Misplaced Pages

from User:Salix alba which somehow disappeared off my talk page

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page

Not much to say apart from, aw shucks. --Salix alba (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Swayambhu

Hi Mattisse, there are some mistakes in recent edits to Swayambhu . Only some murthis are considered swayambhu, not all. You have written:

The Hindu murthis are considered to be self-manifestations of the deity.

which is only true in some cases. Also, shivalingas in temples are made by humans. Exceptions to this generalization are the shivalinga at Amarnath and Mount Kailash which is considered by some to be the shape of a shivalinga. Sorry to bother you about this. --BostonMA 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, Sorry I was not able to respond earlier. I was called away. I see that you removed the statement:

The Hindu murthis are considered to be self-manifestations of the deity.

It would be good if the article stated that some murthis are considered to be Swayambhu. For example it could say:

Some Hindu murthis are considered to be self-manifestations of the deity. For example, the following eight murthis are considered to be Swayambhu. (followed by list).

Sorry again to bother you. Would you like me to change it? --BostonMA 21:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem

Though I was afraid we might hit an edit conflict (the technical kind, not the edit warring kind). Thanks for removing the duplicate see also, I didn't notice that Chorten redirected to Stupa. Kinda stupa of me. :-) A Ramachandran 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I first met him back in the late 80s/early 90s. He used to come to Taos for events at the Neem Karoli Baba ashram there. A Ramachandran 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry harassment

Just to let you know, I've modified WP:SOCK in an attempt to prevent future abuses of the sockpuppeteer tags such as happened to you. Specificly, I added this language. Since I suspect there may be resistance to this change, I also started a thread on the talk page, here. I thought you might want to be aware, keep an eye on the discussion, and perhaps chime in about your experience if there is pressure to remove the new language. Jefferson Anderson 17:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(copied my reply}

Hi Jefferson, thanks for doing what you are. It's hopeless for my case but maybe it will help others in the future. I would help you out on your discussion thread but I'm not good at that sort of thing and can't even follow my own Arbitration case. But I'm glad that you are addressing the need to clarify sockpuppet guidlines/policies.

I don't know if this is your area, but I have been trying to find documentation of my sockpuppets and cannot find most of it. Also, I've noticed that many other user accounts are labelled as sockpuppets, or suspected sockpuppets, without any explanation of why or what the evidence is. Do you think that the tag itself should have a link to the evidence? It would be so helpful if it did. Anyway, thanks so much for your efforts. Sincerely, --Mattisse 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not really my area, but I can make the following comments... I became aware of the arbitration when BostonMA notified me that I had been mentioned in it, so I know where to find the info... There are two ways a user can be identified as a sock:

1. Through the formal reporting process at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. This allows any user who suspect sockpuppetry to tag both suspected sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer and file a report. This seldom works well, the suspect gets upset and even the admins aren't familiar with the process!
2. Through filing a request for checkuser at WP:RFCU.

In the first case, a judgment call is made by one or more admins. Someone can be confirmed a sock in obvious cases such as during an edit war where one user has just been blocked for 3RR and suddenly a brand-new user revert to the same version. If there is evidence that the user knows about 3RR, then three reverts followed by a revert from a brand-new user would be positive evidence as well. This method is based completely on a judgment call and could conceivably be abused by an opponent, who could create the user and have it do what their opponent would be expected to do to make it look like the other party has used a sock.

In the second case, a admins with checkuser permission checks the IP addresses of the users. If they match, this is conclusive evidence that the users are using the same computer and are almost certainly the same person. There are very few admins with checkuser permission and they are very highly respected. Usually they are or have been on the arbitration committee or some other exalted position.

So, your sockpuppets fall into three categories...

