User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. - Ottava Rima

Milton[edit]

To create: (4-5)

Poets to create: (0-4)

Tracts to create: (6-11)

To expand: (2-7)


Created/expanded pages needing leads or needing copyedit work: (27 out of 39)

Possible DYK sets:


Finished DYK sets: (26 pages)

Will update and expand shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up[edit]

If anyone wants to help, post here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Bibliography[edit]

  • Barker, Arthur. Milton and the Puritan Dilemma 1641-1660. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1942.
  • Brisman, Leslie. Milton's Poetry of Choice and Its Romantic Heirs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973.
  • Evans, Robert. Milton's Elisions. Gainsville: University of Flordia Press, 1966.
  • Fichter, Andrew. Poets Historical: Dynastic Epic in the Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.
  • Giamatti, A. Barlett. The Earthly Paradise and the Renaissance Epic. New York: W W Norton & Company, 1966.
  • Goslee, Nancy. Uriel's Eye. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1985.
  • Gregory, Tobias. From Many Gods to One. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
  • Ingram, William and Swaim, Kathleen. A Concordance to Milton's English Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
  • Lares, Jameela. Milton and the Preaching Arts. Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press, 2001.
  • Lawry, Jon. The Shadow of Heaven. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968.
  • McDill, Joseph. Milton and the Pattern of Calvinism. Nashville: The Joint University Libraries, 1942.
  • Miller, Leo. John Milton among the Polygamophiles. New York: Loewenthal Press, 1974.
  • Quint, David. Epic and Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
  • Revard, Stella. Milton and the Tangles of Neaera's Hair. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1997.
  • Shawcross, John. John Milton: The Self and the World. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1993.
  • Sherbo, Arthur. English Poetic Diction From Chaucer to Wordsworth. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1975.
  • Todd, H. J. Some Account of the Life and Writings of John Milton. London, 1826.
  • Stevens, David Harrison. Reference Guide to Milton: From 1800 to the Present Day. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1930.
  • Milton, John. The Complete Poetry and Essential Prose of John Milton. ed. William Kerrigan, John Rumrich, and Stephen Fallon. New York: The Modern Library, 2007.
  • Milton, John. A Variorum Commentary on the Poems of John Milton 5 vols

Collections:

  • A Companion to Milton. Ed. Thomas Corns. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
  • Lewalski, Barbara. "Genre"
  • Hale, John. "The Classical Literary Tradition"
  • Schwartz, Regina. "Milton on the Bible"
  • Parry, Graham. "Literary Baroque and Literary Neoclassicism"
  • Guibbory, Achsah. "Milton and English Poetry"
  • Corns, Thomas. "Milton's English"
  • Brown, Cedric. "The Legacy of the Late Hacobean Period"
  • Keeble, N. H. "Milton and Puritanism"
  • Rumrich, John. "Radical Heterodoxy and Heresy"
  • McColley, Diane. "Milton and Ecology"
  • Hadfield, Andrew. "The English and Other People"
  • Raymond, Joad. "The Literature of Controversy"
  • Corns, Thomas. "'On the Morning of Christ's Nativity', 'Upon the Circumcision' and 'The Passion'"
  • Comus, Lycidas (unnecessary)
  • Wheeler, Elizabeth. "Early Political Prose"
  • Patterson, Annabel. "Milton, Marriage and Divorce"
  • Dzelzainis, Martin. "Republicanism"
  • Knoppers, Laura. "Late Political Prose"
  • Fallon, Stephen. "Paradise Lost in Intellectual History"
  • Loewenstein, David. "The Radical Religious Politics of Paradise Lost"
  • other stuff on PL unnecessary
  • Leonard, John. "Self-Contradicting Puns in Paradise Lost"
  • Achinstein, Sharon. "Samson Agonistes"
  • Kean, Margaret. "Paradise Regained"
  • Stevenson, Kay Gilliland. "Reading Milton, 1674-1800"
  • Kitson, Peter. "Milton: The Romantics and After"
  • Campbell, Gordon. "The Life Records"
  • The Cambridge Companion to Milton. Ed. Dennis Danielson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
  • Dobranski, Stephen. "Milton's social life"
  • Comus and Lycidas (unnecessary)
  • Burrow, Colin. "Poems 1645: the future poet"
  • Dzelzainis, Martin. "Milton's politics"
  • Corns, Thomas. "Milton's prose"
  • Hall, R. F. "Milton's sonnests and his contemporaries"
  • PL (unnecessary)
  • Danielson, Dennis. "The Fall and Milton's theodicy"
  • Carey, John. "Milton's Satan"
  • McColley, Diane. "Milton and the sexes"
  • Christopher, Georgia. "Milton and the reforming spirit"
  • Radzinowicz, Mary Ann. "How Milton read the bible: the case ofParadise Regained
  • Bennet, Joan. "Reading samson Agonistes"
  • Von Maltzahn, Nicholas. "Milton's readers"
  • Kerrigan, William. "Milton's place in intellectual history"
  • Seimens, R. G. "Milton's work and life: selected studies and resources"

RCC comments[edit]

Ottava, Marskell left some comments on my talk page regarding RCC. Sandy, Karanacs and Malleus also commented. I responded to them but I was wondering what you thought about all this since you helped so much in the last peer review. Please let me know if you are in agreement with them - I disagreed. See [1] - Sandy's post is just below it. NancyHeise talk 04:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mushrooms redux[edit]

Sorry I didn't get back to this, but I had a rather lengthy and involved FAC wrapping up. Interesting journal, although it predates the clarification of the identity of the hallucinogenic fungus as Amanita muscaria. I am reading some stuff and anything else which turns up I am grateful. Mushrooms are elusive to get mateiral on... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Milton again[edit]

Good... I'm still working on them. In the meantime Johnbod has put up a page on John Baptist Medina, the earliest illustrator of Paradise Lost.. perhaps you could tie that into the hook as well. Lithoderm 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Profuse apologies[edit]

After starting the entire Milton thing, I feel terrible that I haven't been able to work on it. I have just gotten out of the hospital, though. I won't be able to edit Wikipedia much in the coming weeks. Thanks for your hard work on the Milton articles. I'll try to do some work on them when I can. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reply[edit]

Couldn't you add a few words to the unexpanded sections of John Milton's politics and John Milton's religion? I'd be happier about promoting these ones if you did so. As a general rule, I don't promote articles that have unexpanded sections. Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments about John Milton's early life - you cannot unilaterally decide to relink an article you have submitted. Two reviewers have now looked at it and decided it is of questionable eligibility, please respect their views. I must ask you to reverse your edit. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how it was my entry, all guidelines point that it is against the rules to actually edit it in such a way. Seeing as how you are applying standards that are not part of the guidelines, I wonder how you think you have any ground to make such a demand. Ottava Rima (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, there is a simple principle at stake here, and one that every DYK contributor must abide by. That principle is that a user cannot approve his own hooks.
You may well feel that your article is eligible, but if you cannot persuade reviewers of that, I'm afraid you have no choice but to accept their decision. It's no different for you than it is for anyone else. If you won't reverse your edit, I will only have to do it myself, so I'd appreciate it if you saved me the trouble. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, fine, take it to AN or anywhere else if you like. However, I should warn you that if you are going to start making trouble for DYK reviewers, good luck finding someone to review any of your hooks in future, because reviewing submissions is a very time-consuming job that we do voluntarily as a service to contributors, it's not something we are obliged to do. So I suggest to you that you desist from this confrontational approach, for your own benefit. You can't expect to get it all your way all the time, it's not how this project works. Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass is correct. DYK is a privilege, not a right. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are still intent on going ahead with an AN thread Ottava, and I hope you won't as I can't see it being of benefit to anyone. However, if you are determined to go ahead with it, please let me know as I will obviously want to participate. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely not something that should go to AN. There are almost always more DYK hooks proposed than there is room to run them, and some don't get run for various reasons. If you disagree with the reason, discuss on your talk pages; if you need more eyes, discuss on the DYK talk page. Then let it go. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, look, the hook which contains that article will not be featured for at least 24 hours, so I will take another look at it tomorrow to make a definitive decision. Please don't get your hopes up however, because ATM I am not at all inclined to promote it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, you take it to AN then, because quite frankly, after spending half the freaking day trying to accomodate you and your damned hooks, I have finally run out of patience and will welcome the opportunity to expose your ill-mannered attempts to bully and coerce the very people who have been bending over backwards trying to assist you. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Milton's poetic style[edit]

Is this one you're interested in -- John Milton's poetic style? I noticed it's up for speedy deletion and thought you might have had someone create it as a placeholder. Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone spammed it into being. I have to expand Paradise Regained before I can think about creating something for that page, but as of right now, it seems that I would have to establish a complete page or it will get complaints. Mostly, the page is supposed to discuss Miltonic blank verse along with a little bit on Miltonic inversions. (The final hook is supposed to be - ... that Miltonic verse, a style which influenced centuries of poetry, is found within the final three poetic works of John Milton, Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, and Samson Agonistes? ) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, it was supposed to include a note about blindness and Milton's later life, but I lost about 12 hours through delays and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll delete it for now then. I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't be trashing something you intended to work on quite shortly. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I cannot come through on the Blake...[edit]

...and am very sorry for that. I have been ill since about midway through last week, and now there is late work that I must rush to make up before the end of the semester. I swear this isn't merely an excuse or a cop-out.. as I said, I convinced Johnbod to put up John Baptist Medina, so hopefully that will do in its place. My apologies, Lithoderm 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is always another day and another time to do that. Lets just coordinate the effort. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Milton's religion[edit]

