User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 13

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 feel honored to be named a "help" with this article, albeit minor. All I really did was randomly look at a section, raise a few points, and some tweaks. But that's not the point--you really worked hard on this and it deserved the star. I am not a brilliant prose writer, but I get stuff down and with the help of others create FAs (2). But you're work here is 5,000 times better than those two and 1964 Gabon coup d'etat combined. Keep it up! the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 01:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil's special home for notes

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)

I have a buddy with JSTOR access; I gave him this list

• Poet and Lover in Wordsworth's "Lucy" Poems, by James G. Taaffe © 1966
• Wordsworth's "Lucy" Poems: Notes and Marginalia, by Herbert Hartman
• [2]

but he is tireless and full of red bull, so any other suggestions welcome. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking on JSTOR, pick up Richard Matlak's "Wordsworth's Lucy Poems in Psychobiographical Context". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ax'ed. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have them all, but you might need to keep up. :) I'll start putting together notes tomorrow. I'm falling behind. XD Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottava; a few notes please by 9:00 tomorrow by big ben, or this brecomes ANI material and you will be restricted to editing Oasis albums, recent hurricanes and in popular culture spin outs before you can say 'the dog ate it' ;0 Ceoil ^sláinte

You are so awful. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Awful but deadly serious and with teeth. So list please. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. Tomorrow morning I'll be on the road. I have to hand in an item about New Critical theory and the tradition of textual vs reader based criticism. Tomorrow afternoon I'm going to be immersed up to my eyes in Fielding, then deal with DC/Baltimore metro traffic. I wont be in until 9 PM. It wont take long to produce the Wordsworth work, but I can only handle two authors in my mind at a time, and Shelley and Fielding have taken those slots. I know the Hartman back and forth, as with Harold Bloom's reading. That should cover the plot areas and themes. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be grasping with my shoe laces and tooth brush for a while afer big ben rings so no worries, bud. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of contributors to Samuel Johnson FA

...this is gonna sound really stupid, but would you move me out of the major section, and into the minor? I don't think I did much. Tks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You aren't "major". You are second tier. :P But sure. That was just a list of those who came in during the FAC process and were involved in quite a lot of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well.. I.. I.. uh.. I'm major in my own mind! My mama always told me, "Son, don't ever let anyone tell you you aren't major. And stop picking your nose." Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you don't pick, how do you expect to keep that thing clean? Your mom was strange. :) Anyway, the page is one big thank you, and it should be all inclusive. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Gubar and Shelley

I talked to Susan Gubar today about the Proserpine article, but she worked on that material so long ago that she is no longer really familiar with it. Alas. Awadewit (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:(!!!!! If only she could have remembered. Then you could convince her to make a mention of it in your college paper and then cite it in the article. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Félix Houphouët-Boigny

I noticed that you commented at this FAC regarding translated sources and I was wondering if you would be willing to help me fact check Félix Houphouët-Boigny before it is brought to FAC. There are a lot of French sources and we could use some extra French-speakers. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Pong

Mail sent. Ceoil ^sláinte 06:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets not bother with Augustan Literature. We were being sneered on Geogres talk, and who needs that. This is the third or forth time he has rubbished me and I'm thinking he is not worth bothering about. Ceoil ^sláinte 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't responded to me yet. I think that if we move the references to the talk page and allow him to cite the information in his citation style (MLA inline), then he can keep the page from being cluttered while putting in more references. Copy and paste what I put on your talk page over to the Augustan drama talk page and tell him that he can add inline citations to what he thinks is appropriate based on some of the refs that we are providing so he wont have to go out of his way to do any work. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)g

Dont bother youself. This person is pre-disposed and a commentator, not a contributor. Ignore. Ceoil ^sláinte

I've had my run ins with Geogre before, but that was over grammar, and not anything serious. I sympathize with Geogre's unwillingness to put citation notes all over the place. That follows the old style of works like the NDB. I'm going to try and work with him because I believe in the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

<Striking above hissy fit> Ceoil ^sláinte 21:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

KF

Hello, in case you missed, the new table is implemented in the Kaunas Fortress main space and ready for your evaluation. M.K. (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Nicolò Giraud

