User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 8

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)

De nada

'S my pleasure. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp

I have gotten Kemp to 60.2 KB. He will be under 60 KB within 24 hours. If Kemp were a 21st century pofigure with his same credentials, he would probably have five or ten WP:SPLIT articles just like current Presidential hopefuls. Anyone who is interested could probably make a complete article for any of the five sections in the politics section. In addition a new section could be started to detail his nine congressional races from the Buffalo News. I also think a football article could be created. That would give us seven split articles. Based on the sources I have access to I have exhuasted coverage of Kemp. I admit there is a great source at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library with week by week history of the Buffalo Bills. I think it is the source I used to describe his late career knee injury. That would cover 7.5 years of Kemps 13 year pro career. I do not know if the Los Angeles/San Diego Chargers have the same sort of thing, but imagine you might be able to go to the San Diego Union archives if they don't . Probably there is a way to research Kemp's college career, but I do not have access to the Occidental College library. His name may have been mentioned in some Southern California newspapers for high school athletics. I do not have access to a database for this research. What type of article splitting do you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Question

Sorry that was a mistake dude. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Drapier's Letters should have been a GA years ago)just figure of speech). Hope we can keep in touch :) Cheers(What ever cheers means?) King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Picard

This is fun. How long can we keep it going? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done both of you... But what is this supposed to mean? Are you a mere mortal; not the mouthpiece of the WikiGods? Disappointed, Merzul (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah

I think you must have had a mental stutter when you made that one! Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An FAC discussion that you commented on was restarted

The FAC discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est, which you had previously commented on, has since been restarted. Would you care to carry your !vote/comment forward from the FAC before it was restarted? Cirt (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks Ottava, and thankyou also for supporting my RFA.

Also, my apologies if I sounded a tad terse in my last comment to you re: Christian doctrine, but at the time I was right in the middle of trying to single-handedly prepare an update that was already two hours late and I just didn't have time for further discussion. I felt we were pretty much just spinning the wheels at that point anyhow. But I think I could have chosen my words a little more carefully all the same. Anyhow, we did get the DYK organized, and that's the main thing :) Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem

No problem. I moved it back. Danny (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Ottava Rima/Archive 8, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Expansion of Jubilate Agno

Many thanks for your erudite expansion of the article I began on Smart's poem. Your efforts much improve upon what was, I own, formerly a skeletal discussion of the subject. Seduisant (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hymns and Spiritual Songs

Hi. I was wondering if the book shouldn't go in the namespace for the full name of the book: Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Fasts and Festivals of the Church of England,? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping the disambig page, moving the book to the full name space, and create a redirect from (book) to the full namespace. Having the book in the full namespace would better advance search results I think. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the explanation. And I completely leave it all up to you as far as namespace, I don't deal much in book titles and you are an expert on that. I completely agree with the disambiguation page and have already fixed the album links to reflect that. There are still a few more links on the Hymns and Spiritual Songs but I'm not sure how to disambig those. Thanks again for your help. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

edit conflicts

I'll continue my go-through tomorrow--we obviously cant do this simultaneously!. DGG (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hyms and Spiritual Songs DYK nom

Hi Ottava Rima - there is an issue you may want to examine with this article's DYK, as the hook is not cited/sourced. Please comment on T:TDYK. Thanks, Vishnava _talk 16:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - my mistake, completely missed it. I've confirmed the nom and striken the objection. Vishnava _talk 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing Masons

You need to know the background on this... We used to have a category for "Freemasons"... it was deleted per CfD and listified with the full backing of the Freemasonry Wikiproject (see: List of Freemasons). This was due to several factors... a) a lot of people were being tagged with the category who were not Freemasons (on the list we can require sources to back up the claim). b) In some parts of the world the accusation that one is a Freemason is very serious and can acutally result in criminal charges, and even place a persons life in danger. (granted, this really only impacts BLPs, but it was a factor in the CfD). c) The fact that an individual was or is a Mason is essentially trivia... not relevant to their notability (and thus an overcategorization). The few exceptions to this were people who had an impact on the organization.

