User talk:Dineshkannambadi/Archive7

Re:Political history of medieval Karnataka
Thank you for writing a message to me but I don't get it. ?_? Saturation2 Talk to me, or you can at my edits. Sign here if you love me. 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I got it!
I put a cleanup tag there because it is 37 kilobytes long. Saturation2 Talk to me, or you can at my edits. Sign here if you love me. 02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mysore
Thanks for the good words on my talk page. Please checkout the Culture of Mysore page if you have not already done so. I want to add Ashtanga Yoga to the page but am in two minds as to whether Yoga really represents a part of a Culture or not. Any views? Amarrg 05:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Halmidi
Thank you for your message in my user page. I think it now seems faithful to the message in the source. All I was trying to point out was to represent the message in source material. It was not any POV. --Aadal 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Kannada
I may not agree with your "well known" qualifier, but I agree with you about the resulting "verify war". Anyways, If you can add some third party reference for the "2000" year claim, it would improve the credibility of the article. Praveen 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your new references look good. But, I meant, by 'third party', research papers published in a reputable journal or books written by outsiders. Anyways, if can not find them forget it. No problem. Praveen 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Porches
Do you know of any photos of an Indian temple porch? Sincerely, --Mattisse 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This time I was looking at the Porch article and noticed no examples or recognition of other than Western/Euopean architecture. When I come across that, I always stick a photo (plus description if I can) of an Indian example. Especially since porches are mentioned so much in temple articles, I think the article Porch should have Indian examples. I put a No World View tag on the article! But I could not find a photo of a porch. Sincerely, --Mattisse 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --Mattisse 02:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am under a uder a warning. Perhaps curtains!  --Mattisse 02:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rock-cut
I have been working on my Indian rock-cut architecture article but the issue I can't seem to clarify is the word describing the difference between a monolithic excavated temple (like Ellora cave 16) and a monolithic temple carved from a monolith rock outcropping like Pancha Rathas. Is there a word that distinguishes them? Sincerely, --Mattisse 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But what about carved outcropping? --Mattisse 01:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The professor you quoted does not seem to be addressing my concerns. Most rock-cut temples were made by either enlarging an existing cave or carving one into  a hillside. Pancha Rathas was sticking out of the hill (outcropping) and so was carved from the outside in, as were the bas-reliefs. The only structural temple there is the Shore Temple.  Ellora cave 16 was excavated from the top down. I'll think about it more.


 * Thanks for the porch. I'll stick it in the article. It's a porch to a mandapa, right?


 * And I answered your email. Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm still feeling a little grumpy. Hope it is not showing! Your friend, --Mattisse 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like the idea of articles on specific elements. Unfortunately I don't know enough. I have done these, of which you probably won't approve! (Feel free to change!) Mattisse 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * bracket (architecture)
 * basadi
 * garbhagriha
 * gopura
 * jagati (temple)
 * jali
 * Kirthimukha
 * latticework
 * mandapa
 * salabhanjika
 * temple tank
 * vihara (monastery)
 * vimana (shrine)
 * vimana (tower)
 * Yalli (motif)

P.S. They are "works in progress" -- not finished. I am not as focused as you are! --Mattisse 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also "work in progress" that I lost my way on: Irrigation tank. --Mattisse 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatnk your!
Thank you for being exactly who you are, and for being a real person to me. I have not words to express my appreciation. It has meant so much and kept my sanity. I am not saying this lightly. Sincerely, --Mattisse 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded on my page to your last post
Responded on my own page and  too tired  to move it  over. Sorry. Tomarrow is anoher day .--Mattisse 02:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kannada
Dinesh, Found two references, though reliability needs to be checked: Language in India Independent Study

Exact number of speakers (includes everyone; even outside Karnataka) are mentioned here: Central Institute of Indian languages

