the complex, emphasising on Chennakesava as its the center piece, along with the Gopura, Temple tank etc. The same issue with Hoysalesvara Temple. Halebidu has many shrines including Kedareswara temple and two Jain Basadi's as well. Focussing only on Hoysalesvara gets others lost to the reader and we should probably include all shrines into Halebidu page eventually. This strategy helps us to cover multiple temples/monuments in one page for a "temple town" while giving the reader a brief idea of the locality, town , trade, agriculture etc as we keep expanding.Dineshkannambadi 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Temple issue

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I see your problem. For lesser known yet ornate temples, its very easy to resolve. The best thing is to create a page for the town, add some details about the town, locations etc and then add to the same page info for the existing temple(s).

For famous temples (like channekeshava/Hoysaleasvara) its a bit tricky. Getting citations is not the issue as I have the book for it and minimal experience to write up something. The issue is how to go about writing it. Here are the choices,

• Create a seperate page for the town, give a brief account on all temples in the town and create sister article (attaced as main article) for the most important temple. This way both the town and the temple are covered. Anyway w.r.t. to Belur and Halebidu, the towns are known worldwide, While the temple "names" are not.

The same temple having multiple names can be covered by "redirect pages".

• Create a page for the town and put all info on all temples in the town in the same page as one does not expect noramlly to have too many temples in one location (exceptions are Vijayanagara, Khajuraho etc)

• Just create a page for the most important temple and let the others out (which sometimes does not cover the whole picture). Often as in Hoysala temples, the architects were smart enough to create parallel temples, with one acting as a prototype. The Kappe Channigraya temple (commissioned by Queen Shatala devi) to the right of Chennakeshava temple is actually said to be a prototype for the main Chennakeshava temple (built by King Vishnuvardhana). Also leaving out the Tank/Gopura which was built by Vijayanagar Kings hides the continuity of patronage to the place. This is important to detail out.Your opinions are welcomeDineshkannambadi 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• (answered on user's page)

Thanks!!

Thanks for your confidence in me. I am learning myself.Dineshkannambadi 18:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK

Thank you for your note. You seem to have more confidence in my language skill than I have in those skills. I'm OK, but there have definitely been times when I have been more optimistic. I may have lost my balance a bit with the mediation. I see you have been editting Autumn Leaves. It was once one of my favorites ;-). --BostonMA ^talk 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Pekmez

Can you check the recent changes on Pekmez article? Pekmez Kola stuff was put there and now page looks awful in my opinion. I will discuss with author of the changes but first I want to hear your comments.Ugur Olgun 19:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks..Ugur Olgun 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add empty sections to articles

as you did to Oberon Zell-Ravenheart. Since several styles of citation are permitted by WP:CITE, and not all of them use a notes section, adding such an empty section is rather presumptive on your part in an article of which you are not one of the regular editors. WP:CITE clearly states that it is the regular editors of the article who get to decide which of several citation methods will be used. Some of these use inline citations without footnotes... Please read WP:CITE more closely and don't assume that a particular form of citation must be used. —Hanuman Das 05:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

personal websites

Personal websites of the subject of the article are not only permitted, they are required. Stop being a dick, please. —Hanuman Das 06:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of you

Stupid and inconsiderate remark removed by original poster —Hanuman Das 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed comment: [9] from Hanamun Das on 11-9-2006

Hanuman Das blocked for this see [10]. --Salix alba (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, I'm sorry that you received the above message. I see that the user has been blocked. Yes there is a procedure, which is to file a report at WP:AN/I. However, since the user has already been blocked, you should not file a report. The purpose of the report is to hopefully get the attention of an admin, something that has already occurred. Again, I'm sorry for the abuse. --BostonMA ^talk 13:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and I am also sorry that I failed to remove the title of this attack from my edit summary. Now it shows up in history lists. Yuck! --BostonMA ^talk 13:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Hi, I'm not sure I disagree with you regarding posting things on WP:AN/I or even other noticeboards. I think the admins who review these noticeboards tend to be overworked, and so cases which are at all complex don't usually get the attention they deserve. In the case of the user's comment above, however, it is such an obvious personal attack that an admin doesn't need to go through the user's talk page history to see if he's ever been warned, if he has reformed etc. etc.