The Freemasonry Wikiproject defines its scope, and the scope of articles that should be categorized under its banner ... The consensus at that project is that it deals with the organization and not its individual members... if you think that scope should change, you can discuss it at the project's talk page, but I doubt you will get a consensus to change it. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Again... if you think the scope should change... discuss the issue at the Project's talk page. As for what other projects do, that is irrelevant... different projects, different scope. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Actually, Blueboar is just about the best informed member of the Freemasonry project rgarding Freemasonry, particularly regarding its history, so I think your statement regarding him is probably at best inaccurate. But, like I said, it's probably best to wait for the responses of others on the project talk page first. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And masonic bodies have published works on other masons not covered within the scope of the project as well. Like I said, the best option at this point is to wait for a consensus from the other members of the project regarding this subject. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You have already made several rather obvious mistakes regarding this discussion. Personally, I agree with you that biographical articles should be both categorized and tagged for Freemasonry as appropriate. There were previous CfD and similar discussions which indicated consensus was to the contrary. I sincerely urge you to drop the matter. It appears from the existing comments that the members of the project are not interested in the article; I cannot see how attempting to force them to tag the article will produce any beneficial results, and it could conceivably produce negative ones. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are once again making very serious mistakes. WikiProjects are in no way official. They don't "have" to do anything, either by including or excluding articles, based on any content. Trust me, I probably know the rules of projects better than virtually anyone. You should know that for the future. In all honesty, I cannot see how your continuing to argue with that project over whether they "have" to include an article they clearly aren't that interested in will produce any positive results. The only results I can see, in all honesty, is that you might alienate the active members (and there really only are three or four really active members of that project right now, I think), and possibly ensure that they never deal with that article, on the basis of your rather objectionable conduct to date. On that basis, I very sincerely urge you to drop the matter, as I cannot see how any good will come of it. John Carter (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alienating individual editors is a small editor, as the projects don't own the articles. You could contribute anyway. By the way, the assessments aren't particularly "official" either, as some projects don't use those criteria. And, for what it's worth, you have successfully alienated at least one editor, me, regarding your conduct in this matter. Please feel free to leave more comments on the project talk page if you wish, but, personally, I at this point wash my hands of the matter. John Carter (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it is hard for me to imagine few things more arrogant and offensive than your regular insistence on statements, which are, in fact, completely off-base. I once again very sincerely urge you to familiarize yourself with policy and guidelines, so that you will not so quickly alienate others in the future as you have today. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson/Cites/Thanks

Thank you for your offer to add cites to Samuel Johnson. It's much appreciated. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

If you'd like to fix the formatting and make it look clean, I fully support that. Good luck :). (|-- UlTiMuS 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A Song to David

I just pulled the Rose article from Literature Online, and what you have in there that Rose claims has nothing to do with what Rose actually said in the article. MSJapan (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. What Rose states (404): "There is no public record explicitly connecting Christopher Smart with Freemasonry. There does exist a poem attributed to "Brother C. Smart, A.M," published in a volume called A Defence of Freemasonry, in the mid-1760s, but it is of course possible that another C. Smart was the author of that work. The most suggestive evidence is therefore a line from the definitively attributed Jubilate Agno, which was written contemporaneously with the Song: "For I am the Lord's builder and free and accepted MASON in CHRIST JESUS" (B109). At a minimum, this line establishes that Smart had Freemasonry on his mind. A close analysis of the Song to David reveals that he was familiar with symbols from all three of the craft degrees, and undoubtedly the best source for such detailed knowledge would have been personal experience. But there were certainly other potential sources, for example the extremely popular expose Masonry Dissected by Samuel Prichard, published in 1730. This pamphlet ran through three editions in eleven days and remained readily available in London for over a century. It was also reputed to be one of the means by which the still young practice of speculative Freemasonry became standardized in Britain and abroad. In other words, Smart would have read it whether he were a Freemason or not. The most important thing to be said is this: much of the symbolism of Freemasonry derives from the story of the building of Solomon's temple, of which David was the divinely inspired architect. Upon this basis alone one is justified in pursuing the question of Masonic symbolism in the Song to David."

