User talk:Ottava Rima: Difference between revisions

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

Journal

Thanks for the additions. I'm gone away for the weekend, but when I come back, I plan to help tidy the whole article up some more. Few things:

I've merged Content and Literary and Theatric Criticism, mostly because the latter seemed to fall within the former and because Content was rather short anyway. I know that, right now, the two don't coalesce very well, but I'll make sure to make things flow better when I return.
Wrt to the two-paragraph lead: This is just a suggestion from the MoS. Here, the four-paragraph structure is well-defined and quite intuitive, and splicing it into two just because the MoS suggests it probably isn't productive.

Thanks again. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Characters of Shakespear's Plays

Oh man, that's… I'm at a loss for words. Let's put it this way, the article has made me so enthusiastic I'm grasping for profanity to use as emphasis before the word “awesome”. :-)

Being a biography wonk myself, I wasn't even really aware of Hazlitt above some peripheral mentions of his name—and certainly not with this work—but I'm now quite excited about it and want to know more (which, where I'm concerned, is about the highest praise an article can get). The article is interesting and well written, and I'm particularly impressed with the quality of the prose. These kinds of articles can often get a bit “choppy”, but here you've done a great job of making it flow well.

My only complaints would be that it dives a bit to early into details about the individual essays, without giving me a sufficient overview of the book; what plays are covered, how is it lain out, that sort of thing. I also stumbled on a reference to “Keane” down in Themes that didn't specify who Keane is (it is, of course, possible to reason out; but it made for a brief cognitive stumbling block for me). And it appears to be quite sparsely wikilinked; which isn't quite a critical failure, but ought probably still be rectified. Incidentally, I suspect someone will at some point complain that the article reads like a personal essay (cf. that horrible cleanup template that gets plastered over articles willy-nilly); and while I do agree with that to some small extent, I am here preemptively disagreeing with anyone that would argue that this can be considered a failing of the article. :-)

I've made a few very minor changes to it (one word changed to match the tense of the sentence, and wikilinking the Whigs and Torys). As the deed was done before sufficient quantities of coffee were imbibed, I hope you will check the changes before I go about referring to them as “corrections” rather than mere “changes”.

Anyways, kudos on an exceptionally good piece of work. If you were to nominate this at GAC I'd be happy to review it, but in fair warning my personal inclination would probably be to just pass it directly (so if you wanted more detailed review and crtitique, that particular exercise would be in vain): the above small points are the sum of my complaints after a first reading. --Xover (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Please do drop a note at the project talk page to let the whole project (what few of us there are) know about new articles like this. While I at least try to watch for new relevant articles by watchlisting as many as possible of the existing articles in the project scope, and looking out for added links to new articles, it's foten quite hard to discover these. --Xover (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kean I think wikilinking and giving the full name when he comes up again in Themes is sufficient. The distance between the Essays section and Themes is too long to maintain the mapping of “Kean” to “Edmund Kean” in one's head. And I quite sympathise with the problem of keeping track of both detail and overview, and overall structure, in one's own texts. I'll try to provide some sort of second pair of eyes for it where I can. I'm also quite excited to hear you'll be mounting an excursion further into Bard territory: the wikiproject has been quite idle and unfocussed of late, and I'm encouraged at the prospect of seeing more of your (always excellent) work in the area. Perhaps particularly as you tend to attack aspects that are, relatively speaking, obscure within the extant collection of Shakespeare-related articles on Wikipedia, and thus unlikely to receive a treatment otherwise. It is much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. That's quite clever even. Nicely done. --Xover (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody grabs it sooner, I'll take a stab at a GA review this weekend (time, and visiting relatives, permitting). Incidentally, it would be good if you and Alan could figure out the Macbeth question by then, due to the stability requirement in the criteria (the question of the accuracy should also be addressed of course, but looking in isolation on the GAC, it's actually a lesser problem here, I think). --Xover (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grmble. That darn MoS again. I'll take a look at what it says, precisely, and reevaluate the runs of direct quotes that bothered me.
Alphabetical order doesn't seem the most appropriate way to order the essays, or at least not the most intuitive. Could you take a look at it and see if you find an order that makes sense in terms of importance, or order within the book, or some such?
And the image of Gifford would do very well to spruce up the Critical reception section, I think. I'll have a look at the other images and see if I can come up with any concrete suggestions. --Xover (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please

Will you please calm the fuck down (irony intentional). You have made your opinion known on that NPG AFD, please stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you. I see from this page that in the last month alone you've had two people telling you to be civil and generally calm down. While I can tell you have made some great additions to Wikipedia, your attitude does you a disservice. People are not imbeciles simply because they don't think you're right about everything.

I urge you to treat people as you would wish to be treated - ie affording them respect, dignity and courtesy.

Good day to you. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting? If pointing out where they obviously didn't bother to read the page and/or our policies is insulting, then they should be insulted. They should be ashamed that they are treating this as some vote without actually bothering to look at the page. Every single keep in there is a slap in the face against our BLP standards and our encyclopedic integrity. Every keep vote in there is another person who would rather turn this into a place filled with rumor and innuendo that would have damaging real life ramifications than have the guts to do what is right. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say your hounding of every person that makes an opinion is completely inappropriate and is likely to annoy a lot of people. Many of the comments do come across in an uncivil way. Jeni ^(talk) 22:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil does not apply to one's treatments of a comment and statement, especially when I refrain from using terms like "stupid", "idiotic" or similar descriptive. My comments are completely unmodified, with "ignorance" (meaning a lack of knowledge) as being the "worse" item. However, that word means empty, which cannot be an attribution of any kind of negativity. It seems that people, instead of dealing with what is stated, would rather lash out through a misunderstanding of policy than actually deal with logic. They admit that their statements are empty through their response. Of course, this only makes sense - by their willingness to "keep" said article on the most flimsy of justifications, they have already shown that they care not about the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. They have disrespected consensus by ignoring what guidelines and policies have stated, and they have disrespected themselves by not objectively analyzing what is available to them. To call themselves "editors" would be to disrespect those that struggle every day to add new content, to make it right, to make it good, and to abide by our policies and standards. To have them associate with others on Wikipedia is to give our critics more fuel. Their presence verifies that we do not care about standards, that we do not care for integrity, and that we allow the mob that lacks knowledge to dominate over our most important of topics. In short, by allowing those keeps to even exist, we have transformed our sacred Wiki into a filthy whore that no decent man would ever take home to his parents, let alone wish to marry her. To those who care about Wikipedia, who love her and respect her, and who want only the best for her, this is simply a result that cannot be accepted. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

You might not believe it but it was with regret I took you off the nom of Lucy. I dont deny your contibs, I think I have always been at pains to give credit, if in instances in anger I denyed then I apologise. I think you did great since the 2nd FAC began, and I'm glad you are there named at the end, sincearly. For me the biggest buzz from wiki is colleboration, and you did fantastic at the the time, but you were a net negative at FAC1 and early in FAC2. Great work from you since though, I'm happy to say and I'm proud of the article for you. However, we are too differnt to ever be on good terms; lets this be the end our assosiation. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input

The Pennsylvania article is not GA by standards of the most minimal by caomparison to other GA highway articles. Wikipedia articles must be readable, and understandable by the general reading public. References are to few for me to list as GA. Wikipedia Reference being unreliable, can be an rule ignored if consensus agrees and I can see that it does with these articles. However, editors are incorrect about follow up reference information. It is the actions of consensus that are pointed out and I can see and move forward with such as red links. Some editors do feel they make an article difficult to read. The editor, reduced the amount of red links to one for the size of the article in this review process. The map link is a single reference with multiple editions and should probably be simply given all three dates at the end of the reference. Anyway, editor hasn't made any changes in several days and simply feels the article is good enough. That is why there are others that do the reviews.

