User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 12

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. By the way, User:Ceoil and User:Karanacs decided to tag-team mentor me (yeah, I'm so wild that I need two! :) ). So, they will most likely watch and/or join in any discussion. - Ottava Rima

Mentorship

Hi Ottava. I assume you have been communicating with User:Ceoil offline, but just in case I wanted to post here. I've offered to help him mentor you, if you are agreeable. I think that you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia and I'm hoping that with a bit of guidance you can contribute a bit more effectively. If you'd prefer to keep this discussion offline, let me know and I'll email you. I'd like to become familiar with any discussions you've had with Ceoil or parameters the two of you have agreed on for how this might work. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I could not say no to someone with your experience and reputation, regardless of the offer. I've sent you an email with my contact information, and I can share anything else required. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry to talk over you Ottava) Karanacs, we have been talking offline, but only as regards possibility of mentorship and if he'd accept me taking it on, not really about any specifics yet; this probabaly the best venue for that. Very broadly, my idea would for a series of probationary editing restrictions that would immediatly take Ottava out of potential areas of conflict, and allow him to develop away from a wide glare and likely repeats of the past. I'd be in favour of scaling these, so that [for example only, and I havn't decided on any specifics yet) he is restriced from FAC/FAR for three months (nominating at FAC prohibited, although that is likely to be tricky in the extreme!) interacting with editor X, Geogre or Z for 2 months, and topic are A, B, or C for 1. Instead, he is encouraged seek out people to collaborate with, to more closely to listen to others point of view, and to argue more constructively (ie not rehash the same points over and over and over).

All that said, I have no interest in unilaterally imposing any restrictions; they would need to be fully agreed with Ottava before-hand. If he were to feel they were too harsh, punitive or if were to resent them, well this just won't work. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. You are the two who stepped up for this, so you two get to work out the best action plan. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, you are not a third party in this; the meditation is something you are voluntarally undertaking in order to win back community goodwill. And neither is it something you can passively ride out, you have to participate and demonstrate that you take it seriously and are willing to learn from the process. By that token, you have full say in suggesting which areas where there have been problems before, and where its best you avoid for a while; its not just us two lawing down the law and you abiding.

By the way, do me a favour an disengage from George. What do you hope to gain from posting to his talk? I'm not saying who is right or wrong here, and I wont pretend to have the knowledge to pass an informed openion, but its best to keep these things to article talk only. Phff, you where blocked during the earlier stages of the argument...If you were Irish (and I'm beginning to suspect you are) they'd be writing rebel ballads about you! But rebel don't cut it here ;) Ceoil ^sláinte 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be fine, since it was the section that he was originally looking for. And Geogre actually brought it up 4 days into my block. :) Btw, I think this shows that it is best that I don't have a say in this because my views are radically different than yours, and mine keep getting me blocked. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It turned out fine, you were fairly civil, listened, and nobody's dead. But you had to be aware of the fact that is was dangerous ground given all that happened in the last week. You were pushing it considerably; to be fair. But its the "my views are radically different" notion that's at the root of this; wikipedia is a (exceptioanly broad) community with necessarily strict social norms and behavourial expections, and well.... ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) In theory this sounds fine. However, given that Ottava's area of interest overlaps with that of Geogre, I don't know that they will be able to completely avoid each other for that long! As I understand, some of the nettles at The_History_of_Sir_Charles_Grandison were because Geogre saw the article at DYK.

What I would suggest as "operating rules" (in addition to the broader rules above) would be the following:

a) if/when Ottava sees a conflict developing, it would be best to let one of us know before engaging (like you did this morning), so that we can help moderate if need be. But, Ottava, if you find that too micromanaging we can try something else.

b) either Ceoil or I may impose a temporary topic ban from any discussion/issue if we feel that Ottava is in danger of becoming tendentious. If Ottava disagrees with that assessment of the situation, he is free to discuss our interpretation of the behavior on one of our or his talk pages or via email. Disregarding the temporary ban could be grounds for a short block.

c) Remain civil and AGF at all times

d) if Ottava feels that we are being overly harsh or are giving restrictions that make no sense, he should say so immediately. The goal is to help you, not drive you off Wikipedia!

Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unindent - based on what Karanacs proposed: limit myself to 0RR, 1 talk page response to editors that I have a "history" with when there is no third party at the page and notifying others immediately, and any disagreements to stop discussion and contact the above. Sounds rather standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) TO Karanacs: Agree with the principal and susbtance of the above. Ottava and Geogre's interests closely interect alright, and I'm thinking that a topic ban would thus be unfair and unworkable. And FAC / FAR are both short of content focused editors as is. So yeah, this should focus on behaviour only, rather that on area restrictions. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 19:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a sub page with restrictions/patterns of behavior should be created and linked at the top of my user page. This will allow others to see the state of things and understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, althogh broad principals along with common sence might be better than minutely detailing "restrictions/patterns of behavior". Ottava, I assume you are older than 12. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think creating a separate page would be a good CYA measure. Due to the recent ANI threads, Ottava may be under increased scrutiny, and a clear explanation of what we are doing might be helpful to either those "watching" or those Ottava is editing with who might wonder why Ceoil or I show up occasionally. Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Many people tend to like a "prescriptive" focus, i.e. something they can compare actions to for clarity. Remember, having defined limitations is a benefit for myself when I am to show to others that I am keeping within my boundaries. Its one thing to say something generically, its another to to demonstrate to someone beyond a reasonable doubt. But yeah, you two are in charge here. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in on this conversation, but I just wanted to give you this link to another user's editing terms that you might find useful as a template. Obviously, the terms involving this mentorship should be different in their content, but the style may prove useful. Cheers to all, Risker (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, fancy. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thats a good basis. Ottava, sorry but I'm going to have to leave this go for tonight before Marskell becomes, um, displeased[1]. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• If I may, good luck with the mentorship, OR. I hope it goes well. Regards, ^S._D.Jameson 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, maybe this is a little late now your block has expired, but having been block myseld a few times, here is a good prison song. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 09:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this embarrasing to mention, but we need a device to let other know that myself and Karen are mentoring, and need to be involved in any disputes you might happen to come across. I would think a banner over your talk would be demeaning, so probaly the best option is that you hold you tongue and keep in close email contact. We wont get involved in the substance of the dispute - we will only provide general guidance as to your and others conduct. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the top. Expand if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by Ceoil if I'd take a look at this and consider participating. I am willing, but several things should be clear at the outset.

