User talk:Ottava Rima

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

My RfA

Attention anyone to posting on this page - my RFA is real and its not a joke. If you are coming here to ask, please be sure to keep that in mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not going great, but it's going better than I would have expected. About 50/50 so far. Just a reminder not to take what the opposers say too seriously. I'm always amused when I see opposes based on "our best article writers shouldn't become administrators because it takes them away doing what they do best". Taken to its logical conclusion that would mean that the pool of admin candidates ought to be restricted to our worst article writers ... come to think of it ... :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care either way. I can count at least 35 people that haven't even bothered to look into the page that I think would support me. It will be interesting. : D Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So, Aitias ensured that he will go through ArbCom by opposing me. Great stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re clarification on oppose on q7. I'd want admins that would take charge of de-admining others for bad edits like [1]. I hope my oppose vote don't get you down - I think your position is reasonable, we just disagree. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t21:41z

Admins can't desysop. :| — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit counter

Ottava,

I know that different counters apparently count different ways to get different numbers, but according to this counter you have nearly a thousand edits to go before you hit 10,000. Perhaps you are also including edits from other Wikis.

Cheers. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The joke was that I shouldn't pass 9,000. :) I did it yesterday. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Equation for happiness :)

Ottava Rima + =

Happy April Fools Day :) Steve Crossin :  Chat  03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(And Good luck for your RFA :) Steve Crossin :  Chat  10:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ottava Rima. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You do know why your RfA is failing right?

It is because no OR is one of our core policies ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!! I negate one of our core policies by merely existing! Oh noes! Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ottava, I am sure that your skin is thick enough to take all this. All I can offer is empathy; but it can't be a good feeling nonetheless. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Take RfA with a grain of salt (or a glass of wine). I suspect you aren't surprised with some of the comments (although there are some editors I'd like to shake because their tone is really inappropriate). I have a great deal of respect for your mainspace work, as do many others posting, and I hope that message doesn't get lost in the RfA nonsense. I also really appreciate that you chose today to post the nomination - that was quite funny :) Karanacs (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want funny, you should see User:Ottava Rima/B for the parody version. I thought that the best joke was making people think that I would make a joke nom and then actually make a real nom. People were completely surprised. : D But yes, in regards to inappropriate opposes, I have to say that there is one from a certain user that was totally inappropriate. :P!!!! Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely by now you've figured out that I'm not always appropriate? I even wear white shoes after Labor Day, and my handbag almost never matches my shoes. Karanacs (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG! I now have to oppose your FACs because an individual who wears white shoes after Labor Day probably has a poor sense of judgment and obviously can't handle references properly. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Does this mean that everything that is wrong is that admins refuse to discuss blocks with non-admin? Because we all know that it is true and how most admin operate. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[2]_{Here's to the GFDL ;)}

I am going to do my best to give this as much of a thought out reply as possible, so it might be lengthy. It might not. We'll see where my mind goes.

I don't edit much these days. Work takes up most of my mental stress and I just read for the most part these days. I still read practically everything, and I'm familiar with your vocalness of what would have to be described as the minority side. Not wrong or against consensus, but you are generally disagreed with on most issues.

I am all for that. I enjoy reading your thoughts, though they generally disagree with mine, because I would much rather hear from people that disagree with me than agree. That encourages thinking and that's a hobby of mine.

I would have supported your request for adminship. I nominated Walton One twice for the bit, and I disgree with him on every single issue we have discussed.

So what it comes down to is what I perceive to be a snarky reply to that question. You have been pushed around by users before when in discussion because they said in other terms that "I'm an admin and you are not. So you are wrong." That is not appropriate, and sometimes those users were admonished for acting that way. It is unbecoming conduct. So to say what you did, that you would use it as leverage, is wrong and you know it. Administrating is just doing the job as laid out, not a caste. Again, you know this.

I had hope for your RfA when I saw it in the contents. I was disappointed by how you chose to present yourself. For the time you've spent reading RfA, you had to know how that would go and how your answers would be received. Seriousness and practicality is what I look for in a candidate, and you did not expose it with this application.

Long story short: you didn't have to say you'd be a dick back to the people who have for so long been dicks to you. Keegan^talk 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I disagree with your premise that that is how most admins operate. Of the 600~800 active admins, only about 30 act that way. And they disgrace us all with their drama. Most admin action goes about quietly in the dark without issue, as it should. Perhaps you should shy away from typecasting and realize that some people caste their type. Keegan^talk 04:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have been in many discussions with admin stating that I'm not an admin so they could ignore me on the issue, so I speak from experience. :) Normally, the admin who re willing to listen to someone like me don't get into the situations in which someone like me has to be vocal. By the way, my answers were serious, so if you felt that they weren't, then so be it. The only times that I mentioned "leverage" is for unblocking discussions, advocating during ban discussions, and ArbCom enforcement. None of those situations can really be said to put me into the position of using the admin ops to threaten anyone. Quite the contrary, they would be using it to justify that I should be listened to as a fellow admin with the ability to unblock if necessary. Where have I stated anything about being a dick to anyone? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Using status as an admin in any discussion is being a dick, in my opinion. I wouldn't do so. I will explain actions I have taken as carring out an administrative task, but not to use it as leverage. As you agree with me that admins have used the hat to ignore you before and that this is wrong, I cannot imagine that you would think that being an admin would or should give your argument in a discussion more weight. It never should for any user, and it is tragic that people both behave and read the context in such regard. That you are willing to think as such is just as tragic. My opinion, you asked for it, and frankly I don't care to continue discussing this. Keegan^talk 05:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to admin only situations. Blocking and unblocking is done in the realm of adminship. Status there plays a part. ArbCom enforcement particularly relies on admin. Its hard to review a block if you aren't an admin, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm well skilled in rhetoric and debate, and dammit you keep bating me. Your reply questions keep moving the chains and we are no where near the line of scrimmage. I have replied to you conserning my opposition. This obstinance in arguing is what gets you into trouble in the first place. You will not change my mind, you will not prove fault on my rationale. This is the crucial ability in long-term viability on Wikipedia: I am walking away from this, my opposition stands. Keegan^talk 05:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if you oppose. I just had a question. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty clear on who's been acting like a dick recently, and it isn't Ottava. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your premise about me acting as a dick. I never said that Ottava was, either. I said that when admins throw their weight around because a few buttons is dickish. My request to you (Malleus) was that you please have some perspective. Ottava, it was nice discussing this with you. Keegan^talk 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck!