Updated DYK query On 8 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Milton's religion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was Milton's religion? Islam? Shinto? It's a well-written article, but we should inform the reader more explicitly of this rather basic fact - right now, the words "Christian" and "Christianity" are missing altogether. - Biruitorul Talk 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Well, since it is his 400th birthday, his DNB biography, a nice starting point, is up today. We also have this and this of some interest. So we know he was baptised an Anglican and remained one as a young man, after which he sort of went his own way. Anyway, you know more than I do on the matter, but I just wanted to point out some directions the article could take. - Biruitorul Talk 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Milton's antiprelatical tracts[edit]

Updated DYK query On 8 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Milton's antiprelatical tracts, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Of Reformation[edit]

Updated DYK query On 8 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Of Reformation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Animadversions[edit]

Updated DYK query On 8 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Animadversions, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Reason of Church-Government Urged against Prelaty[edit]

Updated DYK query On 8 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Reason of Church-Government Urged against Prelaty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Apology for Smectymnuus[edit]

Updated DYK query On 8 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Apology for Smectymnuus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

This comment is entirely uncalled for, unwarranted as far as I can tell, and beneath anyone who holds this Project in high regard, serving no purpose other than to wound and escalate an unfortunate dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is uncalled for, because it is 100% true. Let Gimmetrow try and block Malleus or delete one of Malleus's pages. He will be blocked almost immediately. He was already blocked for edit warring, which rarely, rarely, happens to respected admin. Gimmetrow lost any clout with his recent behavior. If you want, we could push for a desysopping so he will never have the ability to test this out. However, I don't think that is necessary. Also, hold the project in high regards? I don't think harassing Malleus every chance he gets is really holding the project in high regards. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many pages does this dispute span? Gimme did not follow Malleus around, first of all. Second of all, you have zero chance of getting him desysopped, so being hypocritical and throwing out empty threats is only serving to further stir up drama. If you have some constructive comments to make or some diffs to back up your claims, feel free to add them to my notebook, otherwise, Sandy is right. The smack talk isn't helping the situation. It's uncalled for just as me claiming that you could be indef blocked for harassment and disruptive editing across both the article and project space is uncalled for. Is it true? Yes. Are you carrying on such behavior? Not that I've seen, but I've also not seen Gimmetrow threaten to block (I thought I had, but that's been clarified) or delete anything. لennavecia 01:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My dear, you don't know if a desysop would happen unless it went into action. As I stated already, Gimmetrow has no ability to attack Malleus right now in any kind of damaging way. I think its interesting how you just tried to switch a defense to an offense, and play up Gimmetrow as a martyr. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the bullshit. You're exaggerating a side. Me pointing that out is not an example of me switching sides. And I actually do know that a desysop won't happen. He's not abused his tools, and the abuse of position is neither extreme enough to warrant a desysop nor something the community cares about. Look around Ottava. I know you're up to speed on the various major dramas on this project. It practically takes an act of congress to get an admin desysopped for even the most gross, long-term pattern of abuses. I'm dropping the situation because there's nothing but drama-mongering going on at this point. Any chance there was for any sort of resolution went out the window when various parties couldn't shut their mouths, so to speak. لennavecia 04:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the ability to fling curse words on talk page come before or after you were granted the ability to predict the future and know outcomes? And I've seen many admin desysopped in my time. It only takes one person to do that, when it comes down to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After. لennavecia 06:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, please stop. This is the kind of behavior you are supposed to be trying to rise above....remember, no more escalating of personal disputes? Comment on content, not on contributors? This particular dispute does not even directly concern you (other than as a wikifriend of one of the parties), so please drop it. Provide Malleus all the support that you would like, but let's not attack the other side. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs, please tell me how talking about a curse word and talking about the actions of an administrator are not talking about content? I never once said she was stupid, said that she was an idiot, etc. I don't talk about people. I don't judge them. They can be the best, smartest, most virtuous people, but I still think they are wrong. And this is defensive, not offensive. Not once have I posted on Gimmetrow's page. Not once have I went through his edits. Nothing. It is simply his attacking of Malleus, and my saying that if he attempts to do anything serious, he most likely will be desysopped. That is a fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to your comments to Jennavecia, but about Gimmetrow (and to a lesser extent, Sandy). There is no way in the world that Gimmetrow is going to be desysopped over this or any other theoretical actions that he might take, and your continuing insistence that he could be is getting disruptive. You are attributing motives and essentially trying to predict what Gimmetrow will do and what the consequences will be and that is completely unnecessary. Malleus can fight his own battles very well, but this is a battle that can best be resolved by everyone involved letting it go. Let's give Malleus a nice peaceful break and when/if he comes back we can move on with our lives. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly believe that Gimmetrow wont be desysopped for using his admin powers on Malleus, have Gimmetrow block Malleus. He will be desysopped faster than you could apologize. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Milton's politics[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Milton's politics, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eikonoklastes[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eikonoklastes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Defensio Secunda[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Defensio Secunda, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for A Treatise of Civil Power[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Treatise of Civil Power, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Milton's reception history[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Milton's reception history, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for On the Morning of Christ's Nativity[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article On the Morning of Christ's Nativity, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Passion (Milton)[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Passion (Milton), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Arcades (Milton)[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arcades (Milton), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for L'Allegro[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Allegro, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Il Penseroso[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Il Penseroso, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship guidelines[edit]

Now that the flame war between us has settled, I feel it is safe for me to leave comments on your mentorship guidelines, which I have done. These comments are not intended to criticize you or start a new fight, but just to point out areas for improvement, since it seems that you have ongoing goals you are working towards. If you see the comments as an attempt to look for a fight, please understand that is not what I intended. I am leaving those comments both to give you suggestions (which that page appears to be soliciting) and to document what happened. Unfortunately, because of your previous comments, I feel I will never be able to work with you until I have at least seen you apologize to Suntag and myself, but I have at least tried to leave some neutral remarks. If you disagree, feel free to remove them. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. - Ottava Rima

Milton[edit]

Finished DYK sets: (26 pages)

Will update and expand shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Milton Bibliography[edit]

  • Barker, Arthur. Milton and the Puritan Dilemma 1641-1660. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1942.
  • Brisman, Leslie. Milton's Poetry of Choice and Its Romantic Heirs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973.
  • Evans, Robert. Milton's Elisions. Gainsville: University of Flordia Press, 1966.
  • Fichter, Andrew. Poets Historical: Dynastic Epic in the Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.
  • Giamatti, A. Barlett. The Earthly Paradise and the Renaissance Epic. New York: W W Norton & Company, 1966.
  • Goslee, Nancy. Uriel's Eye. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1985.
  • Gregory, Tobias. From Many Gods to One. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
  • Ingram, William and Swaim, Kathleen. A Concordance to Milton's English Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
  • Lares, Jameela. Milton and the Preaching Arts. Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press, 2001.
  • Lawry, Jon. The Shadow of Heaven. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968.
  • McDill, Joseph. Milton and the Pattern of Calvinism. Nashville: The Joint University Libraries, 1942.
  • Miller, Leo. John Milton among the Polygamophiles. New York: Loewenthal Press, 1974.
  • Quint, David. Epic and Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
  • Revard, Stella. Milton and the Tangles of Neaera's Hair. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1997.
  • Shawcross, John. John Milton: The Self and the World. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1993.
  • Sherbo, Arthur. English Poetic Diction From Chaucer to Wordsworth. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1975.
  • Todd, H. J. Some Account of the Life and Writings of John Milton. London, 1826.
  • Stevens, David Harrison. Reference Guide to Milton: From 1800 to the Present Day. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1930.
  • Milton, John. The Complete Poetry and Essential Prose of John Milton. ed. William Kerrigan, John Rumrich, and Stephen Fallon. New York: The Modern Library, 2007.
  • Milton, John. A Variorum Commentary on the Poems of John Milton 5 vols

Collections:

  • A Companion to Milton. Ed. Thomas Corns. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
  • Lewalski, Barbara. "Genre"
  • Hale, John. "The Classical Literary Tradition"
  • Schwartz, Regina. "Milton on the Bible"
  • Parry, Graham. "Literary Baroque and Literary Neoclassicism"
  • Guibbory, Achsah. "Milton and English Poetry"
  • Corns, Thomas. "Milton's English"
  • Brown, Cedric. "The Legacy of the Late Hacobean Period"
  • Keeble, N. H. "Milton and Puritanism"
  • Rumrich, John. "Radical Heterodoxy and Heresy"
  • McColley, Diane. "Milton and Ecology"
  • Hadfield, Andrew. "The English and Other People"
  • Raymond, Joad. "The Literature of Controversy"
  • Corns, Thomas. "'On the Morning of Christ's Nativity', 'Upon the Circumcision' and 'The Passion'"
  • Comus, Lycidas (unnecessary)
  • Wheeler, Elizabeth. "Early Political Prose"
  • Patterson, Annabel. "Milton, Marriage and Divorce"
  • Dzelzainis, Martin. "Republicanism"
  • Knoppers, Laura. "Late Political Prose"
  • Fallon, Stephen. "Paradise Lost in Intellectual History"
  • Loewenstein, David. "The Radical Religious Politics of Paradise Lost"
  • other stuff on PL unnecessary
  • Leonard, John. "Self-Contradicting Puns in Paradise Lost"
  • Achinstein, Sharon. "Samson Agonistes"
  • Kean, Margaret. "Paradise Regained"
  • Stevenson, Kay Gilliland. "Reading Milton, 1674-1800"
  • Kitson, Peter. "Milton: The Romantics and After"
  • Campbell, Gordon. "The Life Records"
  • The Cambridge Companion to Milton. Ed. Dennis Danielson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
  • Dobranski, Stephen. "Milton's social life"
  • Comus and Lycidas (unnecessary)
  • Burrow, Colin. "Poems 1645: the future poet"
  • Dzelzainis, Martin. "Milton's politics"
  • Corns, Thomas. "Milton's prose"
  • Hall, R. F. "Milton's sonnests and his contemporaries"
  • PL (unnecessary)
  • Danielson, Dennis. "The Fall and Milton's theodicy"
  • Carey, John. "Milton's Satan"
  • McColley, Diane. "Milton and the sexes"
  • Christopher, Georgia. "Milton and the reforming spirit"
  • Radzinowicz, Mary Ann. "How Milton read the bible: the case ofParadise Regained
  • Bennet, Joan. "Reading samson Agonistes"
  • Von Maltzahn, Nicholas. "Milton's readers"
  • Kerrigan, William. "Milton's place in intellectual history"
  • Seimens, R. G. "Milton's work and life: selected studies and resources"