Amarrg 04:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Political History of medieval Karnataka
O.K. I'll look at it now. --Mattisse 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you stop -- then I will start. --Mattisse 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FA
But I don't think every article should be a feature article. I made those articles for myself and others who just want a quick explanation of a term without lengthy reading. Some of them could be I guess. But if they were too long I wouldn't read them myself. Your friend, --Mattisse 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of those are too old for DYK unless we added "substantial changes". Temple tanks of south India -- probably most of the tank pictures I have are south India. I love tanks and water articles. I've done a bunch of rivers, dams, reservoirs, waterfalls etc. Remember the disagreements over what to call Sivasamudram Falls? It was one of the sock puppets {I now know) User:999 who started that and tried to merge my article into an inferior other article. I was very angry at User:BostonMA at the time for taking his side! Now I miss BostonMA. Sincerely,  --Mattisse 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Water
Of course, I know you are impartial! (I wrote most of the Karnataka waterfall articles.) --Mattisse 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You better take a look
First para of intro of Political history of medieval Karnataka. Tell me my changes aren't going to give you a heart attack. Sincerly, --Mattisse 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this article secretly about architecture? --Mattisse 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Hi, replied here Praveen 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See here Praveen 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The 3rd citation (the hindu report) does not contain anywhere that kannada was 2000 years old. Your constant reverting without addressing the issue is not constructive. Check the citation before using it for reference. Praveen 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why yes!
Go make some edits! --Mattisse 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm done in for tonight. Tired! So if you want to do more, go ahead! --Mattisse 23:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

temples at Pattadakal
The temples of Pattadakal, a UNESCO World Heritage Site -- are you sure that includes Badami. I thought the temples at Pattaadakal were all structural. ???? Your sincere and devoted friend, --Mattisse 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Question?
Are you obsessed??? Is this article Political history of medieval Karnataka really about Kannada? Your ever questioning friend, --Mattisse 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know
What is the major point you want to make in the article? One of them seems to be that Kannada, being a local language, is finally working its way up to becoming official during this period. (This is connected to political developments, I know, but I think you have to be specific and connect the dots.) To me that is an interesting point, as in your past articles I did not understand the Kannada issue. Remember when you "accused" me of calling local Kannada speaking people "hillbillies"? Please have mercy on the poor non-Indian reader! --Mattisse 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree!
Maps only go so far for those of us on the other side of the world. There are so many pictures that convey more -- the real beauty and soul of the culture. So many of your pictures are stunning. And apparently I have only seen a few of them! --Mattisse 02:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the pictures are meaningful in terms of the story.
The Kannada language story is also very interesting, as it encapsulates the many minglings of cultural changes in India. It is a mini story of the whole, but one you can tell clearly. It gives a peek at the underlying complexities of India's history and its remarkable ability to accommodate. To me India is a sleeping giant. It is just weird that a major book store has only three books on India when India is one of the most important countries in the world. India plays its cards very well, I think, keeping a wonderfully low profile in this world of upheaval, and concentrating internally on what is relevant. An India fan, --Mattisse 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting confused!
Your citation was obscure to me and I did not understand it. I will think about how to connect the dots. It has to be simplified somehow, as connections that are obvious to you are not so to the rest of us uninformed people, even those like me who have tried to understand. In time it will become clear and we can work it out. Is someone going to kill you if you don't get this done by the timeline? Sincerely, --Mattisse 02:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Kannada
Check this site for second language Kannada speakers: Ethnologue -- Amarrg 06:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Kannada
I just came across and read the intro of the Kannada language article and for the first time understood to some degree why Kannada is mentioned so much in your articles and why you are promoting it. To me, it would help to have more context in your articles on very specific regions and time eras etc. as, unless you are writing for a very narrow audience, a reader is not going to grasp the article's purpose other than to describe in detail an obscure issue. The current article, Political history of medieval Karnataka, is not the issue of the evolution of Kannada as an "official" language one of the major points? Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that I have been editing your articles for some time now and not until this morning when I read that intro did I get the point. It's sort of like reading a bunch of articles on the US and seeing Ebonics mentioned everywhere like a factoid but nothing else. Do you think a person from Russia would have the background understanding of the social, cultural and political implications of mentioning it? (Bad analogy, but can't think of better one right now.) I'm wondering if Indians are writing these articles to argue among yourself and not to educate and enlighten the rest of us. (Not meaning to sound grumpy, but I have been wondering more and more lately if this is the case.) Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another article! Who is going to read all these articles and then try to put the pieces together to get the whole picture, except a few very interested persons who probably already know the subject matter? I am saying that I am only barely getting it now, and this is after going over and over your articles copy editing them, researching and writing sub articles, reading (or trying to read) related articles and reading some (parts of) books. If you think the world has "blinkers" on, then you cannot start out with the equivalent of graduate level electrical engineering. Please don't take my comments as criticism but only an impulsive reaction. You are too smart for the rest of us! Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Humph!
"In fact I need to add one sentence to the empires at the bottom, the Sultanates. They actually gave patronage to Persian, with Kannada and Marathi used only for local matters. Can you imagine, Persian in South India? This is a fact. Many persian words have come into even south Indian languages because of this, especially in north Karnataka, north Andhra Pradesh. This is important from the readers point of view to mention this with a citation. Sure, there may be a fanatic somewhere who cant accept that Persian came into use in Karnataka, but history has to be brought out, patriotism or not. This is why I assert I am not trying to focus on one language, though undoubtedly Kannada is the main language of the region. -Dineshkannambadi"