Ottava, I am concerned about the tone of discussion in the "Incorrect use of sources by Haiduc" section of this page. Discussion of the content and the reference sources is entirely appropriate, as with any other article; however, I note some personalisation of your comments in this thread, which takes away from the focus of the discussion. I encourage you to consider reviewing your comments in this thread, and suggest you consider refactoring those that are off-topic to the content under discussion. I have commented more extensively here in the thread itself. Risker (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify and respond to your comment in the thread, the sentence "There is a term for those who miss-attribute quotes and add such inappropriate terminology to multiple pages" was, in my view, excessively personal. My comments on Haiduc's page are considerably stronger, as his personalisation of what should be treated as a content dispute is more egregious. Risker (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It was my response to him saying I am calling him a vandal, which I never did, but alluded that it is the perfect term for him. I believe that reinserting categories without discussion and without specific inclusion standards as vandalism when done multiple times and across many, many pages. Especially when the standard definition of that term includes having anal sex with male children, which makes it the equivalent to pedophilia (but limited to just boys), which is illegal in modern standards and against most cultural norms. Since this is a highly controversial category, it would be appropriate to have extremely tight inclusion standards, and any other speculation be categorized as mere homosexual relationship or not at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to your comments. I agree that there is the need for a better definition of the term "pederasty" for all uses within the encyclopedia—one that reflects the range of uses of the term, at least, and places the emphasis on the most common uses, giving proportionately less focus on the less common or minor uses of the term. In that sense, it is no different from any other subject written about here; widely held views having primacy, significant minority views being included, and so on. I would not be surprised if such a discussion doesn't occur in the near future, perhaps on the Pederasty article or the talk page for one or more of the categories. Risker (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind when authors speculate over the term, however, I want it to be clear that they speculate over it and that both sides are heard. I'm starting to worry that many of these pages that Haiduc is tagging are becoming the same as the pseudoscience fights, in which an unclear definition is being spread about in a way that would provoke controversy. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's Dictionary

I don't know when in your busy schedule you intend to attack the entry for Johnson's Dictionary - or indeed if you intend to! In the meanwhile I've collected a lot of info on the Dictionary's posthumous reputation and influence from the Hitchings book. As far as possible I've left it in the original quotations; of course it will need to be re-written, but I thought it would be more useful to leave the sources intact for the time being, so that they don't get garbled before work on the page has progressed. almost-instinct 13:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you would like the work on the page? :) If so, I can help out, fix any things, add more sources, etc. I've just been distracted with five other pages at the moment, but I enjoy helping out anywhere I can. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All I know on this subject is what I've got from the Hitchings book; I get the impression that whoever did most the work on the page so far was using that as their source, too. Maybe someone with a better overview of the subject should be at the centre of the action, but I'll be very glad to help out if I can. I get the impression that its the kind of page that's going to stay fairly stable in the meanwhile almost-instinct 14:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add some content this weekend. I think I can pull together 15 or so sources for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

DYKs

On 15 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Mont Blanc (poem) and Hymn to Intellectual Beauty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,0000

Hi Ottava. I'm not that knowledgeable about Warhammer 40k - I do have access to some early White Dwarf (magazine) (most issues pre-100) and Dragon (magazine)s from the Dragon Magazine Archive, so up to issue 250 and have the first edition 40k rules in a box somewhere. If you know where to look (the indexes at: [3] and [4] may help) and need anything from those sources, then I'd be happy to help. The outline of the structure you propose sounds ideal. --Davémon (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

Hi, i saw your reply at Sandy's talk. I have added some more links about the author and method of gathering data? Can you please check as the reviewer has left "out (RS issue) for other reviewers to decide for themselves". Any other comments are always welcome. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the comments. Added two more pics. Also added a link that the supports that the disputed book is present in the Library of Congress. Now, does that prove that the book a RS?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, have answered your comments, please look at the FAC and comment about the RS issue, Is it necessary to give more reasons, why the links are RS OR it is enough? Please help. Thanks --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Added several new images on Vithoba. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please revisit the FAC and strike out the commnets, if you are satisfied with my answer. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments don't get struck out. They aren't opposes. They are just empty comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Nicolò Giraud

On 18 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicolò Giraud, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I like to follow discussions passively more than join in the fray so to speak partly because I'm more comfortable remaining in the background and also because I find things on wikipedia an interesting read. I've gotta say when I saw you said here [[5]] "The user is persisting in promoting a fringe theory as something that is more than a fringe theory" is speaking of Haiduc, that's a pretty bold claim. Wouldn't that get an automatic ban? If someone's using wikipedia to promote a personal agenda and in doing so obscure the facts and provide misinformation? That's gotta be a pretty serious concern if you ask me. Sure somethings inevitably get presented correctly so long as they fit the agenda, but much more often things don't fit that agenda and have to be made to do so.