2. What Dearnley states (p. 184-185): "Father Devlin has also attempted a detailed, but in many ways simpler, analysis of the seven pillars in the Song to David. He takes quite a different course, because being a Roman Catholic, he is of course very anxious to prove that none of the sources of the Song to David are to be found in Masonic symbolism. 'The suggestion that the letters are Masonic symbols should be set aside. There is no evidence for it; rather the reverse. A writer in Miscellanea Latomorum (October 1924) states: "I am unable to offer any suggestion as to the reason for selection these particular letters of the Greek alphabet." The Curator of the Grand Lodge Library, London, through whose courtesy I was shown this article, adds: "I, too, am defeated in spite of my familiarity with the ritual of numerous masonic degrees."' Smart was a Freemason, but we are inclined to agree with Devlin that any interpretation of the Song to David that relies solely on Masonic symbolism is in danger of being far-fetched."

3. What Sherbo states (p. 221): "Smart's name is linked with a curious work of this same year entitled A Defence of Freemasonry, a refutation of another Free-masonic work, Ahiman Rezon, published earlier in 1765. The actual 'defence' covers about forty pages and has appended to it "A Collection of Masons Odes and Songs. Most of them entirely new;" the pamphlet was printed for the author and sold by W. Flexney and by E. Hood. While the 'defence' has been claimed for Smart, there is no solid evidence for the attribution. (ref 36 to Transactions, the American Lodge of Research, Free and Accepted Masons, V, No. 3 (April, 1951-January, 1952), p. 366-367) Last int he collection osongs is a "A Song by Brother C. Smart, A. M., Tune, "Ye frolicksome Sparks of the Game'," which confirms Smart's participation in Masonic affairs, but does nothing for his reputation as a poet. (ref 37 to the original song)"

4. What Williamson states (p. 478): "Song ('A MASON is great and respected')

Headed 'Song by Brother C. Smart, A. M. in A Defence of Free-Masonry (1765). Smart declares himself a Freemason in JA, B109. Although an unidentified 'Mason's Song' was in the programme of Mrs Midnight's Concert and Oratory on 14 Apr. 1853 (possibly a type for 1753) (London Stage, Pt. 4, p. 365), affinities between the present poem and Smart's later religious poetry suggest that it was written in 1764-1765. His concern seems to be to vindicate freemasonry against contemporary charges that it was irreconcilable with Christianity (see JA, B 109 n).

B 109 note: "Free and Accepted Masons was the title adopted by the constituted society of freemasons in 1717. Smart's claim to be a 'Mason in Christ' is asserted in defiance of the non-doctrinal creed of the 18th-c. freemasonry, and of papal condemnation: freemasonry was proscribed by the Roman church in 1751. William Hutchinson, in The Spirit of Masonry (1775) was at pains to defend the Christian faith of freemasons."

5. What Anderson states (p. 80-81):

"A last source is the Masonic observance. Smart was a Mason, as he demonstrated in Jubilate Agno and the Song, which contain Masonic symbols obscure to the uninitiated. Thus Smart was able to evoke more than one meaning from a particular image or section, lending special richness to the Song. An example can be seen in the passage of the Song concerning the pillars of knowledge. The immediate source of the reference to the pillars is a text of Proverbs IX supposed to have been written by David. Other references occur in Near Eastern mystery religions, in cabalistic and neo-Platonic works which interested Smart, and in legends of freemasonry. A Masonic lodge is reputed to stand on the three pillars of wisdom, strength, and beauty. (ref 8 to Broadbent, J.B. "Commentary" in Smart, Christopher. A Song to David, ed. J.B. Broadbent Cambridge, 1960. p. 36)"

Now, something important - Devlin, the original denier that all of the symbols could be matched up to freemasonry, was proven wrong by John Rose's analysis of each of the symbols and how they match up to freemasonry. And this is not including Christopher Smart: Poet and Mason or British Poets and Secret Societies which devotes an entire chapter to Smart as a Freemason. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Added: What Ainsworth states (p. 121-122):

"Move obvious, however, is that the whole passage is a piece of Masonic symbolism (ref 25 to "For evidence that Smart was a Mason, see Mr. Stead's Rejoice in the Lamb p. 25 and the Jubilate Agno itself.) - its exact meaning necessarily unintelligible to the uninitiated.

