User talk:Mattisse/Archive 8

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_7) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_9)

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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]

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

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]

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]

"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]

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

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done

Done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your analogy. I don't think the case about not negotiating with murderers is all that clear cut. Suppose a group of unarmed people are confronted by a group of armed murderers. Would it not be appropriate to try to reason with them, to attempt to persuade them voluntarily not to slaughter the group? Of course the situation is different if you have the power to stop the murderers and voluntarily allow them to murder. Moving from the analogy back to Wikipedia, I think it would have been very risky for a small number of editors to battle with the 4 pro-link editors until it drew attention. Without the express backing of the community, such a course risks blocking and banning. Does that make sense? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I am confused by this comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(copy of my reply)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome - my pleasure.

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

NinaEliza 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A contribution to your peace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your intelligent copy edits on Hoysala Empire article and for the numerous pages you have worked on relating to Indian topics.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to Hoysala Empire article and for your excellent contributions to many more topics on India.Dineshkannambadi 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Dineshkannambadi 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and since you reply with what seems like sarcasm to me (I know I am a joke and only "Mattisse Redux" and therefore am not a person to be taken seriously and a mere pretext for people to go on and on about other things)

(quote from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival) which perhaps you should bother to check it out before you level more accusations:

# The sockpuppet situation is old news. All puppets have ceased operating. It have been confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse that Timmy12, MaxReg are not a sockpuppet of mattise. Further the only confirmed sockpuppet User:Xampt was an account used for only three days for a total of 16 edits, the account was used to avoid the harrassesment, and did not break and wikipedia policies and guidelines. Administrators decided that no action was necessary.

I am ever hopeful that someone will act responsibly, even if perhaps not you as you seem satisfied with yourself currently at my expense. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This comment confuses me a little bit. I have not accused you of anything, and I don't understand why I should be "satisfied with myself at your expense". Was this comment directed at someone else? If it was directed at me, please explain what it means. I am simply trying to gather all the facts relevant to the case I am mediating, and making no judgments about you or anyone else involved. I'm sorry if it seemed that I was passing judgment on you, but I can't imagine what I said that might have given you that impression. - Che Nuevara 01:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took it in the context of your talk page where you demanded a response and I patentically responded. And you indicated (perhaps I am interpreting wrongly) that my reply was ridiculous with something like "You expect me to believe that!" or something of the sort. It has taken me all this time to realise that the whole thing was supposedly settled in the RFC against me referenced in the links I gave you. Since you have never bothered with me again, neither apologised or requested more information or anything -- no response, I felt that your were treating me as if I am not a real person in need of a response (as this is the first I have had from you over this issue since). I am very much wondering? Where is the evidence for your sly statements indicting me on the basis of my perennial and consistamt attackers, without new evidence, and disregarding totally the work put in on my behalf by others on the RFC against me? I'm not understanding your total disregard for me as a person and as a contributor to Wikipedia to the best of my abilitity. And I am feeling that you and others ("Mattisse Redux") are taking me as a joke. This is your first response to my response to your serious accusations directed at me which was totally based on the work of those that have been attacking my on the basis of Starwood all these months. I hope I am explaining myself clearly, but probably not as I seem a mere excuse for other people's aggrandisement at this point. I don't really expect you to be different from the others. But I do thank you for responding as that rarely happens and shows that you are hundreds of measurements above Wikipedia in general. I definately thank you for that! Sincerely, Mattisse 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry you took my actions as such, they were not intended in that way at all. Please allow me to explain myself.

First, I did mean to respond to you. Unfortunately, I've been under a lot of stress and I've not been well lately. Things have been slipping my mind an awful lot lately as a result. I meant absolutely no offense by it; it was an honest mistake that I regret making, but I meant no disrespect by it. Now's just a hectic time.

Second, my comments were not meant as skeptical or mocking; they were meant simply as an honest question. Like I said, I've passed no judgment on you whatsoever -- I simply wanted to hear your position directly from you. That was my sole intention. As I said above, I am trying to better understand the circumstances of the Starwood case, which I am now mediating. There was no intent, malicious or otherwise, behind any of my questions.

