User talk:Mattisse/Archive 7

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_6) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_8)

Mediation Starwood

Matisse, could you summarize the issues in this case. Geo. 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

my reply (copy): In general the issue is User:Rosencomet and his suite of articles that promote his festivals:

User:999, User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati have been protecting him and reverting pages back to spam. User:Timmy12 removed search engine links within these articles [1] and seems to have been driven away from Wikipedia by the harassment and many complaints filed against him by the above users.

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict Fatigue

I am sorry you are feeling so beaten down. I still have some hope for the mediation process now that the absent mediator will be replaced. But I understand if you need a break. It has been tiring and ugly, and you worked very hard for no immediate result. At this point, whatever happens with the mediation, I think people are just going ahead and getting Rosencomet's spam and non-notable articles deleted. We don't need to wait on mediation to do that. I would have helped with this sooner, but only came across it fairly recently. Again, all sympathies for the struggle you have been through. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could have your hope and I appreciate your kind words. However, this has been going on since August, administratior have burned out, I have been subjected to vicious attacks, people I respected have backed out. I no longer have any hope. It's not going to stop. There is some underlying adjenda that condones Rosencomet and there is nothing to be done about it. It was a mistake on my part to get involved. But I thank you. Maybe you are stronger than I am and more politically knowledable. I am not and I fail. This is it for me. I will just concentrate on writing which is really what I enjoy and ignore the rest. I'm learning to just leave when other take over and WP:OWN whatever. I'm learning to never look back or care what happens -- just move on to an unpopular article like Haitian Revolution and work in peace. If hat gets hot, move on and have no investments in accuracy or anything else. It is not worth the battles and there is no support despite the polocies and guidlines. Thank you so much for your message. I have only one friend here, so it's nice to get a kind message. I hope I am not letting you down. Sinceely, Mattisse (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former Mediator

Hi Mattisse. I know very little about the former mediator, and I am not inclined to read through his/her contribution list to learn more. However, there is nothing in his/her behavior related to the mediation, comments to Rosencomet, or interactions with you that I could not accept as being due to youth or inexperience or something equally innocent. And so, I personally would not wish to speak harshly to someone who I might later discover is only a youth doing his or her best. And so, I hope you understand why I have been forgiving of someone who has given time and effort, even if not as much as one might have desired. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Kylu

Kylu put that message on the page. My edit involved moving the messages where they belong. I am now going to put a redirect to my talk page. G e o. 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

I see you have stalked either Hanuman Das and/or Ekajati to the article Andrew Cohen with which you have previously had nothing to do. You animosity toward these editors is well known and this is clearly a violation of WP:STALK. Please desist. -999 (Talk) 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(my answer - copy) How do you figure I was stalking. Doesn't make any sense. I've posted on the page of the person you say I am stalking about that page. Also I advised him to utilize the Discussion page, which he did. I realise you think this page is yours but it is not. Others may work on it too. Mattisse (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking is intentionally following another editor with whom you have had a conflict to an article with which you have never been involved and then to start making controversial edits with the intent to harass the other editor. That's what you are doing. It's quite clear and may finally get you blocked. -999 (Talk) 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(my answer - copy) How am I stalking? You are not being specific enough. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification. Checking the article history, I see that Hanuman Das has been an editor of the article since at least 16 September 2006 and Ekajati since 28 September 2006. Suddenly, on November 27, right after an edit by Ekajati, you make an edit which undoes her edit. You continue to do so when Hanuman Das agrees with Ekajati and restores her version. Hanuman Das responds to your comment on the talk page [2], but you never respond to his response or discuss the issue any further. However, every edit he subsequently does, you revert or change. That's stalking and harassment, in my opinion. You certainly squeal like a stuck pig when you think someone else is stalking you! So, here's the question you need to answer: Why did you started editing Andrew Cohen at all? No need to tell me, if you lie to yourself, you'll lie to anyone. -999 (Talk) 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I didn't follow you to the article. I was checking User:Hanuman Das's contributions to see what he's been up to, as my watch list had nothing worth doing... -999 (Talk) 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You talk as if you and Hanuman Das and Ekajati are all the same person. Ekajati and I had some civil dialog over the Andrew Cohen and another article of mine which I really enjoyed. Is that stalking Ekajati? I don't understand. Both of those people I engaged in dialogue with over the Andrew Cohen article. Please explain further. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I find it offensive to use language like You certainly squeal like a stuck pig when you think someone else is stalking you! I do not think that is civil. I am asking you not to use language like that on my talk page. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely right, Mattisse; that sort of remark is over the line. You and I may disagree on any number of things, but I have to back you up on this one.

Septegram 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

It is not correct to remove red links from articles. They are there as a request or to encourage the creation of the article. Please see WP:RED and Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery. The correct method for getting rid of a red link is to write the article. If you are not interested in doing so, please simply leave the red link alone. -999 (Talk) 20:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your comment above, I refer you to [3] on the Andrew Cohen discussion page who explains much more elequently than I can. Thank you. Sincerely Mattisse (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

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

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

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

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

My personal advice to Mattisse is to drop the bone. If there is something wrong with the citations she disagrees with, let others fix it. Her methods and ways of communicating are extremely contentious and do more harm than good. -999 (Talk) 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use my talk page to communicate with others. If you have something to say to User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna then please put it on that user's talk page. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have withdrawn from the RfC. I must say I think 999 gives good advice. Why do you continue to worry at the whole thing when it bothers you so? Doesn't it give you ulcers or anything? It's gotta be better to just let WP take care of itself. It will, you know :-) I echo the same to 999.Why don't you drop it too. Let BostonMA and Rosencomet do the mediation thing, as they at least seem to be communicating. Get a few fresh editors in on it, and all go do something more productive. ??? —Hanuman Das 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hoysala Empire

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

Hoysala

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

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

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

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

Smiley Award

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

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward5b

LEAD para for Hoysala

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

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

Hoysala links

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

Your message

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

Basavanna - Hoysala Religion

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

Basavanna

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