It's not a bad article. It just does not stand up to these editors own standards. A review is not done by commitee or heavy handed arguments. It's not an Edit war. It's my opinion, which is what reviews are. If I fail it, it can just go back up for nomination and have someoneelse rubber stamp it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Harbor (NJT station)

The reason I failed the article is because of the fourth concern. If it wasn't for that, I would have placed it on hold. This discussion backs up the claim that an article about a future item fails the stability criteria. Dough4872 (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is not an official policy, and the fact that Mitch said the station is probably not going to be built, I will consider doing a thorough review of the article. Dough4872 (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Shakespear's Plays

Wow! That is quite a substantial piece of writing on Hazlitt's book, which certainly deserves substantial treatment. I have just skimmed through your article at this point, but I intend to read every word. I don't mean to start off with nitpicking, but I might as well mention one mistake I saw: John Kinnaird is (or was; I don't know if he's still alive) in no way a "biographer" of Hazlitt. His William Hazlitt: Critic of Power is a full-length exploration of Hazlitt's thinking (and it happens to be a particular favorite of mine) but certainly not a biography. I thought I would mention this here instead of changing what you wrote myself, as you might want to reword the passage in your own way.

Glancing back at that passage, I just noticed you wrote the same of Bromwich, about whom I have the same comment. I'd say that both Kinnaird and Bromwich are themselves critics, but certainly not biographers of Hazlitt.

Yes, coordinated efforts between us to improve the main Hazlitt article would be welcome. (Everything is limited for me by time, though, of which I haven't nearly as much as I'd like; but I know I'm not alone.) What I am planning now is adding some sections on things like his style and critical reputation, of which there isn't nearly enough material now. (And I think you said as much yourself when we last communicated on Hazlitt.)

Keep up the good work, and I'm sure we'll be in touch again soon. Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure I understand you about keeping things to the user space vs. article space (yes, I know what these are, but don't know how you mean them here). In any case, if I think really major changes should be made, I will not do anything until I speak with you first. Smaller things I will edit in place (such as this biographer/critic tag, which, since it doesn't mean anything to you, I will alter shortly). Right now I am talking about only this article, as I want to read the whole thing without doing any editing in any other articles you are currently working on. As I take it, you have substantially completed this one at this point. Of course, as with anything and anyone on Wikipedia, we can always discuss anything we happen to disagree about. --Alan W (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it. It's a sensible way of working, I agree. I actually do something similar myself (which is why you will see that the Hazlitt article, to take my most recent example, will seem to have no activity from me for some time, then all at once 10 kilobytes' worth will have been added!). In my case, I do my preliminary work not in article or user space but completely offline. Just a personal preference.--Alan W (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your points about the Kinnaird and Bromwich quotations:

1) Since the passage Kinnaird discusses is about the nature of the poetic imagination, yes, of course specific poets exercise that imagination. But in this context, Hazlitt is talking about something that inheres in the very nature of poetic imagination, and he links it to the "language of power" in general. His idea has broad implications for criticism of poetry, and I think it distracts from that to add specifically "poets." This is to take nothing away from Characters of Shakespear's Plays. In fact, I think that noting this broader theoretical point shows that Hazlitt's book's implications go beyond criticism of specific plays or poets, which makes the book even more important than has ever been thought before.

2) About the Bromwich part, you say that writing it my way, "there would need to be a [...] after [is] for the first quote." On the contrary. In fact, bracketing the ellipses is not Wikipedia style: "When an ellipsis (...; see below) is used to indicate material removed from a direct quotation, it should not normally be bracketed" (my italics). --WP:MOS#Brackets_and_parentheses And "Use an ellipsis if material is omitted in the course of a quotation, unless square brackets are used to gloss the quotation" (my italics). --WP:MOS#Ellipses So the ellipses should not be there if a bracketed expression is used to gloss the quotation; and, further, where ellipses are needed, in most if not all cases here, they should not be bracketed. I think you should remove those square brackets from around the ellipses in quotations throughout the article, to conform to the MOS; if you don't do it, I will do it gradually, as I read the article. --Alan W (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you about bracketing the ellipses. I looked at most of the passages you quote that use the ellipses, and in not one of them do ellipses exist in the original text, which would be the only reason to bracket your own. It's probably pointless to debate this further now, though. If you ever want this article to get to FA status (which you seem to have in mind generally), you will probably be forced to remove the brackets. I took a look at several featured literary articles, and in virtually all cases where ellipses were used, there are no brackets. I know that bracketing ellipses is the style of some academic publications; but it is definitely not WP style, except when, as said before, the material quoted also contains ellipses.

Anyway, right now, I feel it is more important to concentrate on correcting factual errors, spelling errors, and that kind of thing, which I am doing where I can as I read the article. You've done a good thing by writing this article, you've brought in a lot of good material, and you make some good points; but, in my opinion at least, the writing is often awkward and much of the article seems hastily put together. (For example, nowhere do any of the critics or biographers say anything about Hazlitt's drama criticism appearing in the Edinburgh Review. And they didn't; that periodical was a vehicle for more theoretical discussions about literature or general criticism of an author's works, and that kind of thing, not drama reviews.) This still needs plenty of work. --Alan W (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima, neither do I want to fight. My attitude was that no one sees his or her writing perfectly well or could not benefit from a second pair of eyes. I have always welcomed judicious edits to my writing and have left many such unchallenged as I saw the improvements they made. I have not immediately reverted the edits, claiming "bad grammar," etc., and taking personal offense. I do not want to continue in this vein, having my edits reverted all along the way in this manner, and I do not want to get into an edit war. If I said that what you wrote seemed hastily written, it was only because much else of what you wrote gave me a higher opinion of your capabilities. I thought that you could do better and that you did yourself an injustice by your hastiness. Clearly, we do not see eye-to-eye about many things. Perhaps it is best that we follow our separate paths for now.