Third, please let me know which comments of mine were "sly" and "accusations". I did not mean anything of the sort. I repeat that I am passing no judgment on you at all, and I hope that I can convince you of that.

Please accept my sincerest apologies for any apparent incivility or the like. I assure you that nothing in that vein was my intention. - Che Nuevara 02:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[6]

Mattisse, I must honestly say that I'm rather upset by this. Not only because I seem to have upset you, but also because, after I in no uncertain terms swore to you that such was not my intention and nevertheless offered you my sincerest apologies, you absolutely refuse to assume good faith.

What surprises me is that you seem to believe that you know what I think of you, when in all actuality I have insisted multiple times that I have passed no judgment on your situation whatsoever. I indeed am willing to assume good faith, have done so, and will continue to do so.

Let me be plain: what other users do in regards to you is not my fault, and, quite frankly, as someone with neither the background on this issue to make sufficient judgments nor admin powers with which to rein in abuse, nor is it my problem. If Ars Scriptor filed an AN/I against you, that was because he wanted to, and it is for you to address. I very literally had nothing to do with the "Mattisse Redux" incident. It is neither my responsibility nor my inclination to sort out false claims for other people; I simply looked at what was in front of me and what I could find so that I would better understand the situation. Anything else has nothing to do with me.

Before you say that I "seem unconcerned that at least one user has been driven away", you might want to look at this diff] which quite clearly shows that I was concerned when HD was driven away. Before you accuse me that I "never bothered to look at any evidence", you might want to ask what evidence I looked at, being as I'm rather sure that you can't see my browser's page history. I explained my "honest contention" comment above: all I wanted was to hear it, explicitly, from you, and that would have been enough for me. When you didn't respond, I contacted your advocate, who vouched for you, which was satisfactory to me.

If you choose not to participate in the Starwood mediation, that is your own choice. That's on you, not on me. If you choose to believe that I think things I have quite clearly stated I do not, then there's nothing I can do about it. If you choose to take the fact that I made no judgment about the issue as a condemnation of you then I would like to remind you that I take mediator neutrality very seriously. And if you choose to attribute the actions and beliefs of others to me, then there is nothing I can say other than that it is untrue and unfair.

I've offered you both good faith and sincere apologies. If you choose to accept neither, what can I do? - Che Nuevara 19:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To explain further, the user you are so worried about driving away is the same one that opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse after he had told me to stick a sharp object up a part of my anatomy and been blocked for that comment. This was in the middle of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. He received no support for the RFC against me and ultimately withdrew his own name from it. So I am having a hard time understanding your point of view and your prioritising of people. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For the final time, Mattisse, I am not prioritizing anyone, I am not passing judgment on anyone, and I am not trying to disrespect you. I have now said this multiple times and apologized for offending you despite having profusely sworn that I did not intend anything in that vein. I have already explained all of this to you. More than once. If you refuse to believe it, that is your own choice, but your choice not to assume good faith is your own and seems to bear very little relation to the things I have actually said and done.

I understand that you are angry and hurt by the things other users have said of you. I would be, too, in your position. However, please do not conflate their actions with mine. I'm quite frankly not interested in your disputes with other users. I'm interested in mediating the Starwood problem until some consensus can be reached. That's it. In fact, I quite clearly stated,

This is mediation, not arbitration, and I believe that the sole purpose of mediation is to get article progress moving in a forward direction, which means getting editors to work side-by-side in a constructive and peaceable manner.

Please do not attempt to drag me into this dispute; I have absolutely no desire to be a part of it. Simply put, the mediation attempt has nothing to do with you unless you choose to have something to do with it. We are discussing the article and the related content issues. That is all I am interested in. I'm not interested in judging you, condemning you, or whether or not you have done anything wrong. Really, I don't care. Your refusal to believe that displays a startling lack of good faith.

If you're interested in joining the discussion surrounding the Starwood article, please do so. Otherwise, I do not believe we have anything left to discuss.