On the same subject of admin overload, I have reluctantly agreed to Salix alba's request to participate in the starwood mediation. I am reluctant primarily because I think the matter should have been resolved by admin action long ago. I'm not blaming any admins, but it often seems that they do not have the bandwidth to keep watching a situation. I felt really bad that Timmy12 was so diligently removing rosencomet links, only to have them re-inserted, and yet there was no admin involvemet. I was especially saddened by the lack of involvement resulting from a post to the the spam noticeboard that I made. I'm sorry to say that I felt that if others, beside yourself, Timmy12, myself and Calton, did not step forward, that removing the links was like trying to empty the sea by lifting buckets of water and emptying them on the shore. There is always a risk when making such efforts without admin backing that one will be labeled a vandal. Again, I'm not blaming any admins for not being more active. They are volunteers. However, I am saddened by the fact things are as they are.

I'm glad you liked my writing regarding the image mediation. The reason why I became somewhat disturbed is that I am the person responsible for bringing the mediator to the issue. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time. I had hoped that instead of skipping over the arguments and proceeding fairly quickly to attempts at compromise, we would evaluate the arguments in as neutral a fashion as possible. Of course my impressions are colored by my preconceptions. However, it is my impression that many of the issues that have been raised have not received direct responses. So I was disappointed by the direction in which things were going, even though I was the one who set things in motion. However, it is inevitable that we make mistakes in judging what we ought to do, and I ought not judge myself to harshly. So, how is your day. :-) --BostonMA ^talk 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are being hard headed. One has to choose where one will expend energy, and if a given effort seems to lack value, there is nothing wrong with avoiding it. However, if you don't participate in the mediation, the other editors will be able to hold it against you should you wish to continue editting the articles related to starwood. They will say that you did not particate in estsablishing the consensus, and therefore your edits are disruptive. It is therefore a tough choice to make whether to participate or not. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Somanathapura and Keshava temple

There seems to be a overlap here. Could you merge them. Generally people know the name Somanathapura very well over most parts of South India and defnitely in Karnataka where as the name Keshava Temple is common to over 10 hoysala temples and hence confusing. So we should keep the page under the town name or call it Keshava temple(Somanathapura) or something. The same applies to Chennakeshava temples.Dineshkannambadi 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Hi. We will have to work out a strategy for each case I guess unless there is something very obvious that requires no strategy. At the same time there is nothing wrong in having individual temple pages depending on the situation, for example: Somnath temple in Gujarat.Dineshkannambadi 15:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay.

We can have Keshava temple(Somanathapura). But then we can always have a page called Somanathapura with a redirect the the first page. There are times we may want to mention (and have mentioned) Somanathapura without having to use Keshava temple in it.Dineshkannambadi 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

identity

Hi. Its kind of difficult to give an identity to small towns though, because there is so little data on them.Dineshkannambadi 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply:OKDineshkannambadi 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case of really famous temples like Chennakesava, Keshava etc this strategy of giving seperate identity to town an temple can work, but for lesser known temples it may not be possible, one example (among hundreds): Anagi town in Davangere District with the Ishvara temple.Then we have to go with a "temple town" strategyDineshkannambadi 15:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Peggy Sue

You need to explain to me, explicitly, what exactly you are complaining about. The information is taken from the book, which I highlighted for you so you would see it, and you're still complaining that it's unsourced. What do I have to do, scan the page from the book and post it in the article? Wahkeenah 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• {answered on users pag)

Shivasamudra

I see that this multiple name thing for a place is a big problem. I guess you should contact the guys who have edited the page Shivanasamudra and see if you can get concensus about what the merge to what. Which name is more popular? Locals call it Shivanasamudra, though we tend to call it Shivasamudra/samudram. See what news paper articles call it (which may again lead to same confusion). I will look today in my KA map and see what the map says. By the way, what are those ^{[citation needed]} tags doing on the page you created.Dineshkannambadi 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to break this to you. See Shivanasamudram. --BostonMA ^talk 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see you are already aware. Yes, the name thing is unfortunate. --BostonMA ^talk 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, in this page, Shivanasamudra falls, is the same as the Sivasamudram Falls that you added. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry the naming situation is so frustrating. A minor point. Dinesh is usually a male name, so I am strongly guessing that User:Dineshkannambadi is male. Please, I am not trying to embarrass you, but I thought you should know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think he would get upset about that. No need to worry. --BostonMA ^talk 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Selena Fox and Phyllis Curott