I will just add that, though I do not feel qualified to judge of your expertise in FAs, when it comes to the Romantics, I happen to have an academic background myself in that very area, and can claim more expertise there than most. Maybe, come to think of it, that is why we find ourselves clashing like this at the outset, like Hazlitt and Wordsworth, for example. Enough said. --Alan W (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say that you still have much more work to do on Characters, that is all the more reason for me to hold back for a while. From what you had said about doing so much in user space, I thought that now that it is in article space, it could be taken as substantially complete, at least in terms of the work you expected to do in any major way. After waiting some time for you to complete what you intend to do, if I notice anything that seems to me some factual error beyond dispute, I may go in and edit it. Even then, I'm wondering if we will ever agree on anything. To me, it was clear that when I said Hazlitt had not contributed reviews to the Edinburgh Review it was in the context of _theatrical_ reviews. I don't deny that there were "reviews" of literature, and so on. But the context was about his job as drama critic, as a writer of timely reviews of specific plays, performances and the like. If we couldn't agree on that much.... Well, we shall see. As long as we each assume good faith in the other, as is the WP way, we probably can't go _too_ far astray. :-) --Alan W (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, but please remember, you complain that I spoke of "how awful" you are (I really didn't mean it as a general slur on your abilities, you have to believe me), but I have cause for complaint as well. I made an edit in good faith, only to see most of it undone with what looked to me like contemptuous expressions that my edit included "clause errors tense disagreements, modifiers attached to wrong tenses, etc." Again, and I say this to remind myself as well, we have to assume good faith. We clearly have very different ideas about correct writing and matters of style, and we may just have to agree to disagree in some cases. Anyhow, I will return to reading the article over the next few days, though personal matters might prevent me from spending as much time on it as I would like. --Alan W (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued to read Characters. I had some general ideas for modifications but to change things the way I would prefer would be too radical. Our styles are just too different. I'm not saying that my way would automatically be better than yours, our thoughts are just structured in a different manner. So, at this time, what I will do is just leave a few suggestions, thoughts, and so on that occur to me, and maybe you will agree with me far enough to make some modifications; maybe not, but I am trying to help. --Alan W (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave those thoughts on the article's talk page, I meant to say. --Alan W (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not only about Lamb but in other ways you have made a number of distinct improvements. I have done a bit of editing. For one thing, Hazlitt does mention actors other than Kean, though Kean certainly was his favorite and gets the lion's share of attention. And, surely you did not mean to write "apprenticed in the theatre criticism" or "throughough". Simple typos, I'm sure, so I corrected those parts. --Alan W (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I appreciate your courtesy of continuing to request my input here (on Hazlitt and Kinnaird and Macbeth). We could well be approaching some kind of possible agreement, even though we both obviously feel very strongly about our different takes on this matter. Since I now know that we live in the same time zone, you know how late it is now. I can hardly think straight at this point. And I'm going to be quite busy with other things in the next day or two. I will try to come up with some tentative suggestion of how I would word the passage as soon as I can. Meanwhile, you might want to concentrate on other aspects of the article (and clearly I see from your talk page that you also keep yourself busy with other Wikipedia articles). I will repeat that if you really can elicit Duncan Wu's opinion about this I would be very interested to hear it. I am well aware that he is one of the most respected Hazlittians alive. If you could get David Bromwich to join the discussion, even better! Best of all would be to find that Kinnaird is still alive (I have no idea) and would be willing to explain exactly what he meant and why he said it that way! :-) --Alan W (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Rather than simply noting suggestions, I got so involved in the material that I ended up reworking a few parts of the Macbeth section in place. I have tried very hard to integrate your thoughts and mine, as we both have tried very hard to grasp what Kinnaird is saying about Hazlitt and Hazlitt about Shakespeare. I certainly do not think of this as final and will understand if you feel it desirable to rework this some more.

I am assuming that you would like to hear what I have to say about later sections as well, though I don't know how that fits in with Xover's plan to "take a stab at a GA review," as I see he has told you. --Alan W (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you think that my edits to the "Macbeth" section work. I certainly sweated over them for quite a long time. Yes, I stuck around because I saw that you were willing to collaborate in good spirit (and presumably you saw the same in me). In my several years as a Wikipedian I have come to appreciate how centrally important honest collaborative effort is to getting anything significant accomplished in this arena. I think we are on the right path.

You have not said anything about whether I should continue my commentary on later sections of Characters, but since I haven't finished reading it (but certainly have every intention of doing so) and would naturally have some thoughts as I go along, I will no doubt make some further comments anyway. We'll see how Xover's efforts (and those of anyone else who might join in to edit) work together with what we are doing. I am thinking particularly of what he said about GA nomination. For my part, I tend not to hurry about such things. My own sole GA effort was not put up for GA consideration until I had tinkered with and polished the article (and some others had added valuable edits, too, of course) for literally years! But I'm not saying that everyone has to have the same modus operandi around here. I guess I will just sort of tag along, reading and commenting, and occasionally editing, but mostly on the sidelines at this point. To be continued.... --Alan W (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've said I'm sticking around, haven't I? :-) And I appreciate the vote of confidence. I was just about to leave a note here, by the way, telling you that I was a bit mistaken about the GA status of the article (I hadn't been paying enough attention). I now see that it has already been nominated and is now waiting in a long line for review. So we have plenty of time to do more long before it gets up to the head of the line. And, as you say, even if it gets to GA status soon, that doesn't mean it is a finished article. I have just finished reading the "Merchant of Venice" section, and will in a few seconds leave a short comment meant for general consideration. --Alan W (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much about the GA review. The reason I offered to review it was that my superficial look at the article indicates it already passes the criteria, or is very close to it. Unless I find any significant problems that review is likely to take the form of a closer reading to point out opportunities for copy-editing and minor rearrangements; most of which will be optional (for your benefit, to address if you find them useful) to do anything about. The only criteria that stood out as a possible problem was #5, stability, because you appeared to have a factual disagreement in the Macbeth section, and the article text was changing back and forth. Other changes—one editor changes a sentence to make it better, another improves it further, the first editor yet better, etc.—where there isn't a dispute over facts or other significant aspect, do not fall under the stability requirement as far as I know.
In any case, if you would prefer I hold off on the GA review—or would prefer another editor did it, I'm just offering because the GAC queue is hideously long—just let me know; otherwise I'll try to get to it this weekend. --Xover (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion one way or the other about your holding off. I say that because my own GA experience has been with just a single article that I proposed for review after I had been making the vast majority of contributions to it, and then tinkering with it for a very long time, and even then only after others suggested that I put it up for GA. From the conversation I see between you and Ottava, on the other hand, the two of you seem to have been deeply involved in the GA reviewing process for some time now. So you two know better when to nominate articles, what to expect, how to proceed thereafter, etc. I will meanwhile continue to contribute editorially, in the ways I have already been doing. It will be great if this could get to GA status and even, dare we hope? to FA status. But I am not tossing my cap in the air with a whoop of joy just yet, as I know how much work all that will mean for all who contribute. --Alan W (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xover - The changes by Alan now are accepted - there is no real dispute between us (or, at least, from my end). My challenges are mostly to try and make sure that it is as optimal wording and not necessarily because I disagree. As such, I do not believe that my original view is necessarily optimal nor am I really fighting for it. :) You can review at any time. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giraud

Hello, I don't know much about the FAC process, and I am content to simply contribute to the articles that interest me, so I will not be submitting the article myself. Please feel free to do so yourself. Even though I do not entirely agree with the presentation of the material, I can live with it as it is and will not oppose you. Haiduc (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to be surly, and I'll be happy to co-nom if you like. As for ganging up, I am not worried, the Wikipedia principles are sound and reason usually prevails. Haiduc (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert

A courtesy notice. As I cautioned you, I have filed a notice of your behavior - it's at WP:WQA#Ottava Rima on AfD. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comments at User talk:Alan W

And he never did...--125.239.149.43 (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)‎[reply]