Peace. - Che Nuevara 01:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She governed Halebidu the capital during long military campaigns of King Veera Ballala II in his northern territories. Sje also defeated in battle some antagonistic feudatories who rebelled against the kingdom.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word does not have anything to do with Feudal system. Feudatory means feduciary(spelling?), or subordinate.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been busy with correcting exams. Sorry I haven't been too active. I do question the value of the mediation. We'll see what happens in the next few days. Talk soon. --BostonMA ^talk 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of your idea of clubbing Veera Ballala II into one single para.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love this star so much. It's actually cribbed from a Bollywood award. I thought you would like it, so here it is. How are you doing? NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. You might consider doing something else on Wikipedia to take your mind off the crap-storm. There's a great discussion going on at the talk page of the newly-resurrected Concordia. Consider reading the discussion, and making suggestions. I've got to go right now (yet another work-related holiday party - work and play at the same time), see you later! NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I go away for a few hours, and miss all the excitement! --BostonMA ^talk 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. It is nice that you all took care of me. :-D Thanks also for the star. Sorry I am so brief. Nothing personal. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you and I have just been named as parties to a Request for Arbitration. This is kind of the supreme court of Wikipedia. The first thing that will happen is that the arbitrators will vote whether to hear the case or not. My suggestion is that you do not get involved until after they have voted. I know I have given you bad advice in the past, so I will not be offended if you disregard this suggestion. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Das has requested to be excused from the arbitration on the grounds that he did not participate in the mediation. You may consider this if you don't want to participate. I really can't tell you whether that would be a good course to take or not. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He just announced that he is leaving Wikipedia. --BostonMA ^talk 00:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He put a request on AN/I to exercise his right to disappear. The admin who deleted the talk pages may have done the proper thing. I don't know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pigman didn't add you to the arbitration, an arbcom clerk added you, based upon the fact that you were named on the mediation. (I know that you excused yourself.) My suggestion is to sit tight and see what happens on WP:AN/I regarding the deletion of HD's talk pages. There is an active discussion going on there. --BostonMA ^talk 01:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration request is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --BostonMA ^talk 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --BostonMA ^talk 03:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what Hanuman Das intends to do. I suppose ArbCom could still make a decision regarding his behavior even though he has left. --BostonMA ^talk 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hoysalas were indeed locals and hence the focus on Kannada. I will try to combine Vishnuvardhana.thanksDineshkannambadi 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many theories about the origin of the founders of Vijayanagar empire, but all of them concur that the Hoysala empire was never crushed by the Muslim invasion, nor is there any inscriptional proof that the Hoysalas fought wars with founders of Vij. empire. On the contrary, irrespective of where the founders of Vijayanagar empire came from (Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh), by 1336, they were in association with Hoysala Veera Ballala II. When Ballala II was busy fighting the sultan of Madurai in the south, Harihara I, founder of Vij. empire had a free hand at dealing with muslim invasion from the north. In fact inscriptions prove Harihara I was married to a daughter of Hoysala commander. The citation given is an important proof.thanksDineshkannambadi 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to go deep into Vijayanagar empire as this may confuse the reader. So we should keep away from it. Also, the Vishnuvardhana in para 3 and 4 look ok i think.thanksDineshkannambadi 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I AM DOING IT OFFICIALLY I HAVE A REQUEST ON ANI. STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE. —Hanuman Das 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a brief account on merging with Vij. empire. You may reword it though.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on your discussion page. Glad to know it is over.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chief complaint the FA reviewers have stated about this article is "stubby sentences". Let us concentrate on that for most part or the FA for this article will be archived. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can stick to the facts and not put your own spin on them. Otherwise, I'll happily wait for someone else to fill me in. I'm about to log off anyway... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you are referring to above. Please do not post on my talk page again. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to this comment that you posted on my talk page only hours ago. Don't tell me you've forgotten it. If you have, please see a doctor. I am coming to believe that you have a serious memory problem. First, you can't remember what your sockpuppets have done; now, you can't remember posting a comment on my talk page long enough for my immediate reply to make sense to you. Either somebody else was logged in as you, or you may be developing a case of senile dementia. This is not meant as either a diagnosis or a personal attack, but as a sincere wish that if you are indeed experiencing memory problems, that you immediately seek professional assistance for them. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Another user who has been copyediting has added many inline questions asking for clarifications. I am going about answering him now and will be making copyedits.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed User:blacksun's concerns. Some of the citations he asked for were lost during repeat copy edits (not your fault or mine, just the nature of this article that has gone round and round). We need to put our efforts to bring this to closure. The longer it takes, more confusion.thanks.I know I can count on you.Dineshkannambadi 16:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are in the right direction in removing stubby sentences. However we need to make sure they dont complain the sentence is too long later.