1. I do not believe that Ottava was properly blocked. I became involved when I saw an AN/I report re the block, and I originally dropped a consoling note on OR's Talk, without making any conclusion as to block propriety, but saw what appeared to have been a collision of philosophies, where OR was "right" but not "politic." As a result of that note, an editor, intimately involved with the block, showed up on my Talk page to attack OR, even though it was utterly unnecessary, no appeal was being made, simply a consoling note. That led me to realize that something darker had happened. I am not trying to stir that up, OR knows, I'm sure, what I'm talking about. Others can discover what I mean, easily, by investigating, but I'm not suggesting that. This is merely background.
2. Given that OR was improperly blocked, then mentorship as a requirement would likewise be improper. However, it is possible that we can structure mentorship so that it is a gain for all involved, so a mature view would be that, if it's good, it doesn't matter what crap we had to go through to get here.
3. So, to me, the issue is how editors can help each other, for mutual benefit and the benefit of the project.
4. It is very difficult to have a balanced view of one's own position in a dispute.
5. There is a saying in the circles where I hang out in real life: we are all crazy, but we are not all crazy at the same time. When we can connect with other people and communicate with them, with some level of mutual trust, we can help each other through our bouts of insanity. So to speak.
6. I cannot spare the time to watch OR's contributions, a close sponsorship or mentorship would involve that. However, I suspect that OR is quite capable of understanding, if he or she (it would be nice to know which it is just so I'm not juggling the dual language all the time) thinks about it, that an edit would have a reasonable possibility of being controversial, and thus it would be prudent to consult, first. Having a number of users to consult would be useful, and there is a simple way to arrange this. OR, you could create a page, call it User:Ottava Rima/WATCH. It's in all caps to help make it stand out in a watchlist amid the flood. Those who agree to help you watch that for questions from you, or announcements that you are encountering some problem, or that there is something that might otherwise merit our attention, and you can also drop a note on my Talk, and I presume that of others as well, but the WATCH page will centralize discussion and separate Talk notes might not be necessary. Besides, you can edit that page without it being considered canvassing, if the situation you are involved in is some kind of !vote process.
7. Ottava, you remain free to make your own decisions, but if you decide against the advice we give you, of course, we aren't responsible. If, on the other hand, one or more of us approves of what you plan to do, r even suggest it to you, we (those who approve) become responsible as "co-conspirators" should it come to that, and we would sink or swim together, generally.
8. It is not my goal to keep you out of controversy, though if that is what you want, I'd help with it. Rather, there is controversy that helps the project and controversy that disrupts it, and I'd seek to channel your energy into the former rather than the latter. And it should be understood that I'm still figuring out how to do this, as, I think, we all are. I have ideas, but last time they were proposed here, the community clearly wasn't ready for them, and my opinion is that this condition continues. I will say, though, that the WATCH page I suggested is a piece of one of the ideas.
9. Welcome back to Wikipedia. I've said, many times, that if an editor has never been blocked, they haven't been trying hard enough to improve the project, or they have been lucky. Rule Number One: Ignore All Rules, i.e., if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia (or, by extension, the community process that produces and maintains it), ignore it. If users follow Rule Number One, they are sometimes going to violate guidelines and policies, and, sometimes, they will be blocked for it, particularly when the review process is defective. (There are others for whom Rule One means "do whatever you want," but they simply haven't understood it. Rules are important, too, they are merely not the goal. And there are others who are incompetent, i.e., what they think will improve the project won't, and these users should be following rules. Or not editing at all.) --Abd (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Its "he" and you can think of it as "adoption" if you really want. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, its important to stress that the view taken about Ottava is pragamatic, and all we hope for is that he adopts a workable personality. As regards you 9 pointds; tldr ;)Ceoil ^sláinte 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I created the watch page and a page for commentary on the set of guidelines so users can comment on my progress or lack thereof. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI - Real life has been nutty since Friday. I won't be on wikipedia much until tomorrow.... Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, it might be an idea to also post the link to your pledge at the top of your talk along with the watch link. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Its there. Look close. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little on the slow side tonight it seems. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry! I hid it there so it wouldn't seem too tacky. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand, fair enough. Me bones are hurting tonight, so I'm not fully sure whats going on. It might be an idea to archive this section, and move on. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't archive because of the nature of this page. There are comments that are months apart, and there are comments that are left as reminders. The history is the only way to accurately see the progression of the talk page, and it would be too jumbled. Normally I just let things "die". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Byron et al

Item 22 on your list, but can you give some help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud? DGG (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood Angels

I no longer look at the 40K articles - Wiki, or should I say, certain editors, have completely ruined the whole series of articles, so there's no point in bothering to even look at them. So, as for whatever you suggested, go for it, I don't care what happens to them. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A very serious caution on the Theobalds

Remember how I was talking about people picking up the polemics of their favorite authors and unknowingly repeating them? Well, dumb old Theobald is a major case in point. His reputation can be divided into three periods: 1730 - 1780: During this time, Theobald was part of the war of the dunces. Whigs supported the dunces, and tories opposed them. This is a repeated cause. Numerous poets who were not very good got praised to the skies because they had the right politics. Lewis Theobald was so much of a nothing that other enemies of Pope thought he was an "ideot." However, Alexander Pope was monumental, and anyone who disliked his politics needed to find someone to put up against him. 1780 - 1870: The rise of bardolatry: Shakespeare's editors had every reason to prefer Theobald. Theobald's edition of Shakespeare was far superior to Pope's. As Shakespeare moves (see Shakespeare's reputation) from great to "greatest," and as he himself moves from "natural genius" to "greatest genius in the language," the battle of the 18th century editors looks laughable. Pope's edition is wrong and from a bad impulse, and Theobald's is the positivist impulse at work. Indeed, some major editors get forgotten in his favor. However, this is with no consideration of his writing. Double Falsehood is an adulteration of Shakespeare every bit worse than Pope's "corrected" meters, and look to see how rarely the play has been staged. 1870 - 1960: Macaulay history: Thomas Babbington Macaulay's "whig history" of England is an overwhelming work. It sets "common knowledge" for a century. We are still shaking off the hangover of Macaulay. Macaulay sets down the common knowledge of Robert Walpole the first prime minister, mercantilism being a work of genius, Jonathan Swift being a crooked misanthrope, and Alexander Pope unfairly picking on virtuous authors because he was short and mean. Macaulay history sees Theobald as a hard working, brilliant editor (who, mysteriously, became an editor by accident, late in life, when he kept trying to be a poet before and after) who was smashed by Pope.

Since the 1960's, we've been digging out from under the pile. I think I formulated current understanding appropriately when I said that Theobald was as much a better editor as Pope was a better poet. As an editor, Theobald is invaluable, but he is also a one shot creature. Most of his life and profession was attempting to be a poet and a playwright, and he failed according to all sources at these.

Therefore, it's easy to find people saying things like that which you quoted. During the 18th c. itself, there is an ongoing political battle, with Welsted, Smythe, and Cooke (less so) writing, the extremely wealthy Colley Cibber (gee, a theatre manager), and the vicious and prolix Edmund Curll pouring money into attacks on Pope. In Victorian and early 20th c. criticism, it's easy to find "poor Theobald; he was virtuous, and mean Pope mugged him in a dark alley." I think we're getting more balanced now.

Samuel Johnson is a special case. He was his own man throughout. He did not very often pick on an author out of political matters, or at least not those alone. Instead, he had his own principles, as I'm sure you know, that he valued above all else. Notably, though, he doesn't seem to like any of the Augustans. He has nasty things to say about Swift, many nasty things to say about Pope, many more to say about Gay. He dismisses them all. Now, it's tempting to see Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence at work, but it's just as easy to see Johnson as having a different notion of what a writer should be than those writers ever had. SJ is the writer as philosopher. This is radically different from his predecessors. They were writers and political actors, and SJ saw that as quite inappropriate.