Lucy

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		To be fair, we all poured blood into this article, you more than most, and I hope you are not too unhappy with the final product. This in recoginition of all the hard work, insight and knowledge you brought over the last 10 months or so.Ceoil (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole experience was disterous really, the amount of times I got stressed out wasn't really funny. But in the end it was worth it. I am full sure though, I could never have delivered a page like that on my own. Ottava, you are a very unusual person, vexing, annoying, and invigeration all at the same time. Sometimes I dont know wheather I should hug or choke you. Here is a nice tune[1]. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Roethlisberger

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding in that regard. It isn't terribly relevant because it was but one argument of a few. Also, OTHERSTUFF was already pointed out to you. On a related note, I don't understand why you keep harping on the Jimbo matter either aside from sort of vague argument from authority. (I'm incidentally confused why you felt a need to add a note on my talk page rather than on the relevant deletion discussion article but that's a minor issue). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Jimbo is not a prophet. He is an intelligent individual and therefore generally has opinions worth listening to. This project also has a history of deferring to him to some extent due to his history with the project. This is not the same at all. He doesn't get a magic decision about what is ethical and what is not. Wales is not a prophet. We do not abdicate our moral and ethical decisions to him. Mike exists to handle legal issues. Again, a bright guy but not someone to abdicate our ethical decisionmaking to. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware that's incorrect. WP:BLP is a .en policy. The only Foundation involvement has been that the foundation made a resolution asking each project to develop some form of BLP policy. Not the same thing at all. Which is why you will note that we can make modifications to BLP without asking the Foundation for input. This is aside from the fact that almost no one other than you seems to think that there's anything resembling a BLP concern here (as one can see from looking at the other delete arguments). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I did not assert that no users agreed there were a BLP issue. I asserted that "almost no one other than you" which compared to the general set of deletion arguments seems correct. I haven't counted it out, but it looks like about a fourth of all deletion voters think there is a BLP concern. And while you are correct that "BLP applies to -all- pages dealing with living individuals" that doesn't make there be a BLP problem or a BLP issue. To use an obvious (admittedly extreme) sort of example if one looked at say Refactorable number which mentions living individuals, one wouldn't conclude that since there are living mathematicians mentioned that any deletion issue immediately becomes a BLP issue. The mere presence of living people does not trigger the big guns of BLP in any serious sense; some form of argument as to why we need to think there's a BLP issue needs to be made and while such an argument has been made, it seems the community isn't taking it very seriously. Meanwhile, I note that you did not reply regarding the matter that actually got us on this tangent in particular, the matter of Jimbo's role. Should I conclude that you are agreeing now that Jimbo does not have a special role in regards to BLP? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm confused by the time stamps. I made the remark here, you responded with this remark and then a follow-up remark neither of which mention the Jimbo matter. So I'm puzzled by your statement here when you state that "I made it very clear that Jimbo would be consulted in his role with the WMF" given that my entire point was that the Foundation does not dictate BLP. Your comment in that dif about OTRS is a new argument which is incidentally incorrect. OTRS is connected to the Foundation and runs a variety of things, primarily things which often need to be handled privately and quietly. That happens to include many BLP issues. However, that's not the same as saying that the Foundation runs BLP issues. In fact, it could make the Foundation legally vulnerable if they did claim to be in charge of content to that extent.

Now, regarding your comments here, please keep in mind that's 1/4th of delete votes. Since it seems to be running slightly under half of the people favoring deletion, 1/4th thinking there's a BLP problem comes down to around 10% (maybe 15% if we count the one or two keep people who think there's some minimal potential concern for a BLP issue). There may be a difference in language use between you and me, but I think that when 90% of people think something, calling that almost all isn't unfair. The rest of your remark doesn't make much sense. Even if I were changing my statement (which again, I'm not, since only 10% is almost none) your remark that you don't like people changing their remarks is truly puzzling: you mean you'd rather people not change statements when they find out something is wrong? I do incidentally suggest you try to read the rest of the earlier remarks since it might, just possibly have useful information. Grandstanding and refusing to read things in part of a conversation which you initiated isn't very becoming or very productive. Please however don't reply on my talk page further until you've taken the time to actually read what I've wrote. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erg, quoting difs can get confusing. What I meant was this remark where I explained how the Foundation doesn't control BLP. You didn't respond to that remark until after I asked you about. Simply repeating the assertion that they are responsible for BLP doesn't cut it.

I'm not attempting to play at some sort of rhetorical game. You didn't respond to one of the primary issues at hand and so I wanted to know if it was resolved or not. You then apparently stated that it wasn't. Somehow in the midst of that clarification we got into an argument over whether or not you had responded to that issue during a certain time frame. Why you feel a need to argue over everything I say rather than try to have a genuine discussion is quite beyond me. I'm not going to respond to your myriad accusations which really don't accomplish anything. So let's for now just focus on a single issue: Does Jimbo have a special role for BLP? You claim that he does because the Foundation does. That's simply not true. You point to WP:OFFICE and WP:BLP. One will note that BLP doesn't say that Foundation controls. The closest it does is link to this resolution which states "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information" especially in regard to BLPs. Now, you should be able to see how that's not the same thing as claiming that the Foundation is in charge of BLP issues.

Your argument that you somehow have special experience because you have worked with Jimbo and BLP issues is a bit amusing and really doesn't require much comment. I suppose if I were in a juvenile mood I could say something like "so have I!" but that would miss the point: You are engaging in one of your normal problems: a lack of appreciation of subtlety. Yes, the Foundation and Jimbo are involved in BLP issues. Yes, they do step in in certain serious BLP issues, especially when there are legal issues involved. That doesn't put Jimbo or the Foundation in charge of BLP issues in any way that would give Jimbo's opinion about an article some magical extra weight. If one followed through your logic you should just go to Jimbo and get him to step in and delete the article. Good luck with that. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You referred to the foundation as being "responsible", and you referred to Jimbo as being the "ultimate person" in charge of BLP. That sounds like control to me, but maybe that's just me. If you want to clarify what Jimbo's role is in your view please feel free to do so, it would likely make this train of discussion less confusing and more productive. Incidentally, your claim that "The BLP is there because of the WMF" is simply false: BLP was actually proposed in its initial form with no intervention from the foundation by User:WAS 4.250 and User:SlimVirgin. It was adopted as policy by the community without the Foundation's intervention. The bottom line is that Jimbo's opinion on BLP is simply not authoritative, anymore than Jimbo's opinion is on whether a given image is fairuse (an issue under which the Foundation has actually taken far more direct intervention).