Grave legend in Smart's day put the origin of Freemasonry coeval with the creation of the world, which was itself created according to Masonic principles. Not inconsistent then is Masonic symbolism in a poem addressed to David, himself a Mason and planner of the Temple at Jerusalem. A recent critic comments, 'The seven pillars are themselves a Masonic emblem, Alpha and Gamme, taken together, suggest the Compasses and Square; Eta may stand for Jacob's ladder, Theta for the Eye, and Iota for the Plumbline. Obviously, the creator is imagined as the architect or mason of the universe.' (ref 26 to Odell Shepard and Paul Spencer Wood, English Prose and Poetry, 1660-1800. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1934. p. 1020. The notes for A Song to David in this volume are perhaps the best yet printed.) Other symbols must be meaningful to the enlightened - the trowel, spade, and loom of Stanza XXXIII; the 'foot, and chapitre, and niche' of Stanza XXXV; and, of course, the 'infernal draught' (with the sense of 'plan') of Stanza XXXVII. The next stanza, concluding the passage, carries out the same idea of David, the Mason."

7. What Curry states (p. 57):

"Mention of the Temple introduces another thread: that of Smart's Freemasonry. In Jubilate Agno he had asserted

For I am the Lord's builder and free and accepted MASON in CHRIST JESUS. (B109)

In his Lexicon of Freemasonry A.G. Mackey devotes several pages to a consideration of Solomon's Temple, explaining that, although Solomon built it, it was David who planned it, and David was not only therefore to be regarded as a Mason, but as possibly having been the first Grand Master.

We also read in Mackey that 'There are in Freemasonry twelve original points which form the basis of the system, and comprehend the whole ceremony of initiation. These twelve points refer the twelve parts of the ceremony of initiation to the twelve tribes of Israel.' (ref 16 to Mackey) The appearances of both these concepts within the opening lines of Smart's A Song to David cannot be without significance, and it is a thread that will be taken up later."

An old source and a recent source. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And no clear consensus as to his membership - Rose says not necessarily. Dearnley is quoting a third party who is a Mason, and in a position to access the proof, yet no one else has ever seen it. Sherbo in all three cases is working from a secondary source, and maybe not a very reliable one at times - no one seriously believes that Freemasons had anything to do with the building of King Solomon's temple. Williamson says nothing about Smart's membership. Anderson's statement, as well as Ainsworth's statement are refuted by what Rose says, because the first two claim there was no way for Smart to know Masonic symbolism without being a Mason, when Rose shows that there was. The statement by the UGLE Librarian would seem to indicate that records do exist; so where are they? Without those records, there is no proof of membership. I also have seen no statements about his admission of writing In Defence, though I have seen statements associating it with others, as I have shown.

As for people not being able to gleam Masonic symbolism without being members, you might want to look at Freemasonry and the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Some of the symbols overlap, and there were many exposures in New York State at the time Smith claimed to find the Book of Mormon. The absence of concrete proof of membership, along with plausible other methods to get the symbolic information in use in Smart's poetry do not build a strong enough case to unequivocally state that Smart was a Freemason. You can't take earlier research on a person when it suits your purpose and ignore later refutations of that research.