I noticed the reference to WP:EL in the edit summaries of your edits removing the links to their official webpages. WP:EL states, "An article about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to that entity's official site, if there is one." I would assume that nearly all organizations and persons would publish their own official website - isn't that what makes official websites official? So I see no justification in WP:EL for removing those links. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Selena Fox I copied that edit summary from one of the edit summaries of User:Ekajati because she is thought to be an expert. But maybe I was wrong in doing so, as looking through WP:EL right now, I don't see it. So maybe she is wrong. In any case, the article has been reverted by User:Hanuman Das and the link is restored. I will check into it more, but I apologize if I was wrong. In the case of Phyllis Curott there are no reference citations per WP:V and WP:CITE. Ralph Bass is an example of a referenced article. There are better examples and I will find more if you want. In any case, that article also has been reverted by User:Hanuman Das and what was there before my edit is now restored. Hope this helps Mattisse(talk) 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew the links had been reverted, but I wanted to make sure that you got some explanation for it. You're right that the Phyllis Curott article needs verification, and I've added it to the list on WikiProject Neopaganism. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very appreciative of your reply and glad that you seek to improve the article as all work in that direction helps us all at Wikipedia. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 04:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Preparation

Occassionaly I have good advice for people, but in this situation I'm afraid I don't know what you should do to prepare. I think your best bet is to ask someone else for advice, perhaps a few someone elses. I will try to keep your question in mind, and if I have any thoughts I will relay them to you. Sorry to be of such little help. And please do not worry about bothering me. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an admin User:Glen S that left a friendly note on your page once. Try him? --BostonMA ^talk 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also you might try to get advice from User:Redvers. He (I assume it is a he) gave me a barnstar so he must be decent ;-D. (Only kidding, but I do think he is decent. --BostonMA ^talk 22:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though they are filing a RfC here. They need to notify you when it is complete, and they need to certify it. After that, you can respond. I think once they notify you, you should send messages to Calton, Samir, JzG, and a few others notifying them that a RfC has been put in place against you, and could they please comment. --BostonMA ^talk 23:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --Salix alba (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Strategy for temples

Hi. I though over this a bit and here is what I think we should do.

• For lesser known yet ornate temples, we create a page for the town with a header explainig the location of town and what it is famous for, and write up on the temple(s) with some photographs. As such, lives in such towns/villages generally revolve around the daily temple activities. (example; Nuggehalli, Belavadi etc)
• Temples that are extremely famous, (Chennakasava temple, Hoysaleswara, Virupaksha of both Hampi and Pattadakal, Mahadeva of Itagi, Kasi Vishwesvara of Lakkundi just to name a few) can have their own individual page with a main article include for the page in the town/city article (where the temple exists)
• Temple towns like Hampi and Vijayanagara, Pattadakal, Aihole, Badami etc that have many famous temples, though not all are equally famous can certianly have its own page (which already exists), there should be enough literature for that and have main article includes for the most famous temples. For other temples in town they can be explained right in the same page itself.

How does that sound? This way we preserve Chennakesava, Hoysaleswara etc you have created too (I shall be expanding on these big time shortly from my source "Hoysala architecture")Dineshkannambadi 20:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Temples

Dont worry, we all have bad days. I understand your problem regarding temples being related to their nearby towns, waterfalls being related to their nearby towns, forests being related to their near by towns etc. India is an ancient culture and certian things have stuck (for better or worse) and sometimes things go on based more on tradition than on convinience or logic. To understand India, you need to visit India and then things start falling into place. Just assume for now that temples can be represented by the temple itself or by the town it exists in and sometimes both and sometimes neither. Dont be afraid to merge your contents with those of others based on concensus and remember, whether the name is the one you think or the one someone else chose, you are still making a contribution.Keep contributing.Dineshkannambadi 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kamakshi Temple

As mentioned in the discussion page, for the last one week, I've sat day and night :) in creating content for all famous temples in Tamilnadu and AP - see the articles in Tirupathi, Srirangam, Thiruvanaikaval, Palani, Thiruchendur... Kamakshi temple is one among them. What made you think that it is created by a non-wikipedia creator? As you see from the time of creation, the article is still being filtered out by me.

Balajiviswanathan 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand your take. I've given the online links in the article and you didnt even bother to view it. I'm not in the process of confrontation. No one had written anything for the last many months and I wanted to give it a form. No one stops you or from anyone from contributing more. I didnt go against colloboration. I saw it as a stub for a long time and took time to write it. The article is still in the stub form and I'm working on it. I wrote the article, because I know about the temple since childhood.

If you want the article to still remain as an one line stub and no one bothering to write content on such an important article, it's not my problem.