As a bookkeeping note, this method of conversation is getting quite confusing. If this is going to continue, can we maybe agree to post replies on either my page or your page so this is actually readable by 3rd parties (or for that matter, readable by either of us 48 hours from now?). I have no preference which occurs. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If you mean that Jimbo somehow decides the definitions of BLP then frankly that's just silly: Again, this is a policy made by a pair of community members, adopted by the community, with minimal input from the Foundation. There's no good reason for Jimbo or the Foundation to be engaging in careful parsing of the wording of a document that had no role in drafting. OFFICE incidentally doesn't deal intrinsically with BLP but rather a whole host of issues. This includes BLP issues under some, very limited circumstances, as it includes issues of copyright and other issues. Unless you are claiming that there is some OFFICE concern, the wording of that document really has nothing to do with anything other than that the Foundation, as the Foundation, may intervene when it has good reason to and may do so with little public explanation. If you think that somehow makes Jimbo and the Foundations opinions relevant for "BLP, RS, and N mean" when they aren't using the OFFICE sledgehammer, I'd be very curious to hear your logic. And to repeat my earlier question, do you have a preference for my page or your page? If not, I'll just flip a coin and pick one. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly asked you to clarify what you mean. You stated "Jimbo would be the ultimate person to contact in finding out what the BLP, RS, and N mean on the matter." Instead of accusing mean of misconstruing what you mean, why don't you spend 5 minutes writing out what authority and position you think Wales has. Otherwise this is a waste of both my time and yours. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So now we've got a general statement. I think I can work with that. Your claim as stated is an appeal to authority. Now, appeals to authority are not intrinsically fallacious and in this case you do give a logical reason for why you wish to listen to him, namely that you think he has more experience. Simply put, this is at best an extremely weak argument. Matters of ethics are not related solely by experience, Jimbo is not a lawyer so that goes out the window (and I doubt you would argue that the NPG controversy article steps on some sort of legal concern). Moreover, many people who work in OTRS work as much or more on BLP issues than Jimbo does on a regular basis, so he isn't even the most experienced. Jimbo's presence as founder is less than relevant: Having started something in no way gives him a magic trump card about what should be in an encyclopedia, especially when it is one that is decided by community consensus. The claim that he can tell what is and is not encyclopedic is thus even weaker than the ethics or legal claims. Jimbo's a bright guy, and his position as founder and as a member of the board causes him to often need to be the individual who interfaces directly between the Foundation and the various projects (especially .en) but nothing in any of that makes him more adept at making decisions about ethical issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who repeatedly accuses others of misrepresenting what you have to say you have a bit of a pot-kettle-black problem. I'm not afraid to post on his page and I am less than happy with your implication that I am. I don't think Jim's opinion is magically relevant. You are the person who thinks his opinion matters in some trumpish fashion. So you should post if you want his input. Incidentally, I think that you may find this remark interesting and this one. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what. I didn't understand your statement. Can you expand? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you, I may be a math grad student but I can still count. Please explain how "I'm not afraid to post on his page and I am less than happy with your implication that I am." makes the claim "I don't think Jim's opinion is magically relevant" less believable? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just what did you think of the two difs I linked to above? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the lawyers had any concern they would almost certainly tell him to just not comment. The presence of lawyers doesn't make hm somehow unable to comment. What you are saying is that you can make a better decision about what is in the best interests of the subject more than his own statements. So is the order Jimob > Ottava > the person in question? I doubt Jimbo would agree with that ordering (or does Jimbo's opinion only matter for BLP issues not deciding who has the most say in BLP issues which is a meta-BLP issue?). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, reading what he writes isn't Talmud. He said it was unwise for him to comment. Then a few days later he commented. Apparently, he has decided that commenting in some limited fashion was ok. Indeed, his remark (that he doesn't see a BLP issue and that he thinks the article is factually correct) is pretty limited. Are you trying to argue that his lawyers would have told him to say that he didn't think there was a BLP issue? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you know, the simple reading, which is he isn't concerned because he doesn't see there being any substantial BLP issue which is the simple reading. (Incidentally, am I going to get a more detailed explanation of how A makes B less believable?). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question considering that the very same article we are talking about he stated that he didn't see any factual errors and that if the decision were to delete that a copy should be kept in project namespace as the article constitutes "a good reference." So given this, what are you talking about when you make the claim that there was a problem with an allegation being confused with a statement of fact? Moreover,what does the presence or absence of an article have to do with some eventual court decision? Regarding A&B, you may think its obvious. I don't see it. So please explain if you can. (To use a silly example, it strikes me as obvious that the integers are Noetherian ring, but if someone asked me why it was true, and I said "I think it is rather obvious" I'd probably deserved to get smacked. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean something then say it the first time. Blaming me for your lack of precision doesn't accomplish anything. Moreover, given that he says that this was "a good reference" that he'd rather have around in some form, it doesn't take a brain trust to see that he obviously doesn't have a problem with the discussion of allegations (which I'm not sure is the correct word anyways since the facts are mainly not in dispute the question is whether there is any legal issue). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm likewise concerned, but frankly I'm concerned that you are so unwilling to admit you might possibly be incorrect that you feel a need to adopt the most pilpulistic lines of reasoning. He says explicitly that it is a good reference. Your constant attempts to get around that are amazing. Do you have any evidence that he even knows that project space isn't searchable? Many people don't even realize that. And of course there's the slight issue that if someone thinks that it is just slightly incredible to suppose that someone would think something was a reference worth keeping around and think that it was a reference that put too much weight on their involvement, especially when he could have said so. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that you can't seem to keep track of which part of which sentence is referring to what. The remarks about precision were in regard to your remark at 00:58, not in regards to your use of A and B (although I could spend hours ranting about how the use of notation does not by itself make something more precise). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment had close to zero content. Simply repeating your own accusations doesn't do anything at all. And your other remark regarding whether he knew about project space being NOINDEXed is a non-sequitor having nothing to do with that question. At this point, I have actual work to do. If you have any points that aren't you repeating yourself (such as a more detailed explanation of why A makes B less believable other than an a proof-by-obviousity then feel free to let me know). Have a goodnight. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the remark was posted in reply immediately after your comment at 00:58, and considering that the only other possible interpretation leads to nonsense (as you correctly observed) there was no issue on my part there. Now, if you have anything substantive, please feel free to contribute. I really don't think that arguing over the minutia of each others use of the English language accomplishes much. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, he responded here. It is an interesting response, it looks like neither of us was exactly correct. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Autumn-- FAC nom

I am going to try nominating the article today; I hope I don't mess anything up in the process:) Mrathel (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the background section there is a sentence that refers to Keats giving up "his great poem". the phrase "great poem" is not in quotation marks and probably should be if it is a direct quote. If not a quote, we should probably change it to just "poem"... sorry for the minor detail. Mrathel (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under structure there is a line that confuses me a little, and I wanted to run it by you: " His syntax does not incorporate hiatus and only one medial inversion of an accent." Is this saying that he does not incorporate hiatus, nor does he incorporate a single medial inverson of an accent, or am I getting this wrong altogether? I fear I might be reading the sentence incorectly. Mrathel (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the...

What is the unnecessary cussing clause?Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gross profanity" - number 4 of Wikipedia:CIVIL#Engaging in incivility. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-evaluation of pages

Now where does it say that? ViperSnake151 Talk 00:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the WikiProjects. They have evaluation processes. This is part of Wiki 1.0 and it is an objective process. You cannot rate the class or importance of your own page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File one like everyone else. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bartolommeo Coriolano

On August 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bartolommeo Coriolano, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Cobi RfA

Just FYI I had already fixed the indenting for you. Prodego ^talk 15:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried both indenting styles and neither worked. What a bugger that was. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To autumn

Is the following a reasonable summary of the first half of the "McGann" paragraph:-

In the second half of the 20th Century, critics began to explore the social and political dimensions in "To Autumn". In a 1979 essay, Jerome McGann argued that while the poem was indirectly influenced by historical events, Keats had deliberately ignored the political landscape of 1819. Countering this view, Andrew Bennett, Nicholas Roe and others focused more on the political aspects of the poem, Roe arguing for a direct connection to the Peterloo Massacre of 1919.