The po-faced Johnson we get in Boswell is absolutely inappropriate, but it's absolutely true that he held up even his friends to philosophical standards. He ridiculed his good friend Thomas Warton when the latter took up the "churchyard" ballad form. It was too trivial. He ridiculed Percy, his friend, for scrambling for appointment -- too grubby. So, for Pope, whose gifts Johnson admits, to duke it out with bad poets is quite ill, from Johnson's point of view. He constantly criticizes Pope's political work. (Johnson was quite political, of course, and Donald Greene will haunt me if I don't say so, but he tended to be overt. He didn't use his poetry or his Ramblers to do it. He would come straight out with a Letter or a complete essay. I think he didn't like the mixing of "high" art and "low" politics.)

Anyway, I just wanted to say that one needs to be careful in critical assessments of Theobald and read each of them with an eye on the speaker's motivation. Geogre (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK (take a deep breath)

On 20 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Life of Samuel Johnson, List of contemporary accounts of Samuel Johnson's life, A Biographical Sketch of Dr Samuel Johnson, Anecdotes of the Late Samuel Johnson, Life of Samuel Johnson (1787), An Essay on the Life and Genius of Samuel Johnson, and Thraliana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's got be some kind of record. Good work, Ottava! Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wow! Outstanding.....Ceoil ^sláinte 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations. Next time I see a complaint that I don't edit enough articles, I'll say, "That's right, but I know some who do." --Abd (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually User:Bencherlite had seven DYKs at once back in June. I know this because I sent him a Surreal Barnstar on this. Congratualtions nevertheless. Chris (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have gone for eight. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava II

Of course I would be honoured to work with you if the Wordsworth offer is still open. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm told its not likely I'll live past 2052, so tone town your expectations to avoid dissapointment. But between now and then; fine, sure. I work best in collaboration; partly from the benifit of a second openion, partly competitive reasons, and also its far more interesting than working in a vacuum. First question before you enter this though; should the focus be on "She Dwelt" or the Lucy series overall - only two of the poems have articles to date. Also Jones is the bible here. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Drapier's Letters

I think that I might be able to contribute to Drapier's Letters on the level of style, although I am not the first person to notice that the second sentence of letter 1 contains a classic Irish bull: "Therefore I do most earnestly exhort you as men, as Christians, as parents, and as lovers of your country, to read this paper with the utmost attention, or get it read to you by others [...]" - how they are supposed to get it read to them if they can't read it in the first place, Swift does not explain. Lexo (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly will. Of course, the point of the remark in my above post is that they can't know that they need to have it read to them if they can't read it. In the meantime, I have noticed that the Modest Proposal article isn't very good. I will try to hunt down a complete edition of Drapier (there used to be one in Dublin bookshops) just so I can refer to it. Cheers - Lexo (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource

I have imported your page as "s:Thoughts on Falkland's Islands" and gnomed it a little. There will be no problem with you dumping text directly into Wikisource; provided it is old and was published, we are very forgiving and will happily accept text at any level of completeness so that you can get on with using it. If it is unpublished, copyright becomes a bit more of an issue, and our inclusion criteria start to kick in, but from what I have seen of your topical area's, I doubt you will have much problem in this regard, as you are mostly working on topics where even unpublished works would be acceptable on Wikisource if they are not protected by copyright.

We do prefer to have pagescans for all works, so if you can scan in a text, we will help you set up a transcription project and help you transcribe it and verify it. For examples that are close to your topical area, see s:Index:John Masefield.djvu, s:Index:Edgar Allan Poe - a centenary tribute.djvu and s:Index:Pierre and Jean - Clara Bell - 1902.djvu and s:Index:Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu. For examples of other types of documents, see s:Index:GeorgeTCoker.djvu and s:Index:A Welsh Grammar, Historical and Comparative, s:Index:German Instrument of Surrender (May 7, 1945) and more.. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For most works by major authors, there are many sets of pagescans online already; e.g. archive.org. Usually one only needs to look for them, or work on the ones that are available and pray for the others to arrive in good time. A good digital camera's will be fine to use for verification, however the OCR result will probably not be very usable. (Wikisource has bots that do OCR on images) This is something to play by ear. Let me know if there is any work that you would like to see on Wikisource accompanied with pagescans, and we'll do our best to set it up and get it started. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(sorry about the delay; this is one work I did last night) I have imported s:Index:The works of Horace - Christopher Smart.djvu, and uploaded the OCR for pagescans 1-13,344-348. page 13 will give you an idea of the level of quality you can expect from the OCR. Now the question is do we copy the text from User:Ottava Rima/Wikisource over to Wikisource, or I can upload the raw OCR into each page to be cleaned up. We have yet to determine which of those two methods is easiest. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Boswell and Scotland

Your assessment in your response that his anti-Scottishness was trivial is not accurate, but his reputation in Scotland as the anti-Scot par excellance is probably unfair too. I looked on google books to see if I could find anything for your interest. This might be of use to you. It is common to read in Scottish historians go on tirades against him, but William Ferguson's discussion of him and MacPherson in The Identity of the Scottish Nation: An Historic Quest, pp. 227-49, is perhaps "fairer". EDIT: Here is also a bunch of quotes. I presume you have access to a large proportion of the works from which they are drawn. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My own favourites, none of them on the site quoted, are in the exchange in his dialog with Wilkes, Life, May 8 1781. Considering that SJ was notably devoted to maintain his public image, and had a tendency to word without qualifiers, and was fully aware of both, I've never taken any of it au pied de la lettre. The things he truly believed about what he considered serious matters he made very plain, & this is not among them.DGG (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, we need to boil this down to three or four lines, so can we start picking favourites? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the FAC thread. The anti-Scottishness needs to be no more than mentioned, my main problem is its eulogistic tone and the coverage concerns. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The anti-Scottishness I was most concerned about because this was part of a Scottish wikiproject that, though somewhat dead, should be respected. Now - could you provide some details on what you consider eulogistic? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Synge

You have to appreciate that Synge is a mojor figure here, and "The Playboy of the Western World" is known to all and sundry. I'm only just going through it properly now. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Synge is a major Irish modern playwright. However, it took me quite a few scholars in the Irish studies around here to find some that really knew enough or cared enough about Synge to have information about him. He has been severely neglected, and he had a short life. There wasn't much information to put forward besides the stuff on his personality, which came up a few times. His plays show up quite a lot in the biography, but few children are taught anything about them, let alone college students who don't really seem to care about much of anything. And I can only talk about content. That is my area. Grammar and the rest is up to you guys. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont be so haughty and dismissive about "you guys" there Ottava; a lot has to be proven yet. "And I can only talk about content": Hmm, where do you think I am coming from? Not happy.Ceoil ^sláinte 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how pointing out you and Sandy as copy editors is haughty or dismissive, especially when I say that I am unable to judge a page except in content areas and not in grammar or MoS areas. I don't understand how saying that I am capable of only doing one out of three review jobs would some how offend you. Unless you don't like others to be honest about their own inabilities to contribute. Then, maybe.... Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Me, copyeditor? I'm hopeless. I can sure fix refs and dashes, though :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think all evident shows that you have a better eye than I do at typos, especially when I don't even look at what I type 90% of the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, typos, sure; but since meeting Tony1, I don't consider fixing typos to be copyediting, LOL ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Sandy, your not exactly *!* at copyediting, but with me a close second in runner up terms at not *!*, and Ottava exhausted at third place. But bless him he's catching up. Ottava, you have nothing to fear here except that I have diffs to send us all to ANI for crimes against the Queen's Eng... Ceoil ^sláinte 01:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Most people in England don't speak the Queen's English, so I hope they start rounding up those folks first. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have those folks all rounded up in a valley in Wales. What should I do next, Ottava. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugzilla bug report

