Oh Mattisse, what are we to do with you? You've made a lot of good contributions, and received recognition of that fact, but a few contributions have stepped on other peoples toes, and they have been a harsh in their defence. Sometimes the best stratergy is just to drop a battle, rather than escilation which occurs. Yes your tagging of Starwood festival did help in establishing its notability and has helped impove the article.

The sockpuppetry is very concerning, ultimatle sockpuppetry is a form of deceipt, with people pretending to be something which they are not. I'm sure your psychology training has much to say on the problems of deceipt as it makes it harded for others to trust. I can't tell if these others are sockpuppets or not. --Salix alba (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can indeed have your userpage deleted. Or, if you want, I could set it as "protected", which would mean that only administrators could edit it. Your choice. DS 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if I totally protect your talkpage, you will not be able to ask for protection to be removed. Therefore, your page has been semi-protected, meaning that only established users can edit it. DS 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that. Mattisse(talk) 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blank other users' talk pages. DS 22:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if it's your granddaughter's page... I'll look into it. You understand that we can't simply take people's word for this, of course, but it should be fairly easy for me to take care of. DS 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read through it, and I'm willing to accept that it's your granddaughter. Shall I delete it? DS 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you openly change your username, then of course people will see it. And yes, it can lead to problems offline too - that's why we strongly advise that usernames not be based on one's real name, unless one is willing to put up with nonsense.

To get a new username, and no connection with this one... firstly, you do know that it means abandoning your edit history as "Matisse", right? The edit history is attached to the username, and it cannot be transferred in part, only in whole. Plus, anyone who knew that (edit X to article Y) had been made by Matisse, and then saw that (edit X to article Y) was now credited to NotMatisseNoSir, would be able to make the connection.

If you're sure you want to abandon your edit history and start over, the first thing to do is log out of Wikipedia. Every editor is allowed to disappear from the project if they so wish it. I can lock your page forever, should you wish it; I can even delete it, should you wish it. However, "Matisse"'s contributions history will not change.

Once you have logged out as Matisse, go take a nap, or go for a walk around the neighborhood, or have a drink... calm down, and feel good about yourself.

If you want to come back afterwards, start over from scratch. Delete the Wikipedia cookie from your computer, and start a new account with a new name.

And avoid controversy. And don't misbehave.

And don't let your granddaughter edit Wikipedia from your computer again. DS 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to abandon my edit history becaue I did good work and felt pride in it. And I am a writer and an editor in my profession, as well as a practitioner. That is the only pleasurable part of this place. But I can't have people bringing up my past and my occupation and using it against me. From what you are saying it sounds hopeless. I'll just stop. Take another name and not do anything serious, just fiddle around so my edit won't matter, won't be an issue of pride. (I feel I was driven to "misbehaving" because I had no way to protect myself and I couldn't take it forever - but if I have no investment I won't care - so new name, and just playing around sounds like the way to go.) Mattisse(talk) 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you decide to do, I do wish you the best of luck. I hope you don't fall into the same hopelessness and despair that drove you to the point where you felt that betraying our trust was the only way. Even if you approach me again months later from now under a new identity unknown to me, I will still be here assuming good faith. --  Netsnipe  ►  00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Matisse. My original message to potentially interested parties was rather poorly worded. There was no allegation against them, just an invitation to comment. My apologies if the message fazed you slightly. Nunquam Dormio 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks eor editing at Maratha Clan System as 10:22, 9 September 2006 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (added links)

Hi Matisse, thank you for your recent edits to the Jagannath and related pages. A much needed serious tidy-up... :-) Great! Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matisse, I saw you've added an image to the article Jagannath Temple (Puri) and was wondering if this was a photograph from a part of the actual temple itself or another one nearby?. I have one photograph of the main temple building from the outside which I took myself, although it's a bit dark. Maybe a shot of the temple complex might look good if you have any? What do you think? Best Wishes, GourangaUK 08:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matisse, - I have never been allowed inside the actual temple as I'm not a native of India but I have seen photos of the main deities which do not look like the ones in the current pic. I believe they may be from a local temple in Puri, but wanted to be sure in case you'd taken it yourself somewhere inside the compound. I'll scan in some of my snaps and add to the article hopefully by this weekend. Thanks & Regards, GourangaUK 08:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the article - the picture you added is much better than the one I took! If I have any photos of smaller temple details I'll them in also. + Nice work on the edits. Ys, GourangaUK 09:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse, can you please check out the Zile article? I think some copyediting is needed, thanks. —Khoikhoi 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Khoikhoi 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on Nellaiappar Temple. ramtongauler 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mattisse. I see you are doing a good job in the background. However one statement on this page is incorrect. There are dozens of Hoysala temples in active usage today. A very short list of temples are not. Please dont go by everything you read in articles as I have requested you earlier. It thorws off readers. We had a major function with prayers at the Amrutheswara temple in Chikamagalur just a few months ago.