If it says what you mean, would you consider this simpler version? Note link and date for the massacre. I am afraid I am no wiser in deciphering Paul Fry's subsequent comment, but maybe its my lack of perception. I won't press it if other editors don't. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said anything, so I dont really know if I should press the matter, but do you think it is alright to have a single line of text introducing the stanzas of the poem? I can see how it might help to keep things from getting jumbled, but it seems a bit subjective to have a single thought introduce 11 lines of text in so much takes place. I can understand the need to limit the introduction; an thorough analysis would create an article in itself just for each stanza, but I just wanted to hear your thoughts. Mrathel (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I was wondering if you would be up for a FAC for Grecian Urn shortly; I think the criticism section could probably benefit from a paraphrasing of the quotes from the critics, but on the whole it is probably the best suited article on the odes to follow "To Autumn". Mrathel (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for A slumber did my spirit seal

On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A slumber did my spirit seal, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 08:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I won't comment, but your name was raised with mine.[2]--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Characters of Shakespear's Plays

On August 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Characters of Shakespear's Plays, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 02:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking on Characters of...

I'm trying to add some relevant wikilinks on Characters of Shakespear's Plays. Those I judge uncontroversial I'll just add in, but I'm doing it piecemeal so it's easy to revert any given change (e.g. if you think it excessive that a few of the plays are linked both in the lede and in the body of the article). For those I'm uncertain of myself, or think others may reasonably disagree, I'll try to formulate a suggestion on the article's talk page first. One possible example of this latter category are {{See also}} links to the plays at the beginning of the section on the corresponding essay. I've not quite thought that one through yet, but it was one thing that struck me.

Anyways, I'm sorry I haven't been able to contribute anything more substantial to this article. An excellent piece of work. Kudos! --Xover (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've taken a tilt or two at it, adding links to the prose and {{See also}} to sections. For the sections on the individual essays I've linked the characters in the prose, and the play itself in the See also hatnote. I considered, for those characters that have standalone articles, adding the ones that are mentioned in the prose (not more than 1–3 per section, I think) to the hatnote—since this work is about the characters specifically—but decided against it for now. It makes sense to me, but I suspect others might find it excessive. What do you think? In any case, I would appreciate it if you could quickly scan my additions and make sure I didn't mess up anywhere. --Xover (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Norton GA review

Hello. I am afraid that the Burnt Norton article has failed its Good Article review. I have outlined why it has failed on the review page. If you do some work to it, then relist it and drop me a line and I'll re-review it. Unlucky, Alan16 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I saw your note at WT:GAN. You should take this review to WP:GAR where your concerns can be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already opened a community GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Norton

Um, give me a minute, i had just started to type some messages / edits, and i'm going to have to duck offline for work. Give me some time. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

GA review

This is getting ridiculous now. If you genuinely think that I made a personal attack then try and get me a block. If that was just an empty threat then give it a rest, because I can't be bothered with this any more. You're probably going to get the good article status that you wanted anyway. Alan16 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing like the "rapist analogy" you used. Don't be so damn ridiculous. Do something or give it a rest and stop acting like a drama queen. Alan16 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Ottava Rima, Sebastian 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! I liked your self-deprecating humor here. — Sebastian 23:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Burnt Norton GAR again

Hi there - i've had a run through Burnt Norton and raised what I hope will be my last points at the GAR page. Check them out and see what you think. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covent-Garden

Hi, Ottava. See here. I was leafing through that, and I noticed some inconsistencies with our article. Fielding's Court of Censorial Enquiry occurs not in just 9 and 10. Further, the paternal quote about Amelia is in the seventh issue, not the tenth. Other things seem amiss – look at the release dates, particularly towards the end of the GBook. They venture through to 1753. I'm confused. Can you offer any explanation? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I wasn't meaning to accuse you of introducing misinformation – I was just genuinely concerned we might have got it wrong. One question: how could something that looks like a direct scan be inaccurate...? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating at FAC

Ottava - just nominate that article again, it's had a good copyedit and I think it is good to go. I will comment there and I am sure Malleus will too. I am sure others will pass through this time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(interjection) what article? I only ask because i find these little side discussions useful to give me a heads up on what to look out for. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--> this one <--. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be relevant to your interests.

Yes, you dislike me intensely, and vice versa. However, this would be something I imagine you would be interested in, particularly based on recent comments at BN. → ROUX ₪ 04:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You dislike me, but I don't dislike you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my concern is that we already have a clause within the admin policy that would prevent this resysoping happening and people are pretending that it does not exist or does not apply. Out and out denial of what the community consensus already put forth is troubling, especially when individuals that are put in place to enforce such things are the ones denying it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frightening

Whenever I randomly check text against sources, I'm finding problems. I admit I didn't used to do this at FAC, but now I'm going to do it as a precursor to even looking at the prose. I think we can affect positive change. For example, it's been established over time that you can't come to FAC with certain prose or image problems because certain reviewers (like Tony) will oppose. Why not the same for source problems? --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, just dropped by to say I'm fully supportive of the way you've gone about your recent reviews. I'm as guilty as anyone for not looking closely enough at this aspect of the prose; while I do a random source check of those articles I review, I tend to look to confirm the facts are reflected rather than make sure the wording has enough distance from the original text. Almost purely because of your promoting of the issue, any reviews I do from now on will include something along these lines. Far from making you unpopular, as you fear, this might win you new fans. :-) Thanks, Steve ^T • C 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. Looks like I'm only beginning to appreciate the issue. Your source check, incomplete though it is, was a lot more comprehensive than mine. I'll help the nominator of that article through those issues, and hopefully do a better job in the future. I might come to you for advice on this in the future. All the best, Steve ^T • C 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder what would happen if we started vetting the sources of DYK articles... Dabomb87 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already do. Others do too. We get about one instance of plagiarism or problems about every 5 days or so. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Yeah, we should all be doing this - to Ottava Rima, for kick-starting us into being a bit more careful with sources. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think once more folks are doing it, it will get easier. Awards are sorta like collecting decals for the fridge or filing cabinet really.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa the Vegetarian/archive1

I replied to your comments. I will listen to the DVD commentary tonight to see if there are any unsourced statements. The leftorium 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ken Major

Hi, can I ask you to look at the nom of the Ken Major article (Aug 5) and either give it a yea or a nay. I don't mind if it gets a nay, but would like to know which of the hooks I've currently got running is going to bring up the 100. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times source is stronger than most of your sources, and seems to verify what is said in the hook. I made a comment towards that point on the template talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do intend to provide better sources as and when I can get them. Most of the mills groups in the UK and the SPAB produce newsletters on a quarterly basis, so it could be a little while before I can lay my hands on these sources, especially as I'm not a member of any of them <g>. I would expect that most of them would have an obit, particularly the SPAB newsletter. I am in contact with people who are group members so it should be possible in the longer term. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anole/GA1

Thanks so much for opening the review! It's great that you were someone unfamiliar with comic book pages, as that helps us understand what things are unclear for the average unaffiliated reader. I took most of your edits into account and added them to the article. Fictional biographies, however, are supposed to be written in present tense, given that material generally happens "in the present." Real-world events (such as writers' decisions, etc.) can be written in past tense. The only other suggestion I did not take was the initial concern with the source for the character's first appearance. The source, the comic itself, and the date are listed in the line. It's similar to the line in the GA Superman article about his first comic appearance.