Balajiviswanathan 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Currently my main projects had been Samayapuram Mariamman Temple and Tirupathi Venkateshwara Temple. Probably by tomorrow morning, I could focus more on Kamakshi. See if it suits. I myselft have filled the citations by finding appropriate sources for many other articles. Thus, I welcome you to add "citations needed" tags appropirately. I'm also planning to add the "cleanup" tag to prevent the readers from thinking this as a final version. Btw, the official page (the first link) was the source of much of the information, which still need to be condensed and I dont know why you are unable to access that page. I checked even now and its up. Probably recheck after a few mins.

Balajiviswanathan 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.srikanchikamakshi.org. As I already said, I put that content as a starting point, while I'm working on rephrasing. As a graduate student who had published papers, I understand the copyright issues. However, they are in a stub article and I'm working on it. Give me 1 day time and dont give too much to the current content.

Balajiviswanathan 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the article completely, and due to an edit conflict, everything is reset. I'm working on it. Kindly dont edit for the next few hours. Already, due to the conflict lost an hour of work.

Balajiviswanathan 05:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Write the article in a text editor (or always copy it first to a text editor). I learned the hard way too. But understand why there can be no copyvio, right? Mattisse(talk) 06:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten once again. Kindly see if it suits.

Balajiviswanathan 06:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Please accept my apology for that personal attack. However, please also note that I continue to find your behavior unacceptable and support the RfC opened by 999. —Hanuman Das 10:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Notification of User Conduct RfC

A User Conduct RfC has been opened against your behavior in regard to articles related to Rosencomet and Starwood Festival. Please respond with your defense of your activities in the Response section. Thank you. —Hanuman Das 10:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Royals

Well, the article should be accurate, but The Royals could be a redirect to Hank Ballard. Just bold rather than italicize The Royals and that should do it.

By the way, I want you to know that I've got nothing against you personally. Only your behavior. I personally would have assumed good faith on the part of Rosencomet and taken up any issues on his talk page. In fact, I did. That is really preferable to tagging all of his articles when there is one person involved and he has a talk page. Or do I have to continue to demonstrate how frustrating it can be if I tag every article in which you use an abbrevation instead of trying to work together with you to fix them? —Hanuman Das 01:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on user's pag)

Abbreviations

It's simply common sense. It's probably stated somewhere, but whether an article needs something is an opinion, right? Just like how to interpret the line between WP:V required citations and the WP:CITE guidelines for footnoting. Not everybody agrees. Even the admins don't agree on it. Tom the Hand represents one extreme of the range of opinions. The other end says the a list of references is sufficient. Thus, your tagging of articles with references as if the were required to have something more was an expression of your opinion. If I tagged every article of yours with abbreviations with "cleanup", it would be no different. But I won't, as now I've discussed it with you, and to repeatedly tag the articles would be a violation of WP:POINT, don't you think? —Hanuman Das 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know what A&R means, so yes. One has to remember that someone turning to an encyclopedia may know nothing about the subject. Now, one would think that most adults would know what R&B means, but that is quite an assumption. How about a young person researching. Or an extreme case, someone born and raised on Niihau (residents of the island are required to maintain a native, low-tech life style) who has never had a radio, record player, etc., but chooses to leave the island and join modern civilization. They shouldn't have to click a link in the article to find out what R&B stands for, should they? —Hanuman Das 02:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

RfC

By the way, I'd be happy to drop the RfC (can't speak for 999), if you would simply apologize to Rosencomet and start discussing with him instead of what you've been doing. I know you've targeted Rosencomet, you know you've targeted and stalked Rosencomet. Why take refuge in the illusion that everything you've done was justified by "the rules"? Why not assume good faith and actually engage him in conversation? —Hanuman Das 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Reply

You're welcome. So you stumbled on Mr. R.C. by accident, but after you put it together is what I'm concerned about. I also stumbled on RC by accident, and even reverted one or two of his additions before I saw the pattern. But once I did see the pattern, I went directly to him. I suspect our conversation is still on his talk page. Then I did a little research and found that Starwood is a notable event in the pagan community. So I was much less concerned. I suspect that if you talk it up with him, the two of you could figure out boundaries for when and when not to mention Starwood in an article. A solution that leaves about half the mentions and half the links might be reasonable, don't you think? After both you and your socks tried to get articles deleted, he must feel that he must protect all his work, don't you think? And many of the articles you went after with importance tags are actually notable and known to be notable in the pagan world. I used to work in a bookstore and recognized many of the names from the magic & witchcraft area. Would you agree that authors whose books are carried in Barnes and Noble and/or Borders brick-and-mortar stores are notable enough for WP? I mean, what about all the little towns in India? Are they really that notable? Someone not familiar with India might well be justified in tagging every short article on small Indian towns with importance tags, don't you think? If they tagged 40 or more on your watchlist over a few hours, would you welcome it, or would having to take them all off frustrate you and make you angry? —Hanuman Das 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