See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15489 Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I have no other word to describe it. That strange bot vandalism problem has been so frustrating to me, I just cannot wait until its over. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to Hurricane Ottava (2008)

You had a concern about the presence of a "see also" section in my FAC. However, I see nothing wrong with having such a section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the need for a list when we have categories. Oh and hello, Ottava. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

O hai. I have two more books on Wordsworth's poetry. I'm hunting down some more. Don't let me forget. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wordsworth tangent

"let you forget"? No chance. I have a satellite, tweak, look there, left ther of piccadilly circus. Consider yerself tracked, English. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we build the Lucy poems together as one page, I can put together the critical interp/view from 1920-1980 based on what I have right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced to be honest. But it two months now since I wrote anything significant, and am really looking for someting to do here. I think each verse is fully worthy of its own article, but a summary overview would probably be more usefull to a the general user. So lets do it. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I only mention it because there is so much overlap with the creation, the idea of Lucy, etc. I think a 100K article would be better than 6 20k articles. I have about 8 books and a dozen articles that talk about the individual poems, and I have some books that talk about Wordsworth's poetic diction. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know; christ. Anyway, I just mailed you about something else. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Also, I'm going to start filling out some sub pages. More on Wordsworth. More on Byron. More on Mary Shelley for Awadewit. I'll be working on Keats too. I should have most of this done by the end of the month. Once Johnson is no longer a concern (I have three pages to work on some right now), I can devote my time to that. Then I'll double back to Smart and Swift. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, if you live up to that, we might consider getting married some day. For now I'm going to focus on Three Witches. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a thing violate the whole "mentorship"? :P Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the law of the land, I suppose. Anyway, you dont seems to me as vunerable, I see real teeth in you words, so likely marriage is off. Pity; I'm a very good catch. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you interested in Three Witches? Here is you chance to work with the best editors the project has. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I prefer it as "editoré" instead of "editors". Also, don't forget about the Classics Illustrated depictions. They were priceless. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm a thick Paddy, I have no idea at all what the above means, if it means anything at all. I know you are english so...here is my fav english band; fall...innit. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not English. My ancestors were British nobility, but also German, so, yeah. Work that one out. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that Ottava's spelling reveals that he is definitely not English. Perhaps a descendant of Edward VIII though? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha. No. My family were Prussians, military chaps, and some were brought over into Scotland and granted a few titles as long as they would spy about the place. But the rest of the family stayed and were sent over with Hessians and other "allies" of the Georgies to the US, and they said "Hmmm, maybe I'll stay". So, most of my "English" connections were iffy at best. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer (DYK)

I happen to agree with them, if you look through the talk page archives the consensus at DYK has been built up over a long period of time, and the talkpages reflect historical discussions of a similar nature with the same conclusion. JayHenry (talk · contribs) is right that the DYK pages do already have a wide prominence - not that pointing a notice on other pages back there is a bad thing, quite the contrary (though I think ANI wouldn't be the best community watering hole for this sort of a notice, Village Pump is much better and I am glad you posted there). You are making some valid points, but IMO - at this point the dialogue is no longer constructive due to the constant "back and forth" going on. I have suggested at WT:DYK that people involved in the discussion take a breather and a step back, it might hopefully have a calming influence in the dialogue. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am taking my own advice even though I was not heavily involved in that discussion and taking a step back to see what others in the community think. My opinion remains clear, I pretty much voiced it already on that page that the current consensus works fine with me, but again I am glad that you made that neutrally-worded post to Village Pump and hopefully people will notice it from there, like I said posting a linkback in a community place like that has helped me before to draw others and new individuals to a discussion. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is how you feel that is quite a shame to be motivated in such a manner regarding creation of good quality content. Just FWIW - whenever I have something on DYK as compared to "Main Page Day" with a WP:FA, the traffic as far as edits from newcomers to the article is significantly less usually, and quite manageable, no matter what the article size. Usually in fact the edits on DYK-day are quite helpful in nature, just from my past experiences. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Applause

Dropping by to say how good it was to see your words to SlimVirgin. You're not one of the names I expected to see there, and it was thoroughly decent of you.

When I heard that you were working on the Ada Lovelace bio I looked through some online archives for relevant images. The best that's turned up so far is probably too remote to use at that page: a scan of a letter between Anne Isabella Byron, Baroness Byron and Mary Edwards Walker. If it's possible to lend assistance in the way I did for Learned Hand, please let me know. Best, Durova^Charge! 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kim will be thoroughly happy that you found some info on Lovelace/Byron related stuff. I know I am, and I thank you. I also thank you for your kind words. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll be sure to contact you about that. I have some books on Byron's daughters, and your help would be greatly appreciated. If you want, you can look at User:Ottava Rima/Byron. I've been reworking the bio to try and reestablish what is known and what is not. The Byron family will be a large project based on all of the complications. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure how much time I'll have to put into the texts of these articles. Right now I have commitments to getting two newly created wikiprojects off the ground. But image restorations would fall within Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration. If it's the extended Byron family generally you're working on, then that gives more freedom to work around. The Library of Congress doesn't have much online media, so I'll see what I can find from British archives. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to put it as any high priority. The major concern right now is to get enough content, have it cited, and put up enough stuff so that most of the drive by editors don't destroy parts of the page like they have been. Having the name Byron tends to bring out some of the worst in people. :) Thanks for looking and keep up the important image work. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

triple DYK!

