User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 6

As per this I shall be on a pseudo Wikibreak until August or so. That will give me more time to concentrate on my non-Wikipedia article writing. If you need any help, please feel free to leave a comment. I shall respond here and do as much as I can help from here.

Sincerely, Ottava Rima The Italian Rhyme.

Sermons of Dean Swift

Just a quick note to say that I just spotted Sermons of Dean Swift, which seems to be all your work, and thought I'd just drop a quick note to say that it's a great article. Elegantly written and comprehensively referenced, I immediately assessed it as B-class, but I'm sure that it would fly through a good article assessment if you chose to submit it, and it is probably v close to featured article standard. Good work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is misnamed, and it's odd that you keep this congratulations without keeping in mind the cautions about the quality of writing in the article from user:Geogre or the fact that you've lodged the article inappropriately from me. Still, it's your user talk page. If you won't consider the relevant issues, you might want to remove the congratulations. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for letting me know about the updates on the Drapier's letters. I have entered a very busy period at work and will be doing a lot of overtime in the next week and don't know that I will have time to carefully review the additions and changes. You seem to be very knowledgable about the subject and I wish you the best of luck in the nomination! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima/Printers

I've userfied this for now. Friday (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Drapier's Letters

Unfortunately, real life is rearing its ugly head these days and I'm pretty busy; I'm not too interested in the topic either ;). Good luck with your editing though! BuddingJournalist 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Elegant citation system

Hello Ottava Rima. I just took a look at Drapier's Letters, and noticed that system of the <cite> tags. It seems very neat, though I'm curious how much manual labor is needed. (I'm used to the WP:CITET business). Can you point me to where the new system is explained or documented? I imagine there are some other articles that might be able to use it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp size

I have found the proper policy points regarding WP:SIZE. I hope your would reconsider your opinion of the current article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony - If you notice, it was a comment, not an oppose. If you want, I can bury it under the standard hide template. I use dialup quite often, so such concerns are important to me. However, I have only opposed on such grounds once, because of the nature of continual expansion and summary concerns. Now, I have not made up my mind to support or oppose the article as a whole, and I am watching the responses to the other concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I clarified my thoughts in your section of the discussion. I will let you hide the comment when you have made up your mind.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the civility warning you just removed

I see you used the edit summary "removing improper warning that demonstrated user's lack of knowledge on the arguments being discussed". I wanted to let you know that the warning was proper, and that the arguments being discussed have no bearing whatsoever on the level of civility expected of you.

While you may discard that warning, or even this one, such a discard will not protect you from the consequences of uncivil statements.

My advice is to make your arguments civilly. Such a limitation will not reduce the cogency of your arguments but increase it while not going against the basic expectations of the community. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Until, the warning showed a misstatement of the facts of the case. Thus, the warning was completely invalidated because admin are required to follow a whole issue before responding, or at least have the facts of the case. This is part of the admin guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottave, please stop wikilawyering and understand that several people (myself included) have tried to help you. Your arguments may indeed by right, but your methods of making those arguments anger a lot of people, which make them much less likely to actually pay attention to your argument (and thus consensus will go against you). Please, take a good look at the method in which you phrase your arguments and try to do so in a more civil manner. Karanacs (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "lawyering", which is a pejorative term, by the way. I am only explaining why I felt that the warning deserved to be removed. I can still plead my case. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Against the world (yet another civility warning)

I saw where you removed the civility warning. I have to ask, do you really think you're helping your case by fighting against every single person who tries to talk to you?

I've tried to assume good faith in your comments and actions from the beginning, but your policy of telling other users to leave wikipedia, and telling them to redact their statements is just flat uncivil, as numerous editors have pointed out to you.

I've made suggestions before, which you either ignored or responded to with further incivility and wikilawyering. I'll make one more plea. Please stop. Every single editor you have had contact with has found your comments uncivil, and you are doing nothing by prolonging this except making further enemies. If you want to be a productive editor, just let the matter drop and use more civility in your comments. Redrocket (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fighting against every person? That is a clear misstatement of the facts. I have dealt with a few of the editors who have stated such and many have seen my point of view. Your comments are quite wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you quickly revert comments on your page, but with your permission, I'd like to reinstate this one because your edit summary makes it appear that other editors agree your comments were not uncivil. Please explain, and show some evidence that someone, anyone, agrees with you that telling people to go elsewhere and to redact their statements is civil and appropriate behavior. Redrocket (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There were many who commented and were quite neutral on the matter, or who became neutral. I do not need people to actually agree with me to have them not agree with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. That's all I needed to know. Good luck in the future. Redrocket (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Ottava Rima. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Awadewit (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I found it quite easily, but thanks.Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Could you please comment on whether we have addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive4

Hi there,

I requested a Peer Review of London which is now here. An IP kindly copied and pasted your comments from the failing FAC and I have replied to them.

I was wondering if you could explain what you meant at the Peer Review page located here?

Thanks in advance,

The Helpful One ^(Review) 22:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)