Please move your conversation off Awadewit's talk page[edit]

User:Awadewit just got out of the hospital - the last thing she needs is to have all these messages between you and User:Politizer on DYK that have nothing to do with her on her talk page. Please move your conversation elsewhere for her sake, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No where to move it to. Awadewit was part of the Milton thing. Politizer felt the need to respond. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Politizer has removed the messages in question. I was unclear in my message above - I orginally meant to please continue the discussion elsewhere (i.e. one of your talk pages or the DYK talk page). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Politizer has gone against Talk Page guidelines in doing so. Only Awadewit has the right to remove comments wholesale from her talk page, and only the individual person who posted the message to begin with has the right to remove theirs. This lack of decorum and procedure is troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the conversation because that is what I understood Ruhrfisch's request to be. If Ruhrfisch only meant that I should continue the conversation elsewhere and leave the previous conversation untouched, then my action was the result of a miscommunication, not a malicious lack of decorum. (And I find it funny that you have in the past accused me of being a newbie and not knowing anything about anything, whereas now you're accusing me of purposely going against Talk Page guidelines...apparently you think I read up on WP guidelines really quickly just so that I could maliciously flaunt them?) I was removing the conversation because the user in question is having medical problems and may not, as Ruhrfisch suggested, have the time or energy to deal with it herself; if you have a problem with my actions there, you are always welcome to put the conversation back.
If you still have problems with my editing, please stop pussy-footing around and just open up an RfC on me right now. I'm not kidding. I'm tired of your bullshit, and if you want to pursue this then take it to RfC. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not clear in my original request and what I said could be interpreted either way. Sorry. Idid not mean to open a new can of worms - I have no problem with the removal of the dispute from Awadewit's talk page. Politizer's edit summary made clear what was being removed and why. Since this is a Wiki and anyone who wants to can look at the diff or old version, the information is not really lost, just removed for now. My goal on all of this was to make life easier for Awadewit. I also hope that your dispute with each other can end. I am signing off on this now, if you need me please ask on my talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Weisner DYK[edit]

As I understand it, you only need one person who feels a hook is DYK worthy. Why don't you move it to the next page? Only the nominator is ineligible to perform such an action.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because only Admin are supposed to be doing such. Admin select what goes on the main page. I am not an admin on this Wiki, only on others. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it[edit]

Ottava, maybe take a break and give others a chance, eh. You are one of the few people getting angry and picking a fight on Cas's talk in a long while. Does that tell you anything. "I've only been gone from DYK for two weeks and it seems like everything went backwards". Do you really expect anybody to take such a statement seriously? Do you really hold everybody else in such low regard. C'mon. Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to forward you emails of those who messaged me to tell me that they feel the same exact way and feel that people are trying to push things that are just not right? I don't say things lightly. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I can guess who sent you thoes mails, and I could no more give a fuck about their openions than I could about yours at the moment. You are being used as a stalking horse, and advantage is being taken of the fact that you are on a high from the Milton work.Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, you don't say things lightly, except that you're going to have a topic ban of me from DYK. What ever happened to that? Did you forget? If you still want to do it, I'm here waiting.
Next time you decide to threaten me, actually go through with it. Otherwise, quit wasting my time. —Politizer talk/contribs 04:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are trying to taunt me over the fact that I have other things to deal with before getting you removed from DYK over your constant actions that have bothered a lot of people? And you think that is not being incivil? You sure have a strange perception about what is acceptable or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, I am sorry to see that you are not taking well-meaning advice. I've noticed lately that you've reverted to the pattern that has gotten you taken to ANI in the past and almost banned. I am assuming from this [2] and your disregard for the recent times that Ceoil and I have tried to caution you that you no longer consider yourself under mentorship. I think you are an excellent content contributor, and I sincerely hope you stop listening to whatever advice you appear to be getting from email; I am afraid that if you continue the tendentiousness (and at times, incivility) from the past few days that you may end up back at ANI, and I doubt things will go as well this time. Good luck. Karanacs (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. You are an excellent content contributor Ottava, but you need to be more sensitive to the people you work with and stop making wild accusation based on half truths, misunderstandings and ego. I was deeply offended at your reaction to my work on the Lucy poems, both because I had though you were a friend, and because I used to value your openion. But at the end of the day so what, any bad blood between us is history at the drop of a hat, if I see sincerity. But.but.but. Others you have hurt: Politizer is an outstanding asset to DYK, and my experience of him there has always been positive - he took a strong in a few submissions I made, and was very helpful in structuring a few hooks for me. You attacked Sandy out of nowhere last night with what can only be described as a self serving rant. You just above treathened to reveal private email correspondances to prove a point. And then there is this. If you profess and act like you dont care about people, well don't be surprised if people respond in kind, though I'm glad at least you realised Matisse was using you. All this is not fatal in my book, it happens, but don't let it continue. Work with us, you know construtive input from you is valued. However egostical ranting and dismissiveness bitternessis not. My advice is keep up your consistantly impressive article work, but stay away from non mainspace for a while. You are, as always, welcome to mail me. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. 1. You were my mentors voluntarily, for one month, and I relied on others beyond you. 2. You were only there because of my political enemies at the time, who are now non-existent. 3. None of the emails that I would have mentioned are necessarily private, nor would I reveal without talking to the individuals first. 4. My "tenditiousness" is non-existent. If they took me to ANI, it would cause a huge backlash against the cliquishness that has had DYK almost removed completely three times before, and those times I worked my political strings to get quite a few people to keep that from happening. 5. One editor wanted to derail a preapproved project and introduce new criteria, while another editor made it clear that they weren't going off the criteria is rather ridiculous, especially when the whole system was going through IAR anyway and had multiple admin review it first and contact me directly with approval. I really don't respect such actions, nor do I think they deserve to be done on the encyclopedia, especially when I have received many complaints about it happening to others. 6. I don't like Mattisse nor ever have. I don't have dealings with Mattisse. My comments are not in support of Mattisse. My comments only dealt with three people: Malleus, Gimmetrow, and myself. 7. Ceoil, you threw a fit about captioning. I don't think I can work with people who don't have an open enough mind about the aesthetics of formatting. I provided the content, thats all you really want from me. I'm moving on to other areas. 8. This isn't about making friends. This is about an encyclopedia. My job is only to work on the encyclopedia. This is why I am perfectly capable of talking and working with people who I despise. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"One editor wanted to derail a preapproved project and introduce new criteria" – Please, give a concrete example of a single criterion that I or anyone else at DYK held your hook up to that hasn't been used before. Really. Because I guarantee you that every criterion that I or anyone else raised when talking about your Milton hooks, I can provide you with at least 5 diffs of when I have used those criteria with others. If you're gonna make these accusations, then step up to the line and back them up with something real. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"that hasn't been used before" Being used before is not equivalent to being used before in a proper and rightful manner. Otherwise, no action could ever be questioned as improper. Now, if you look at the other Milton hooks, many of them did not meet the 5x expansion according to your view of it, or most of my other DYK expansions. But you know, having over 20 of them that were expansion based I guess is nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see an example of me "introducing new criteria" there, so it looks like either you've changed your mind about what you're accusing me of or you're just a little scatterbrained today. But no worries. If you want to accuse me more, please do, but I'll say right now, from now on I have nothing more to say to you unless it's at RfC, the village pump, or wherever else you want to try to get me banned. If you're not trying to ban me, I have no more reason to respond to you. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More insults, Politizer? Do you know how many admin watch my talk page? I could probably name at least thirty. It is rather obvious that when you apply criteria that is not part of the actual ruling, then thats "new". However, it doesn't matter. If you keep up these actions you may just get blocked instead. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, you cant be helped, you cant listen and your personality, I now realise is septic. I'm cutting you loose, and I regret that you think so little of the people who genuinly tried to help and I was sucked in for so long. With all due respect, "I relied on others beyond you" -You conceted duplicitious bitter twat. "You were only there because of my political enemies at the time, who are now non-existent" - So you admit to being a liar and a user; see last cmt. "None of the emails that I would have mentioned are necessarily private" - Remind me and anybody else never to trust you. "My "tenditiousness" is non-existent" - You have no self awarness. "One editor wanted to derail" - Oh whatever, I can only stomach only so much bullshit at once. "I don't like Mattisse nor ever have" - Yeah but she palyed you like a violin, but your ego is too fragile and you are too suspetpical to praise to realise. "the aesthetics of formatting" - Gimme a break, aesthetics had nothing to do with your argument. As so often with people with narrow horisons you fell back on rules to guide you. Remember you said FA=MOS. You stupid stupid fool to isolate yourself like this. But your choice. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its your habit to run to AN/I. I would welcome that, in this instance. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you persist in posting here? You attacked me and cussed me out for saying that we should obey the caption standards at MoS. Then you went and attacked me even more for standing by the standards. So, why are you still here? Unwatch the page and go. "You conceted duplicitious bitter twat." What? You mean that you think I should only work with you? There were many, many admin who came to this page or who watched the watch page. It was never just you two, especially when 6 other admin immediately said they would keep an eye on things also, with a few more who weren't admins. "- Remind me and anybody else never to trust you." As I stated before, I only reveal emails after I get approval. I haven't revealed any without approval. So, what are you even going on about? "Yeah but she plyed you like a violin." Really? Because I don't remember anything that she was doing because of me, nor had aid because of me. "As so often with people with narrow horisons you fell back on rules to guide you." Not the rules. How dare I, right? "Remember you said FA=MOS." Hence we have things like FAR when the MoS and FA guidelines are updated. And I haven't isolated myself at all. Hell, two of the people who use to go after me are currently my friends, which leaves only one person who is really out for my head. I also have a lot of people who work with me on multiple projects. I talk to about 30 different admin regularly. I really don't know how you can say I am isolated. Hell, Sandy complains that I am being corrupted by "backroom deals". So yeah, you can say whatever you want. It doesn't mean its true.
"Why do you persist in posting here?" Because I stood up for you and you threw it back in my face, dissed multiple people I respect and admire, reverted me and left horrible msgs on my talk, admitted that you "despised" me and explicatly said you only ever used me, and that you have 30 other mysterious other more valuable aides. You have said now you dont care about people, but I do. "People who I despise". Thats why. Ceoil ([[User
Um. 1. I said I despise Mattisse. I never said I despise you. 2. I never attacked you. 3. I'm not here for friends, I'm here to work on pages. I think I'm justified in that approach. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't back peddel out of this one. I'm not a fool, so drop that attempt. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to continue posting nonsensical claims like that, what do you hope to prove? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Ceoil, I don't have an ego. I don't have pride. If I did, I would have bothered to push harder against you on Lucy. I rather don't care enough about anything to have an ego. I have my work, and I am always moving on to the next area. Also, your comment about AN/I is rather strange. I only started two pages there, and one was a request for oversight. I only mentioned AN, which isn't about banning, blocking, or anything like that. Its an area to request an admin to do what admin can do, i.e. edit on protected pages, work on the main page, other issues, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I missed thre bit about "with people who I despise". Despise? Classy. "I don't have an ego", you have the most fragile easily bent egos of anybody I have ever come accross. You are a little boy begging for approval, and when it doesn't come: spite. Remember its all there in the aN archives; admin after admin crying "Burn the witch". So I'm past my usefullness, and you have 30 admins protectively watching you page. Grow up. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I have such a massive ego, how come I haven't attacked you, cussed you out, etc etc? Some of the things that have been lodged against me just in this section are downright nasty, but my responses have had nothing to desparage the intelligence of the individuals, no cussing, nothing at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Logical fallacy. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that some kind of argument? I like a single of the 30 admins that apparently watch you page to stand up for you now. Can you arrange that, using one of your back channels? Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother? I have other priorities. Now, if you want to persist, you can. However, I'm not going to respond unless there is something that interests me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luan Da's FAC[edit]