A&R and wikilinks

Nope, I don't. Really. Or at least I didn't until I just looked at the article. :-) A good guideline is to go by the title of the article. I note that R&B is a redirect, as is A&R. The first mention should be a wikified link to the actual title of the article, not a redirect. Subsequent mentions don't need to be wikified and can be abbreviated.

Remember that the GFDL allows people to make a paper encyclopdia from Wikipedia if they want. Could happen. Or the article could be printed out and the wikilink thus inaccessible. So the answer I think is "yes and no" - the wikilink shouldn't be needed to understand the term, simply to get more information about the term... At least, that's what I think. I could hunt through the MoS for a policy on use of abbrevations. Of course, this is WP, so if I don't find one, I could write one and then.... presto, new rule and new articles needing cleanup. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, actually A&R is not a redirect. I wonder who I'll upset when I move it. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yakety Yak

By the way, you may not believe this, but I'm listening to the radio (KUT) and Yakety Yak just came on... —Hanuman Das 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users pag)

Ah...

You really don't understand the pagan mentality. Pagans frequently use egregores or give a name to a collective effort. Rosencomet is a play on both "Rose and Comet" and Christian Rosenkreuz and probably Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead as well. It is a typical form of magic to give a name and personality to a collective effort, especially in cases where no one is really in charge. It's possible that the names many so-called gods and spirits originally came from such a process. (Did you know that in Latin, J is pronouced Y and V is pronounced W. So how do you pronounce the name of the god Jove, then?) In any case, it's not particularly unusual in the pagan community, and certainly not intended to be deceptive or evasive, but rather symbolic and expressive.... —Hanuman Das 03:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users pag)

Rosencomet

Well, I do think an apology and working together would help dispel the idea that you may still be using sockpuppets. I've not yet seen anyone be that disingenuous on WP, (i.e. make nice with one account and still attack with the other). But then, I've really not been here that long... —Hanuman Das 03:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Wait a minute

You don't suppose one of your grandchildren took it upon him or herself to take up the battle independently, do you? Could Timmy12 be someone you know? —Hanuman Das 03:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on useres page)

Location, location, location

Must say I do know people in Ohio, and have driven through it, but no, never been to the Starwood Festival and don't know R.C. Driving out of Texas is a chore. I've been here since '97, and have only driven out once...this year to Chicago... Fly to NYC, Seattle, Hawaii, even New Mexico, which is relatively close. Takes a whole day just to get out of the state driving... :-( —Hanuman Das 03:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Answer

Removing the links to the subject's websites from multiple articles. That was clearly vandalism, since WP:EL requires linking to the subject's website. —Hanuman Das 14:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm don't remember? It was just a couple of days ago! Here are the edits: Stephen Gaskin, Anodea Judith, Raymond Buckland, Oberon Zell Ravenheart, Isaac Bonewits, Deborah Lipp, Selena Fox, Jeff McBride, LaSara Firefox, Phyllis Curott, Rusted Root

Was your grandchild over again?

As for 999, I only know him online, from Wikipedia, but have exchanged emails with him as well during the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" edit wars. He ended those wars practically single-handed, by breaking up a single article about mulltiple offshoot of the order into individual cited articles and then simply reverting the addition of any uncited material (one group was adding positive uncited material to the article about themselves and adding negative information to all the others, including calling one group "Satanic"). I have quite a bit of respect for him because of that. He's mostly interested in the occult so probably had some of the articles you hit on his watch list. But neither of us does the other's bidding as you put it. We ask each other to watch problem articles sometimes. In fact, I asked him to watch Dattatreya when your sockpuppet User:Dattat started to harass me there. You really laid into him on his talk page for that. —Hanuman Das 15:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Answers -- without checking them all, I assume it was me. I had copied yakety yak's edit sommary "rm link to self-published personal website, not permitted by WP:EL". But that is wrong I guess. I apologise, really, if that is the case. Mattisse(talk) 15:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Things would be much less acrimonious if you would simply do 1 or 2 at a time rather than 10 to 40. That would give people time to respond and work out the issue rather than be overwhelmed with changes they believe need to be reverted. When you tag 40 articles, people are less likely to look into the merits of each one, but when they find that a number of them are questionable or invalid, will simply revert them all. If you did the same thing a few at a time, the result would be better for everyone. (I think). —Hanuman Das 15:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites

Ekajati is indeed correct about personal websites when they are used as sources of criticism of a living person. The reason for that is that anybody can set up a website criticising anybody about anything, true or untrue. WP:BLP requires stricter standards for sources when the person is still living. I've helped her out with stubborn cases where people keep putting what is essentially slander into an article.