I've been waiting for someone to review this article forever, so I really appreciate your review. Please let me know if there's anything else I can fix or any help you may need for reviewing any articles you're working on! :)Luminum (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! If you have any additional feedback, please let me know how the article can be approved!Luminum (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of Peter Rabbit

Hi! Thank you for taking on the review. Your comments on my talk page are so encouraging. It's people with heart like yours that make WP such a great place to be! By the way, I noticed "To Autumn" was up for FA. It deserves it! You did top-knotch professional work on the article and the glory is well-earned and all yours! Congrats! Best, Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for passing the article to GA! I'm delighted! I've upgraded Jason et Medée per your suggestions and recommendations. Best, Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rem "Covent" from GAN

Call me impatient, but I dislike all this waiting. GAN has a huge backlog; it could be months till the article is reviewed. I'd prefer to go straight to FAC, and just to deal with any criticism there. I think the article is comprehensive, well-written, well-referenced, neutral, and stable. I don't think there's much more to say. Do you see anything barring it from FAC? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the FAC? There are some outstanding issues with the Battestin and Battestin source from '93. I don't have access, so if you could clarify / give some input, it would be great. Cheers. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samlesbury witches FAC

Thanks for taking such a close look at the witches. Although I haven't agreed with all of your points I do agree with most of them, and I think the article's been improved as a result. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your input

You are a very thorough critic of biographical articles headed for FAC (and I mean that in a complimentary fashion). May I have your input, even briefly, on Jack Coggins. It failed its first FAC, and rightfully so. The second FAC was closed due to lack of participation according to Sandy. Before I try FAC again, figure it couldn't hurt (that much) to get a properly critical review of the article by someone who has not seen it before. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to my list. I will do it first thing when I have a chance tomorrow so I can have a fresh set of eyes. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first half alone is fantastic; I have much work to do before this goes back on FAC it seems. Thank you fo ryour input, and I am looking forward to the second half of your critique. -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		To you and Juliancolton for your dedicated work on getting articles related to Sonnets on Eminent Characters to DYK; I shipped the hook of to a prep area last night. Great job! --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 12:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

good review. Well considered and detailed. Impressive. I supported the page, but that kind of review is refreshing to see at FAC. Reminds me of the reviews Anno-E-Mouse used to hand out. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only about half way done, but yeah. I avoided doing such for a while because people tended to get bothered with me "nitpicking". However, I think that if I just put up the information raw and use technical terms, people wont attribute any sort of malice to it. I've been trying to review everything I can right now - FACs and GANs - to help clear up the backlogs and other problems. I think people are willing to take any review they can get right now, so, they are a responding in a nicer way. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience, this is exactly the type of review you hope for; specific, rationalised and detached. Ceoil (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening line of poem articles

Hi Ottawa, just a little note. The opening line in the articles such as 'Frost at Midnight' and 'Fears in Solitude' should describe that it is a poem and it should go like 'Fears in Solitude is a poem, written by...'. Currently the random reader gets to know that it is a poem in the second sentence, which is a bit weird. - DSachan (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I never noticed - now fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXVIII

Delivered by –Juliancolton | ^Talk at 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation for your many critiques all over the project

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		In appreciation for your many detailed and exacting critiques of articles attempting FAC. Comprised of clear, directed, and precise criticism of both prose and grammar; your efforts are both well-crafted and appreciated. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I should have the rest of it shortly - internet died before. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting stars! --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, I have over 30 so far. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that means you must be doing something right. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or something extremely wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely both :-P -- Avi (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles never cease

Ottava the Peacemaker? Thanks for helping to get this sorry affair straightened out. --Philcha (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Most unlikely award ever, but well deserved for calming down what threatened to be a full-on flame war. --Philcha (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might surprise you, but I've received one of these before. :) Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When? And can you give a hint of what it was about, or would that be incompatible with your diplomatic status? --Philcha (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima is a man of mystery ... oops! I've said too much already. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was during one of the many times that I defended someone who a group of people were trying to burn at the stake. However, witch hunting happens too often for me to remember who or when. I believe it was last year. I think I've also received some other praise (don't remember if it was a barnstar of peace). User:Ottava_Rima/A hasn't been updated in a while, but was never really updated too much. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sonnets on Eminent Characters

On August 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Sonnets on Eminent Characters "To Erskine", "To Burke", "To Priestley", "To Fayette", "To Kosciusko", "To Pitt", "To Bowles", "To Mrs Siddons", "To Godwin", "To Southey", "To Sheridan", and "To Lord Stanhope", which you created or substantially expanded.

- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here you go my sweet :P

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Thanks in advance, matey. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we both made it

Congratulations on another fine piece of work.[3] --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yours took far less work and received far more reviews, show off! :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the subject I think, witches! --Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a few talk page stalkers like me who were willing to put in the effort of a full review so the quick supports had weight behind them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts—and also those of Steve's, who also made some good points—were of course appreciated. But I did begin to wonder at one point whether the whole thing wasn't an exercise in diminishing returns. I thought the article was already pretty good, and although it's now a little better than it was, admittedly, it did perhaps tie up committed reviewers like yourself unnecessarily. I'll have to think carefully about any future FAC nominations. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lame. Instead of "tying up" reviewers, you could see it as me putting up a review on a highly visible nomination so people will in turn review my neglected article (1 support, 0 opposes) instead of ignoring it because I don't contribute with reviews. However, that result obviously hasn't come to fruition. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Nicolo? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, the nomination that is doing slightly better than the asylum conflict did. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's excellent, but I'm always hesitant to support an article I've had a hand in copyediting—I'll probably add my support with a disclosure, as I think the article clearly meets the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You performed the GA review, so you could simply note that if you make a comment. Don't feel obligated to respond. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Autumn

Wow! I'm thrilled! Congratulations, you did top-level work on the article and it's a joy to read! Best, Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giraud

See my comments at the FAC discussion - Hopefully not much to make it a clear support. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Our New First Lord at Sea (2nd nomination)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Our New First Lord at Sea.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. wadester 16 03:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC of Malleus Fatuorum

I invite you to comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuorum, which I have filed.--Ipatrol (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar... sorta

		The LOL Keats
		For your work on poetry, particularly Ode on Indolence, I award you this LOLKeats. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 14:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolo Giraud

Me again. Although we've had some problems in the past (my bad review then you going a bit crazy) I'm sure we can put that behind us. I noticed the Nicolo Giraud article was a FA nominee. I was a bit confused by one thing, and that is that there are two "1" sources. From what I understand, they are not one and the same, so is it just a numbering error or am I misreading things? Alan16 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a footnote, not a citation. I've put it in a new Notes section above the References to make that clearer. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. Thanks, Alan16 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The one should be "A 1" and the other just "1". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standards slipping?