It was my pleasure to be able to support your RFA, since your suggestion that I be banned (for what reason I was never sure) was roundly ignored. Have a wonderful day, and best of luck with your RFA. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I waited until today so that I could be sure it wasn't just an April Fool's prank, but I wanted to jump in sooner. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Link? I haven't a clue as to your name. Did you go by another? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, just the one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw that you put j.delanoy up at ANI. I know who you are now. I responded to your response for the question. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, it looks like you could use some extra votes on your request for adminship. If you support mine, I will support yours. Wetman88 (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds legit to me. Maybe you should do it. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 03:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL What? Gesh, just because I chose April 1st doesn't mean that I expected all of this. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Has it reached the tipping point yet?

At 47 supports and 83 opposes do you think there's anything to be gained by keeping your RfA open? My last one I withdrew at 46/40, largely because the grinding criticism was starting to wear me down, even though I'd had no great hopes of success in the first place.

I can be about as hard-nosed a bastard as they come when necessary, but the daily grind of being told what a shit you are can begin to tell, even if you don't immediately recognise it. Do yourself a favour, pull the plug. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to. I want everyone to see how this will play out, the level and types of opposes, the types of people that I deal with, the ill will, and the rest. People like EVula only prove that they have no legitimate concern and made it clear with the rationale that they have. This undermines then in the future if they ever try to get rid of me or the rest. So, even if I don't become an admin everyone knows exactly the type of personality of those who start things with me. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with what I think is your suggestion that RfA is as good a way as any to find out who your enemies are, even when their poison is flavoured with honey. But if you're still relaxed about how it's playing out then so am I. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: diffs

I didn't mean to say diffs from IRC. I meant that you seem like a cool guy, especially on IRC, but some of your opposes don't seem too good and too WP:DRAMAtic. Getting diffs now. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opposes at RfAs, I meant. Most of them just seemed so banal and WP:POINTy. Still going through diffs. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So maybe you've noticed how many of your opposes are attacked as pointless, not really mattering, and not assuming good faith? Well here are some: [3], [4], [5], and [6]. And this was unnecessary also. These are only from the past two months. And do I need to point to the incidents in your block log? Sorry :( Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to talk about my block log, all you have to know is that two of them were a blatant CoI, one of them was by an admin who said some really nasty things and crossed the line in such a way that would have been desysopped if I was around longer (they lost favor in the community) and another with an RfC that only proves that they were a very bad admin. The others were equally problematic besides Nandesuka, and that block was very different than the others. I stand by 100% my oppose statement to Admiral Norton - their desire for tools didn't match up with what tools provide. Thus, I can't judge their justification for tools, which makes it impossible to trust them with the tools. 2. Mfield is exactly the same. If people wont answer why they need it then there is no real way to trust them with it. 3. Somno showed very little interest in the process. Giving him the tools would only show that he would avoid the process as a whole. Abusive admin tend to do this. Thus, the safest bet is not to allow people to start off like that. We work off consensus, not one man armies. 4. RegentParks suggested that he wanted to work an area that already had plenty of skilled admin. I think this is obvious. 5. That last diff, Bettia, was a support. Excessively long nominations are problematic as a whole and most people at RfA know it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Without going into the merits of your oppose arguments above (though, I do feel that you didn't read my statement carefully enough!), I think that the general issue with your opposes (at least in the examples above) is that one gets the impression that you're looking for reasons to oppose an RfA rather than looking for reasons to support. Not that there's anything wrong with that but it might explain why your RfA !votes are a general cause for concern. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, if people would provide enough of a reason that they need the tools I would change my mind. I have before, you know. :P I have had hour long discussions with those running for RfA which have given me reason to actually believe that they can be trusted and have a need. It doesn't take much for me to feel in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This is what I meant when I said you didn't AGF very well. Bsimmons666 (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

AGF does not mean "trust everyone". You can assume good faith and see that they haven't put forth a strong enough rationale for the tools. AGF means to believe that they aren't here to disrupt. Sure, they can be applying for adminship because -they- think that is for the best and I believe that they think that it is for the best. I disagree and I will oppose until I am convinced. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi - I've been largely absent from WP lately, for a number of reasons. I was let go from my job of several years; I've been trying to sell my house; I've been packing up the house preparatory to moving to another country, and I've been looking for another job in the new country, not to mention taking my share of the childcare. (Daughter aged almost 2, hellaciously active and likes having books read to her.) In my last job, I had a lot of time to work on wiki stuff but I just don't have that amount of free time any more. So that's why there's been little input from me for the last 6 months. But I'm glad to see that the Johnson-related stuff has remained pretty stable. And I'm glad that I got to read Irene and become one of the world's few authorities on it, in however such a limited way.