I've taken a look through his history of edits and have happened upon some of his edits by happenstance when looking up an article of personal interest and it's a pretty consistent picture. It doesn't matter your sexual orientation; to have someone misrepresent others as being part of your orientation is a disservice to all involved. I for one would prefer an accurate representation than an exaggerated but false one. I for one find his edits concerning.

Here's just two examples of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Happy_Prince_and_Other_Tales http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poliparis&diff=243852117&oldid=241651311

I'm sure many more can be found. I only thought to make a mental note of them half way through my random search. But what I notice is he adopts as general and fuzzy a definition of pederasty to include as many people as possible within it, despite how non-mainstream his definition is. There are times when he clearly includes examples of pedophilia within it. There are others when he includes relationships between two teenage boys. There are times when he uses references that do not even discuss anything remotely to do with sexuality. I can go on and on but thought I'd bring this to your attention so you know you're not the only one having this experience--Jyngyr (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Those links are rather troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Giraud

I've responded on my Talk page. Not sure if you've got it watchlisted, so I'll let you know here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I should let you know Mr.Haidec is doing the same thing with the Byron page that he is doing here. He labels it a "torrid love affair" on the Byron page. It's really amazing he's allowed to put on all these inaccuracies when he knows from the discussion on the Giraud page that the critics come no where close to anything like calling it a "torrid love affair" --Costagne (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep it impersonal

I just posted this lengthy criticism, so its only fair that I address your behavior as well, in the context of personal attacks.

Specifically, making accusations of Haiduc's supposed pedophilia during a content dispute has the effect of bullying other editors. I assume you are not doing it on purpose, but it is problematic behavior and it needs to stop.

Let me compare this with some of the legitimate criticism you have aimed at Haiduc. Saying that an edit that Haiduc made is inconsistent, or more strongly, deceptive or dishonest is legitimate criticism. Saying that the legitimacy of pederasty is a fringe view is also legitimate. this edit crossed the line, at let me explain why.

The assumption of good faith not around just because we want people to be nice. Its also a way of keeping discussions moving forward by avoiding discussions about an editor's intent. Intent is ultimately irrelevant to content disputes: bad edits are bad edits if the intentions are good, and good edits are good even if the intentions are bad. There is a difference between saying someone's edits have the effect of promoting a fringe view and to accuse them of essentially being pro-pedophile. We could argue at length whether this was a personal attack or a statement with personal implications, but the end effect is both personal and inflammatory, and thus should be avoided.

I am somewhat exhausted from dealing with this subject, so read what I wrote to Haiduc, and internalize what you feel applies to you, particularly the second and seventh points.

What it comes down to is this: the edit, not the editor. Don't make it personal, and stay out of the world of intent if possible: stay in the world of effect. --Tznkai (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Its impossible to "AGF" when someone has made it clear that they are soapboxing according to their talk page. Assume good faith ends when someone reveals themselves to exhibit actions inappropriate for Wikipedia. He is complaining that Wikipedia is obstructing his POV pushing which he has declared as his reason for being there. That is an assault on Wikipedia and, by definition, wiki anarchism, which is not acceptable behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning received

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Cardinals, your actions on name changing the Cardinal titles in text is completely inappropriate. Please cease and desist immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In order not to displease a fellow-editor, I will cease making these changes. However, I completely disagree that it is inappropriate to make these edits, which

• make the name of the person correspond to the name given him in the title of the article;
• avoid the peculiar-sounding "John Cardinal Smith" is a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church". Soidi (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