Dinesh Kannambdai

Hi Again. Over the last 5 years I have been involved in photographing temple architecture in India (Karnataka, my home state). I have created a page called Hoysala architecture and will soon be working on "Architecture of Vijayanagar Empire" discussing the more important issues like pillar design, design concepts etc with info sourced from reliable scholars. I will be putting in many pictures that I took in 2002 in Hampi, into this page. Later I plan to travel to other places like coastal Karnataka, Lepakshi to make the page more complete etc. When I am done with this page in about 2 weeks, please find time to link up these photos to respective temples listed in the Hampi page. I noticed you have done this kind of stuff before and right now the Hampi page looks vowfully empty.

Thanks

Dinesh Kannambadi

Hi. I loaded my Hoysala photos (only a small fraction of the total of some 200 odd photos I have) as GDFL self images. Where exactly it got stored on wiki database, I am not sure. If you click on any of my photos, it will give you more details. I have many many photos not yet uploaded on wikipedia, focussing on sculptures, from across south Karnataka. In fact Hassan district the seat of the Hoysala Kingdom is my native place too. There are many web pages that describe each temple town in Hassan district like [1]. I have a complete book on Hassan district and its temple towns but unfortunately I left it behind in India this June. There are many more temple towns in Hassan district we can add info on (I know you did Doddagaddavalli which I visited this June) like Koravangala, Haranahalli , Arasikere, Nuggehalli and you will see pictures for temples from these towns in the various pages like Hassan district, Hoysala architecture, Halebidu, Belur which I added myself. If any pictures are required, I can pick it out of mu album and upload it for you.

As we go along, I will add more pictures and send you the .jpg file names so you can upload into the pages you create for temple towns.

Regarding Vijayanagara, I visited Hampi in 2002 and have a few great pictures af Tungabhadra River with an ancient boat (Tappa) and the boatman and also pictures of Tungabhadra dam etc. I will upload them this weekend and give you the file names, so you can just access it. I will start working on "Architecture of Vijayanagar Empire" this weekend also and upload photos with quaint Pillars etc.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Thanks. I am right now working on the "Vijayanagar Architecture" page. I should have a basic temple in the next 30 minutes. Enjoy!!

Dinesh Kannambadi

I'm surprised there wasnt a POV sign already.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. can you find more such pictures and add them into the main page of Chalukya under Badami Chalukya architecture section. It will be another 10 months before I can go there personally in India to take scores of pictures and I think the Chalukya page suffers from lack of photos right now.

Thanks

Dineshkannambadi

Keep it up!! Dineshkannambadi

You seemed to me (in the past) a person with real possibilities. Now I wonder as I watch, now that I am no longer willing to put forth any of the hard work way I did before, how you really feel. Deep down, you must feel used by the Wikipedia crap -- (I believe this must be, because I believed in you and still do somewhat.) Mattisse(talk) 00:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well what can you do when it's one of the world's most popular websites? Just walk away? Not me. I just do what I can to keep the other administrators honest by working Category:Requests for unblock and giving people second chances all the time. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on India related articles. I very much appreciate it, as I am not such a great writer. I must confess to you that at one point I thought you might be a vandal, due to some mistakes that you made. I hope you do not mind if I occasionally correct things that I think are in error. Thank you again. --BostonMA ^talk 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to ask me questions. Alas, there is no standard way to spell Indian names etc. in English. It is not just that there are no standard rules for transliteration, but in a given area, the same name could be spelled different ways, and even the same person may spell one way on one occasion, and another way on another. It is a situation that must be accepted as it is. Again, I would be glad to help however I can. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, you may know this already, but if not, here are some quick rules for how things might be spelled alternately. Definintely not an exhaustive list.