But in general, personal websites are not acceptable as sources. That would include websites hosted on free services such as geocities, freeweb, etc. or sites in a user directory (i.e. with ~username in the URL). The reason is that they are usuallly not reliable sources per WP:V. The exception again is auto-biographical sites of a person or group, but any questionable info should be qualified with something like, "According to their website, they were in London in 1983. But other sources place them in Birmingham during this period."

But, such site are acceptable in external links when they are the site of the subject of the article (or site of a member of the band), etc. So you have to be discriminating about what function the site is being used for. —Hanuman Das 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Tagging

Right, but the bad responses were mostly when you tagged a bunch of articles at once, whether Starwood or Blues, right?

On the removal of external links, I only listed the ones I disagreed with. I agree with you about Amazon links. But subject links need to be included even if they promote or sell their own books, as long as there is personal content or information about the subject not available elsewhere. Also, I think a link to the business website of the subject is appropriate. It's there to inform, not to sell. The same link would be inappropriate in any other article... I refer of the Ravenheart-Zell's "Mythic Images" business.... The link serves also as a citation of the fact of their business and what it does. —Hanuman Das 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users pag)

Mons Venus

I don't think that one was his. I guess it would be utterly non-notable except for the Supreme Court case. Strip clubs - seen one, seen 'em all... —Hanuman Das 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Your comment

I again thank your for your comments which are more flattering than I probably deserve. We will see how the mediation goes. I see that a great deal of progress has been made with your communication with Hanuman Das. That is very good, and I imagine it brings quite a bit of relief. Thank you again for your work on dams and rivers etc. I hope you don't mind that I made some adjustments to Sivasamudram Falls the other day. Also, there is one other phrase in some of your articles that I'd like to correct, but I'm not sure of the proper way to rephrase it. The Western Ghats and the Eastern Ghats are mountain ranges. I am not sure if there is an exact definition of the Deccan plateau, but in my mind, the plateau per se does not include the Ghats. This is not to say that there are no mountains on the plateau, there are, but these are mostly the isolated remains of extinct volcanos, and stick out very suddenly in an otherwise relatively flat landscape. There is nothing at all flat about the Ghats, and so I would not include them in the plateau. Of course, others might differ with me. So, regarding various rivers, I would say that they begin in the Eastern/Western Ghats, and then flow across the Deccan plateau. --BostonMA ^talk 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be frustrating to explain something repeatedly only to have it ignored. Hopefully, there will be better communication soon. --BostonMA ^talk 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RFC

Hi, Matisse, thanks for alerting me about the RFC that's been opened on you. This is just to say that I'm interested and am trying to get my head round it, but I probably won't be able to comment. It's very complicated, as you say. And a quite ridiculous amount of material and links have been posted as background, making it prohibitively difficult for somebody not already on the inside track to read it all, or to know which bits are important. Maybe I can contribute on some limited aspect. For instance protest about the way the format of the thing actually excludes the community at large from commenting! Regards, Bishonen | talk 19:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

• (answered on uswers page)

Not

It's not another person. It's already a gang effort, on both sides. Has been going on for some time, check the histories. —Hanuman Das 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, he thinks User:Rottentomatoe is a sock. Could be. Looks like User:Pete K has been holding his own for quite some time against a couple of editors, but recently, two or three new single purpose accounts have appeared, all on the same side. That's rather suspicious, don't you think? —Hanuman Das 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I posted an article RfC to get some more eyes on it. I almost always do that when 999 is trying to stop a revert warrior. If a few other people show up and try to keep order, it tends to improve everything. That and getting the revert warrrior out of the way for a day or two. Sometimes other editors mysteriously dissappear at the same time (due to autoblocking). Curious, that. —Hanuman Das 03:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's info on article RfCs: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles. —Hanuman Das 05:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is simply not true, Hanuman Das. You can spin what you and 999 are doing, but it's pretty obvious to many people. (I've done some research on you two)