Well done! --Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved. Thanks! Ottava Rima (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

hey

I made an edit here (see the lower one) in which the page in the named ref didn't match the page in the ref template. It's the foot-stomping thing, I think. You may wanna double-check the page. Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It was actually the reverse, but thanks for noticing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état

Hi, I've left some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état. If you have time, I wonder if you would revisit it? Thanks, Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I already struck out my concern so there shouldn't be a problem. Good luck. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have updated my response to your query there based on new feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I went for a closer look, decided to translate myself, and found it quite off. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cabal

I've heard you're the head of the 18th-century Literature Cabal. Where do I sign up? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

LMAO, sweet. I've been trying to build a cabal wikiproject devoted to 18th century lit for ... forever. Welcome aboard. :) Ottava Rima 02:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I want in. A cabal sounds great, what do I have to do?? Ceoil ^sláinte 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

*cackle* Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'll cut off both of my cackles. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No no, please don't do that! I'm sure you misunderstood. Right, OR? OR...? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Ottava, much appreciated. Afraid I'm not very keen on joining wikiprojects, but I may dip a toe into 18th-century Literature some day. Do you include Darwin? Apparently his poetry was admired by eminent authors, though to be honest I don't think it's great literature as such. Bit naughty, too. . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its an imaginary wikiproject. :) But yes, I appreciate Erasmus Darwin a lot. I made many references to him throughout, as people seem not to realize that he was the reason that his grandson was so deeply connected to the thousands of year old idea that *gasp* things slowly change over time. :D It was also Erasmus's Temple of Nature (and related stuff) that pointed out to the 19th century the fight that was originally stirred up between the schools of Aristotle and of Lucretius over how "descent" works and what role "randomness" has in the development of Form. I should really make a Wikipedia page on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So many connections! You mentioned Adam Smith earlier, did you know that he was a friend of James Hutton, another sage of the Scottish Enlightenment and originator of the ideas of uniformitarianism over deep time with "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" that Charles Lyell passed on to Darwin as the geological framework for his evolutionary ideas? And speaking of Form, I'm just dimly aware of the ideas about metamorphosis of the well known geologist and inspector of mines, Goethe, who also influenced evolutionary thinking. But must stop now! . . .dave souza, talk 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what separates us from those 100 years ago is the fact that all of the important people studied multiple fields and had friends within all of those fields. I can trace the general concept to someone like Samuel Johnson and his The Club. We may be "modern" but they were truly Enlightened. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Really must head for bed now, but one treasure I acquired in my youth is a bound volume of The Scots Magazine for 1762, which has a marvellous mixture of information – technology like "Williamfon's machine for the reaping of corns", poetry, essays and dissertations, the autopsy of the deceased king, reports of the war in the West Indies, instructions on horfe riding, and so on. (f used because I don't have a font for the long s) All the best, dave souza, talk 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

spam

For articles like Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services what is worth checking is the web link, for if the article is a copy vio of their "about page," as was the case here and is very often the case, it's a cleaner ground for deletion. In contrast, G11 is rather vague, being worded  : "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion" Thus pages which have some encyclopedic information or which can be rewritten by removing the promotional language are not speedy candidates. So for an article like this, generally I stubbify, which deals with both, and leave a note for the editor explaining about our Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations).

BTW, you are required to say explicitly on the edit summary that it's a suggested speedy deletion, and it's considered polite to notify the originating ed. A reputation for politeness is a good one to have around here. DGG (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry DGG, I lost internet for a while so I wasn't able to really complete that. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is Kim's asking for help on the patrols. I opened up 15 randomly, checked them, was in the process of marking them before going back and finishing. Then no internet. In the future, I'll try to be more explicit than "appears to be marketing spam" when using the spam template. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is there any way to get a "spam" template that isn't a "speedy deletion" template? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WORDS

The words, they sit

on lighted screen.

Intention?

Somber, hard and mean.

They lordly prance

with feathers raised.

No words of help,

no words of praise.

Courtesy is not their

Aim.

Civility is not their

game.

They rub us wrong,

we scrape and pant.

We choke back from

their moody rant.

We answer back,

with novice voice,

"I'm here to edit.

I have no choice"

Courtesy is how we'll

live.

Civility is what we'll

give.

This WikiWorld is ours

to mold.

If we can just recall,

"Be bold"

by Buster7

Thanks for the push to try to write a poem. I like it.--Buster7 (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki poetry is always great. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Song to David

I don't see what the problem is... David doesn't play a large roll in Freemasonry (in fact, he is mentioned only once, in passing, in a lecture that forms part of the third degree). That is factual and is backed by citation to the ritual itself. Freemasonry focuses on Solomon, not David. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but thats just not the case. This is from reliable sources, and in the 18th century, David was a Freemason image. Being a part of a "ritual" has nothing to do with iconography. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am afraid that it is the case. Masonic ritual is the context in which masonic imagery and symbolism is presented. If something isn't included in masonic ritual, it isn't a Masonic image or icon. All sorts of experts might think it is, but it isn't.

As for your sources, I am sure they say what you say they do... I am not doubting that at all. Over the years, many non-masonic sources have interpreted things as being Masonic, when in fact they were not. This is understandable... The Masons only began to publish their rituals fairly recently, so many highly respected experts had to infer what was and was not masonic symbolism based upon what little they could learn about the fraternity as outsiders. With the rituals now published, we now have a more definitive source... the rituals themselves. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not founded within reliable sources. I'm sorry, but this is the standard that Wikipedia must meet, and the emails that I have received from London Masonic Librarian on the matter and forwarded to those involved in the prior incident has already established that much of what was said then, which is repeated now, is factually inaccurate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For all those interested - the 1722 Roberts Constitutions, a well known Masonic pamphlet, discusses King David's role within Masonry and how he started the Temple of Solomon. (quote - "King David loved Masons well and cherish'd them... after the Decease of King David, Solomon his Son finished the Temple that his Father had began.") Here is a link for an electronic copy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As a non-specialist, that is my understanding also--David and Solomon as builders of the Temple. DGG (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Masons' ritual follows the biblical tale... David fought great wars and shed blood abundantly and so is denied the privilege of building the Temple... That task is given to Solomon. As for Robert's Constitutions... David is mentioned exactly three times in the entirety of the text... in that one paragraph. Like I said in my first posting, David is mentioned in passing and it is Solomon, and Solomon's Temple that figure prominently in Masonry. Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Solomon is mentioned in the building. David is mentioned in the design. If you read Smart's poem, you would see that Smart is talking about the designing of a new temple. There is enough precedent for Smart to be doing this, and there are many works written on how this connects to Free Masonry. I don't understand your complaint, nor do I understand your injection of sources that do not actually deal with Christopher Smart and his reliance on this tradition. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the Masons don't mention David in the design... they give credit for the design to Solomon (and to a lesser extent the invented character of Hiram Abiff). Again, David is only mentioned in passing, as being Solomons predecessor. You are conflaiting two seperate "Building of the Temple" stories... the Biblical account and the Masonic account. The Masonic account is unlikely to have inspired Smart, since it barely mentions David. Add this to MSJapans doubts about whether Smart was a Mason, and it is more likely that his poem was inspired by the Bible and not by Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you didn't actually look at the source material and realize that you are wrong? It doesn't matter if "David is mentioned in passing", Smart felt like emphasizing David when building his own future version of the temple on new ideas. And you can claim all you want about it not inspiring Smart, but I have two books written by Masons which I produced before which disagree, and I have multiple books on literary criticism which analyze the poem as based on the Masonic view of the temple. If you persist in this matter further, I think you would be doing so in violation of many of Wikipedia's guidelines and against anything that could be considered part of academic integrity. You personally don't feel a way, but I have already provided evidence where Masons as a whole do feel that way. It is severely troubling that you persist in something when the evidence is clearly against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We're having a similar issue obout the role of Noah in Christianity and Freemasonry. It seems that eighteenth Century Masonic mythology has different emphases to twenty first century freemasonry. Practicing freemasons, such as Blueboar, may be able to grasp the concept that this could be the case, but it's hard to grasp it as a fact. JASpencer (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The head of the Masonic Library in London emailed me last time when MSJapan and Blueboard tried disputing it, and I still have that letter. So, if need comes down to it, this could come down to them being topic banned for pushing a Point of View without evidence that even academic Masons disagree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sermons