From the naming standard - "When it is necessary to add the title "Cardinal", it will usually be sufficient to prefix it to the surname of the cardinal, especially in the body of an article, as "Cardinal Sforza". If both name and surname are used, wikilinking is straightforward if the title is prefixed to the name, as in "Cardinal Ascanio Sforza". However, those who prefer the form "Ascanio Cardinal Sforza" should take care to ensure there is a redirect to the form used in the title of the article on the cardinal in question, or use a piped link." Note the last line showing that it is acceptable to use Cardinal in the middle of a name. Since this is acceptable, you need to go to the village pump or other such places to discuss mass changes. Otherwise, it will cause a lot of problems. Build consensus before making changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's how you feel about it, I certainly won't argue. I presume your opinion also opposes changes by anonymous editors - I have noticed several - from the "John Smith" (the form obligatorily used for the titles of articles, as indicated in the rule you pointed to, but also used exclusively in the articles that deal with the cardinals collectively) to the "John Cardinal Smith" form. But, to avoid a fight, I do not intend to seek them out and change them back. Soidi (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus sought on lead sentence

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [6], Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 17:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I just saw your edit under mine at the FAC talk page. I think you are responding to someone else but I am not sure. I just added text to Cultural Impact section and the sexual revolution paragraph in Vatican II and beyond subsection in History - did you see these additions? I think they are important facts that round out the article. Are you not OK with these? NancyHeise ^talk 19:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [7] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One last vote please

Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [8]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It was really nothing

I'm actually looking at them at the moment. And thank you for your help with the other Billy. I really appreciate all your work, you are a very talented collaborator. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need to take a break? You are doing brilliant. Its surprising that there are so few articles on Blake's artworks (only three or four so far), I though we might work them up together. Its a good project, and t'would be an honour sir. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk to you later, so. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Arriving late

When I arrived on Johnson 24 days after it started did you suggest my support was somehow invalid? No. Did you say that because I had not previously contributed on talk or peer review that my suggestions should be ignored? No. Did you assume good faith? Yes. Did you work with the concerns I did raise? Yes.