Hi, I think you are opposing because you believe that the article still lacks details about the life of Luan, and that is due to its lack of sources (i.e. the current sources do not cover these aspects). To better explain my comments to your view, could you take a look at User talk:Nousernamesleft/archive7#Additional resources for Luan Da, which contains my cursory translations of Zhang and Xuhui for his perusal for the article. Hopefully, that can help make it clearer why I state that other sources have nothing new that Zhang, Xuhui, and Watson (translation of Record of the Grand Historian) could not provide. Furthermore, if you feel that something is substantially lacking from the article on Luan, perhaps these translations can help to pinpoint what they are, so that they can be raised for Nousernames left to act on. Jappalang (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I made it clear, I am opposing it for the same reason as I opposed it last time. I don't believe it is long enough to be an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... okay. Could you clarify that on the FAC? A copy and paste of your response above would help to clarify that your oppose is based on the length of the article (a brief article that might suggest a less-than-comprehensive article), rather than a lack of sources. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Note[edit]

Aahhh... yes, you are correct. Well, it was definitely far too long and jumbled. Now I see why I thought it was a copy-vio, since it was copied-and-pasted from another article. A paring down is in order. Thank you for your message. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reason[edit]

I see what you're saying. I guess my issue is for articles with several templates, navboxes, infoboxes, etc. and a couple sentences, the result will be the article would need a likely 20x+ expansion rather than a 5x - or that the addition of these things can allow for minimal textual expansion. That's what my worry was when reading over that. Wizardman 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NLT[edit]

There was indeed a post at AN/I, and the names were protected by a court order - we were instructed not to post them, and the AN/I thread agreed. I hope this answers your question. You might also want to know that WP:NLT does not mention anything about the matters at hand. Regards, — neuro(talk) 21:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thread is here. — neuro(talk) 21:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Yeah, it sucks - I can see both sides. I commiserate as there are stubs I started that I just couldn't get up to critical size. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Grammar[edit]

Hi, Ottava. Thanks for your question about my grammar correction to the "Middlemarch" page. By the way, yours is the first message I've received from another Wikipedian, so let me know if I'm responding correctly. Yes, the combination of "but which are" is better grammar, in this particular sentence, than just "but are". Without the "which", it's not precisely clear, grammar-wise, what is being referred to, even though the previous part of the sentence contains what's being referred to. I'm not a grammar scholar, but that much I do know. I may be nit-picking, since "but are" more or less still works, but adding "which" is the more common sentence structure I've been reading all my life. JohnSawyer (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hello, Ottava Rima. You have new messages at Backslash Forwardslash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blockquotes[edit]

Thanks for the note about blockquotes. I don't have Dr. Pda's script installed so couldn't see what it counted and what it didn't. As indicated on WT:DYK, I would be okay with blockquotes being included, but after some thought I do not feel strongly enough about it to support or oppose, which is why I indented my initial comment. --JayHenry (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, as I indicated it's not a big deal to me. Part of it's where I'm coming from. I've started over 80 articles and only had 56 or so picked as DYKs. I don't really have a problem when one of my articles doesn't qualify. That sort of thing isn't a big deal to me. Since I've already had 56, I don't feel like it's "unfair" if I don't get to 57. Just my personal perspective. --JayHenry (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Milton's relationships[edit]

Updated DYK query On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Milton's relationships, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce[edit]

Updated DYK query On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Judgement of Martin Bucer Concerning Divorce[edit]

Updated DYK query On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Judgement of Martin Bucer Concerning Divorce, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tetrachordon[edit]

Updated DYK query On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tetrachordon, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Colasterion[edit]

Updated DYK query On 15 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colasterion, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

criteria for assessment: WP:Poetry[edit]

Recently the Poetry Project's talk has had a discussion on what criteria should be used to assess poems, poets, and collections, and I would love to hear any insight you might have on the subject, as so much of your work falls into this category. The project's active members is running quite low, so any imput from you might help us come up with a more defined set of rules that would extend beyond simply me and Midnightdreary. 

 On an unrelated note, I was flipping through Vendler's discussion of Keat's odes to find that she uses Keat's drawing of the urn for her discussion of Ode on Indolence, and I was wondering if you would think it overkill if I were to put the image on the Ode on Indolence article as well. Mrathel (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again Mrathel (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Hey Ottava. According to the comments section on the poll, Lar received an off-wiki request to close per WP:SNOW. Lar hasn't and made it clear that it isn't quite ready for closure. I just was wondering if you could chip in with your opinion on how long this should go for. Most of the DYK regulars have voted, but I'm sure there are more editors who have an opinion. Obviously we don't want it going on for a month, I'm thinking before the weekend. What do you think? \ / (⁂ | ※) 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Miltonic-based sextet"[edit]

I saw that you added this term in Urn, and i was just wondering if this information is clearly stated in the Gittings piece, as I can't find an online reference to the term but would love to use the source for the Indolence article. Mrathel (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly helps when I change Sextet to sestet:) Mrathel (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello Ottava Rima, I currently have Over the Edge (1999) at FAC, and I saw your comment on Lockdown (2008)'s FAC that you usually need 4 or 5 copyedits. My question is, do you know of any copyeditors that I may request a copyedit for? Thanks.--SRX 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many great ones that watch my page and may help out. However, to give you a run down on users who you might be able to get to help if you ask nicely - User:Karanacs, User:Tony1, and User:Moni3. Each have different backgrounds and specialties that they focus on at FAC. However, they tend to spend the most time at FAC and would know what would be acceptable or not. If I ever needed quick advice, I would go to these three without thinking twice. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I will ask them nicely, you've been great help ;)--SRX 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Gnomes and Milton[edit]

No problem. I have some backlogged projects to work on, such as User:Lithoderm/Inuit culture and User:Lithoderm/Native American art, and so and don't have my undivided attention to devote to the Blake illustrations- therefore what I think I'll do is split off a section about the "On the Morning of Christ's Nativity" illustrations and nominate them in the special section they have for Christmas themed DYKs.. Lithoderm 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you smiling at me for a reason? I'm hard at work on the article right now, fyi. Of does this have something to do with The Tyger? Lithoderm 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See? See? I think I prefer the blandly enigmatic Ottava to the "Hurled headlong flaming from th' ethereal sky" Ottava, but really! Lithoderm 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just where did you add it? I Think that that could be added into the main Blake article, or into an article on Blake's illustrations... Please comment here:[3], by the way... Lithoderm 17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Blake's Illustrations of On the Morning of Christ's Nativity is ready. Do you want a co-nom? Lithoderm 23:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I can help, but can't neglect my side of the Atlantic much longer. I'd like to see the rest of his works on Wikisource filled in, too; there are some major gaps. Do you have any ideas for a hook? Lithoderm 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson[edit]

Saw your note to SG. You seem to be presuming that the puff piece was written by the book's author rather than a bookmonger's pimp. Not that I've read the book yet either, but it may be a tad premature to blame the biographer. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a literary critic, I'm not a fan of popular biographies. They are intended to sell books, not be critically correct. So they involve a lot of speculation. Johnson's mental health and physical health are a delicate thing, and easily exploited. I'm mostly warning Sandy in case someone starts trying to add incorrect information about Johnson's TS or similar things to the various pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fine intention. There are many such paving the Road. Take a care where you tread, lest you should find yourself Lost. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings[edit]