Furthermore, while I hate to use the "you're not a Mason, so you don't know" argument, it's valid here. You may be familiar with 18th century poetry, but you are making too many uninformed statements and incorrect assumptions about Freemasonry both at that time and now, based on so-called "Masonic" sources you are not qualified to assess the reliability of at all. MSJapan (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you reread what Dearnley wrote. You have mistaken Dearnley's quoting of Father Devlin and then attacking what Father Devlin claims (i.e. that there isn't Masonic imagery). Furthermore, by stating that "Freemasonry" has nothing to do with the Temple of Solomon, you are going against compendiums quoted by Freemasons that describe and discuss the symbolic nature and representation of the Temple of Solomon in Freemasonry. The sources are against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Dearnley is quoting a third-party, who in turn quotes a fourth party. That doesn't improve it much. I also stated that there was no connection between the building of the Temple (meaning the actual Temple, the one David was supposedly "chief architect" of) and the Freemasons. Symbolic connection and actual construction are two different things. The source predicates itself on the latter, not the former. MSJapan (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me break it down for you. Father Devlin is the only Smart scholar to suggest that the Seven Pillars is not Masonic. Every other essay allows for the interpretation. Rose is pointing to his article when he says that some do not agree with it. Dearnley quotes Devlin's justification (i.e. "I talked to a Mason, and he said he couldn't tell what this means, therefore, its meaningless") and then proves that it is wrong and shows a bias based on Devlin's adamant Catholicism and known anti-Masonic bigotry. The point of quoting her above is to show how her, as with Rose, destroy the argument by analyzing A Song to David based on Masonic imagery. They both show why people say he was a Mason. The scholars I have quoted above are not all that is out there. I have been going through all of the Smart research for the past 80 years (I have it here because I worked on an updated bibliography of the research) to show you what the argument is. Now, for saying that the Temple of Solomon and David are not Masonic, you are going against one of the most widely known Masonic Encyclopedias. I am not sure you would want to claim your background knowledge against such a source as that, especially when most of the scholars above use it to base their analysis of the Masonic imagery in A Song to David. Now, I must tell you that Christopher Smart: Poet and Mason (from Pheonix Lodge 30, not 9, mind you), and British Poets and Secret Societies by Marie Roberts (devotes a complete chapter to Smart's involvement with Masonry and Masons). Also, I would reevaluate your comments about Karina Williams. What she cites is evidence verifying Smart's writing of the poem credited as "Brother" in the Masonic poem section of A Defence of Freemasonry. It would seem odd that such a widely known person, editor of three magazines, publisher of quite a few works, actor of the three year run of the "Old Woman's Oratory", would be allowed such a privileged otherwise. I am slowly putting more of my information up. However, you can only quote three hundred words per source under fair use, so keep that in mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to drive me off the point here. First of all, you've got no basis to claim what's a reliable Masonic encyclopedia and what isn't, and you're misconstruing what I'm saying on purpose, so I'm not going to pursue that line of inquiry at all. However, thanks for clarifying in your own words that "people say he is a Freemason," not that "he is a Freemason". That's an important distinction, and my entire point here. MSJapan (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support your claim that A.G. Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry is incorrect or wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lexicon is not an encyclopedia; Mackey states in the Preface that it provides definitions for terms. As for evidence to Mackey's contrary, just about any modern book that touches on Masonic history discounts the "Freemasons built King Solomon's Temple" theory, such as S. Brent Morris' Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry wherein he states "Masonic traditions about King Solomon's Temple are elaborations based on the Bible, and are not intended to be historically accurate" (224). In a more scholarly vein, this article has a blockquote from Oliver which should date from context to the early 1800s, well before Mackey that says "The Society adopted the Temple of Solomon for its symbol, because it was the most stable and the most magnificent structure that ever existed, whether we consider its foundation or superstructure; so that of all the societies men have invented, no one was ever more firmly united, or better planned, than the Masons . . . The edifices which Freemasons build are nothing more than virtues or vices to be erected or destroyed; and in this case heaven only occupies their minds, which soar above the corrupted world. The Temple of Solomon denotes reason and intelligence." Other noted and reliable Masonic historians, like Gould (who wrote six volumes worth of material and reprinted early Grand Lodge records), do not even attempt to look at anything prior to medieval stonemason's guilds, which should also serve to buttress the evidence contradicting Mackey. So yes, Mackey is wrong - a lot of his writing is infused with the fanciful and uncritical, as was the custom of the time. MSJapan (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you read A Song to David before you make claims about what they are talking about in regard to the Temple of Solomon. In it you would realize that it is a symbolic temple and that the seven pillars are the seven pillars of creation based on Masonic symbols. Unless you can provide evidence that contradicts that there were those in the 18th century that believed David was the planner to the Temple, and then someone disprove your own quote above that verifies that the Temple of Solomon was important to the Masons, then I do not understand how you think you have a leg to stand on here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

From the source provided by MSJapan providing evidence of David's relationship with Masonry and the Temple of Solomon found here: "When Saul died in about 1010 BCE, David became the King of Judah and seven or eight years later he was anointed King over all Israel. After David had consolidated his power and built a permanent residence for himself, the lack of a shrine of Yahweh seemed invidious to him. He said: “I dwell in a house of cedar, but the Ark of God dwelleth within curtains”. Because his hands were stained with the blood of his enemies, David was precluded from building a temple to the Lord, but he collected materials, gathered treasure and purchased a site for the construction. The site chosen was the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, within the area now called Haram esh-Sherif on Mount Moriah on the east side of the “Old City” of Jerusalem."