I'm going to start studying for a degree later this year; the job-hunting process has brought home to me how most of the jobs that I am actually qualified to do, I am technically unqualified to do, because I don't have a degree in anything. How are you? Lexo (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Re:a joke

Thanks for your explanation. I wasn't suggesting you oppose people because they have a sense of humor. I'm saying that it concerns me that someone who takes RFA very seriously when it comes to opposing people, even to the point of assuming bad faith (just my honest opinion), would be so lackadaisical about their own run at the mop. All that said, I personally think that if you put your block log behind you and focused on the kind of awesome mainspace work you've done before, instead of getting in to heated discussion, you'd be a great RFA candidate. There's always a second chance (take a look at my RFAs). Steven Walling (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but it's not about you needing the tools. It's about the project needing you. Steven Walling (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The project doesn't need any one of us. Not you, not me, not Ottave. What is does need though is a good kick up the arse, which Ottava would be well qualified to deliver. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I don't know if I can do that. It would require a very big boot. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XI

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Yay, you've done it!

WP:-100. Respect. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Number 100 shouldn't surprise anyone, except those wondering why he is still allowed to muck about, let alone write something incredibly ironic. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is, as I feel you might agree, a deeply rooted dishonesty in the way that wikipedia is run. To be opposed by so many lacking the clarity of vision to recognise that is nothing to be ashamed of, or to apologise for. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

May I join the conversation, please? I just wanted to praise Ottava for showing maturity and dignity in the face of many unpleasant comments and unfair characterizations. I was pleased to support your RfA and I am appreciative of your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you, Ottava. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kinda reminds me of my favorite lines from Death to Smoochy:

"How does it feel to be the most hated man in America?"

"In a country full of neanderthals, I wear it as a &$##ing badge of honor."

Seriously though, if edits, effort, and ability were being judged, there would be no discussion. It seems there is a large group of admins and editors who don't want someone dissenting all the time simply because he is right. :) Mrathel (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the inevitable result is now in. I remember all too well how it feels to have an RfA fail, so chin up, chest out, and fuck 'em I say. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Most people will be like Scarlett O'Hara and whine and cry and believe that there is nothing left. I shall be like Rhett Butler, and frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WR

Well, if Wikipedia Review disdains you, you must have something going for you that I've strongly overlooked (outside of your writing articles well). It seems unlikely you'll get adminship, but should you, tone it down dealing with others and leave the cheap shots to the little kids. --KP Botany (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I try to make sure that my shots are worth over 100 dollars. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA and my gaming the system

As I hadn't expected a full-fledged conversation to develop on your RFA page, I figure I'll bring it here. Go ahead and question every single one of my GA's and FA's, because I have never gamed the system. And while I'm at it, go ahead and RFC me, and try and impose a topic ban. Like it or not, I'm not leaving. FWIW, if the result of the discussion on the three GA's was a resounding keep, then I would have known how to proceed with the topic, hence why it is minor. Instead, now I know that I can expect resistance from you no matter what I do. I guess a topic ban would be easier, as maybe then you'd give me a fucking break. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't say you never gamed the system because there is clear proof that you did. The fact that you even would put up those articles for anything is a WP:POINT violation. You are not welcome on my talk page until you understand that this is a community that is based on an encyclopedia and not about earning yourself a little star. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Hello.. I sincerly hope you decide to run again; perhaps at the end of the year?--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, there are people that kept grudges for over a year, so another year wont change a thing. The massive amounts of canvassing and having their friends come out only shows the problems with these individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But I think it should become a regular event anyhow, like Charles Manson's parole hearings:) Mrathel (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! But I laughed. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd very likely make a very good admin as well. But we both know that there are parties who will oppose anyone who gets involved in any controversy. And, maybe, horrible as it sounds, we might need one lamb to sacrifice so that the others can get through to adminship without having the dogs attack them. In any event, thank you for the attempt, and I hope you continue to do the good work here you've already been doing for some time to come. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I will only if you promise to stick around and do plenty more quality and importance reviews for articles. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. You noticed that, huh? I didn't know we had that many stubs out there. Yeesh. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we first met when you were going through the various religious articles to give them ratings. I was disappointed when you were taken away from wiki for a while because few people were as dedicated to this ignored but important process besides you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Can I draw your attention to this talk page thread from arbitrator Carcharoth. He asks that you either resubmit the evidence you presented in commenting on the case or at least link to those comments (they can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aitias if that is your preferred option). Many thanks, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Johnson TS edit

OR, would you be able to check this? I believe it came from one of your articles/sources: [7] I can't tell if it's vandalism or legit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a famous passage from Boswell and was used by the one author. Most of the versions should be the same, so here is a link to the passage. The reversion appears to be correct. I'm not sure what happened. It could have been change in the original and managed to slip into the others via copy and paste. I am correcting now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Ryulong

Just a note that we are rolling out a new workflow management system at RFAR/Ryulong this weekend, so you may want to review it at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop#New_case_workflow_management. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My error

This was completely unintentional and I have no real knowledge or recollection of how it happened. I am guessing that since you talkpage is on my watchlist (since I left a talkback message here) I must have inadvertently pressed rollback while moving my mouse. Sorry for the bewilderment the inexplicable edit must have caused. Abecedare (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have also accepted that you thought I was trolling my talk page and that the edit was inappropriate. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've voted support. If you've any suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Have a nice day. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey Ottava Rima,

I would like to award you this barnstar for your efforts to bring Wikipedia forward, you deserve it. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 05:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your efforts to "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them". doxTxob \ talk 05:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the links on my FAC. I'll get right on adding those when the holiday is over. Cheers! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Largedog180

I've commented there. Please respond there at your leisure. —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I updated this. I forgot to put E in there also. It is a clear SPA, and was created immediate after the previous SPA was deleted. The ban evasion would possibly be impossible to hunt down, but it is likely "he who shall not be named but will move your page to something nasty regardless if you actually mention it or not" if you get my drift. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bah don't talk in riddles, I'm assuming you mean grawp, if not please say who you think it is. Don't take WP:DENY to the extent that its impossible to collaborate. In the future please create cases using the master account as the casename. Please note who the master is on the case page. —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The master wont be Largedog180, that is rather obvious. There wont be any hard proof that it would be someone like grawp, as that would be impossible (especially the staleness and his rate of transferring to different networks). J.delanoy blocked it as an obvious sock puppet. A second sock puppet appeared. The range needs to be blocked to prevent account creation unless they are using multiple ranges. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Just 16 more...