That paragraph is not written for me or the rest of the world. I rest my case! You are hopeless! Suppose I gave you a pile of academic articles on psychology, all properly cited and referenced. Do you think you would understand anything in them? (I doubt it, as it takes work for even a psychologist to do so.) All the articles on psychology in Wikipedia stink because they are either written by overly academic specialists or by pop pseudo psychologists with no academic underpinnings. You are doing a rough equivalent of the former. Signed by a grump, --Mattisse 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias
I don't know if your articles are biased or not because I can't understand them! --Mattisse 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But I don't think Western editors even try to understand the content. They are just following copy editing rules for the most part. (My view) --Mattisse 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

for you
Not very good at all, but a start: Kakusthavarma. Your still on the grumpy side friend, --Mattisse 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes
I'm rather lost on the last several sections about the Sultanates. Sincerely, --Mattisse 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to discuss a dash?
My view: isn't all that discussed somewhere else in a sub article? Is it a main point in this article, since it equivicates. Your semi-grumpy friend, --Mattisse 00:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Societies
Hello Dinesh,On the lines of Society of the Hoysala Empire, Society of Rashtrakuta empire of Manyakheta, etc, wouldn't it be a good choice to move the article Life in Vijayanagara Empire to Society of Vijayanagara Empire or something? Or is there any specific reason, why it needs to be in the present name?
 * Ok, thanks. Moved Life in Vijayanagara Empire to Society of Vijayanagara Empire. - KNM Talk 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, all these articles need to come under a common category. Would one of these category names Societies of Karnataka or Historical Societies of Karnataka or Societies of Karnataka History sound better? Or do you have any suggestion? Please let me know. Thank you! - KNM Talk 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. So, Category:Societies in History of Karnataka fine? - KNM Talk 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Created Category:Historical Societies of Karnataka and included above articles. - KNM Talk 02:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Economies
Similar to the above section, we might need a category for Economies, so that we can bring all the articles such as Economy of Rashtrakuta empire of Manyakheta, Economy of Hoysala Empire etc under a single roof. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. - KNM Talk 01:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. So, Category:Economies in History of Karnataka fine? - KNM Talk 02:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Created Category:Historical Economies of Karnataka and included above articles. - KNM Talk 03:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: History of Karnataka
If all the major empires are covered in this template, that should be good enough. Among, post-16th Century, I believe Kingdom of Mysore and Unification of Karnataka may be enough. pre-BC things might need another template, as there won't be that much room to accommodate them in this template. Just my thoughts. We can discuss further in template talk page, to have inputs from other users. - KNM Talk 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please comment
Please comment. Sarvagnya 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you there?
Sorry! I'm been caught up in my own little world of dramas and tragedies and did not see yesterdays main article. I looked through the Archives and saw what was probably it.