So I'm just not getting it here. It's an inconsistent attitude. And your suggestion that I ought to have participated in previous reviews has no basis. Part of the purpose of the reviews is to bring eyes to the article that are unfamiliar with its history. If you get no new !voters, you're not making progress. Marskell (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'll add that I retain the utmost respect for your FA work. I try never to personalize these things. Marskell (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, you don't seem to get it. You objected over something that is part of a consensus related process. That is, NPOV. You did not object over MoS reasons. You didn't object over grammar. You didn't object over readability. You objected over something that can only be decided through consensus. The consensus process does not happen in FAC. It happens on the talk page. There was plenty of time for you to contribute before it went to FAC and actually help out. Instead, you waited until the last moment. I really, really dislike people who object over mass amounts of content. A page is decided by the whole community, and waiting until FAC comes along to use it as an object overrides the foundation of consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, the entire point of FAC is to have people who are not involved in an article judge whether the limited consensus reached by regular editors has produced an article that meets the FAC criteria. NPOV is also not decided by consensus alone. There a great many topics on Wikipedia where the consensus of the regular article editors is against a Wikipedia policy. That absolutely does not mean that the policy is wrong, but usually implies that the pool of editors that made up the consensus is too small or uninformed. What you are saying implies that reviewers are forbidden from opposing an FAC nom on anything but cursory grounds unless the reviewer has participated in the building of that article. That guts the FAC process. Karanacs (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything is decided by consensus alone. Not one person has a magical connection to the "truth" and is allowed to hold sway over others. This is Wikipedia. It is based on the collaborated efforts of the community as a whole working together as a whole. If FAC has turned into a system that disregards that and fosters such actions as you claim are appropriate to the FAC process, then I want nothing to do with the FAC process. If you honestly want to push the idea that the RCC pool of editors is too small or uninformed, then I do not know how to resond to you, especially after such a long and complex peer review and talk page process. And your last sentence is patently false. I stated that FAC is not the place to oppose over NPOV concerns because you should not be opposing over NPOV concerns. NPOV is not actionable. POV is decided by consensus, and making it an actionable oppose means that one person's view now outweighs the community. That is not what Wikipedia is about, and that is not what FAC should be about. It is not reviewer against submitter. It is about reviewing a page and pointing out anything that may have been left out that would be needed to meet MoS. I made it perfectly clear how I felt about what was going on. I am making it perfectly clear now. I wont be back to FAC until this idea is cleaned out and the process restored to something credible. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"I stated that FAC is not the place to oppose over NPOV concerns because you should not be opposing over NPOV concerns." Criterion 1d allows reviewers to oppose over POV concerns. That FAC is simply a clearing house for MoS is not true: we can oppose on any of the criteria and (ideally) we should only support on all of the criteria. Two other users opposed on similar terms as myself, pointing to similar wording as problematic. The appropriate response from a nominator is to try and work it out. All I got was people berating me. Marskell (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Neutrality is determined by concensus, and you lack it. Therefore, that rule can only take effect when consensus agrees that there is a neutrality problem. You have no right to override consensus. You have no right to promote something that is fundamentally in conflict with Wikipedia. You have no right to procede in this way. And I really don't want you back on my talk page. You are the reason why I will no longer be at FAC, because I cannot feel comfortable while there are people who use FAC in order to override standard consensus procedures. Now leave me in peace. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I've tried to be polite in posting, but if you'd rather I not, I won't. I hope Ceoil or Karanacs might contact me as I'd hate to leave it like this. Marskell (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding of what Wikipedia is ment to be is in direct conflict of my experience here and how I and many, many people, feel how Wikipedia is ment to be. I think it is best if we have no interaction in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Marskell) Ottava, You seem to be very upset about this, and I am really clueless as to why (and why you hold this position about NPOV and consensus). Using your reasoning, we should never be able to oppose on comprehensiveness issues either, because if a consensus of the regular editors of the page says that the article is comprehensive, then it must be. FAC's entire purpose is to try to get a larger perspective on whether the article meets the appropriate policies or guidelines (in other words, consensus can change). I do think that the RCC page suffers sometimes because most of its editors have a very strong POV. That is understandable; people usually work on topics they are passionate about (either for or against). I fully acknowledge (and praise) that they are trying to make the article as NPOV as possible, but when you hold a strong POV sometimes it is hard to recognize where neutral actually is. That is why processes like FAC, GAN, and PR are essential, because then you can get (hopefully) the opinions of people who don't hold a strong POV on the topic. I would encourage you to post at WT:FAC to see what the consensus is for how to review an article - are NPOV and comprehensiveness concerns off-limits? Or perhaps it would be useful to post at WT:NPOV to see whether there is consensus for your view that NPOV is decided solely by consensus. Please let me know if you initiate a discussion, as I would like to participate. Karanacs (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Simply put. If someone has a POV, and they are in the minority, all they have to do is wait until FAC, oppose, and their POV now outweighs all others, which defeats the purpose of consensus. I find this to be one of the most damaging things that could happen to an encyclopedia. We have Fringe view policies in order to stop this from happening. Now they are being undermined because people would rather see their hard work honored and are willing to give up their soul for it. I was willing to do just that in order to promote minority aspects of Samuel Johnson because I knew that they were not negative, but this, the largest organization in the world, forcefully being tarnished because a handful of individuals want more fringe views being put in? That disgusts me to my very core. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think as well that Karanacs's view itself lacks a neutral perspective. Comments by reviewers that the article is an "embarrassment" can hardly be considered to be helpful, or as not displaying a particular pov. There are strong povs being represented on both sides, editors and reviewers, and not always in a very collegial way. That is the root of the problem here. I see too many attempts to place all of the blame on the editors to be able to take seriously the idea that at least some of the reviewers are not equally trying to present their (often unsubstantiated and often contradictory) povs as if they are in some way superior, or more neutral, simply because it is their view that they are. I think that Ottava makes quite a strong case for the inability of FAC to deal with fringe pov pushers in any other way than by accommodating them, which is wholly unsatisfactory. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Malleus) Nominators still have an opportunity to refute the oppose. I have seen reviewers oppose on fringe theory POV stuff before and the nominator can usually easily prove that the theories are fringe. The oppose is disregarded as unactionable because it violates WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE/etc and the nomination passes (this happens quite often in FA noms for Polish articles). But some opposes on NPOV basis are valid. One of the reasons that the RCC is on its 4th FAC nomination and that the process has been so difficult is that the nominators (and often supporters) have sometimes refused to acknowledge that there are widespread viewpoints that conflict in some ways with the ones widely accepted by the church and have levied personal attacks against those who presented the alternate viewpoints. This attitude has improved remarkably in this FAC (many kudos to Nancy), but your comments are falling back into the old pattern of "attack the reviewers for bringing good-faith concerns" after they were invited to comment (by the FAC nomination). Discuss the merits of the oppose - do not discuss the reviewer. Many of your comments to Marskell have been uncivil. Consider this your warning for this FAC - keep comments at the FAC, its talk page, and the talk pages of any of the reviewers focused on the merits of the opposes and not the reviewers or you may be temporarily blocked. (Feel free to abuse me if you want, though.) Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PS to Malleus, I totally agree that some of the reviewers have also used language that they should not have. They are at least focused on the article, not the editors. Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "this article is an embarrasment to the encyclopedia" and "you're an incompetent" is too subtle for me to distinguish I'm afraid. But wikilawyering never was one of my strong points, and I sincerely hope that it never will be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nominators still have an opportunity to refute the oppose" Why should FAC be a battleground between differing view points? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominators refute all kinds of opposes - prose, comprehensiveness, NPOV - if someone opposes on any basis, I can guarantee that at least some nominators in the bast have refuted them. The point of FAC is to provide further input from uninvolved parties. Period. Telling those uninvolved parties that they are really only able to/invited to comment on a particular subset of issues that is chosen by the nominator is insulting to the reviewer and to the FAC process. A reviewer cannot be expected to divine when a nominator is going to nominate an article and then go provide comments for two months before that; the nomination is supposed to be the announcement that "Hey, we think this is ready, come help us figure out what needs tweaking, please" (and the instructions actually tell reviewers to focus on the problems, not what is good). Nancy has done an excellent job of soliciting feedback on this article, but it is not possible to proactively identify everyone who might want to participate in the FAC and invite them to a previous round of review. . In my opinion, you hold a mistaken view of the meaning of NPOV and/or the purpose of the FAC process, but I am apparently not making my point very well, so I really strongly encourage you to bring this up on the FAC talk page or the NPOV talk page and see what consensus actually is (rather than what you or I think it is). Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nominators refute all kinds of opposes " The existence of improper actions does not negate