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada was their local language, but it was also the local language streatching between the Kaveri river in the south (roughly southern border of present day Karnataka) up north towards Godavari river (half way into Maharashtra, a state to the north of Karnataka). So they did not bring Kannada from the hills down to the plains where they built their capital. The 850 CE Kannada classic Kavirajamarga (written in Gulbarga district, one of the northern most districts of Karnataka) calls the entire region between Kaveri and Godavari rivers as "Kannada country".thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. Yes it is known but I did not go into details. Shall I add it as a inline citation?. The details are gruesome. After defeating the Sultan of Madurai, Ballala III agreed for a truce (surprisingly but I guess he was hard pressed from both south and north). At the time of treaty, he was captured and skinned alive as per writings of Ibn Butata, a chronicle writer visiting S. India at that time.Dineshkannambadi 17:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Administration section needs a reword. Only the Nadu (possibly the largest division) had a Dandanayaka.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who were heads of Vishaya's, Kampana's and Desha's are not given. But is is clearly mentionded the dandanayaka took care of Nadu, perhaps the biggest division.(as mentioned in the citation).Dineshkannambadi 18:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just leave it as is and if any one comes up with a question, then we can handle it. We are so used to geographical divisions like Countries-->states-->county etc it is difficult to visualise Nadu (province), Vishaya(province), Kampana (large cluster of villages), Desha (smaller clump of villages). Coming from India and having travelled quite a bit on the back roads, i would say Nadu /Vishaya were like states (only smaller), Kampana would be a district and Desha would be a Taluk. but we cant assume this is accurate and hurt overselves in FA day.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were always women. The term "Dasi" also implies the female gender. "Dasa" is male.thanksDineshkannambadi 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devadasi's are much like Ghesha's in Japan. In the earliest times they belonged to three categories,a)low level devadasi's were indeed used by rich landlords, Brahmins b)high level , meaning educated devadasi's became concubines of kings and hence wielded local powerc)true Devadasis's were married to the deity and hence lived a life of celibacy. This ofcourse is a sensitive topic meant for another day.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution however is a bit crude(though pretty close) in that Devadasis would not "walk the streets", would be taken care of well by patrons and be a more respectable part of soceity. This way they were not shunned by society. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok to have it linked, so long as we dont dwell too much on the topic in that para. It is mentioned explicitly in all books. we can move on.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wonder if wikipedia history articles are about History or about English prose.We have put in lot of time on this prose style when someone could just open up the page and vandalise it just like that.Dineshkannambadi 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not discourged. In fact as we work on this, I am already well on my way w.r.t another great empire, Western Chalukyas whose name you have come across couple of times on the Hoysala page. I intend to bring to a good starting point for peer review by jan 15th or so. Also I have put in over 3 months of work on the successors of Hoysalas, the Vijayanagara Empire. I have travelled extensively in the ruins of Vijayanagara, the capital of the 14-16th century empire and a UNESCO world heritage site (again in Karnataka). Over the next 2 years I plan to complete all the notable 7 empires that set roots in Karnataka starting from Kadambas in 350CE.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple building is under society to descrie how temples effected day-to-day lives of people.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in SOCIETY, the sentences look too long and Akka Maha Devi is not described in records. She is too famous for records. You need to disconnect her from the Shantaladevi sentence somehow.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I stumbled over Sockpuppet Checks/boxCheck. Looks like an accident or something. As this cannot stay in main namespace, I moved it to under your userspace at User:Mattisse/boxCheck and deleted the remaining redirect. Best regards, --Ligulem 23:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I landed on that page using the "Random article" function (just in case you're asking yourself...:-). --Ligulem 23:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the temple building para, I wanted to make a mention of competition in temple building and this sentence got lost along the way. The Hoysaleswara temple was actually built in competition (i will provide citation) to Chennakesava temple while both are considered secular. Try to squeeze in the word competition or something equivalent, while the Somanathapura temple was a strict Vaishnava temple (you removed the sentence earlier). Maybe we need to put it back here and mention it was a strictly Vaisnhava temple. In fact the image if Kesava temple at Somanathapura has been included because the sentence existed. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look now at SOCIETY last para.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Nichalp (main reviewer) wanted me to inform him when the edits were done. Do you think its time.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this article is almost finished. Great job! It must be satisfying. --BostonMA ^talk 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A page I created during reorganization of Hoysala Empire article has appeared on main page as DYK (did you know). You have also contributed to this.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. I too will keep looking for other references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was only making a quick change. No edit conflict happened (atleast for me)! It is all yours now.--Blacksun 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the archives just below.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty much on top since it was displayed yesterday as DYK. I need to address the inote put out by user:blacksun, then we are done. I cant attend to it now.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its the 6th from top on the archive list. not the FA archive list but "Did you know" archive list.Dineshkannambadi 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs correction as it has gone out of order in chronology.

