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.
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]
Hey
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]
Protection
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]
By the way
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]
Protocol
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 for editing at Maratha Clan System From Vishal1976 -- Vishal Prakash Dudhane
Thanks eor editing at Maratha Clan System as 10:22, 9 September 2006 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (added links)
Jagannath
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]
Request
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]
Work-appreciated
Excellent work on Nellaiappar Temple. ramtongauler 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Chennakeshava templeDineshkannambadi 17:15, 20 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
Vijayanagar architecture
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.
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.
I'm surprised there wasnt a POV sign already.BakamanBakatalk 14:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badami cave temple
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
Thanks for the effort
Keep it up!!
Dineshkannambadi
Is it worth it I wonder?
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
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. --BostonMAtalk 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, --BostonMAtalk 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, --BostonMAtalk 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. --BostonMAtalk 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? :-). --BostonMAtalk 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notes sections
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]
Elephant Picture
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. --BostonMAtalk 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. --BostonMAtalk 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.
Kanchi photo
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 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]
Chola dynasty
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. --BostonMAtalk 12:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet tag
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, --BostonMAtalk 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, please revert yourself and take a short break, catch your breath, and think things over. Please. --BostonMAtalk 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. --BostonMAtalk 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]
Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I BostonMAtalk award you, Mattisse, this Barnstar on 18 October 2006 for your tireless efforts and great contributions to India related articles. Thank-you.
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. :-(. --BostonMAtalk 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sockpuppet accusations...
Hey dont worry mate, Im an admin and Ive just been accussed too! Glen 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A link you might find useful
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. --BostonMAtalk 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Take care. --BostonMAtalk 02:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity...
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]
Did so
the email thing
Temple tanks
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]
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.
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.
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]
Yes I worried
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. --BostonMAtalk 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. --BostonMAtalk 01:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
temple tank
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]
Etymology of "tank"
Some Indian language words similar to "tak" or "tank" and meaning "reservoir for water".
Yes, that is a beautiful photo on your page. --BostonMAtalk 12:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Distributaries
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, --BostonMAtalk 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative divisions of Krasnoyarsk Krai
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]
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]
Uncited template
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]
Empty-warn
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]
US LOC quote
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]
Calling good faith edits "vandalism" is a violation of WP:CIVIL
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]
3RR warning
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]
User notice: temporary 3RR block
{{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]
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.
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.
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]
Moving target
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.
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]