You need a page structured in the summary style to bind together the individual daughter articles imo. Very ambitious job you are taking on there by the way. In other news, would you mind casting a cold eye on the Henry Moore FARc; work is on-going but input and direction as to what remains to be done would be helpful indeed. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to produce the sermons as one page, without need of "daughter" pages. The sermons aren't notable besides as connecting to other works of Johnson and giving general philosophy. However, I could get away with putting together a page on Taylor's 24 publications, but that would take 24 (of 28) sermons out, and still have one page with a lot of sermons. I'm leaning towards having a large page and staying beneath 80k. How does that sound? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds good, if you can do it, and I have no doubt that you can. To go back to Moore; long captions - no man, in visual art articles the img catptons should be self contained; see The Garden of Earthly Delights were we pushed out the boad on lenght, and I'm glad we did. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It still burns my eyes. When images drop between different sections and causes the headings to scrunch together, or to sandwich text, it makes reading almost impossible for me. I am sensitive to the glare of a screen, and it doesn't help me. This is just me, and I am sure others have an easier time. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. We were talking about two different things; I'll fix. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you move "West Wind" to the top of the section, you could move "Family Group" up a paragraph. Then you could move "Henry Moore" up a paragraph. I would move the long gallery photo into "Style" and the photo in Style into the gallery. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Scrutiny (journal)

Dear Ottava Rima, I didn't realize that you had already nominated Scrutiny (journal) for the "Did you know". I'm quite new, and new users do make mistakes. Sorry about that. I hope you don't mind. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Byron

So great to see you have taken this on. But make peace and work with Wrad, qp and Awadewit. I'd be fairly sure they would be delighted to be involved, and anyway dont suppose you are overburded and fustrtated by all your friends and collaborators. Ask them. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• How exciting you are working on Byron! Another very important literary figure! Do you have a bibliography somewhere of the biographies and the literary criticism you have decided to read? Perhaps we could share the reading load? I will read the articles you linked to on my talk page next weekend, as this week I am busy catching up on my grading. Awadewit (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I will post one this evening on the talk page of my userfied version. Also, I will put up a user page with a list of books and quotations for you (of harder to find sources) in regards to The Last Man either tonight or sometime soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• I posted on the talk page a bibliography. I will be adding more details this afternoon. And if you read over the books or find any of your own that are interesting (or details that I didn't mention), feel free to point them out. I only have the taste of one individual, so its always good to have multiple. Plus, this is connected to your field, so you could read a work like The Making of the Poets about Byron and Shelley and gain some knowledge that may help you later. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! I also saw your note about Prometheus Unbound. I only have a few biographical references to MS and PBS which I'm sure you already have, so I'm afraid I can't help much there. I've started pecking away at the Modern Prometheus, which will take me awhile. While you were lecturing on poetry, I was lecturing on prose. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not all poesy. I gave a wonderful presentation on Richardson's background in letter writing and his biography before. Everyone talks about Pamela or Clarrisa, but I'm one of those silly people that think that prose and poetry are written by those things called "authors" and that we should put some thought into their lives. Hehe. By the way, I added what I had on Mary Shelley's involvement in both the background and a "technical" section to discuss the editions. Mary did a lot for promoting and publishing a "cleaner" version of the play, and her notes were very important, so I didn't want her to be slighted. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mary Shelley apparently made the reputation of Percy Shelley the poet through her notes and editions of his works - she shaped the reception and attitude people took towards PBS's poetry (it is quite fascinating, really). It is worth reading through her editions just for the notes. :) By the way, do you want me to read Marchand's three-volume biography of Byron? It is from 1957, but I think it is still held in some esteem. (I've already read the more popular Eisler.) Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I relied on Mayne for the bulk because that biography was written before the controversy, so none of the text would have to be analyzed and carefully stated. Marchand is a great Byron scholar, and her biography would be very important to add. If you can put some quotes into the page, that would be great. I've been focusing on the popular biographies that give the more controversial claims about his sex life (i.e. him having slept with everyone. No friends, no platonic relationships, just pure sex sex sex everywhere he goes, supposedly) so we can deal with the constant adding of the material by random viewers of the Byron page. It would be necessary to add, but it should be phrased corrected and blatantly attributed as the opinion of the popular biographers. Longford and Drinkwater's biographies are the two other current critical biographies (along with Marchard) that supply a more neutral foundation for Byron's life. Its all somewhat complicated, but feel free to add whenever. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is hard to stave that sort of thing off, yes. I will get the biography, then, and see what I can do. I work slowly, though. Awadewit (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Slow and steady makes a worth while page, as they say. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a copy of Mary Shelley's notes to Prometheus Unbound, we could create a section called "Interpretation". There are a few famous interpretations and readings that would be good to include, and Mary's would be important. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is available online here. Awadewit (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomb info

Don't know if you've got this in hand, but The Shame of Jesus' Burial is an interesting example of higher criticism. Noticed it at exploring our matrix. . dave souza, talk 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've heard similar, but its helpful. :) I'll finish up some of Byron and put together a makeshift version of the tomb page, and then move on to other stuff and double back. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Following on from this discussion, I offer you this possible solution: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_new_nomination_process. Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 08:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

9.0 live

I left a comment about your oppose of 9.0: Live on the review page. You are not alone, please see my comment and the previous nom for more discussion about your concerns. Blackngold29 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary style

I have a problem with your recent change because it uses Bate when not giving a straight out quote.

That's what summary style actually is. Cutting and pasting our sources, even with quotation marks, is bad writing, and arguably uncivil to our source, who deserves to have his prose appreciated where he is actually being paid for it.

Also, it gives a large swathe of page numbers that are already covered by later footnotes, which makes it inaccurate.

Let me get this straight. Do you really contend that it is inaccurate to cite pp.90-100, for a long passage boiled down, and then to cite p. 95 for a detail? We can certainly divide the footnote, although there is a certain cost on the reader's attention; but where did you find this rule? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on Johnson

Hi Ottava. I read through the Johnson talk page, the FAC page, and your talk and that of PMAnderson. To me, this conflict is actually not that bad or that heated yet. Interstingly to me, PMAnderson's method of communication is often similar to that which has gotten you in trouble before. It might be useful to look at his communication style and, as an exercise, see if you could find alternate ways (that don't upset you as much) of expressing the same ideas that he has. That might help you in the future. A few pointers for you.