• current

The impact of these religious developments on culture, literature, poetry and architecture in South India was profound. Important works of literature and poetry based on the teachings of these philosophers were written during the coming centuries. The Saluva, Tuluva and Aravidu dynasties of Vijayanagar empire were followers of Vaishnavism, scholars in the later Mysore Kingdom wrote Vaishnavite works supporting Ramanujacharya's teachings,[34] King Vishnuvardhana built many temples after his conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism,[35] and a Vaishnava temple with an image of Ramanujacharya exists today in the Vitthalapura area of Vijayanagara.[36] The saints of Madhvacharya's order, Jayatirtha, Vyasatirtha, Sripadaraya, Vadirajatirtha and devotees (dasa) such as Vijayadasa, Gopaladasa and others from the Karnataka region spread his teachings,[37] which later inspired philosophers like Vallabhacharya in Gujarat and Chaitanya in Bengal.[38] Another wave of devotion (bhakti) in the 17th century–18th century found inspiration in his teachings.

• should be

The impact of these religious developments on culture, literature, poetry and architecture in South India was profound. Important works of literature and poetry based on the teachings of these philosophers were written during the coming centuries. King Vishnuvardhana built many temples after his conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism,[35], The Saluva, Tuluva and Aravidu dynasties of Vijayanagar empire were followers of Vaishnavism, and a Vaishnava temple with an image of Ramanujacharya exists today in the Vitthalapura area of Vijayanagara.[36] The saints of Madhvacharya's order, Jayatirtha, Vyasatirtha, Sripadaraya, Vadirajatirtha spread his teachings through out South India,which later inspired philosophers like Vallabhacharya in Gujarat and Chaitanya in Bengal.[38]Another wave of devotion (bhakti) in the 17th century–18th century found inspiration in his teachings through devotees (dasa) such as Vijayadasa, Gopaladasa and others from the Karnataka region spread his teachings,[37].

You may want to look at a previous version to make sure the citations dont get mixed up.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to accept because we need to work out with him the proper limits of his participation on Wikipedia, I voted to keep his article because he is a minor public figure. Fred Bauder 22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the vimana is a good picture. We can add that. I will polish the vimana part of the sentence tonght. Also you brought up an interesting