Just 16 more edits to my RfA and you will have made as many edits there as you made to your own RfA:

Username:  	Ottava Rima
Project: 	enwiki
Namespace: 	Wikipedia
Edits 	Article
400 	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
112 	Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson
69 	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
66 	Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
51 	Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ottava Rima
36 	Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady
35 	Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson's early life
31 	Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Drapier's Letters/archive1
31 	Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
27 	Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greece Runestones

--Orlady (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't edit my own RfA that much, so the numbers are not surprising. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notability vs. Special

You keep saying that each storm is notable because of its possible connection with global warning. That isn't why they are notable. Just one storm does not make that much of a difference. When talking of overall trends of tropical cyclone activity, almost invariably it discusses the changes from seasonal totals of tropical storms and hurricanes. NOAA, NHC, Colorado State, they mostly care about the totals in the entire season, which is obviously why Erick is in the season article. More significantly, global warming research deals with how much stronger hurricanes have become, something which Erick doesn't fit into. From what I've seen, not to much emphasis is put on the weakest of the storms, since in years past, something so weak and short-lived wouldn't have been classified. I read that one researcher thought six of the storms in the 2007 AHS should not have been classified, which brings me back to the point I like to make: naming tropical storms is a human activity. Some storms are missed, and some cyclones (either storms or depressions) could have gotten their intensity wrong, thanks to their intensity being guessed by satellite imagery. However, counting the number of hurricanes and intense hurricanes is certainly something that could not be messed up easily; if there's an eyewall, it's easy to know it's a hurricane. Again, I'll say WP:NOTINHERITED. I cannot believe you think that "every peer in England is notable even without anything extra based on their status". Every person is unique, yes, but how is every person notable? Back to the storms, well, what else do I have to say - you and I just disagree. You think I'm pushing my POV, but I'm just voicing my opinion that a storm that lasted 30 hours, and never affected land, is not notable.

No, I said their notability is connected to Global Warming - many people are watching named storms because they either prove or disprove global warming. This means that even storms that don't kill people are still scientifically important. NASA is caring about these storms also. University Hawaii is caring about them also. Other organizations are caring about these storms. Even FEMA issues statements about how to deal with each of these storms and their impact. The amount of news from even a one day storm is enormous. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you this - what about tropical depressions? They have just as much information, are just as meticulously watched by the news, and are still tropical cyclones that are just 5 mph weaker than Erick. The only difference is that they do not appear in the best track, and as such they aren't usually included in seasonal statistics, meaning the Global Warming research groups don't care about them as much. My question is, should a random lump of clouds, that some bureaucrats think had winds surpassing the magical 40 mph level, be considered any more important than another lump of clouds that may have had the same intensity, but the same group of bureaucrats didn't think it reached the magic 40 mph level? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, named storms only are taken into consideration when discussing global warming. Al Gore doesn't give tours about depressions, but if he can put a name on it, he will present about it. The media follows in suit. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But what are your thoughts on tropical depressions? Are you saying they are not notable? The media pays attention to them as well, but they're not included in stats. Should a 35 mph tropical cyclone be considered any that much less notable than a 40 mph tropical cyclone? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have only ever talked about named storms. Therefore, your question has no merit to any of this discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Then consider it for a different discussion, as I might proposing a few depression articles that didn't affect land for merger. Should a 35 mph tropical cyclone be considered as notable or not than a 40 mph tropical cyclone? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the Hurricane project nor care. I only care about pages rated GA or FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Seven (2002) is a GA, which I plan to propose for a merger. Does the fact that it wasn't named matter too much? It had similar coverage. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My statement before was that all named storms after 1998 were definitely important. It does not mean that unnamed storms are not important. Looking at the page, it has a lot of content there. I am a deletionist by nature, but I would not touch a page with that much content that comes from a reputable source. However, if someone like DGG, who is very anti-deletion in principle thinks that the page doesn't belong, then I would accept his view. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

John Keats

Are you able to undertake any improvement to John Keats soon? Not quite my field, but it is one of the weakest articles on a major poet that I have seen. --mervyn (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I currently lent out my collection of Keats biographies to a student. I should be receiving them back next week. I should be able to go through them in a week or so and fix the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ahahaha! Mwah ha ha! Ha! Hehe! Hoohoo! Ha ha!

I just don't like the fact being revealed on Wikipedia, so shuuush :)  GARDEN  20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Four Quartets

Regarding your comment:

Perhaps I spoke too soon - This shows that you acted improperly. If you noticed, the lines are cited. Adding such templates to cited paragraphs is inappropriate use of templates and is considered vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is not cited; two sentences within it are. Then there are two very broad statements in the paragraph that a future wikipedia reader should be very sceptical of since the reader would have no idea of the expertise of the person who inserted them. These are: "Eliot believed ..." (how do we know what he believed about this?) and "When Eliot wrote about personal topics, he tended to use Dante as a reference point." Whoever wrote this last sentence (you?) must have intended it to be cited along with the following sentence but that isn't clear. I have the refernced book and I will fix up the second citation to be clearer but, in my opinion, the "fact" template should have been fixed by the original writer. Would you please do something similar to make it obvious that a number of statements dealing with Yeats are covered by the same citation (if that is the case, I don't have that book).