1. Five discovered in Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin: Listerin, Capit, Teek, Massmato and Trunk
2. Ten discovered by Rdsmith4 using checkuser, apparently while investigating a case involving one of them. Here is his report, which lists: NLOleson, GBYork, Flinders, NothingMuch, AwfulMe, Pygmalian, Dattat, Gjeatman, ABSmyth, and AgastNeey. Since Rdsmith4 has checkuser permission he is highly respected so even though there was no formal checkuser request about you specificly, the result is absolutely certain. Those users were editing from your computer. I think Rdsmith4 should have recorded his findings in the sockpuppet case as well as notify you, but he didn't.
3. Three further sockpuppets were suspected and blocked via two suspected sockpuppet reports, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd). They were identified because their behavior matched the behavior of your main account or of one of the sockpuppets already confirmed as you. These were: LiftWaffen, BlackHak and LymphToad. Since these were not confirmed with checkuser, it is possible that they were created by an opponent and made to look like they belonged to you.

I hope this helps. In case you are wondering how to research these things, what I did was go the your own personal sockpuppet category, Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mattisse, then click through to one of the sockpuppets, then click on "What links here" to find the corresponding report. The message on your talk page from Rdsmith was hard to find, I had to find a link to it from elsewhere (there are several, including at least one on the arbitration pages).

Hope this helps... Jefferson Anderson 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(copied my reply)

Thanks for your message. Unfortuately, that much I knew as I did spend quite a bit of time trying to get answers and trying to figure things out. But without a formal report, I can never be sure. Plus the sockpuppet labelling is inconsistent on the accounts, and one, Dattat, was labelled because of one edit connected to Shrank and at least one other, Liftwaffen, did not make any edits that violated policy. But, to tell you the truth I don't care anymore. I see the whole sockpuppet business as highly corrupt and misused, a game some people like to play, and I don't see that changing. I've lost interest in my own sockpuppet issues as it is all tied up in mystery. But the more power to users like you who have faith in a better Misplaced Pages and are willing to work toward it. Thanks for your good efforts. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you about Dattat. It was labelled as a suspect based on a suspicion that it was a sockpuppet of Shravak. It was relabelled by Netsnipe as your sockpuppet as confirmed by Rdsmith4's checkuser. There is no conflict here: the user who reported Dattat, 999 apparently had no idea that it was your sockpuppet, but thought it was a sockpuppet of Shravak as it appeared just after Shravak's 4th revert.

Also, if you had found all that out, you are not quite the amateur you say you are. Modesty, I guess, eh? I don't know how to find out anything more about it myself... Jefferson Anderson 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(copied my reply)

I apologise if I said something to offend you. I don't think I said I was an amateur. I have spent many months trying to figure this out. But in any event, I don't want to argue about this with you. As I said, I don't care anymore and I applaud you for for you efforts to improve. Again, I apologise for offending you. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(copying my reply from below which you apparently ignored)

Oh, no, you didn't offend me all at. I was complimenting you for having found out as much as you did!

And since you don't wish to discuss it further, ciao for now... Jefferson Anderson 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NOW you've offended me with your last edit comment. Paranoid much? Jefferson Anderson 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

hoysala architecture

Your format suggestion looks good. The real picture emerges only after we change the format though. I will try to do it this weekend after finishing with Vijayanagara Empire. If you have time now go ahead and simply cut and paste into the format you indicated, then we can see how it feels. But logically the format you indicated is ok. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my message to Dinesh)

--Hoysala Architecture article structure --

Just a suggestion for a change in structure to something like this:

Introduction

1)Deities

• Dedication
• Depiction

2)Basic elements

• Jagati
• Mandapa
• Vimana
• Pillars
• Sculpture

3}Other information

• Famous architects
• Famous temples
• Research notes

No offence

Oh, no, you didn't offend me all at. I was complimenting you for having found out as much as you did!

And since you don't wish to discuss it further, ciao for now... Jefferson Anderson 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NOW you've offended me with your last edit comment. Paranoid much? Jefferson Anderson 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologise once again for having offended you. I admit I am paranoid. In my experience at Misplaced Pages there are only three people who amass material about the subject as you did in one of your last messages. I admit that because the wording was so familiar, it triggered fear reaction in me. I am sorry and apologise for any faulty response that hurt you. Sincerely, --Mattisse 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)