• Both of you have indulged in a bit of hyperbole. This is almost guaranteed to upset the other party when you are already in the midst of a dispute. As an example, I don't think you are using "Fringe" correctly in describing sources. A source may not be as reliable to use for a certain purpose without being a "fringe" source.
• Be wary of using terminology like "allowed" ([2]) - people often get defensive and harder to talk to if they are told they can't do something. I would have said "The article is already over the size limits, and we should try to focus on notable information."
• I see no problem with PM's version of footnoting. I've also found it useful occasionally to cite a page range for one or two sentences, then follow it up with another sentence cited to one particular page in the middle of that range. It is a more precise way of citing - tell the reader exactly where you got this sentence, rather than the whole paragraph.
• I would highly recommend against bringing an issue that started at FAC to ANI. Most admins (and most FAC reviewers) will tell you that the issues belong at FAC instead. That also escalates the conflict, which is generally Not A Good Idea.
• This is essentially a content dispute. Very, very often when there is a content dispute both sides get mad and say things that tick off the other side. Generally, though, that doesn't mean that the conflict has escalated into actual user issues - it is still just a content dispute between two angry or stubborn people. An RfC is an excellent method of trying to resolve the content dispute.
• This conflict heated up very, very quickly. If you think that a dispute needs to be escalated in some way (to RfC, to ANI, to wikiquette, etc), contact someone first (that was good that you left me a note). WAIT until that person or people respond before doing anything. Even if they respond right away, wait at least a good hour or two (or a day) before taking action. Sometimes that will help you cool off enough to see things more clearly. You can always come back the next day to argue your position, but hopefully then you won't be as upset and can do so in a calmer manner.

I know I am making a lot of assumptions about what you felt, and I could be completely offbase. Please feel free to remove this as soon as you've read it. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to give you my two cents on PMAnderson, but it would only get me blocked. FWIW, I think that Ottava has behaved with considerable restraint in the face of clear provocation. I have now completely withdrawn from both the FAC and the article because I know that I do not have the patience to deal with PMAnderson's nonsense. I commend Ottava for being a better editor than I am. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've offered my 2c on Anderson a few times, but generally all were too exhaused from the paticular catastrophe to bother blocking me ;) How Tony has kept a clean sheet I'll never know. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think any admin daft enough to block Tony ought to hunker down and be prepared to take whatever's deservedly coming their way.--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been in disagreements with him at FAC before as well, so I very much understand and sympathize. I should have made it more clear that I don't think that Ottava has been out of line, but seeing the dispute pop up at ANI worried me a bit. I think you guys are handling this pretty well, and I sincerely hope Raul finally gets around to closing the darn thing. This is embarrassing for FAC and completely unfair to you. Karanacs (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how no admin could see the edit warring that was happening, and the tagging, etc. There is still a POV tag on the page. As I stated before, this destabilizes the page, so it is not FA worthy. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wordsworth

Long time no talk Ottava; yeah I'm still planning on this, and have been slowly acquiring sources and researching. For the moment I'm planning on working through the Law FAR, which will likely take 2-3 weeks, but after that I should have enough to begin. I'd prefer if you didn't start without me, and I do agree that it should spend a fair amount of time in user space (your place or mine....) so we can sketch and create place holders without worring too much about being wiki correct. I was trying to find that sub-page on your user space where you posted a list of possible sources we could use; but didn't; can you pass on the link again. Anyway, talk to you later. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is my list? Ceoil ^sláinte 01:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap I forgot. The RCC page was getting read to FAC and I got caught up helping someone else and I totally forgot. Here I was minding my own business and reading instead of doing that. Tomorrow morning I'll get right on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

As I've said on talk, my interest here is to convey DeMaria's point on Johnson's career. I find

According to biographer Robert DeMaria, Johnson's symptoms caused problems in his personal life and likely made public occupations like schoolmaster or tutor almost impossible for him; this may have led Johnson to authorship.

acceptable; I would convey the same content in slightly different wording if I were God-King. This makes only the slightest medical assertion, and I would be content with none.

I havwe your e-mail, but this was easier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the effect of his health on his career; this is the fundamental reason that his health is, like Pope's, worth a section of its own. Johnson had scrofula gets a sentence, and it would get less if it were not for Queen Anne. (The article on Tourette's Syndrome itself, of course, is another matter; but I see he only gets a sentence there.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Then, like much of the article, it could use a rewrite - and a new title. If it is about Posthumous diagnoses, it should say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Prometheus Unbound (Shelley)

On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prometheus Unbound (Shelley), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision_Thing

Hi Ottava, please leave a message here. Wikidea 11:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Being positive on various anti-freemasonry articles

Ottava, I appreciate your comments at the Christianity and Freemasonry article... unfortunately, as a new comer to that article, you are probably not aware of the fact that I and several other members of the Freemasonry project have spent several years attempting to fix this particular article. There comes a time when you know that the positive approach will fall on deaf ears, and the only way to fix the problem is to be more confontational. I fully realize that the Catholic Chruch has deep issues with Freemasonry, and I absolutely agree that these should be discussed... but they need to be discussed with a neutral tone and without the attempt to "prove" anything. I and other members of the Freemasonry Project have tried to interject a more Neutral tone and some POV balance to the article numerous times, but the POV material and tone keeps creeping back in. As does the repeated interjection of Original Research. My patience runs thin.Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already given what I think the section should be - a summary of the page it refers to. If you have any language to rewrite the section, please produce that in the talk page and ask for a consensus. If a problem occurs, call up an RfC for the talk page to invite others to see how they feel about the new language. A confrontational manner only causes people to not want to listen, and when people think that they aren't being listened to, they will be confrontational. It is a classical spiral. Don't criticize, instead try to improve. Don't attack, instead try to harness the other users. When something looks off, ask for quotations and try to build something better with the person. At best, a person could probably understand only 70% of an issue based on human limitations or personal bias, so always keep that in mind that you will need to rely on people that you disagree with. Seek to improve and build, not tear down and destroy. Not everything is cut and dry. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"A confrontational manner only causes people to not want to listen, and when people think that they aren't being listened to, they will be confrontational." That is actually a very good summary of the history of that particular article, and why I have ended up being confrontational myself. In any case, thank you for attempting to break through the confrontation. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ♥

For being the first support vote on the page and for your valuable insights in the consensus building and trim processes. NancyHeise ^talk 00:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

History of a Six Weeks' Tour and "Mont Blanc"

As I am sure you are aware, Mont Blanc was first published in History of a Six Weeks' Tour. I am now working on the Tour article. I have decided that "Mont Blanc" should have its own separate article since scholars don't really talk about the Tour together with "Mont Blanc" all that often. "Mont Blanc" is usually treated as its own separate poem. However, I do need to describe the poem when I am describing the entire Tour. I was wondering if you could help me devise a good way to describe "Mont Blanc" without drifting into original research in the "Description" section of the article? The current description is a little thin. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've written a few papers on Mont Blanc, so I have plenty of notes around. How about this, I build the page beyond 10k, put it for DYK, and in the process give you something to describe the poem with for the Six Weeks. I have off tomorrow, and I will be working on this tonight and tomorrow, so I will do this in conjunction with the Wordsworth stuff that I promised above. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. The current MB page is a pathetic little stub that I wrote in about in about 30 seconds when I discovered we had no article at all! :) Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion, re: Samuel Johnson

Samuel Johnson's FAC is going to rumble on and on until all 7.9 million editors have had their say it seems, but the article is now being damaged by the process, not improved by it.