• Whenever you see a t, also check for a spelling with th and vice-versa
• Same with an s
• v and w for example -eshwara -esvara
• Final a, check for final am and vice-versa
• Check for doubling of letters or pairs of letters, such as chch
• If you know how words break, check both ways, i.e. Krishnaraja and Krishna Raja

I know these rules in themselves can give many possibilities, but these will help. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a great deal online about Wayanad. That actually makes me a bit happy, since it is such a beautiful place and it deserves better than to become overrun with tourists ;-). Sorry about that, we are writing an encyclopedia. Banasura Sagar dam is located on a tributary of the Panamaram river, which itself is a tributary of Kabini river. I don't know the name of the tributary which flows out of the Banasura sagar dam. Note Kabini = Kabani. There are two small hydel projects in Wayanad, I don't know whether either are operational. Hope that helps. --BostonMA ^talk 16:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, another set of spelling issues to look out for are presented by the group: ee <-> i <-> y

While you are "in the area", there are two pictures that I recommend that you click on to get the full size image. The first is at Edakkal Caves. Click and look for the hole in the mountain! The second is the picture of the elephant at Wayanad district#Geographical details article. Click for full size, isn't she sweet?  :-). --BostonMA ^talk 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop titling the Notes section Reference notes. If you will take the time to read WP:CITE, the notes section should be titled either Notes or Footnotes. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 14:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine with me if you put the picture on the Kalpetta page. I am reluctant to promote my own images. Also, there are several drawbacks to that particular image. First, you can't really see the elephant or how beautiful is the forest, unless you see the full size image. Second, I don't know the official extent of Kalpetta, so it may not be completely appropriate. But then again, most of the nearby attractions are not within Kalpetta limits either. Maybe it should go in the nearby attractions subsection. --BostonMA ^talk 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Countryside near Kalpetta" would be an accurate description. I am alas at work at the moment. However, when I get home, if I am not too tired, and don't forget, I will look to see if I have any more images that might be worth uploading. You can take a look. They would mostly be of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. I try to avoid putting friends and family online, and unfortunately, many pictures do have friends and family. We will see in a few hours. --BostonMA ^talk 19:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the street scene is accurate. If I am not mistaken, that is NH212, which is the main road in Kalpetta. However, I think it is unusually quiet in terms of the number of people visible. Not that that is a great problem.

Pl see my user page at User:Pratheepps, you can see there a gallery of my photo contribution to the wikipedia. Still more, welcome to visit my site with a photo gallery at www.pratheep.com

Thanks for the compliments!