And regarding you calling me a sock and revert warrior, I'd like to inform you that there's MANY MANY people who feel exactly the way I do about this issue. User Pete K is in the extreme minority. We were all talking about it on a Yahoo BB and this is how I found out about WIkipedia to begin with. Rottentomatoe 17:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

University sites

I respectfully submit that there is a difference between a user's personal page on a university server, and an official university page on that same server. -- Avi 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• responded on user Avi's talk page. Mattisse(talk) 13:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Re Universities

Hi Mattisse, I work at a university. --BostonMA ^talk 11:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

1) It's on the religion and philosophy page. 2) If you read WP:3RR, you will note that if you have just broken 3RR by mistake or through lack of knowledge, it is considered acceptible to self-revert back to the other version to avoid getting blocked. I'm wondering if you actually read the policy pages, or just base your ideas on what you see others say and do? —Hanuman Das 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on users page)

Ekajati

Well, at least she moved the quotes to Wikiquote. I was too lazy to create a Wikiquote account and just deleted them. —Hanuman Das 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. You might want to archive your old talk entries, this page is getting really long...

Time Machine

I happened to seen a note on Calton's talk page saying "I have spent six months one way or another trying to draw the Rosencomet thing to someone's attention -- until I just gave up and felt hopeless." It was dated October 26th. Calton pointed out that my comment belonged on your talk page, not his, as I mistakenly left it. (Of course, as always, he took the opportunity to insult me once again.)

The comment was: You must own a time machine. My very first Wikipedia input was August 13th. How have you managed to spend 6 months on this noble crusade of yours by October 26th? Rosencomet 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, these external links to provide citations were begun because YOU kept demanding them. I certainly didn't need the extra work citing every appearance, and then preserving the citations against revertion so that the entire thing was not deleted due to lack of citation. I've said to Samir and to Hanuman Das that if I could be assured it would not cause the information to be deleted, I would be glad to take down many of these external links. But I have also been told that the citations were NECESSARY. How do I preserve my work and satisfy contradictory criticisms? Rosencomet 16:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• (answered on Rosencomet's talk page) Mattisse(talk) 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting for Tirupathy as a colloboration project

Hi, can you join me in nominating Tirupathy Venkateshwara Temple for the colloboration of the week. It is a shame that such an important article is still not near the FA-category.

[here] Balajiviswanathan 07:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the map

Hi, thanks for the map. Yes, it illustrates well the difference between the Ghats and the Deccan. Yes, R. and I are talking, and hopefully communicating. Things seem to be relatively quiet at the moment, not too much drama. Who knows how long the calm will last? ;-). Sincerely --BostonMA ^talk 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Temples

Thanks. I will let you know how you can help. Right now I am working on a different topic (this week). Next week I shall take up Halebidu Hoysaleswara temple in depth. Right now if you have time could you do a copyedit and look for grammatical/syntax etc errors in the temples/temple towns I have already created/worked on? (Somanathapura, Chennakesava Temple, Belavadi, Amritapura, Balligavi, Nuggehalli, Kambadahalli, Doddagaddavalli.Dineshkannambadi 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

{answered on Dineshkannambadi's page}

Hindu temple

The aim is to create content for every major Hindu temple. Many of them have immense historic value and considerable religious importance. So, I'm trying to build articles on them. It is not possible in a day, but over the course of next one year, it is possible to build a detailed article for around 100 major temples in Tamilnadu, with their historical and religious significance. It is as simple as that. Balajiviswanathan 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the articles that exist already? There are many people interested in temples and you don't want to exclude them from your plans. Articles are supposed to be collaborations, not single person projects. Also, you have to cite references for your material per WP:CITE. Did you look at the links I sent you? Mattisse(talk) 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For the last few days I'm checking out the various categories where Hindu temples are there and doing my assessments. I've also moved a number of India-struct-stub and other categories where Hindu temples were there to Hindu-temple-stub. I've also added more categories based on deity, location etc and re-categorized a lot them from top level categories - Hindu temples and Hindu temples in India. In this process, I found dozens of duplicate articles and I've merged them with the main article. I'm also changing titles to dissambiguate better. Regarding multiple temples with same name, I'm adding the city name at the end and for temples with multiple names (Thiruvanaikaval, Tiruvanaikkavall,Jambukeswarar temple...) I've created redirections. I believe that Wikipedia should contain info on all these temples as these are all 1000 year old temples of significant value to Hinduism. And, I'm slowly trying to get these into colloboration modes, starting with the most important one, Tirupathy. Balajiviswanathan 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I'm now getting irritated by your repeated messages. I've never said these are non-Wikipedia projects. I'm also not stopping colloboration and indeed trying to get more people involved in the process and slowly trying to get them into WP India WikiProject Hinduism projects. I've moved them appropriately, as many of them were abandoned months back. If someone had been working on them, I would surely try to revert it back. Most of these were stubs and there are no discussions on them. If you have any questions about an article, point them directly. Balajiviswanathan 19:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Badrinath Temple