point about some pictures being dark. There is a history behind it. These pictures of mine that look dark are all from inside the temple. The dancer and dozens of other madanikas are placed at the pillar bracket to the ceiling. The darkness of sculptures "inside" a temple is a part of Hindu iconography itself adding mysticism and a unique experience one can feel only when you visit these temples. I have visited over 15 of the best Hoysala temples in South Karnataka and this is common. Whenever the sculptor wanted to be discreet about a sculpture, eg: erotics, he would place it in niche where there is not much light entry and one needs to focus and move closer if possible to see it. Hoysala sculptors were masters in the knowledge of effect of light and shade and even darkness on sculptural works. When the inside of the temple is lit (preferably with old fashioned lighting like oil lamps etc) one really experiences the beauty of these sculptures. I also have such madanikas from outside the temple and I can replace the existing one.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, each one of these madanikas is about 3-4 feet tall.Dineshkannambadi 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created a page for Dambal. This was on my list for mid next year. Dambal is famous for the Dodda Basappa temple with star shaped shrine built by western Chalukyas. I plan to visit this place and Lakkundi, Lakmeshwar etc next year.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dancer picture actually is the natural colour of the stone and conveys the "female beauty part" that's explained in the section , I think. I looked at some other pictures I have and they are more or less equally illuminated. Also, does the current vimana picture in architecture section look better or the one at bottom of Chennakesava Temple at Somanathapura where the entire vimana is shown.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've finished grading for the semester, so perhaps I will have a bit of time. Good night. --BostonMA ^talk 05:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to prevent you from sleep, but you ask:

I'm interested to know if your world view has shifted as now you have entered a corner of my world.

I'm not aware of my world view shifting. Did you have something in particular in mind? --BostonMA ^talk 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I understand. (Or perhaps I am just taking the opportunity to pontificate!) It would be naive to think that every Wikipedia editor is acting in good faith. However, it is often not universally apparent when someone is acting in bad faith. How we act sets an example for others.

A while back I changed this page to look like [7]. (You now know that I knew of this picture prior to my beautification project!) Now the personal attacks on the page that I removed may or may not have been true. For the sake of argument suppose that they were true. An editor seeing that page might easily get the impression that if an editor is guilty, then such personal attacks are OK. So the next time that editor believes someone is guilty of some offense, he or she thinks it is OK to make a personal attack. The problem is that it is hardly uncommon for people to misjudge others. And so, we end up with personal attacks on the innocent -- more than already.

Another problem with treating someone guilty based upon one's personal belief that the party is guilty, is that third parties may not share one's opinion. Again, for the sake of argument, let's assume the suspect is guilty. Those who do not share one's opinion regarding guilt are likely to become alienated from oneself. If an editor is truly acting in bad faith, then responding to editor with reason will help third parties to recognize the bad faith. Responding with accusations, attacks etc. may help to confuse issues.

So that is what I think about assuming good faith. It isn't really about making assumptions, but about how we act. Our assumptions should indeed be that it would be naive to believe that all editors act in good faith.

That having been said, I of course admit to misjudging people in both directions. I have mistakenly expected good from another, to be disappointed afterward. But I have also mistakenly suspected bad intentions only to later discover that I had misinterpretted some seemingly incriminating evidence. Perhaps I am more prone to err in one direction than another, I don't know.

Anyway, I am just musing, and will soon take some rest. your friend --BostonMA ^talk 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "::::I am troubled by this new turn of events. You are not?" Are you referring to the ArbCom case? or did something happen more recently? I must confess that I am somewhat fatalistic about Wikipedia. What happens here is largely beyond my control. I can do what I think is right, but if the fruit of my work is washed away by the tide, that is not so different from real life. Is there something about which you are concerned more specically? --BostonMA ^talk 15:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, COI. I was surprised to learn that of that as well. Yes, I suppose it contributes to muddying the waters. But as I said, I can do my part, but I don't have control over how events play out here. In defenses of the two editors that Ekajati has accused, the number of links is very small, and the commercial aspect of their site hardly compares with that of rosencomet's site. Of course it is possible that these editors are intending to use the site as a springboard to their own advancement. But it is equally possible that the idea of selling a paper version of the faq (and donating the procedes) was entirely unmotived by the thought of self-promotion. --BostonMA ^talk 15:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Let me think about the issues you raise. I will look for more sources. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your good work on rock-cut architecture. Us non-architects really appreciate the effort!! --Nemonoman 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen Ellora, by all means buy a ticket to India TODAY. You will not be disappointed. --Nemonoman 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you don't mind, but I removed your additions from the Hyderabad page after finding this Talk:Hyderabad,_Andhra_Pradesh#Mamta_Sagar.3F. Rgds --hydkat 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]