Pratheepps 04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you note on my userpage, yes I'm fine, although a little miffed after a CfD where the great and good decided to vote for a giant bunch of trivia [2]. There a lovely guidline Wikipedia:No angry mastodons about how to suvive on wikipedia, yes some battles are worth engaging in, but when things get to the stage that people leave wikipedia I'd generally say they have gone to far. I've now learned that some fights you win other you loose but the best tactic is to take the losses and move on, and try to retain a clearhead throughout. Personally I'm now tending towards the GA/FA process and general grading, working on whats best on wikipedia and mostly ignoring the rest. --Salix alba (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the {{verify}} tag on Weatherford International, however, the page content has just been replaced with verbatim excerpts from the company website, so a copyrighted/copyvio notice would have been probably more appropriated. I restored the old wikified version once, and just let the user know he was making a mistake, see User talk:Kvollmering. Meanwhile he/she reverted, and then you placed the tag. Do you think we should go back to the pre-copyvio version? --Qyd 15:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse. Can you please see my comment here and respond? If you agree with me, can you please fix that? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways: either user something like [[Vaigai river|Rivar Vaigai]] or have [[River Vaigai redirect to Vaigai River. Both are acceptable to me. But, I don't know whether a policy exists in this regard. Can you please check with WT:INWNB? I'd do that myself, but I'm leaving home and won't be back until next week. Thanks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattise. In my opinion, creating redirects to guide users from one spelling to the appropriate article are always a good thing. After the redirect is made, it may then be useful to "snap" a link that points to the redirect so that it becomes pointing to the target page. However, the redirect will serve to help users who type in an alternate spelling to arrive at the right page, and will also help to prevent editors from creating an unneccary duplicate article under two different names. --BostonMA ^talk 12:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not place that tag. It was placed by an admin. You are required to leave it there. You ran those sockpuppets, removing admin placed tags and warnings is not allowed. I will continue to put it back. If you keep removing it, I will bring it to the attention of the admins that you are doing so. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin already established that you are indeed a sockpuppet. There's no point in trying to hide it when I can just go to your block log and see your history. Nishkid64 23:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse. I'm sorry that you have a puppetmaster tag. But please don't make trouble for yourself. I think the proper thing is to wait a bit, let tempers cool, then go to an admin and ask the admin to remove the tag, but please don't remove it yourself, or it will motivate people against you. Just trying to help. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, please revert yourself and take a short break, catch your breath, and think things over. Please. --BostonMA ^talk 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, who do you trust? Go talk to someone you trust, and let them know what is going on. Please don't make me sad. --BostonMA ^talk 23:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nishkid64 23:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully protected the page so only sysops can edit or move. Nishkid64 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to got to bed now. But I'll see if we can sort out the situation. Its not at all clear whether old sockpuppet notices have to remain on user pages. Which is being discussed on WP:ANI. --Salix alba (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that this issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Puppetmaster_User:Mattisse.7CMattisse_repeatedly_removing_puppetmaster_tag. For what it's worth, I believe that there are misconceptions about the proper use of the sockpuppeteer template being applied to your page, and I suspect that you – Mattisse – are in the right on this. (Note that I don't condone your decision to create a number of sockpuppets, and I do believe that it is appropriate for admins to be rather more attentive towards you than towards a typical editor for that reason.)

You can weigh in at that discussion, but I would strongly recommend that you simply keep an eye on its progress. In my experience, you will harm your case if you make anything more than succinct, very polite remarks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the agreement of Nishkid64, I have lifted the protection of your user page. You may remove any content from it that you deem objectionable, including the sockpuppeteer template. Please take care to be civil in your edit summaries and avoid getting involved in a revert war – even when you believe that the other party or parties are in error – and seek an outside opinion (on, for example, the administrator's noticeboard) if you are concerned about the application of Wikipedia policies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, Mattisse, if it seemed I was going against you on this issue. I had a different understand of the applications of the sockpuppetry tag and I guess that's why I reverted your page. As stated in the protection log, I only temporarily protected the page because I did not want the situation to escalate any further that it would result in a block made by another admin. Again, I'm sorry for this. Nishkid64 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I BostonMA talk award you, Mattisse, this Barnstar on 18 October 2006 for your tireless efforts and great contributions to India related articles. Thank-you.

For you! --BostonMA ^talk 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (I even spelt "you're" right!). You really deserve the barnstar for all of your hard work.

But on the other subject, you may be absolutely right that the sock accusation is inappropriate. But getting into an edit war over a lousy tag on your user page, especially with an admin, isn't worth it. You can deal with the sock accusation tomorrow if you aren't blocked, but if you get yourself blocked, things just start going down hill. :-(. --BostonMA ^talk 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dont worry mate, Im an admin and Ive just been accussed too! Glen 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you stated that Parambakulam dam was on the Kabini. I hope you don't mind, I know you are not from the area, but I got something of a laugh out of that. Anyway, I found a link that you might find useful [3]. Haven't checked it for complete accuracy, but I imagine it is quite accurate. Enjoy. --BostonMA ^talk 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Take care. --BostonMA ^talk 02:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made many edits to India-related articles, and I was just wondering if you were Indian? If you are, where do you live? Nishkid64 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the email thing

Not sure which tanks you meant. Did you mean the Kalyani Chalukya/Hoysala style stepped tanks? If you did, I have a few pictures from Hampi where the Vijayanagar kings used chalukya-hoysala style tanks (Pushkarni). I have a book that gives some info, not a whole lot though. What do you want to know of them? The place thats famosu for temple tanks is Lakkundi, in Gadag district where the Kalyani Chalukya built more than 100 tanks. I plan to go there nexr year. The book that would give you mire info would be "Chalukyan architecture of Kanarese districts". Go to [www.vedamsbooks.com] and try key word Chalukya. You will find several listings of books written by good authors.Dineshkannambadi 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This message was left on User talk:Hanuman Das and on User talk:Ekajati by Septegram who has also left advocacy message on their behalf on my talk page in the past.