I agree that there is no article of yours that could not be a feature article! Please give me plenty to do so I may keep my mind off the evils of this world! Your gloriously happy to infinitely depressed friend (but always a friend of some kind or other) Mattisse 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Saw those pix you were uploading! (I'm always so worried that I'm not going to be able to find them when I want them!) --Mattisse 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S.S. Really nice template on Political history of medieval Karnataka! --Mattisse 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very smart-looking, don't you think? Excellent -- that is a fine template -- is there a Featured Template list? O.K. if I start in again on Political history of medieval Karnataka? (Or try to -- I haven't had the back experience of you previous articles to cover this area but I can do my best.) --Mattisse 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K.
You don't have a fill-in image for poor Kakusthavarma do you? I spend a great deal of time hunting down images as they so give a skimpy some respectability! --Mattisse 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Kannada
Thanks :) I am looking forward to have some good links.--Scheibenzahl 20:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to go looking on Wiki Commons?
That section does need so help, not just images but links to who these people were. I've looked and looked and stuck a few in, but the dates don't exactly match. The section definitely looks neglected compared to the rest. (It's been a very discouraging day in that the meanness of some peoples is astounding. Your articles are such solace for me  -- I admire your ability to deal with the awful people.) Your trying to hang in there friend, --Mattisse 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to stop for a while
Too nasty around here. Please forgive me. --Mattisse 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta Map
Do you still need a map? I have not beein in for a month. Let me know, if you need. Thanks! mlpkr 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Penganga River
Did a stub for Penganga River. I'm feeling useless as the sections you are concerned about are confusing as the names and dates don't match with other articles -- and this is an area I know totally nothing about. And I can't seem to figure anything out. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Information matching
No, not yours. I wanted to link some for the Muslim names to articles on them. The articles on these figures have different dates from yours as to when they occupied India as does the internet, so it is very confusing. I feel that when the article moves to the Muslim sections, it is just as important, if not more so, to have links and images. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to examine it again closely but the conqueror rules from 1325 to 1351. The next Muslim guy mentioned rules from 1397 to 1422. But maybe it's not so important what went on in between. The first guy I found several possible links for, none exactly right but settled on one that you need to check to see if it remotely fits. The second muslim guy I think I finally gave up on as the articles on him were widely disparate. It's like it is two different worlds with no connection.  Maybe I am being too particular. Sincerely, --Mattisse 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Small sampling
*Tughlaq dynasty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattisse (talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Delhi Sultanate
 * Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq
 * Muhammad bin Tughluq
 * Firuz Shah
 * Kwaja Mahamud Gavan
 * Firuz Shah Tughluq
 * Ghiyas-ud-Din Tughluq II


 * Well, you better be specific as you are getting a little vague here yourself! I'm signing this so that little bot doesn't rush around and sign it. --Mattisse 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going by your comment "The Tuglauq (or however its written) are entirely different" - sounds iffy to me, Mr. History & Chip person. --Mattisse 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Where?
Where on your talk page did you reply? --Mattisse 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean those crossed out people? --Mattisse 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The one you did not cross out is the only one I linked. --Mattisse 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is no Firuz Shah without the Tughluq attached -- and you say in the article he is one of the most important. (I feel like it is Friday -- hope I'm not irritating you.) --Mattisse 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K.
But don't you think FA people will want more links? --Mattisse 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * he's not linked anyway. The only linked person is the one you did not cross off. --Mattisse 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only Muhammad bin Tughluq is linked. Is that O.K.? --Mattisse 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Map - Gulbarga
I will look for specific buildings mentioned in your link. --Mattisse 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jama Masjid, Delhi - how about these?
--Mattisse 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends how desperate you are?
I've done some looking at the Commons. --Mattisse 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I cannot keep these new dynasties straight
What seems easy to you is extremely difficult for me. I'm sorry! I am a slow learner. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the third grade you studied them?
I have had a huge crash course in India. A couple years ago a friend wanted me to go with her to Sri Lanka. I couldn't find it in the atlas because I did not even know it was no longer called Ceylon! Does that give you a glimpse of my pathetic state of knowledge regarding that area of the world? Now, of course I am fascinated. But I have a steep learning curve ahead of me. And I already know infinitely more about India (which was practically nothing) now than I did a year ago.