I checked through a paragraph in Hurricane Bob (1985) and found prose problems and discrepancies against the source, despite your support. Are you losing your touch? :P Dabomb87 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't review the sources. The "prose" problems you pointed out was use of the word "minimal", which I didn't find concerning. The comma use you point out before "where" could go either way based on what use of "where" is. The primary use is of a direct modifier that would not exist as its own clause (since it would become part of the noun phrase). The semi-colon use you point out is preference. The source issues you pointed out are minor. Regardless, I didn't perform a source check on that article. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to my initial review, which was mostly based on stylistic preferences, but point taken on the prose, which wasn't the main problem. The source issues came from a single, smallish paragraph, which is what worried me. I thought that you reviewed sources on every FA you support? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Sandy's talk page. As I said, I was unwilling to review sources because people tended to react poorly to them. I only started performing source reviews per Sandy's request. Cyclonebiskit is not a fan of mine, so it is better to allow others to perform such reviews in any regards. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it's a Juliancolton nomination. I will do my best in reviewing the sources. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to say HurricaneHink. He is the co-nom. While Julian and I get along, HurricaneHink and I have a long detailed history at the TS project, especially when I attacked him and declared that he was operating under shady practices in order to "get more stars". You can see how an oppose over any sourcing concerns from me could be an issue, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink hasn't edited for two months. Julian just added him on as a courtesy. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really change a thing. When you call for someone to be banned from the FAC, FAR, GAN, GAR, and AFD related matters, you don't want to go there regardless of two months, three months, or even a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's Cycle Center FAC

I have responded to all your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive1. Would it be possible for you to ~~strike~~ the resolved issues so that I can understand my progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hey, could you provide one of your source/plagiarism reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Bonnie (1998)/archive1? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Nesbitt

Thank you very much for your help in getting this article to featured status! Bradley0110 (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Incoming. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icos FAC

Hi Ottava,
I've been working on Icos for a while and it's now at FAC. Could you take a look for improvements on sourcing/wording? For some reason reviewers have stayed away (if it's because they're prudish, you and Malleus are perhaps the least prudish editors around). I'll be in and out until Wednesday because of real life, but I'll try to respond quickly. Shubinator (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ode on Indolence

Nominated for FAC and added you as a conom. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on Indolence/archive1 Let me know if I screwed anything up:) I think we can do this rather quickly. Mrathel (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a wise edit...

[4] (IMHO anyway...) Thanks for redacting it quickly. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like people who claim one thing and prove themselves as wrong with their statements. They make the claims to try and give their arguments weight, but it is really just a facade. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nod.... but it still was an edit that might have been taken the wrong way so it's good it was gone, for whatever reason. Too bad this project is not based on verifiable credentials. Perhaps Citizendium has poisoned the notion of validating bonafides and of giving credence to experts forever? Let us hope not. But I think they've set it back some. Best of luck in the discussion itself, I think you're right about the need for there to be more than just a Dab at Persian Empire. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as being just about "expert credentials", as anyone could become as well-informed as most generalist experts in a narrow field like Zulus, say. I completed my psychology degree over 30 years ago now. Does that make me an expert in psychology? Hell no, I wasn't even an expert then. The one or two things that I am an expert on are the result of working professionally in those fields, not of any academic qualifications. In one or two cases I've actually published critical commentary on the views expressed by those who consider themselves to be established experts where they are clearly in the wrong.

Having said all of that, I do largely agree with the general point. It saddens me greatly to see the way that editors like Peter Damien are treated. Sure, he doesn't fit the teenage AGF/CIV/NPA mould that's taken root here, but really, what's more important? A worthwhile encyclopedia or a nice social club for incompetent teenagers? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar - actually, I don't care about people posting without credentials. What I care about are people who proclaim status as "all but dissertation" or having a "PhD" or whatever else on their user page. I feel the same way about any kind of boasting about the self. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'd much rather hear from someone who doesn't make a lot of noise about their credentials but just provides solid well researched well cited information, than someone who makes a lot of todo about credentials but doesn't have the writing/research skills to make good contributions. We're in agreement I think. Best. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if he would have told me what University he attends, I would have just called their history department and demand what the hell they are teaching their kids. : D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would, I think, have been a mistake. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "appeal to authority" is not an approach that has historically stood us well. How long were Galen's clearly absurd ideas on human anatomy accepted because he was the acknowledged expert? A thousand years or so? Every argument needs to be assessed on its merits, not on the claimed merits of its originator. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey did accept many of Galen's claims, so it wasn't as black and white as you make it seem. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of Vesalius than Harvey. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic. Since when was my real identity not known? I use it for my email, plus I have had a lot of my personal information (But not yet my phone number) plastered all over Wikipedia Review for the past 9 months and quite a few times. Hell, Moulton used my real name the other day when talking to Peter Symonds about being blocked. Funny how that works. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you're all having a fun time insulting me. Also glad this page brought that edit to my attention. My credentials (such as they are) are very easily verified with google. I am not going to help you any further with that, as I have no interest in encouraging you to call my department to complain about me making edits to wikipedia. I have never claimed any special merit on the basis of being a graduate student in history, and I certainly did not on that page, where I have no particular expertise - almost none of my knowledge of the subject comes from my academic work. I don't think I've ever mentioned my credentials in a talk page discussion, because I don't think that they are particularly relevant. I mention them on my user page, not as a boast (I mean, seriously, being a grad student is nothing to boast about), but simply to explain who I am and what my background is - just how Lar says he's a system architect. I didn't know that explaining what I do was boasting and making an appeal to authority. And it's particularly ridiculous that I'm being accused of lying about my credentials because I disagree with Ottava Rima's completely nonsensical pronouncements at Talk:Persian Empire, which a number of other users also find to be ridiculous. This all is very much making me wish to change my username. john k (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't even get Roman history right, and you think you could make proclamations about Persian history? My dear John, the very moment I linked you to "Persian Empire" as a term used to refer to the group invaded by the Mongols, you should have accepted that you had no grounds to stand on. Yet you persist against all logic, reason, and the sources themselves. It seems like you don't care about history at all. As for who you are, I see from a search that You were on survivor, or you were put on trial. Not really credentials that I would want in a Wikipedian. Maybe you are a photographer, but still, we have enough of those and they are best kept on commons. There are over 200k hits for the name. Not really "easily verifiable", nor would it prove that you are who you would say you are regardless. After all, Essjay came up with an elaborate identity too. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your googling skills really aren't up to snuff. john k (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you aren't as notable and unique as you wish. Searching my name on the internet provides over 100 medical doctors and lawyers. It is quite easy to pass yourself off when you have a common name. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI (related to above)

Hello, Ottava Rima. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

Manual of Style

Could you point me to which part of manual of style says that? If that is indeed what MoS says, it is wrong, and does not conform to the way in which articles on peers and royalty have been written for as long as I've been on wikipedia. Nor does it conform to the usage of any other reputable reference source. See for instance the featured article John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, which referst to its subject as "Churchill" before 1689 and "Marlborough" thereafter. john k (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 727: / Line 727: @@
 Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}.  This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  {{#if:|The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#|{{{thread}}}]].  }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic [[:{{{1}}}]].}}  <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 {{talkback|Dekimasu}}
+== Manual of Style ==
+Could you point me to which part of manual of style says that?  If that is indeed what MoS says, it is wrong, and does not conform to the way in which articles on peers and royalty have been written for as long as I've been on wikipedia.  Nor does it conform to the usage of any other reputable reference source.  See for instance the featured article [[John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough]], which referst to its subject as "Churchill" before 1689 and "Marlborough" thereafter. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] ([[User talk:John Kenney|talk]]) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)