Look at the code as he has piped it. He is warning them.

[[User_talk:Timmy12#Please_would_you_get_an_email_address_immediately|Talk Page]], as your name is referenced there by [[User:Mattisse|Mattisse]].

You and Hanuman Das may want to check out Timmy12's User Talk page, particularly here. Not sure what's going on, but I saw your name mentioned and thought I should alert you.

Septegram 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out Timmy12's Talk Page, as your name is referenced there by Mattisse. I don't know what's brewing, but thought you should get a heads-up.

Septegram 18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what's worth. I wonder why 999 (Talk) didn't warrant a warning message too? His name was mentioned just as much. Timmy12 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I worried about you. So did the admin who protected your page. Please take a look at Cyde's comment. I don't really know the power structure, but I believe that Cyde is a significant person in the hierarchy. If another admin had taken it upon him or herself to block you indefinitely as a result of Cyde's comment, things would not have turned out as well as they did, regardless of whether you were within your rights with respect to the puppetmaster tag. Gettnig an idefinite block is not a good thing. I'm very glad that you made it through this event unscathed, but I'm worried by your comment "What makes me feel the worst about the whole thing is that you had so little faith in me that you thought I was in danger." It makes me believe you don't understand how this whole thing might have ended. I'm going to ask User:Nishkid64 to take a look at what I say here. Maybe I am overreacting, and he can tell us both so. Take care. --BostonMA ^talk 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry about User:Nishkid64's comments about you. That wasn't the opinion I was really looking for. I wanted him to confirm to you that you were in danger, but I guess I didn't make that clear. Well, now we know something of what User:Nishkid64 thinks maybe more than we wanted to hear. Oh well. Leaving aside his personal evaluation, do you see that things could have turned out very badly? That's what I'm most concerned that you see. I think you need to respect admins like fire. Yes, you can fight fire, but you have to be careful, because the costs of a mistake could be fatal. Similarly, you can disagree with an admin, but if you choose the wrong way to show your disagreement, you may discover the power disparity between yourself and the admin in a very painful way. If you don't see it that way, I guess we can just move on. But if I ever get real concerned again, you'll have to forgive me, because I do worry, and I probably won't keep my worries to myself. --BostonMA ^talk 01:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a beautiful picture of a temple tank from Belur. I can provide that this weekend.Dineshkannambadi 01:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Indian language words similar to "tak" or "tank" and meaning "reservoir for water".

I am in the Yahoo email group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hinducivilization/ . Words like "tak" or "tank" are in Gujarati and in some Dravidian languages. To check, ask an Indian who speaks one of those languages. Anthony Appleyard 07:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a beautiful photo on your page. --BostonMA ^talk 12:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse, Thanks for adding my image to the Distributary article. Unfortunately, it is not correct that the distributary in the image is the Kollidam. There are many, many distributaries of the Kaveri delta. You can see them on this map. By the way, on that map, the Kollidam is called Coleroon. Thanks for your efforts to expand Wikipedia. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification, Mattisse. Although it hurts a bit, I now know that those lists need a lot more improvement than I previously thought. Could you do me a favor, though, and take a look at administrative divisions of Adygea? That one, while still not complete, is the closest one to becoming a poster child for the rest of the articles in the series. Is it just as confusing to you as the one about Krasnoyarsk Krai? What are the things that definitely need improvement/detailed explanation from the point of view of the person who never dealt with the subject before? I realize that my being deeply involved with the subject may lead to missing some points that seem obvious to me but not so much to a reader who just wants to understand what the list is about. Any pointers you can supply will be of invaluable help. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattisse! I answered your inquiry on my talk page. Sorry about the delay—I am usually not accessing Wikipedia much during the weekends.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Good work done by you people too. But we need to find a clear and visible image of jog in full monsoon. I'll try to find one. All images I found so far are covered with mist. Gnanapiti 22:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I asked what your criteria is for placing this template on articles? I noticed that you just tagged Robert Johnson, which is completely cited via Harvard referencing. Articles are not required to use footnote citations; that is only one of three possible citation methods. I suggest that you stop blanketing articles with this template without first devising a strategy and ensuring that each article is deserving of the template. Perhaps you can collaborate at an appropriate WikiProject? It may even be less disruptive to develop a list of articles that need citations as a subpage of a WikiProject, so the editors who are most likely to improve the articles can easily reference it. Thanks --Aguerriero (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I must be missing something. I can only find one footnote on Robert Johnson. It looks like it is for a specific quotation. I do not see any other reference notes. To quote User:TomTheHand in a similar misunderstanding, since he speaks much more clearly than I do:

Your quote (that it is the editors choice what citation method to use) isn't quite relevant, since you have not cited at all. You have listed references at the bottom, which is not the same thing. If you were using embedded HTML links and I were insisting that you must switch to Harvard referencing instead, then you'd have a point.

Please have a look at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which is a well-cited article. Check out the text after the introduction section, or look at the infobox. The little numbers by various facts, which link to lines in the references section, are citations. Specifically, they are done in the footnote style, but you can use one of the other citation methods on WP:CITE if you like; as your quote states, it's up to you. Note that nowhere on WP:CITE will you find the "list a bunch of links at the bottom of the page" method, because that is not citation. If you need help, please let me know. TomTheHand 15:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this where the confusion lies? (I admit the Robert Johnson article is very hard for me to follow clearly as it is rather jumbled and my eyes are not perfect.) Are there more citations that I am not seeing?

And to clarify, I am not blanketing every article I come across. In this particular instance, I was adding a link to the page of each inductee on the 1980 Blues Foundation Hall of Fame inductee list. As I went down that list, I noted and tagged the articles that were unsourced, since they were all old articles and sourcing them seemed to be forgotten. That is all. I did add some footnote citations to Memphis Minnie. And as I mentioned to you on your talk page, yesterday I wrote an article on a blues guitarist and I have recently fixed up the pages of other blues people and groups. So I think your characterization of me is unfair. Mattisse(talk) 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I'm not sure what TomTheHand is replying to - his comment makes little sense to me out of context. What I am saying is that you seem to be looking for footnotes in articles, but that is not the only way to cite sources. Many articles (such as Robert Johnson) use Harvard referencing or inline HTML citations. In the case of Harvard referencing, you will not see footnotes (the little numbers); you will see a list of citations at the bottom under the References section. Does that make more sense? You seem to be viewing this as a personal attack, but I am simply suggesting that you revise your strategy for placing templates on articles. Or more to the point, have a strategy. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I wish you wouldn't quote me being quite so snarky ;-) I was a little annoyed by that point in the discussion, and I think it shows. Still, I agree with you here again, Mattisse; the article does not use Harvard referencing. Aguerriero, in Harvard referencing, the various claims in the article would be followed by (author, date) at the end of the sentence, indicating the author and publication date of the source. A reader could look at that, scroll down to the references section, and see what source the claim came from. Check out the page you linked to in your first post for details. Listing a bunch of sources at the bottom of an article isn't Harvard referencing, and isn't a citation method at all.

Mattisse, I apologize for always popping into discussions like this, but it's a topic of interest for me; citation and referencing on Wikipedia is often misunderstood. TomTheHand 19:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point, me. :) I stand corrected. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is replying to someone who listed references at the bottom of the article but did not specify inline the body of the article where that particular statement could be verified. Wikipedia:Harvard referencing is a citation system. To quote from its Citation section:

Under the Harvard referencing system, a book is cited in the text in parentheses, or round brackets, after the section, sentence, or paragraph for which the book was used as a source, using the surname of the author and the year of publication only, with the parentheses closing before the period, as in (Author 2005). If the same author has published two books in 2005, and both are being referenced in the text, this is written as (Author 2005a) and (Author 2005b). The specific page, section, or division of the cited work can follow the date in this way: (Author 2006, 28).

Newspaper articles may be cited by the byline, as in (Traynor 2005), though this is less commonly done, with most editors preferring to give the name of the newspaper and the date of publication after the sentence (The Guardian, December 17, 2005), or linking to the article using an embedded link, like this. [4] Embedded links, like footnotes, are placed after punctuation.