Ottava, thanks for your note, I was glad to read it. We do disagree every so often, but so it goes. Happy holidays to you too. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm searching around again for a lead image for Lucy; I suppose she deserves one ;). 1 2 Not this weekend, but I think we should go back together and address the points raised by Ruhrfish at the peer review as a team. Before we do that, I will go back and look at some of the concerns you raised earlier. Oh, and I never congratulted you on Milton.....Well done! Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the first one is free and can be used during an FAC, unfortuantely. The second should be easily available and might be at the commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might ask Johnbod for help with selecting an image. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod is suggesting this (I quite like it) or finding an early Millais (have very mixed views of Millais). What do you think? Note I'm not goind to force anything on you, I want you to be satisfied with the page when we take to FAC. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I think it would fit well at least with "Three years". On that note, any dark images with the moon sinking behind a house? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'A moon sinking behind a house' sounds like German romantism to me. Let me think. I'll upload the Samuel Palmer to see how it looks. We can decide from there. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've convinced me...[edit]

If Seth's RfA passes, do you think we should consider this ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahahaha! Sigh. I would need at least one year of full editing on this account (so, not until after this January), 6 months since my last block, a few more FAs, and possibly to move up in status on other projects first. Plus< i'd need to show examples of when I process C:SD and IP blocks for vandalism. The area that I would be best would be in enforcement, to be honest. Regardless, hahahahaha. 23:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I've seen you around and read your remarks on many of our noticeboards. I find your approach refreshing and clear. I do not always agree (like right now, for instance ;) ); however, you express yourself succinctly. A very good quality in an admin. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to you[edit]

Hi Ottava: thanks so much for leaving a note on my talk page (I think my favorite thing about Wikipedia is getting that little "You have new messages" line). Anyway, I replied to you. I apologize that my reply got a little long winded; but, as you said: it might be a little philopohical! I hope my comments clear about my support of the candidate. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Curious[edit]

Hi Ottava - sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier (in re to your note on my talkpage). In response to your first question, yes I agree that markup and the nice formatting is part of what a good-looking online encyclopedia is comprised of. However, the main portion of what outsiders will read, and receive pertinent information from, is the chunk of prose itself. A long while back, consensus formed that the creation of new main prose was the most important part of of a new/newly improved article, relating to the DYK process. Thus there was a requirement set on the main informational prose, rather than including all formatting such as infoboxes and links. I agree with that, because the addition of readable text is the main method of expanding an article's usefulness and broad coverage on a subject. And since that poll at WT:DYK shouldn't be trying to entirely reshape this foundational consensus (that only prose is important), I said that I usually "strongly oppose" file size calculations – counting everything (not just prose) is opposite of former consensus, which would be upsetting the apple cart to try to entirely rewrite the rules at this time. Also, I half-agree with your logic about the markup being expanded fivefold along with prose - even in that event, I'm afraid that it would get complicated and confusing pretty quick if that system were to be implemented. Anyways, I still stand by my comments - that we should stick with the prose-size rules and count only those characters (which isn't that hard if one has a computer application or java script installed that is readily available). An article's main prose is what makes up its broadness of a topic; markup and pretty wikifying should come with the territory, and the increase of markup with a 5x expansion can definitely vary from case to case.

Apologies if I rambled too much, but those are my (pared down) thoughts. ;-) Regards, and happy holidays! Jamie☆S93 20:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)[edit]

The above review has been restarted. Since you commented on it before the restart, I thought to inform you.--WillC 07:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades[edit]

Thanks for the accolades and comments and inputs on my 9-article DYK hook. I believe this is a record now from the previous 8-article hook held by User:Gatoclass for eleven months. --Doug Coldwell talk 14:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future projects[edit]

The prophetic books would be fun, but I think we should focus on improving articles related to the Songs of Innocence and Experience first. I seem to be losing the battle at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#http:.2F.2Fwww.shmoop.com.2F- and I keep removing a link to here from The Tyger. If we improve those articles, there's no way that anyone can argue that "Shmoop" has more content than Wikipedia on specific articles... I'm surprised that you never commented in that thread, by the way- I thought that craptacular stuff like this (on London, 1802):


...would get you "all riled up". Oh well. Lithoderm 16:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it's not the case. Have you surveyed the Songs of Innocence and Experience article recently? I has gaping holes, like the entire Songs of Innocence section... As to popular culture, it can always be shifted onto its own page- William Blake in popular culture. Lithoderm 17:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup notice[edit]

The 2009 WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "about" section on the main WikiCup page.

This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual subpage for submitting completed work to us.

This year, User:ST47 will also be running one of his bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on our scoring chart.

Questions or comment? Ask at the talk page or go directly to Garden or IMatthew's talk page. Good luck and Happy Holidays! -- ayematthew ✡ and Garden. 14:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unitarian greetings[edit]

I used the wrong adjective, and meant meant global pan-religious not unitarian (i.e. uniting church), now for alot of reversions/amendations...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas!
Christmas medley
A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Ottava Rima, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page.
Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :(
— neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Seasons greetings[edit]

Good wiches back at you Ottava, and wish you all the best for the year. This is my tune for you, from 4.29 on in particular. Ceoil (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas everyone. Have a good end of the year.



If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. - Ottava Rima


unitarian greetings[edit]

I used the wrong adjective, and meant meant global pan-religious not unitarian (i.e. uniting church), now for alot of reversions/amendations...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas!
Christmas medley
A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Ottava Rima, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page.
Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :(
— neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Seasons greetings[edit]

Good wishes back at you Ottava, and wish you all the best for the year. This is my tune for you, from 4.29 on in particular. And I want to thank you again for you work on Lucy. Ceoil (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Darwin200 Year!

Thanks for the greeting! Have had my head down for a bit, pulling things together for Darwin's impending bicentenary. Some of it would perhaps interest you, touching on early 19th century thought, in particular questions of belief. There's also his involvement with the church and with the natural theology of the day. So, hope you enjoy these, and Season's Greetings to all! . . dave souza, talk 10:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Happy holidays[edit]

Thank you very much Ottava, and my best wishes for happy hollidays to you and yours as well! Hopefully our editing paths will cross more in the new year to come. :-) --Xover (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Thank for the message, happy holidays to you as well. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Suntag's RfA[edit]

I don't know if people are listening anymore. Sigh. But if you notice, of his two GA's, one sprang into existence fully formed, complete with refs, the second (the diamond one) was nominated by him for GA eleven hours after it was uploaded (I can't say written). Very strange.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, many of his DYK are nominating others' pages, many of his contribs are just adding wikilinks to other pages that he is trying to promote as DYK or save from deletion, many of his merge proposals and deletion proposals were abandoned without further participation, he has promoted gaming of the system at DYK, shows a lack of understanding of how WP:SIZE works and how such articles are built towards that for FA or in general, and he has never stated anything that shows a clear understanding of any issue. He has also attempted to promote bots about GA/FA ranking without even approaching one of the main GA/FA people, let alone the people who deal with article history. He is half following the standard gaming RfA path and half following a complete lack of good experience. I am split between seeing this user as a sock pretending to be naive and uninvolved for adminship and just a new user who really doesn't have any experience close to meeting RfA requirements. Either way, I can't believe people would really want him passed. And these same people probably complain about abusive admin in the end. Funny how that happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped by to thank you for the Christmas greeting and to say Merry Christmas !! (But, where is this GA/FA bot ranking thingie?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. I was just going to express disgruntlement that I got about 15 opposes on the basis of a single word I used on my own talk page, and this guy, who clearly was out to say whatever it took to get rollback as a stepping stone to RfA, I'm hanging out there on my own with the oppose on that basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cough :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double cough; it's Christmas (which might explain some of Wehwalt's concerns, too), I haven't looked at that yet, it took me eight hours to catch up on FAC after I was so ill last week, and I'm going to have to do the same tomorrow. Still ... what is the bot thingie you reference? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suntag, a new user of just 5 months, proposed a bot that would work on DYK tags and monitor which ones reached GA or FA? I don't know. A few people who watch your page went over and had a say about it. You might want to take a peak when you have a chance. I was mostly bothered by new users wanting to start up bots involving areas without even having a strong understanding of those other processes or contact with the directors of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case I did not make myself clear above, I was referring to the opposes I got for using the words "for sh-t" on my talk page and contrasting that with what seems to me trying to deceive the admin who evaluated Suntag for rollback rights.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, there is a clear descrepency. I think everyone knows it. However, it is troubling that both Lar and Wizardman would support this candidate. Lar, out of all the people, should know about problems like this and inadequacies. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to look at it today (overseas guests, but from the stats chart, looks like a done deal). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His RfA only needs a solid 15 opposes right now to end it as not passing. There are enough concerns, and many of the supports don't seem to be up to snuff, if you understand what I am saying, especially in regards to a long discussion on your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Momentum seems to be going against it. Once people started looking deeper into the candidate, more opposes popped up. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) "He who did sell the lion's skin, while the beast lived, was killed with hunting't."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I was reminded of a Hemingway story about a man killed by his wife while hunting lions. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is in Henry V, the king (as I recall) talking to the French herald who had urged him to surrender.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know the quote. I'm just revealing what my brain jumped to afterwards. A man finally is able to become a man, and his wife kills him because of it. Heh. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suntag's RfA now reminds me of a cartoon described in Ball Four which shows a little kid whose mom is asking him how he did in baseball, and who replies disconsolately, "I was pitching a no hitter until the big kids got out of school."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warning[edit]

I thought wikipedia is uncensored. are you infringing on my First Amendment right of Free Speech?