By the way, from my website:

The poems that comprise T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets ("Burnt Norton," "East Coker," "Dry Salvages," and "Little Gidding") have much in common. One way of reading them is to compare the corresponding parts of each. To do so the old fashioned way required flipping a number of pages or spreading copies of the poems across a table top. The new method involves placing each of the poems in their own seperate frame of a web brower and allowing the reader to scroll through them as needed. The link below is such a framed presentation.

http://world.std.com/~raparker/exploring/tseliot/works/poems/fq.html

I frame copyrighted material so the link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WikiParker (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations carry on between sentences. That is according to the MoS. There is no legitimate excuse for you to act in such a manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Heads up

This may be useful to you, if you wish to spend the money:

[8] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting some practice in

As I've never really done much with literature articles before, I thought I'd limber up for our Ainsworth marathon by undertaking a short sprint with Herbert Read's The Green Child, a novel I often refer to 30 years after I first read it. Any pointers you can offer would be most welcome. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The way I think about it is what would bring a student to see the page - historical background (who wrote it, why they wrote it, how they wrote it, publication, etc), then plot (what the story is about, important details), themes (what things are major in the story but can't be discussed just as plot), reception/critical opinions, and, if you can, source material and influences. Students are either writing a paper or presenting on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, I didn't have a student's motivation for reading the article in mind, only my own reaction to the novel when I first read it: "words and things grow together in the mind, grow like a skin over the tender images of things until words and things cannot be separated" made a very powerful impression on me, and I'd like to think potentially on others who may be persuaded to read the book by a well written aticle, students or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with article judgement: Scientific opinion on climate change

I recently came across a page that seems a bit problematic, but I thought I would have you take a look at it and see if you agree with my opinion before I proceed with any action. The article title is the key issue to me: given the very basic principles of science, I can't see how there can ever be a single opinion on any given subject. If the article were titled "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", there would be no issue. However, two problems come up here; if the article title were changed, then all of the text would have to be changed to reflect the fact that there is more than one opinion, it would basically be the article on "Climate Change", and any deletion discussion would surely incur the wrath of WP:Wikiproject Environment, and there is absolutely no way it would pass. Before I do anything, however, I was wondering if you can let me know if there are any flaws in my logic. But since there are no articles beginning with "Scientific Opinion on" that don't deal with global warming or climate change, I am pretty confident that there really is an issue here. Mrathel (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Problematic Decline

Don't bother, as I was working with that user via email shortly after that. He's already gotten a new account and will begin editing again soon.

In the future, if you do have a concern with something I've done, I'd really appreciate you talking with me first before you go running to the higher-ups. I find it somewhat rude that you didn't do this here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - A look at the user's block log would have told you this as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:KillYourselfNow Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but your notice above seemed to imply you were going to file a request with the crats whether I responded or not. In any event, I did discuss with the user the problem with their username, the other problems they were having (edit warring) and how to avoid both. When I felt the user had a satisfactory understanding of them, I released the block on his IP address to allow him to make a new account, something which is standard procedure when an account does not have any substantial edits attributed to it. I did what I was "supposed" to do; if I didn't do it the way you feel I should have, I'm sorry, but it's done now. There is no point in posting further at User talk:KillYourselfNow, as that account is no longer active. The user is back editing, with a name that is acceptable under policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, he emailed me. It seemed easier at that point to continue the discussion by email, and I noted such in the block log. If you believe I would unblock a user who I felt would continue edit warring, you are sorely mistaken. I am keeping an eye on his contributions. Contrary to your apparent belief, I am not being irresponsible here. Now if you do not mind, I have better things to do than be subject to baseless accusations of abuse. Good day. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, this happens all the time. You can see a comment from Jayron on the talk page now telling him to make another account, not to file a rename request. I don't see why you're making such an issue out of this, because it really isn't one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Gerontion

When you finish real life work, I would love it if you would take a look at Gerontion which I have worked on a bit since I felt left out of the Four Quartets party:) Mrathel (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Four Quartets pages has only about 50% of the information. I am currently in the middle of writing a real life article on the relationship of Four Quartets and The Waste Land, so I have been distracted. However, I will drag you into all of that for a GA push for the five articles after I am done (possibly by this weekend if all goes well). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Round

Over at the Ryulong ArbCom discussion, there has been use of the term "round". Perhaps we should change to a word that wouldn't seem so much like a boxing match? I just find it a tad odd. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I once compared workshops to rings... not of boxing but for vale tudo (MMA). But yes, I agree... so, let's change it! What do you suggest?

P.S. I suggest 'phase'. What do you think? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, "phase" makes me think of some kind of sci-fi show. I don't know why. :) "Section" wouldn't have the right "progression" feel. "Part" may have the "incomplete" feel to it and suggest a progression. There are other words - session, stage, etc. We could just keep the term "round" and include a fight to the death at the end. That may liven things up around here. :)Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

'Stage' seems right. I'll update it later on today. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIV

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

GA Congratulations!