Now, maybe that is what you were doing in Robert Johnson. As I said, I find that particular article very difficult to follow. Mattisse(talk) 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Baikal Mountains, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to provide more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately, and also put a note on Talk:Baikal Mountains. An administrator should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 1 under Articles. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such material. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tad outdated, but generally correct. Perm Oblast and Permyakia merged in 2005, so there are 88 subjects now, not 89, and more mergers will happen in 2007. Also, some of the terminology used in this text is different from what is used in Wikipedia (it's not uncommen when the same concept of Russian administrative division has several different names in English).

I'd also recommend that you read subdivisions of Russia and articles link from it. That way you won't have to figure out inconsistencies in terminology on top of an already sufficiently convoluted system of Russian administrative structure.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to my good faith edits as vandalism. That is considered a violation of civility. I have seen other articles with the references or citation tags at the end of the article under the appropriate heading. AFAIK, there is no requirement that it be at the top. You are simply being cantakerous. I am not removing the tags, simply moving them. Did someone make you King of Wikipedia, recently? I didn't get the memo. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you have exceeded the allowed number of reverts on several articles. If you self-revert now, you may avoid being blocked for it. I'm taking a lunch break, but will file a 3RR report when I get back if you haven't self-reverted each of your 4th reverts. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I did not realize that revert meant other than actually reverting, even though I read the rules to determine this today. The rules are not clear. Since I have several outstanding complaints regarding the tag issue on the Administers noticeboard/Incidents right now, and considering User:Ekajati, who requested the block, has been gunning for me for months, I feel blocking me over a misunderstanding I was trying to clear up on the Administers' noticboard/Incidents and trying my best to get help for is unfair. See:How to handle this - advice needed. I was told that removing tags without reason was vandalism. For recent harassment from User:Ekajati see: Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag and Question about importance. I had been told the tags in question now were fair:Uncited template and So would you say . . . and for once wanted to stick to my guns. I tried every way I knew how to get help, but without cohorts to do your work for you it's impossible to survive here. All my good edits count for nothing. This is very bitter. User:Ekajati will keep after me, and there is nothing I can do about it. You can read User:Ekajati's comments on the links above and his motivation is clear. He will not stop until I am proved a sockpuppet, even though I am not. (He just sent me a message below, as I am writing this now.) This is a mean place. I feel hopeless about Wikipedia. Here is the last check user outcome Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd). Thus User:Ekajati has refused recent administrators' mandates that he use check user before making accusations because he knows it will show nothing. User:Ekajati has been told not to accuse me of being a sock puppet without proof many times, but that does not stop him. He is doing it again on the Incident page right now as I write this and no one is doing anything. He and his group want to drive me off because there is no help or protection for me, unless I disappear from every area on Wikipedia User:Ekajati & friends own (and those areas increase daily). I didn't know until this incident that the blues Is one of them. Please, if nothing else, tell me where I can go for help unless there is no help on Wikipedia. Mattisse(talk) 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Kallpetta tag for importance questioned by BostonMa on User_talk:Hanuman_Das talk page. User_talk:Hanuman_Das did not reply. User:Ekajati tagged Indian rock cut architecture for importance.
• Removed byHanuman Das from his talk page
• maybe you can help plea for help and discusson of Rosencomet issue on User talk:JzG by Timmy12 & Ekajati. It is a long passage with many comments by others.
• User:TenOfAllTrades was the only admin I could find who responded to my request to remove the sock puppet tags placed under my name on article talk pages.

Regarding reversions[5] made on October 24 2006 to Willie Dixon

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail. Tags are text and count, of course William M. Connolley 20:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail. You are unblocked now. Why did you bother send it? William M. Connolley 08:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to comprehend, Mattisse, is that Wikipedia rules are a moving target. Have you read the first version of WP:CITE? Here it is: [6]. In the beginning, there was no requirement beyond listing the sources at the end of the article. There weren't even any mechanisms for making footnotes at that time.

Even at the end of 2005, one of the listed citation methods was Complete citations in a "References" section. That is, a list of references without inline notes. So please stop acting like a know-it-all. You didn't even know that! That method may have lasted through most of 2006 for all I know. I'm not going to start searching through the old versions to figure out when it was changed.