I know I don't own the articles but I've spent several hours of work on them and he's trying to destroy that. That's just wrong. Please give him vandalism warnings for doing so.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into TomCat in a potential edit war regarding supporting citations which was nipped in the bud by an administrator but he never replied to the administrator's edit conflict question to him, he just deleted the messages in his talk page. It was in the WJRT article if you want to look it up. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Concern[edit]

I didn't see that. I'll keep a weak support, though, as Suntag has firm clue in other areas. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 20:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Looks like this one will need some thinking over. I'm going right back to neutral until I have thoroughly reviewed this guy's edit count, his edit summary usage, and all of the resons for supporting/opposing/remaining neutral. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I'm entitled to my own opinion, so I'm staying at support. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 20:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pallid sturgeon[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the article I started.--MONGO 16:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice per your request[edit]

Since you've been asking for it on IRC, I'll repost the link you pasted into #wikipedia-en: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ottava_Rima.2C_et._al._at_WT:DYK. I haven't read it and don't know what its about, but you wanted to be "notified" so here you go! Avruch T 19:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

Hi there - happy new year to you, and I hope you had a good Christmas. It happens that I didn't ('flu in the house - wife, daughter, me, in-laws) but with a bit of luck, the new year will be better. I have been too busy with work and domestic arrangements to give any time to WP, but since I'll be unemployed in the new year, I should have a lot more time on my hands. Cheers - Lexo (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Happy late merry Christmas... a bit late, but I close up shop when my library does:) Mrathel (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx[edit]

The 50 DYK Medal   
So many! I particularly liked the Samuel Johnson series... and I'm pleased to see Ada is on your to do list. Let your muse always be with you. Happy new year and thanks from me and the wiki. Victuallers (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ode on Melancholy[edit]

I recently wrote a bit of an article for Ode on Melancholy because it made me sad to see that it redirected to the Keats article. As Keats is more of your field than mine, I was hoping you can breeze through it and see if I have made any blatant factual errors. Thanks. Mrathel (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I left a lot of room to work with :), and I think the whole thing needs a bit more structure. Let me know when your laptop is fixed, and I will be happy to do whatever I can. Mrathel (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha on the biggest football day of the year... alright, i will buckle down tonight and try to do the summaries tonight. I wont be able to start until 8pm eastern time, but i will do my best. Mrathel (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: you want me to do 3 paragraphs of summary on the page for all the 1819 poems? or do you want me to go through and change the poem summaries on each of the individual pages? If you want it on the page for all the poems, then i am guessing you want it above the link to the poems' main pages? Mrathel (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a problem at all. I have set aside my night to working on it, and will do the one-paragraph summary on each as needed, and will probably have a bit of time to spare after if you have other projects. I should be done with urn in a sec, and you can judge if i need to change my approach a bit Mrathel (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on figuring out the reflist|2 format as i go, but it seems i am inept:)Mrathel (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in to see if there is anything new with the Keats articles Mrathel (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Notice of request for deletion of editor Ottava Rima :)[edit]

Ottava Rima, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Ottava Rima and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). VX!~~~ 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!Notice![edit]

I won't be able to edit properly until tonight; we can talk then. Ceoil (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, if you want my honest openion about both thoes incidents, I think you often have good points to make and you are very often in the right, but you dont know when to disengage and you make the conversation too personal too early. I think you take things over personable and because you are so passionate that you have difficulty detatching and taking an objective view, and easily become entrenched (which sounds just like me, bty!). I really think for the sake of your own sanity that when things like this flare up, weather you are right or wrong - turn off the computer and go for a walk/trip to the pub. Its a shame to waste your talent on tiny detail and grudges. Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on 'crazy idea' on blp's[edit]

Hello,

I saw your comments on the above thread and thought I'd drop a quick note as I've had thoughts along the same line, namely that breaking news stories are not as reliable for sources, having seen the same thing myself on more than a few occasions. As I was using the same reasoning each time this issue came up, I wrote it up to save explaining it repeatedly, which is at WP:DUST. While it's only an essay, I've been happy to see others referring to it while discussing recent news stories, and deciding to wait to see how the "dust settles", so it seems to have helped a little, which is good. Feel free to give it a read, and use any of the reasoning in it for future debates, or to add more to it if you can improve it. Regards, MartinRe (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings![edit]

And a Happy New Year to you too! -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup[edit]

Delivered by neuro(talk) for Garden and ayematthew at 20:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God almighty! --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what I THINK it is??? Good gods. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I lost to San Marino in the qualifying rounds. Embarrassing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My plan was to do exactly opposite of everyone else: do the same exact thing I do now and show how crappy other people are by failing miserably. XD Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bad plan, unlikely to impress the twelve-year-olds who now run this site. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. You wouldn't be surprised of the age of my competition. LMAO. I see myself as "the turtle" and they are baby rabbits. I think this competition with push me further in pushing more pages through FAC. Of course, I wont be lowering -my- standards first, so I will probably only get one per month or so. I have 5 sitting around needing to be polished, so that will be fun. I will call on you for the Queens English, and if you copyedit, find short comings, and the rest, I will definitely co nom you. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! no stealing my copyeditor!! Guess I'll have to bribe him more... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never accepted co noms for copyediting, and I never will. I'll be happy to be proved wrong about this latest badge collecting exercise though, but I won't be holding my breath. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, you know my definition of "copyediting" is not the standard definition of copyediting as used around here. I need a secondary voice to look at it from another perspective, examine logic, grammar, language, syntax, MoS, structure, placement, etc. I also need a polisher, someone who can tighten language, and someone who can pefect the flow of a paragraph. You did all of this at Johnson and you proved that you are able to take my work and use a fine chisel to make a masterpiece. Also, I'm not going after any badges. I don't think there are any (and if there are, I don't want any). Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even with Johnson, I don't feel that there's very much of me in the article, and I still don't feel that I deserved to be listed as a co-nominator. Anyway, that's the past, let's look to the future! --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO, you had almost double the edits that I did, and if you compared the two linguistically, there was a huge difference. You short change yourself by a lot. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

A cat to ease all of your troubles
A cat to ease all of your troubles
 Happy New Year!
Hey there, Ottava Rima! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Years[edit]

File:London fireworks.jpg
Happy New Year's!

Hello Ottava Rima, just stopping by to wish you a Happy New Year's! Good luck editing in the new year, 2009! (RockManQ) VX!~~~ 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same from me. Even though we bicker from time to time, I hope you know we are basically on the same side. Ceoil

Odes[edit]

Note for self.

Possible DYK: ... that 1819 odes of John Keats (pictured), including Ode on a Grecian Urn, On Indolence, On Melancholy, To a Nightingale, To Psyche, To Autumn, created "a new tone for the English lyric" according to W. J. Bate? (209 characters including "pictured", 198 without)

Finishing To Autumn now, will submit soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown passed[edit]

I want to thank you for any comments you left during Lockdown (2008)'s FAC review. They helped to promote the article.--WillC 02:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CP1600 DYK[edit]

Sorry, I must be dense... what is the non-reffed part? There was only one PDP-11 machine, which is refed, and millions of Intellivisions, which is refed. Is it one of these, or something else? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you looking for a ref on the 3 million figure? Yes, that's easy to provide. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franks Hall[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message. I didn't check the history of the article before I expanded it, although I can see from the history that a lot of text was deleted as a copyvio. However, my expansion of the article, although using the same source as the deleted text, was written in my own words. Obviously if one is trying to convey the information there are going to be similarities in the text in places. I have rewritten that sentence. My opinion is that there is no copyright violation of the Franks Hall website as the article stands at the moment and therefore it should be good to go. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dan Marsh[edit]

Hi, I've noticed that you do some work at T:TDYK. I was wondering if you could take a look at my hook for this article. I don't like to be impatient, but it's among the expiring nominations (December 30), and nobody has looked at it yet. My concern is that, if there is a problem, the nomination might be removed before I have a chance to make any necessary fixes. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

I added a comment to the disscussion section of my RfA, and I would very much appreciate it if you could comment on it. Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bit worried ...[edit]

I'm getting a bit worried about your apparently new-found empathy and reasonableness Ottava. You're not trying to prepare the ground for an assault on RfA in 2019 are you? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know he asked me to be a co nom along with Jimbo? Though you missed the date by six years, 2025 seemed like a nice round figure--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be refeshing to see a voter go neutral or oppose with "try again in sixteen years time". :-) Probably not so refreshing fot Ottava though. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did use that joke with someone else (co-nom with Jimbo thing). Haha. I have enough admin duties to handle over at wikiversity. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs[edit]

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Keats's 1819 odes[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles John Keats's 1819 odes, Ode on Melancholy, Ode to a Nightingale, Ode to Psyche, and To Autumn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Congrats and thanks. Let me know what your plans are for future projects, and I will be happy to lend a hand if my time frees up Mrathel (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for holiday wishes[edit]

I was very, very, very, very busy around Christmas time. Just now noticed your holiday wishes, when i was archiving. Thanks! Best Holiday Wishes to you, too! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy[edit]

Yeah I saw. I'm going to start heavy work on this now; you might keep an eye and jump in when necessary. Obviously I would preffer to see you fully focus in on the page, but if not I understand where you are coming from re FAC stress. However, I would prefer if you, not me, made the co-nom when the time comes. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter[edit]

Delivered by The Helpful One for Garden and iMatthew at 00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

WikiCup Newsletter[edit]


TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste time on AN[edit]

The barest glance at the edits by 84.65.143.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) confirms that the block by J. delanoy was a well-deserved one. Please don't waste the time of the volunteers at the Administrators' Noticeboard with any more legal wrangling, or spurious accusations of misconduct.

If you're having some sort of personal dispute with J. delanoy, sort it out through proper channels — don't file bogus complaints at WP:AN.