The article you nominated for Good Article, Sermons of Jonathan Swift has passed! NancyHeise ^talk 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: your comment at the Graeme Bartlett RfA

Apologies if this isn't the appropriate venue, but I didn't want to disrupt the RfA with my response. I didn't think it was worth opposing since in a situation as the question described there would most likely be other involved admins that would be willing to pull the trigger if a block was the sensible move. Not every admin should be compelled to make blocks, there's always others to do the dirty work. In my view its better to have a single admin who doesn't go far enough with these than an admin who hands out blocks like ice cream cones at the seashore. ThemFromSpace 05:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have knowledge of a major misdoing, your first step should not be the warn the person and let them know that someone is onto their scheme. The first thing you do is you collect evidence and go to the proper authorities. I don't care if he blocks or not. You never go to the person who is destroying Wikipedia about things, because they obviously can't be trusted if they are doing it in the first place. The sheer amount of support there only verifies -why- Wikipedia is having problems with these sock masters. Newyorkbrad, for example, knows that the user MyWikiBiz over at WikipediaReview admitted to running a sock, and yet he wasn't phased at all by the answer to question 4. He knows directly that people are doing this, and yet doesn't see it as a priority. One of our Arbitrators! We really have only ourselves to blame for this sockmasters, because we are too weak to bother doing the right thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TCGJ

Hey Ottava,
Was wanting to know what the situation was with this one. You mentioned having sources that would allow for a more extended discussion of literature style/impact – are those online anywhere or are they in a physical collection? Just wanted to see where things were at; I think the article has potential and your thoughts here are appreciated. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have many books on Fielding, some dealing with his theories of novels. I also have some notes for a few other pages that dealt with the journal. After next week, I will have a chance to start devoting full fledge to Wikipedia. I've been busy with real life stuff at the moment. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

All in your own time. :-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA !votes

Hey there. I know you and I are like oil and water, but we just !voted similarly on two RfAs. And even agreed on some of the reasons for the votes. Looking for flying swine momentarily. Tan | 39 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets just hope that they don't have the flu. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Response from WT:RFA

"Burden of evidence is on the opposer? That is an utterly ridiculous statement that makes me have 100% -no- confidence in your ability to judge RFAs at all. The burden of evidence needs to be on the supporter, as this is a position of power and responsibility, and admin must be shown to be trusted. Anything else is a disgrace. Your comment is shameful in every respect and I hope you strike it immediately. If not, it will be used in any future closing of RfAs performed by you in order to see if you are really cut out to be a Crat."[9]

I'm honestly surprised by how venomous your response is. I've made a comment at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Response from WT:RFA that may shed some light on my attitude (in conjunction with User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings). However, I'm totally confused by the "it will be used in any future closing of RfAs performed by you" bit. Of interest to you may be User:EVula/opining/admin recall if you truly have a lack of faith in me as a bureaucrat, but this is the first I've heard that my attitude may not be "right"; too many editors I respect do have confidence in me as a bureaucrat for me to start second-guessing myself almost a year after becoming a bureaucrat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone, anyone, who treats RfA as a vote does not belong at RfA. A bureaucrat that counts supports without rationals, or those whose rationals are "no big deal", "why not", or other frivolities, are treating it like a vote. Wikipedia is based on consensus, which requires discussion. That is our fundamental belief structure here. Your comments were 100% inappropriate and go against the basic structure of this place. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another example of where you and I simply don't see eye to eye. I consider the idea of not discounting no-rationale !votes as being akin to treating the entire process as a straight vote a laugh. I fail to see how my comments were "inappropriate," though; I think we're using different definitions of the word. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XV

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 08:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Your comments in response to new york brad on RFA talk page

"Someone who is unwilling to stand up to what they believe in didn't actually believe in it to begin with. I have no respect for individuals without convictions." You see, the problem with DougsTech isn't his opinions, nobody has suggested his opinions are disruptive, but his behaviour, as in, how he expresses his opinions. If he start a discussion on an appropriate forum maybe he'd find people who agree with him, and nobody would have any problem with him at all. But what's he's doing now is disruptive.--22:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.145 (talk)

My comment wasn't about Doug. It was about people in general. If NYbrad would cower before angry masses then he would be showing weakness that can't really be respected. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, are you suggesting that if I make a particular edit or series of edits, and a vast majority of other editors (including yourself perhaps) tell me to stop, that I should keep on doing it to avoid "showing weakness"? You have never hesitated in speaking out against those you believe have done the wrong thing, but now you seem to be saying that people should never change their minds or back down in the face of opposition. I may be misinterpreting you, but I am having difficulty in reconciling this opinion with your previous actions. Raven4x4x (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you believe in what you say, then you wouldn't change your mind. If you change your mind, then you didn't believe in what you say. I have respect for the loyal opposition, but none for the cowardly ally. This is not about actions, but about beliefs. One should always pursue what they think is right, moral, and just. If not, then they shouldn't be doing anything at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it not possible though to believe something to be right based on the evidence available to you, but then encounter new evidence that forces you to re-evaluate your beliefs? For example, based on your edits here I believe you to be a principled person who stands up for what you feel is right, and I respect you for that. If evidence was to come to light that you have infact murdered five people, I would obviously need to rethink my beliefs. An extreme example I know, but changing my mind in this case would not be a sign of "cowardice" nor would it diminish the strength of my previously held beliefs.