Regarding Badrinath Temple, I just moved the contents from the existing article Badrinath, as we wanted it to describe about the town. I didnt spend much time on editing that. You could comment all the contents out, and I'll work on them, when I find time. Balajiviswanathan 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound like these are your articles. They are Wikipedia's articles. It is wrong to move contents from one article to another without consulting with other people on the Discussion page and getting consensus first. Mattisse(talk) 19:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new Badrinath Temple image that is compatible with the fairuse requirements of Wikipedia [[11]]

Sivasamudram

Hi Mattisse, I think the two articles really are duplicates. There is a village by the falls, but it is small. If it is notable enough to have its own article, there are many other villages that would also deserve there own articles. I have refrained from adding articles about small villages because it seemed to me somewhat of "fancruft" or "vanity" and probably would not be considered notable by a large number of editors. (On the other hand, in my mind they are more important than Pokemon characters -- but then who am I to say so?) But getting back to Sivasamudram, I think if you want the article to have the name "Falls" in it, you should just merge the two into the "Falls" article and leave the other as a redirect (so it isn't recreated). That is my opinion, but I am always willing to listen to alternative views. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, I hope you are not angry with me. I merged Brihadeeswarar Temple and Brihadeshvara Temple because they were both about the same temple. (Both names are recognizable to Indians.) If the article is in poor shape, that is my fault, because I'm not that great at writing articles. Your version stated that the temple was at Talakaveri, and so I was skeptical of it's accuracy. That is why I merged into the original article. I didn't care about the name, but only that there not be two articles about the same subject with almost identical names. It was only after I made the merge that I noticed comments from Hanuman Das and contacted him. I feel the same about Sivasumadram articles. I don't care about the name, but there shouldn't be two articles about the same thing. One should be a redirect to the other, and no useful information should be lost. I hope this helps to explain. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, I believe you have made a great many good contributions to India related articles. I think you certainly do a better job of organizing an article and making it readable than myself. However, if you are frustrated with working on India related articles, and wish to stop for awhile I understand. I do believe, though, that you are misunderstanding my position. Do you agree 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? You do understand that I do not mind if the name is one thing or the name is another, don't you? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 12:18, 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 13:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Dineshkannambadi, [12] 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 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Back again. I left a short note about spellings on my talk page. You mention that you are getting lost in this thread. Maybe it is time to take a break? Please let me know, as I don't want to be argumentative. To kind of reorient the discussion to it's beginning, you wrote:

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)

To which I replied that I thought the two articles should be merged. You have recently said that there shouldn't be two articles on the same topic, so perhaps you also agree that the articles should be merged, I don't know. (By the way, I don't think 999 did anything wrong by putting a merge tag on. It may have been his intent to make your life miserable as you say, but in itself, I think he did the right thing. Even if the articles are not merged, it is certainly appropriate propose a merger, as this draws attention and discussion around the fact that there are two articles that appear to be about the same subject. But that is all an aside).

On the other hand, if there are plans to write an article about the village which isn't essentially about the waterfalls, for example if it were to discuss temples in the village, then I would not object to separate articles. --BostonMA ^talk 20:29, 16 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)

It does help. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Hi, I found this article but I didn't see another. Is there another article on the town with more details? --BostonMA ^talk 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I saw this [13] 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) 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the discussion has stirred painful feelings. I will try to avoid mentioning it in the future. I hope your evening goes better. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's drop it for now. I need to go eat anyway. Please take care. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. No harm was done. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in my "youth" as a Wikipedia editor, I used to involve myself in naming disputes, but came to feel involvement in such disputes was not something that I wanted to continue. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, I hope your day has gone well. The issues in the message you left me are related to things that you said made your day yesterday unpleasant. If I handle those matters, they may not come out the way you desire. If that is OK with you, then I will handle them, but if you care about the outcome, you should be involved yourself. Please let me know whether you desire to be involved. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)