If you pull a stunt like that again, you will find yourself blocked for WP:POINT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Ottava's filing of that complaint at AN, but neither do I agree with your threat of a block should it occur again. It falls far short of what I'd call "egregious disruption", but your own behaviour on the other hand is a clear case of "obvious bullying". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have evidence of j.delanoy mentioning that he violates CoI all the time and that it was a violation. So, any claims that I filed a frivolous report are obviously contradictory. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I invite either of you to file a complaint in whatever venue you see fit, and I welcome broader review of my action by the community should it be required. I believe that the correct venue for complaints about misuse of admin privileges is WP:AN/I; if you go directly to Arbitration I fear that your complaint will be rejected on procedural grounds.
J. delanoy did the right thing for the right reason, and aside from Ottava Rima, all of the comments in the AN thread support that conclusion. If Ottava had let the matter go after the first couple of people told him that his complaint was baseless, I wouldn't have warned him here. Instead, he argued with nearly everyone who commented in the AN thread. He then went on to threaten EVula for no good reason on EVula's talk page.
The entire matter was a waste of time, and in addition to impugning J. delanoy's character, Ottava's gone on to make baseless threats against two other editors (EVula and now me). As far as I can tell, all of this has fallen out of a petty spat between J. delanoy and Ottava on IRC, and none of it is to the benefit of the project: textbook WP:POINT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, you have not actually blocked me so what would I actually be complaining about? Furthermore, there is no petty spat between J. Delanoy and myself. I like Delanoy and always have. This is nothing personal. It was someone else who conjectured to the contrary. Furthermore, I did not say that Delanoy did it maliciously, nor did I bring it to AN/I which would characterize it as an incident that needs immediate attention. Instead, I took it to AN which is to discuss admin related matters to determine consensus on the issue. Consensus involves discussion, dealing with facts, weighing what is currently the case and seeing if there is anything to be improved. It does not deal with accusations of point. And if people stopped talking after a few early birds claimed that something was pointless, there would be a lot less corrupt people blocked, desysopped, banned, and the rest. Anyone can game a discussion by trying to sway it early. That goes against the whole basis of consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I wanted to add - AN, not AN/I, is where you complain about administrative actions. AN/I is reserved only for incidents needing immediate attention. As stated above, there is no block so nothing is pertinent. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your conduct towards EVula in this matter is bordering on harrassment. You were told explictly not to make further comments on EVula's talk page. If you can't bring yourself to let go of this matter, either pursue it through proper channels or you will be blocked.
Incidentally, please don't post another empty threat about Arbitration on my talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Threats? First of all, talk page rules are very clear and your accusations about such things being harrassment or a threat is a violation of them. Secondly, your tone is extremely uncivil. If you wish to ever comment on my talk page again, at least have the courteousy of following basic rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for all of those people that watch my page, which is a lot of you - WP:HARASS primarily deals with people who follow users to multiple pages and the rest. In improperly violating consensus rules, EVula cannot claim that I "harassed" him in simply reporting it. However, claims of such are a direct violation of the wording of WP:CIVIL. It is clear that TenofAllTrades is actually creating a point violation by blatantly disregarding rules, especially in his own claim to point which defies all evidence provided. As an editor in high standing who has months of work in the area of administrative ethics across wikimedia projects, it is clear that I know what I am talking about, and that TenofAllTrades's complaints are frivulous. I would recommend that TenofAllTrades reread the many guidelines and policies, especially WP:CIVIL WP:CONSENSUS, as his actions so far have proved a severe lack of understanding in this areas. I fully expect that afterwards, he will apologize for his untowards accusations, unprofessional behavior, and blatant threatening to try and prove a point. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how there is no ground for either warning, let alone a block, and seeing as how the only appropriate place for Ten to complain is at Wikiquette, there is no need to allow Ten to continue to try and use my talk page as some kind of pulpit to push his view on CoI matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas everyone. Have a good end of the year.



If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. - Ottava Rima



Getting a bit worried ...[edit]

I'm getting a bit worried about your apparently new-found empathy and reasonableness Ottava. You're not trying to prepare the ground for an assault on RfA in 2019 are you? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know he asked me to be a co nom along with Jimbo? Though you missed the date by six years, 2025 seemed like a nice round figure--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be refeshing to see a voter go neutral or oppose with "try again in sixteen years time". :-) Probably not so refreshing fot Ottava though. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did use that joke with someone else (co-nom with Jimbo thing). Haha. I have enough admin duties to handle over at wikiversity. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support you Ottava, only because your RfA would be one of the most fun to read ever. Definitely a two-bucket popcorn event. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy[edit]

Yeah I saw. I'm going to start heavy work on this now; you might keep an eye and jump in when necessary. Obviously I would preffer to see you fully focus in on the page, but if not I understand where you are coming from re FAC stress. However, I would prefer if you, not me, made the co-nom when the time comes. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Treatment[edit]

Thanks for raising a question about my statement, I've tried to clarify my perceptions of the issues.[4] Questions of etiquette and civility are clearly important, but in my view our primary aim is building an encyclopedia according to article content policies, and stamping out rudeness is a failure if it impedes our primary aim. Just my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 11:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that my purpose is to treat and lighten things up a bit. What is with trench warfare if you can't have a Christmas with caroling? Even the worse problems need a little joy every once in a while. I like you, and I like KC. But I also like Elonka and some of the other people. I guess I am like Switzerland, sitting back, watching, and fretting because if everyone destroys themselves, who am I going to sell delicious chocolate and watches to? :( Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You sell delicious watches? Sounds tasty! . dave souza, talk 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ROFLMAO. I need to rely on dashes to separate out items instead of that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And an obscure reference to one of my favorite movies of all time, Joyeux Noël. Although, if you didn't see the movie, I know you're referring to the Christmas truce. However, let us not forget, the war continued for another year. My Swiss watch is beautiful. I can't believe they misspelled Rolex, imprinting it with Rofex. So much for that renowned Swiss quality. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you finsh shaking up the AN, AN/I pages, ruffling the feathers of the DYK admins, and being irritably correct on every issue regarding WP pollicy, how's about we knock out a few poetry articles together, get some GA's, FA's, and encounter a whole new gaggle of editors to file frivolous complaints against you?:) Mrathel (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Yes. I am finishing up some stuff on Henry Fielding. However, I prefer to work on two article tasks at a time. I will work with you while I work on a novel task with Malleus (I tend to like to have one of each type, but no more than two at a time - of poetry, novel, short story, and theatre). I have quite a bit of stuff on Keats, and I should finish this and put it up towards FAC. If you want to help, it would be appreciated. What I am going to do is use that page for the epic as a whole, then have the two individual pages on the poems. The epic as a whole page would go to FAC definitely. There are a lot of Keats poems missing, along with some Blake, Wordsworth, Byron and Shelley missing. I also have Leigh Hunt that I am dying to work on. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the literary treatment of spirits...[edit]

I had a hankering to spruce up ghost in the manner of vampire, which occupied me for much of 2007. One thing I would really appreciate is some commentary of the use of ghosts in literature (eg in Shakespeare, Dickens, Wilde, as messengers/ etc.) Would you have anything to add? This is one of my weak points. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be delving into the psychological ghosts - works like Wuthering Heights play with ghost folklore to talk about resonating psychological trauma existing in society. They aren't real ghosts (most of the time) but play with the idea. For notable ghosts, there is Jonathan Swift's spirit in Yeats's Words upon the Window Pane (during a seance). In Yukio Mishima's plays there are many ghosts, as with most of Noh drama (ghost plays are a type of "demon" play of the Noh theatre). There is an example of a "fetch" in Aoi no Ue (a woman's spirit is able to leave her body and make a phone call, similar thing sans phone happen in the Tale of Genji).
Ghosts are a very important part of Japanese (and Asian in general) tradition. There are the "shades" in Homer's the Odyssey (when Odysseus experiences a vision of Hades), and Aeneas travels to the underworld (as with Dante) and sees various shades. However, shades are spirits that have normally passed out of this world and probably shouldn't be merged.
A famous ghost is the "white lady". The name has been played around with, such as in Wilkie Collin's the Woman in White (she isn't dead, but there is a play on her actually being alive in many scenes). Then you have spirits who may or may not be ethereal - Keats's La belle dame sans merci for example. I'm going to stop for now and get more examples. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'd kick myself for not immediately adding these - Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Wordsworth's Lucy poems play with the idea of ghosts and spirits. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some more - Henry Fielding has Tom Thumb's ghost (killed when swallowed by a cow) murdered in Tom Thumb. Horace Walpole wrote of the first ghost based Gothic novels - Castle of Otranto. The Orestia contains the ghost of Agamemnon, one of the first ghosts in a play. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are my manners - the Tale of Genji/Noh Play Aoi no Ue/Mishima's remake Aoi no Ue spirit character is Lady Rokujo. She is one of the most famous Japanese ghosts. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also - Yotsuya Kaidan. This may give you some things to think about as would this. Ghosts have to be one of the largest topics to discuss. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Aaargh, I hadn't given much thought to psychological ghosts, and I think touching on them is good. Wuthering Hts is a great example. Dammit, big topic :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, a small note (and Awadewit might be able to chime in with her own opinion) - in Wuthering Heights there were two types of psychological ghosts. There was the almost haunting presence of Heathcliff and the drama that comes around that (the constant "demonic" imagery). Then there is the final scene in which there are rumors of the two running about the moors even though they are clearly dead. Also, about ghosts in general, you may want to discuss exorcisms of ghosts. In Noh plays, this idea comes up often. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson[edit]

FA! :) Lexo (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it on the main page, and came here to say the same thing. Congrats... Lithoderm 02:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nice work indeed.MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's wonderful to see it there at last, congratulations and best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thanks. But now I have to finish the last part of his early life so I can get that up for his 300th birthday. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding[edit]

I don't know why you are asking me this. Surely you know by now that the minimum length of an article for DYK is 1,500 chars, and your two current finished Fielding articles are well over that.