Anyway, I think the point of Brad's comment was not about changing your beliefs or ceasing to act on them, but more about the manner in which you act. Certainly you should persue what you believe to be right, but there are ways to do this and ways not to do this. If you were to ask me to cease posting on your talk page, continuing to post because "I know I'm right" would neither win your respect nor convince you to consider my views. Raven4x4x (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of Brad's comment is that he has no opinion except for what the mob says. As such, his views cannot be respected, as there are none. Belief is higher than the mob, and if we followed the mob, then we would have nothing worth while. Your whole statement about murder has nothing to do with belief, and it shows that you don't understand the definition. Please, look up what "belief" is in the dictionary. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

The proposed decision is up in the above case. It is located here. The proposed decision will be presented to the Arbitration Committee for voting on May 11.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicolò Giraud

That's what I get for having five different tabs open, all Wikipedia. :| Zazaban (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I followed a link from the talk page Wikiproject:LGBT, and then thought I went to another tab. Clearly I didn't. I'm not sure what happened, I was trying to revert somewhere else, I don't actually remember where because, well, I had five tabs open :\ I have now cut it down to two to prevent this from happening again. Zazaban (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA/FA

I agree, and I will definitely enjoy working on them as a early summer project. I will send you an instant message soon and we can discuss a tentative time table. Mrathel (talk)

Just to let you know, I will probably not be on much this weekend due to Mother's Day, but i will be back in action on Monday, and will probably IM you at that time to talk. I am pretty sure my library will be open throughout May, so I will probably ask for a list of your sources so I don't duplicate. If you have any in mind that you might not have yourself, feel free to make a request for anything you can find here [10]. Mrathel (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist

Thanks for re-adding the comments to Everyking's RfA after that strange edit. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. You happened to revert it while I was staring at disbelief trying to understand it. I was able to parse everything afterward, so it was a team effort. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Complaint on the Linguistics Problem

Hi, I've registered a complaint against the specific admins on the community page to 1. Jimmy Wales, 2. the Help Desk, 3. the Arbitration Committee. Do participate in this if you feel there's anything you wish to contribute to resolve this issue. Thanks, Supriya. 122.162.199.27 (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you were engaged in the debate on the talkpage some days ago, so I thought I'd ask you if you wish to participate further? 122.162.199.27 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't really a debate, and most agreed to allow in a small mention in the Semantics area. I didn't have anything specific in mind, I just wanted to make sure that people were willing to allow for some expansion. What you did was the inappropriate way of handling the situation. If you want them to adopt something onto the page, post a section saying what lines you want, where you want it, and how far you are willing to compromise on the language. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

we hear

I think you have made your point here. Maybe be best just to let it run its course now? David D. (Talk) 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, and that was before all the stuff on the talk page. David D. (Talk) 21:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite has been an onwiki friend of Everyking and someone constantly attacking me for a long time. His oppose was never real. It was just a show. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not followed your edits at all, so I can't comment on your relationship with hipocrite but there comes a time when too many contributions to an RfA tips the balance. I'd say you are close to it, if not past it. So far you have documented your concerns more than enough, as far as i can tell. Do you have anything fresh to contribute? If not, anything extra just becomes counter-productive. David D. (Talk) 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The only real recent involvement I had on that page was based on Everyking's claims that defending the Catholic Church was hate speech in his answer to number 15. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Note; also an onwiki friend of Everyking? David D. (Talk) 14:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob agreed with me. Ameliorate! agreed with me. Those are the blatant ones. Then there are also the angry people who emailed me because of Everyking's and Rootology's attacks on the Catholic Church and calling it hate speech. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

Im thinking this should be remominated at FAC; it has vastly improved with Awadewit's and others input. Are you ok with this, and are you ok with being listed as co-nom. Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fowler, Mattisse, and Bishonen had concerns. I am sure that Fowlers may have been met, but I would recommend asking Mattisse and Bishonen if they still had outstanding concerns. If you want to list me, that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Clinton

Would you care to comment on the record at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/GA1‎. It seems to be a contested delisting. Other opinions are welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Last time I tried to get people to try and cut the Clinton page back to MoS appropriate size, they tried to ban me from Wikipedia. It is part of the greater political minefields of those who want to cram in every last detail to glorify their deity. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Your comment is surprsing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

They tend to have that effect, but which FAR? I couldn't find any that I posted in that were still open. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[11] I really wish you had left your own actions there buried, but you opened the door back to them to oppose EK. rootology (C)(T) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying that defending a matter of faith when it comes to gay marriage in a manner that does nothing to classify homosexuality in any matter is not hate speech. The fact that Everyking would claim it is only verifies that he is incapable of being an admin. Analyze my actions there and people will see how horrible WR is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can debate that side of it here before it derails the RFA inappropriately. I'm a firm believer that even if someone thinks gays/blacks/whatever is the best/worst thing ever should have no standing here on adminship if they don't post to advocate a strong POV on-wiki. You can go and found "catholicshateyousinceyouarent.com" for all I care, if it never touches your editing.

But all that aside, using the "no kids in marriage" thing is the silliest excuse our church has ever come up with to oppose. Did you see the pending NY law and the Connecticut laws? My legal people back home in CT nailed a home run and a half--the state grants same-sex marriage, but the church legally doesn't have to honor it. The perfect execution of separation of Church and State. Bob & John or Karen & Sharon can marry--and legally, no different than Bob & Karen. But--the church doesn't even have to acknowledge it; they're mutually exclusive if a particular church decides on it, and the church has legal immunity against suits involving that. What are your thoughts on Connecticut handling of it? I thought it was particularly genius myself. Everyone gets what they truly want--the government doesn't tell the Church what to do, and the Church, who has zero authority over those not of their flock (and even then, it's still subject to the flock itself) can't tell non-believers squat. rootology (C)(T) 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Marriage and sex being based for children only is one of the oldest standards of the Catholic Church and was rooted in reconciling Paul's comments about sex and marriage. The Church does not say homosexuality is evil, or having feelings is bad. What it says is that sex is -only- for procreation and marriage is only for procreation. To claim that this is gay bashing is ridiculous, and to claim that it is hate speech is ridiculous. Many Protestants say that homosexuals shouldn't marry because homosexuality is evil according to the Old Testament. That is quite different than the Church's stance. It is quite different from Phelps's stance. To classify defense of the Church's belief that marriage is about children as hate speech is utter ignorance.