the need to remove improper actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Blake

Ottava; when you are done arguing against people who are basically on your side / wiki friends, you might care to lend a hand at "The Four and Twenty Elders Casting their Crowns before the Divine Throne". I cobbeled it together from a few books that were around, but its only descriptive for the momement; there is no real insight or depth; yet. Any ideas or sources, or so forth or even such and such?

To be honest, I ask this carefully, as you seem to have thrown your hand up at Nebuchadnezzar, which is a great shame. I had high hopes for where you were capable of taking it. Blake to the masses! ha ha.. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it extremely hard to work when people are constantly moving things around. I edited conflicted multiple times, which was the reason why I originally gave up on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats as maybe, but is a few days old now. You shouldn't let percieved hard fellings get in the way of projects and things you are interested in. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Pong Ceoil ^sláinte 00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my computer died and I've been busy trying to put together an paper on the necessity of verifying Samuel Richardson as part of the literary canon, so I've been occupied. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to come up with a common structure for these pages. They are organized sloppily and need to be unified. Pick a standard and try working from that. I would help, but every time I go to organize it seems to be undone, even by you. I'm going to stick with literature pages. I lost quite a lot of my old articles and other important research in my computer crash, and now I've gone deaf in one ear, so I'm not having a great time right now to be devoting my energies to areas that will just have conflict. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ottava, stop feeling sorry for yourself. Take a look at this for instance and count yourself lucky. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not feeling sorry for myself. I'm just going a lot slower than what I would have been doing. I heard about that earlier. I'm going to try and pull some stuff together and possibly update a few pages or finish working on the Keats page in my subsection. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Nebuchadnezzar (Blake)

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nebuchadnezzar (Blake), 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.

Royalbroil 06:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On 8 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Ghost of a Flea, 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.

Fair is fair Ottava. Here you go! Ceoil ^sláinte 21:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)