I can't keep the dynasties of India straight. Now I'm supposed to catch on to the Muslim in a few days? Gimme a break! Your trying to be understanding (but with an imperfect mind) friend, --Mattisse 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Chikkamagaluru district
Dinesh, As suggested by you, I have updated the lead-in section of the Chikkamagaluru district article and added few more images as well. I will take up the syntax clean up when I am free -- Amarrg 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta Dynasty
History section may be too long -- just a warning as I don't really know how the FA people thing. Sincerely, --Mattisse 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you use headers when you post?
Lots of times I can't find your post or come across it accidentally as it is crammed in under someone else's post as was your last one. There are probably plenty of your posts I have missed altogether! Also, I'm not sure how the archiving bot handles that, as it archives by date, but you often post several posts up from the bottom under someone else's. Your trying to not miss anything friend, --Mattisse 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - did not have time to work on article
Too much other nonsense going on here. I will try today but I am already worn out, as I have been working on Wiki nonsense for 2 1/2 hours straight -- since 5:45 am -- almost three hours. Tired. --Mattisse 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I know that time is getting short
Still trying to clean things up enough around here so I can concentrate on your article. I promise I will. I am going to take a little rest now for a while, then look at the article and the postings you have made to me about it -- maybe around 11:00 am, if that is O.K. with you. Probably if I have breakfast, I will feel better! Sorry! Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mail
Probably we should deal mostly by mail as I am being massively stalked. --Mattisse 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Chop paras
You mean take out whole paras or reduce size of the sections mentioned by removing about a para or two in amount? --Mattisse 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ellora Jain
Amoghavarsha I of the Rashtrakuta dynasty (814-878) embraced Jainism and was a generous patron of Jain art. There are five Jain cave temples at the northern end of Ellora. . .--Mattisse 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian collaboration of the week news
As mentioned in Wikiproject India newsletter of March 2007, the weekly collaboration of the Indian wikiproject has fallen from its once high feats. This message is to request the users to visit the collaboration page and help rejuvenate it.

The present collaboration of the week is Religion in India. Please go through the talk page of the article to see the proposed changes in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Question ??
Should I just remove what I think should go in Social and Economy? I've been using strike outs on some but that is not an O.K. thing to do now. I don't know what to do. Revert the whole article? --Mattisse 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cut & paste is way too much work
It is hard enough as it is. I'll just stop. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert
I removed the strikouts. It should be O.K. the way it is. --Mattisse 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Judgment call
If you are willing to trust my judgment I am willing to look through History and condense etc. sparingly. --Mattisse 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I added the Jain temple statement & reference. You can modify it as desired. Only two-storied pix of Jain temples on web page, so I am unsure about the three-storied pix we have - other than it is labeled somewhere as a Jain temple. Unfortunately, the Ellora Caves article is poorly referenced. --Mattisse 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked?
Have you looked at Society now? Also, have I ruined any of your footnotes in the recent past? Just want the truth. Your maybe friend, --Mattisse 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it enough for Society?
Should I start on Economy? History? --Mattisse 19:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K.
Will shrink first two paras in Economy. (I think I am good at shrinking -- that's my evaluation of myself.)--Mattisse 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kind of here
Why does your talk page take so long to load? I have that 2 GB ram that you recommended now. --Mattisse 23:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

reply
The prose is excellent and there are 140 references. The logic is clear. Baka man  23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wittling down Economy
For some reason I have more trouble with this section, probably because I do not know what is, or is not, in the sub article. And also, in the past, I worked on this section quite a bit and find it all interesting. I have looked and looked at the first two paras, and I can't part with any of it, except perhaps wittling down the list of place names.

You probably can tell better in the first two paras, as you know what is in the sub article. --Mattisse 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Part added
I like it. It is dramatic and clarifying. --Mattisse 00:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are the one!
Right now I don't have perpespcitve on it. I am too attached. Maybe tomorrow I will have a clearer view. I am so attached to what India was accomplishing economically during those times -- it is so amazing! --Mattisse 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean anywhere -- not just the firstr two paras?
Why does your talk page take forever to load? Your are the technical person!!--Mattisse 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What:! Expert can't explain?`
I ( personlly a no-nothing) think it is because you never archive hardly -- or only under duress. Tomorrow I will tackle Ecomony. --Mattisse 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)