Now, the "separation of Church and State" does not exist. What exists is the 1st amendment line put in to support the Carrollton family (Catholics) and their right to be Catholics and have government positions. The rule was to allow people of all Christian sects and all religions to hold government positions without worrying about losing their rights to vote or speak as they did in Britain. This means only that the State cannot pass laws affecting religions, but the religious can put forth their views on morality.

My feelings on Connecticut? To be honest, they are redefining a thousands of years old term in order to make a few people feel validated. To give a title that deals with the traditional family makeup in such a manner is linguistically demeaning. 1984 was all about people rewriting definitions to promote a view. It is only of the oldest political ways of deception. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The major problem with all of this is that it presumes that Catholocism (or even Christianity) is the dominant religion of our times, or that religious morality can take the place of given legal rights. In our nation, affirmed again and again and again and again since throughout the 20th century and again now in the 21st, is that all citizens are entitled to the exact same rights and treatment by the government. Every single time when it ultimately comes push to shove, that anyone's rights in any way are minimized by the state relative to what everyone else has, the law is adjusted to equalize the situation. Short of us becoming a theocratic government--which would be 100% impossible under our Constitution--can you see any other way that this all ends under our laws beside all men and women having exactly identical rights? rootology (C)(T) 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism was the minority religion back when the 1st amendment was adopted. It was adopted to ensure that Catholics had a right to be involved in politics. Thus, I think your statement is backwards. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we were the minority in this country then. But you didn't answer my question. Under the laws and traditions and historical direction of this nation from the 20th century onwards--hell, even back to the abolition of slavery--can you see any other way that this all ends under our laws beside all men and women having exactly identical rights? rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Our rights are defined in the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a traditional agreement based upon consanguinity that was created in order to separate bastardization/illegitimacy from rightful legitimacy. It was created to protect the rights of the child and the mother from infidelities of the father. Those under 18 cannot marry without parental consent, first cousins or closer cannot marry, and people cannot marry non-humans. We also restrict voting which is a right given in the amendments to the Constitution, so your argument falls flat. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was legally my right to own slaves once, so your entire argument on diverting the discussion into marriage not being a right falls flat right there. Blacks couldn't marry whites once, either. Did you know I also could have been heretical if I ate shellfish once, as well? Based on my faith, I predict in 2012 a black man will marry a white man deep in the heart of Texas, and as the shrimp cocktail is served at the reception, the polar gravitational tilt will occur, followed by Four Horseman riding out on Harley Davidson (since American bikes are better) motorcycles. ;)

The times, they are a' changing. rootology (C)(T) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And homosexuals can marry those of the opposite sex, so their right to marry is not removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh... the church, if they had their way, would stop gays from marrying. My whole point is--and always has been--is that religious law and belief has zero place as state law in any form in our nation, and state law has no business telling religion what to do with their private business. rootology (C)(T) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The Catechism and Papal bulls on the matter are quite clear: if anyone wants to marry someone of the opposite sex and have sexual intercourse for children, then that is acceptable. If people want to have sexual intercourse for anything but reproduction, that is not acceptable. It has nothing to do with being "gay" or not, as everyone is under the same restriction. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This still all presumes that the Vatican has preemptive authority over anything but the citizens of the Vatican State, and actual clergy.... rootology (C)(T) 17:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Vatican has authority over all Catholics and can deny communion to those who knowingly break the catechism. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Claimed authority; the Catholic church has many factions, sects, and groups. We Catholics are also not the singular Christian nor religious authority on this planet. rootology (C)(T) 18:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You can claim yourself as Catholic all you want, but you are heretical if you do not acknowledge the leadership of the Pope and fail to follow the Catechism. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm going to make a prediction. As each state in turn adopts same-sex civil marriage as legal--NH already did but it isn't live yet; NY I think will pass--even many Republicans are now publically on their fence, since their constituents want it; and Rhode Island is so liberal I'm surprised they haven't done it yet--the whole of the Northeast beside New Jersey will be legalized. NJ is pretty lefty, as well, so they will be next. PA after. The question will be, afterwards, is what happens when other states start to adopt it--or the exact opposite. When a state next tries a legislative or executive approach to ban it, mark my words: it will be heading for the Supreme Court at last. rootology (C)(T) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that many states voted a ban into their constitution. The Supreme Court will just remove the ruling from lower courts as marriage is not a Constitution specified right. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick

Good job, I think we can improve it further, will have more to say when I get my MacCarthy back. Haiduc (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There was one critic mentioned on the talk page but was not listed at the bottom. I don't remember the name, but it came up when you mentioned the Nicolas naming. Perhaps you could track that critic down too? I haven't had any luck. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Milton

I have been through John Milton once more. There are still a few rough patches, I suppose, but I think the overall impression is good. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Consider this a warning. You will not attack myself and other users, and you will take it to ANI or stop. Do you understand? Your obnoxious poisoning of the well needs to stop, since you're already on this ice. Take it DR on ANI before you post another attack, or you'll be brought to ANI rootology (C)(T) 15:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning? You can't warn people, you are one of the ones making hateful comments. You compared the Catholic Church to the KKK. You attack people and are being incivil. Yes, you should be blocked. And look at my block log. I haven't been blocked for a very long time, so you think you can threaten me while promoting hate and lies like that? That is really sad. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take it to ANI if you intend to continue doing this, or else the next time you do this, I will. rootology (C)(T) 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Take it to ANI then. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. rootology (C)(T) 15:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Pending further discussion and decision on this, consider yourself banned from posting on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5. Step away from the horse, its just bones now, and try to disengage elsewhere. Limit this to the ANI thread. thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)