Would you agree to withdraw the nomination, and after whichever outstanding comments that have merit have been dealt with, then resubmitting it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'll be happy to continue offering what little help I can during a renomination, so I'm not abandoning the article, just suggesting a new start. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They will just edit the next time, and the next time, and the next time. Nothing will change. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing will change; there will be someone able and willing to close the nomination on its merits, which there clearly isn't now. For whatever reason Raul654 is absent. Let's restart. Please? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot with clean conscience allow anyone to promote this page except for Raul, unless Raul appoints a second delegate who hasn't worked on this page. I'm only one of the noms, so see if you can get a majority if you want to restart. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I want a restart, Sandy wants a restart (without her being a nominator). Raul is between a rock and a hard place. Can we not just get on with this? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If this restarts and Sandy isn't on the list, what makes it seem like Raul is able to promote it in an easier way? Are we now saying that Raul cannot promote articles that Sandy worked on? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's worry about that if or when Raul ever returns to planet Earth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I like Raul, so please don't make disparaging comments on my talk page about him. I have a lot of respect for the man. If I'm overreacting, then I am, and I am sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion of Raul, or your opinion of my opinion of Raul, is of no interest to me. I am simply concerned with putting this embarassing debacle to bed. Please withdraw the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pmanderson made it clear that he will oppose until this is no longer at FAC. Raul is the only one who can close a FAC and he hasn't. Why would you think a restart would change this or potentially not invite newer people to oppose or cause further problems? If this FAC closes, then I will not be around to resubmit it, because nothing will change. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're in cloud cuckoo land. When was the last time that you saw Raul close an FAC? For Christ's sake Ottava, get with the programme. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Even without being listed, Sandy still cannot close this FAC, Malleus. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you persist in this nonsense? Of course Sandy can't close this FAC, and Raul clearly won't close it either. So withdraw the nomination. How hard is that? What are you trying to prove? That FAC is a lottery? Obviously it is, but why allow Sam Johnson's article to be wrecked by the 6th million monkey to come along, who disagrees with monkey number 5,597,897? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that it cannot be resubmitted again and wont pass, then you have my blessing to tell Raul that it will be withdrawn and not readded at a later date by us. As such, I wipe my hands clean of the whole page and I will not take responsibility for anything on the page, and I will dewatch it so I wont be bothered if anyone decides to take it up later. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeez Louise watch my lips. Of course it can be submitted again, and may well pass if/when it is. I just want this current embarassing FAC to be be withdrawn. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear from the beginning that I don't want an FA star, that I just build content, and that I don't really care enough. I've stuck around to do what I could to help Sandy's work get to the main page. Sandy doesn't want to be on the FAC, and the FAC doesn't seem like it will be beyond any of its current problems later. So, I don't want anything more to do with it at the future. I came in because there was a citation needed template. I have been berated, insulted, and attacked during this process. I've had to deal with a lot of people in a lot of ways that did not make me feel comfortable. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. So will you now please withdraw the FAC nomination? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

redacted by Ottava Rima, reason: Malleus has no reason to ever apologize for any comment ever directed to me, no matter what nature, how harsh, or any such things. I would rather not allow anyone to misconstrue or give anyone the ability to use any such comment by Malleus towards me against him. He has now, and ever forward and past, no reason to apologize for anything towards me, or for my inability to respond in any kind. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Very thoughtful of you Ottava. We bad boys need to stick together. Maybe one day I'll be lucky enough to get two girls watching out for me as well. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why need two girls when you have one Sandy? Shes worth 20 girls, 80 editors, and 8 ArbCom members in your pocket combined. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

She's definitely a tough gig, that's for sure. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(coughs) And me piling work on Malleus doesn't count? (sniffles) On a serious matter, I'm not sure WHY SJ went south, I'd love to know to avoid it in the future. I can't see how it's really anyone's fault. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've sent Sandy an email with my feelings and intentions. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Message

Where? I see no such change of mind at the FAC; please supply a diff. More importantly, while it is possible that I hit the only two substantially flawed citations out of 245, I remain unconvinced by this appeal to odds of one in thirty thousand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I take SH's continued qualms, and Dr. Kiernan's list of examples, as evidences of endemic bad writing. The article needs more than having those instances fixed; it needs a copyedit by someone who hasn't seen it before. But I would consider a restarted nomination, which I trust will be after the copyedit, on the merits of the article then presented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice Wikilawyering. But try reading what I said; where three reviewers have found different samples of problems of the same kind, it is statistically almost certain there are more which none of us has mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Hi, you commented on the (failed) FAC; please can you help me out by leaving some feedback at peer review? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson 2

My faith in the FAC process has been affirmed. Congratulations, it really is a great article. NancyHeise ^talk 02:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats as well. Great works are performed not by strength, but by perseverance; yonder palace was raised by single stones, yet you see its height and spaciousness. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I'm so happy for you! You not only created an excellent article about a truly notable individual, you also put up with six (seven?) weeks of FAC-hell and managed to persuade those you've previously disagreed with to see your points. I sincerely hope that your next FAC attempt will lack drama around its closing. Congratulations! Karanacs (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but please don't forget to acknowledge Sandy and Malleus. Sandy was invaluable for the medical aspects and the reason why this huge page was able to meet 99% of the MoS guidelines (the other 1% was sheer accidental meeting the guidelines). Also, Malleus was the most important copy editor, the Anglifier, the context and syntax checker, the guy who pointed out what didn't make sense, and a master with language. They are the ones responsible from turning this B class article into a true FA class article. Anyone can add content, but Wikipedia is about editors, and they have proven themselves true editors. I am deeply indebted to them. This is truly their FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're being way too generous and modest Ottava. Sandy and I would have withdrawn the nomination, as you know. Almost as important as your writing was your determination to see this thing through to the end. And now, back to work! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Malleus, I think that without your encouragement, the article would not have been nominated for FA in the first place. You've all done amazing work. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

		Trial by Fire Award
		To Ottava Rima, For your excellence, effort and perseverance in bringing Samuel Johnson to featured status, and sticking with the old guy when most of us had given up, I pass along to you this most deserved barnstar. It's my favorite award: as Gimmetrow said, for "enduring a piece of wikipurgatory and still shining". I hope your future FAC ventures will be smoother sailing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed - what a marathon! Ben MacDui 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but just know that I will be harassing you about opinions and information for all of the Scotland related works. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Damn it I see Sandy beat me to the barnstar, by anyway well done; a huge achievement, more please. Ceoil sláinte 22:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Malleus and Sandy deserve one also. But for Sandy, can you find a suitable portrait that is high culture and medically related? Perhaps this one. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to go for summary style; but I think it may be more useful to contain all the info in the parent article, and gut the, well she dwelt is the only, sub articles. I'm only gathering sources and making notes for now; to be honest a lot of the books are dry and heavy going, so this might bne a long one. Oh and yeah I meant to get to Malleus, but got distracted....Ceoil ^sláinte 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll make sure to put the notes in an easy to gather fashion. Geoffrey Hartman's analysis should be one of the most helpful. Don't forget that Strange fits of passion have I known has a page. The poems should be kept to Wikisource, so there is little on the page that would be helpful. "She dwelt" is the most famous of the poems, and possibly the only one worth being independent. However, when I look for more info, I'll see if the others are worth being on their own. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)