You don't have to do "full" plot summaries but I think for articles about plays there should certainly be a plot summary section giving some idea of what the play is about, even if it's only a paragraph or two. Gatoclass (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Samuel Johnson bios[edit]

Did you see this in the Times? Awadewit (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be (??) the first real mainstream mention of his TS ... I told you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added in parts of the Martin biography already. I haven't seen the Meyer's biography yet. I haven't heard of "basic books" and I am a little weary about the publisher. It use to be part of a popular publisher, but I don't know about its academic value. The Times article is troubling (but NYT is always troubling!) for phrases like - "No one who had ever seen Samuel Johnson in his infancy (as Jane Austen might have put it) would have predicted that he would interest a biographer." I don't know if that was ever the case, as most child prodigies that could memorize the whole Bible by 7 and could recite ancient Latin and Greek writers from heart by 16 are interesting. Oh gesh ("gives more weight than most biographers to the discovery made over half a century ago, by the editor of her diaries, of references to whips, chains, fetters and padlocks. What Meyers explains as a sado­masochistic pact, Martin puts down to Thrale’s role as “therapist” for Johnson’s fear of insanity.") I think the Meyer's biography needs to be burned. There were fetters and a padlock. No whips. No chains. >.<!!! The author couldn't even get the early biographies correct. At least the Times article is able to recognize that the two recent biographies are not so great.
But Sandy, people were speculating about TS for a long time. They knew he had "tics". Many of the biographies discuss them but failed to label them as TS. The two from the 90s jumped out and said it. The people who don't accept that he had TS are insane, but you know that already. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed ... but I said it may be the first mainstream (meaning, media) mention of his Tourette's, not just oddities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but they use in it a way that makes it seem like an oddity (how the article read to me - Sam Johnson may bore the rest of you, but look at this goofy kid with TS and you'll be bound to want to read about his early life!!). I was disappointed. The woman who they got to write the story doesn't even deal with biographies let alone with Johnson. They just picked her because she is a Harvard liberal that would make the Times seem more smart. Johnson had TS. It isn't something to poke fun of or mock him over. It complicated parts of his early life, but it didn't make him into the clown that the article suggests. ~.~ meh. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just sent an angry email with a list of corrections to Price. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Copyright problems[edit]

In regards to the USS Connecticut page and copyright problems in regards to this copyrighted book (looking for phrases that include 3 or more consecutive words that are duplicated and thus violate copyright standards):

  • Article: "After an eight-day period known as 'Navy Farewell Week' during which festivities were held for the departing sailors, and all sixteen battleships took on full loads of coal, stores, and ammunition, the ships were ready to depart."
  • Original: "The following eight days were known as 'Navy Farewell Week.' The preparations and festivities concerning the fleet's departure were extensive. Every battleship took on coal, stores and ammunition to capacity."

Addition of "full loads" and a few rearrangements but preservation of many original phrasings.

  • Article: "After three Japanese men-of-war and six merchantmen escorted the Americans in, festivities began. The celebrations culminated in the village of Uraga, where Commodore Matthew C. Perry had landed 50 years before."
  • Original: "Three Japanese men-of-war and six merchantmen joined up as escort. The black hulls of the merchant men were emblazoned with WELCOME in large white letters. Aboard, men, women and children cheered and sang American patriotic songs [...] Their triumph concluded at the village of Uraga, where Commodore Perry landed more than fifty years before."
  • Article: "On 2 November, Connecticut led the Presidential Fleet Review in New York and remained in New York until 12 January 1912, when she returned to Guantánamo Bay. During a March overhaul at the Philadelphia Naval Yard, the battleship relinquished her role as flagship to the armored cruiser Washington. After the overhaul's completion, Connecticut's activities through the end of 1912 included practicing with torpedoes in Fort Pond Bay, conducting fleet maneuvers, and battle practice off Block Island and the Virginia Capes"
  • Original: "On November 2, USS Connecticut led the Presidential Review of the Fleet in New York. She maintained station in New York waters until January 12, 1912 [...] Following her refit, USS Connecticut spent the rest of 1912 engaged in torpedo practice at Fort Pond Bay, then in fleet maneuvers and battle practice off Block Island and the Virginia Capes."

Three random passages found in addition to the previous problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you bold the alleged violations, the specific "3 consecutive words"? Grsz11 19:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you would like a date or "Navy Farwell Week" reworded. Like mentioned already, the text isn't a word-for-word reproduction. If you looked at any article here you could find portions just like this. Grsz11 19:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Notification[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. It doesn't bother me if you cite the Cup for something like this. I agree it is likely the speed thing that gets people.  GARDEN  19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your advice on List of street names of drugs[edit]

I have been browsing AfD lately to avoid doing anything meaningful, and I came across wp:Articles for deletion/List of street names of drugs (3rd nomination) , which I thought to be a clear case where an article provided nothing but the "slang or idiom guide" discribed in wp:dicdef, but the admin who ruled in the case seemed to disagree. Since you seem to understand these rules better than I, I was wondering if you could lend me your thoughts if you have time. Mrathel (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 deletes plus nom (5) and 2 transwikis. 3 keeps. I'm not sure why Julian kept it. You could ask him yourself. He is a decent fellow. I will ask him personally to find out some more about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the delete "votes" was invalid, as it was based on the notion that CSD G4 applied, while one was proven faulty by another editor. After excluding the nominator, who has the obvious bias, we have two valid delete votes. Transwiki closures default to keep, at least in my experience, so it essentially came down to 4 deletes/3 keeps. Then I took into account the strength of the arguments presented by each side, and the editors in favor of keeping the article backed up their claims with more solid evidence than those in favor of deletion. Thus, I feel my closure was appropriate. Regards, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoIed?[edit]

I was confused by this for a long time - "to Cole" as some sort of trasnitive verb I had never seen, but then realised it was a capital i not a small l... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the Ravenloft item. Yeah. :) I think I am the only one to admit their conflicts of interest anymore, so, its an acronym rarely employed. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Autumn[edit]

There has been a series of edits to To Autumn which has created a problem with the page, I am not sure if you have the rollback feature, but I don't have the patience to do it manually at the moment:) Mrathel (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving a talk page[edit]

Doug Coldwell talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Was going to make some comments to National Register of Historic Places Registration Form but noticed that section seems to be missing off your Talk Page. I am in direct contact with Patrick A. Schroeder, the Park Historian. If you like I can give you his e-mail address and you can communicate with him directly. He gave me advice on some of the 16 Appomattox articles for additional improvements which I made. He said everything looked good and accurate, as far as he was concerned. He is doing some additional research I requested and should be getting back to me soon (suspect in the next few days). If you would like I can forward his reply to you also.

Either I don't see your Archive Section with your various archives when you removed sections off your Talk Page from time to time -OR- perhaps you accidently forgot to Archive the sections when you removed them from your Talk Page. This should be of benefit: Help:Archiving a talk page. Cheers! --Doug Coldwell talk 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is only for work. Once a topic is removed, I no longer have consideration about it. You don't need to forward the reply. The community already decided on it and its not worth pursuing further. I am willing to thrash against waves but I know when to get out before I drown. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me Ottava. Didn't understand what you were doing on Archiving. Just suggesting, as I notice others always Archive their Talk Page and not just remove the sections. Apparently it has historical reference that they felt should be kept. Will not forward the Park historian's reply to you, only to the other Wikipedia editors that requested his information. Cheers! --Doug Coldwell talk 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page is a notebook. When things are no longer important to my work, I rip out the pages and keep it clean. Good luck with it all. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an interesting method - just never heard of that before. Good luck to you also.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Coming[edit]

In reference to this edit, I don't see this as a trivia section; it's a list of other art that references the work, which is common in film and literature articles. I won't disagree if you claim this list in particular is haphazard and poorly written, but deleting instead of revising it is information loss. Xsmasher (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense[edit]

I'm not sure how to explain nonsense if you don't understand. Emoticons have nothing to do with it. If it's uncomprehensible gibberish, it's nonsense. If you understand what they're getting at, it's not. WilyD 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonsense is a very easy test. Either you read it and understand what the author is getting at, or you don't. If it might be a biography, or about a species of fish, or a coming of age ritual, it's nonsense. If you know it's a slang term used to tell someone to be quiet, it's not nonsense. This really isn't an area for interpretation, it's simply what the criterion says.

WilyD 06:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Err, sure, but the entire article has to be meaningless gibberish to qualify for G1. Not merely a bit of it. WilyD 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, your statement seems to be a true-ish interpretation of the rule, but fails to apply to Shut your mane, which clearly communicates that it's a term used on www.blogtv.com to tell people to be quiet. At the point where it's clearly communicating information, it's simply not gibberish. WilyD 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I did delete this article as lacking the needed context to be even a stub, and not being a likely foundation for a good article, I do agree it was not 'nonsense'. The nonsense criteria is more for "Flippity floppity floooo!!!!" than for that type of article. Perhaps CSD did not strictly apply, but I felt it was in the best interest of the encyclopedia to delete it anyways. Chillum 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ottava, by telling you what the article's about, I demonstrate incontravertably that it's not nonsense. If it was nonsense, I wouldn't be able to tell you what the article was about. That's probably the sole criterion here. WilyD 17:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My swmpathies[edit]

It is awful to go through what you must be going through right now. My deepest sympathies go out to you and your family. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its nothing to worry about. I just wont be able to devote time to working on the Fielding stuff. Priorities, priorities, priorities, and all of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy[edit]

I'm away from home at the moment, but can check the bio tomorrow night. Are you happy enough with the page otherwise? Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with going to FAC, but as its a lith article its worth waiting to have it just so. A few days wont kill us; any input it might recieve between then and now would be great. Am, well done Ottava, it was great to see you work. Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima/Archive_15&oldid=1088239692"