You are behaving as if the editors of these "old articles" intentionally ignored the rules. This is not true. It is the rules which have changed. You will also note that WP:CITE is a guideline and not a policy. You could take the time to start adding citations yourself. Instead, you choose to insult the creators of an article by faulting them for not following a rule that didn't exist when they created the article and isn't any more than a guideline now. You add insult to injury by going through and tagging a whole group of articles on the same subject, so that the editors who work on those subject see a dozen or more tags show up on their watchlist at once. When it would only take a little more time to create some citations yourself. You clearly know how, you are doing it on (most of) the article you create from scratch.

Why the heck are you wasting your time trying to twist other people's arms rather the just continuing on working on the articles you've been working on is simply a mystery to me. Seems you enjoy telling other people what to do. Well, stop. It's not appreciated by anyone. I'd say what I think about you, but it would violate WP:CIVIL. Please go do something more productive, and quit with the socks already. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekajati, you need to take a step back and stop taking Mattisse's tagging as an attack on the article. It is meant as a way of bringing the problem (lack of citations) to the attention of the article's contributors. According to WP:V the burden of proof is on the article's contributors to provide sources. Mattisse didn't write the article; how can you expect her to know where the information in it came from? TomTheHand 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is indeed M's motivation, then she should proceed differently, and put a note on the talk page and discuss it there. People tend to view the tags as more of an attack when placed on the article itself William M. Connolley 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel placing tags on the article itself draws extra attention to the fact that the article doesn't cite properly. Yes, it's ugly, and it's saying something negative about the article. The proper reaction to that is to fix the article so that there's no reason to tag it. TomTheHand 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William's suggestion is the very essense of the difference between drive-by-tagging and constructive critism. Is a comment in an article's discussion page really too much to ask for? You note above that you consider the tagging to be somewhat "negative" in nature, so that being the case one would generally want to apply such tags with some decorum in order to avoid precisely the sort of problems we're discussing on this page. Consider this for a second: if a particular behavior leads to repeated problems, perhaps that behavior should be discouraged even if it is technically correct?

And in this particular case it needs to be pointed out that no inline-ref policy exists. Ekajati's in the clear here, I've been following the links above and looking over the histories and there are repeated statements to this effect. If there's anything more annoying than having regs quoted at you, it's having incorrect regs quoted at you, which is precisely what's happening in this case.

Maury 22:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't buy this "there's no inline citation policy" business. Yes, that's true. However, a lengthy article, such as a biography, cannot satisfy WP:V without inline refs.

John Lee Hooker was first written on June 22, 2001. It had a "Further reading" section added on May 22, 2006, with one source. Since that single source was added, all this stuff was done to the article with no more sources added. Mattisse tagged it, and people edit warred to remove the tag. The other pages in dispute are similar situations.

Is that because everything in that article was from that one source in the further reading section? Everything written over the first five years came from there, but nobody remembered to add the reference 'til May 2006, and all the stuff over the next five months came from there too, so nobody needed to add more sources?

Or is it because one source is "enough," and even though a bunch of information didn't come from that source we've done enough so nobody can complain?

I don't think so. Yes, there are some cases where WP:V can be satisfied without inline references. This is not one of those cases. TomTheHand 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps I should have kept my post to the real argument alone. The issue here isn't about right and wrong, it's about civility. If this behaviour leads to edit wars and blocks (and it's not just here, it's all over the wiki), is it worth it? I personally think edit wars are worse for the wiki than poor style. Maury 12:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a little confused...why is Mattisse adding comments of Calton as if they are her own? [7] Metros232 01:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yaghnobi people - keep losing them

(message copied) It is very, very interesting. (Is that where I got the link to India - Constitution?) I would like to comment more on your issues as I have many feeling about what you are saying. You express yourself very well. You are a good writer. Mattisse(talk) 01:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you come across this site (All Music Guide) in your research ? Generally, it is very sound in terms of accuracy, although its musician biographies can be full of POV. Anyhow [8] may be of further assistance to us (particularly for the references to Milburn's decline in fortunes). What do you think ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go fuck yourself up the ass with a straight-razor. You are intentionally attacking the articles of pagans, FUCK OFF. —Hanuman Das 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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