The sources above connect David as the planner and having that influence over the Temple. I don't understand how there can be a continual denial of this fact with this evidence provided by MSJapan. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Because we're supposed to be discussing the relationship of Freemasonry and King Solomon's Temple, and David's "association with the Freemasons" (who didn't exist at the time), not the historical fact of David wanting to build the real Temple. I'm not going to waste any more time on this, because you'd rather completely misunderstand things to attack me than realize your own errors. MSJapan (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so are you claiming that the above source is wrong to give a history of David and the Temple of Solomon, as if such a thing would not be important to them? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima. I understand you're waiting for new source material to arrive from diverse libraries? Let's postpone this discussion until then, ok? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You know that's not what I'm saying. Since you won't stop changing the parameters of what we're talking about every other sentence, I am withdrawing from this "conversation" as a monumental waste of time. MSJapan (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no "parameters". There is you making claims that I am wrong. And there is you making other claims. As anyone can see, I have proven you wrong on both sides of this issue. You keep throwing in new things, I keep proving them wrong. You can make whatever claims you want, but that is the truth for everyone to look and actually read. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

MSJapan's Errors

From here:

1. "Out of the seven sources Ottava provides (three of which are from the one scholar " As you can read above, there are seven authors, not 5 (4 and one writing three sources) - Rose, Dearnley, Sherbo, Williamson, Anderson, Ainsworth, or Curry.

2. "ho blatantly asserts Smart's Masonic ties in the late 1960s despite admitting he gets all his Masonic info from a secondary and fanciful source (Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry)" Actually, that was Neil Curry from 2004. Mackey's was not written until 1861, and not a primary source for Smart. However, it was a source of comparison for Curry to compare the imagery in A Song to David against, which is obvious from the quote above.

3. "not one has any proof of Smart's membership." Yet all seven, experts and scholars in the field, say that it has to be so, especially with him openly admitting such in a publication by Masons that titles him as a Brother.

4. "Not one source asserts him as the author of Defence of Freemasonry, or asserts that the book was noteworthy" That is not the issue here. As you can see above, the topic was A Song to David. Therefore, MSJapan is purposely asserting that which is not even considered during this discussion.

5. "The only Google hit out of the top 50 for "Christopher Smart" and "famous Freemason" that is relevant is the WP article, despite the hundreds of "famous freemason" pages out there." Because internet websites are the end all to be all of critical knowledge, and lists by fans should be considered the full extent of it all. Match up the Wikipedia "List of Masons" against the "Famous Masons" and you will see a large difference, especially with some who are very famous.

6. "Conversely, Googling Robert Burns and "Freemason" has plenty of relevant GHits (WP article is 4) and his membership info is available (1781 in Tarbolton). So Ottava's claim of "loss of records" because of the time is baseless." So, the fact that one guy has his membership detail available proves that all people should have their detail membership. This argument is very unscientific, not verifiable, nor satisfying in any degree.

7. "He also claims Phoenix Lodge is the authority on British Freemasonry. Kim Bruning says the material is coming from France. Wouldn't Quatuor Coronati Lodge in the UGLE building, who has been publishing peer-reviewed transactions for 120 years, be a much better source for British Freemasonry?" There are institutes in the United States that spend their time on Irish and Asian studies. Just because one is located in another country does not mean that they don't specialize in a specific area.

8. "I posit Phoenix is an authority because it supports Ottava's viewpoint, not because he knows any better. That's the problem, really; he doesn't know any better, and acts as if he does." They published a book called Christopher Smart: Poet and Mason. The title alone suggests that MSJapan is wrong and would have to try and trash the authority of this Masonic institute in a cling to proving himself as correct.

9. "I give it to him, and all of a sudden, that wasn't what we were talking about." Actually, all evidence provided only reinforced the above sources claim that David and the Temple of Solomon were important images in Masonry, which MSJapan tried to deny.

There. I have said all that needs to be said on this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent conduct

I'm still awaiting the apology from you. For what it's worth, I have regularly read both pages. One is a guideline, which several projects actually don't follow. Also, several projects have their own rating systems, and a few even specifically rule out articles anyone else would think were relevant. I know the Avatar project has chosen not to tag the articles on the creators for instance, despite the direct and obvious relevance of those articles. And you were the one who said that projects "had" to do things, which they do not. Your recent conduct, and your demands for apologies and retractions of statements of others, when you have to date been unwilling to do the same yourself, very much calls into question the motivations for your actions. And, yes, I do think it would be appropriate for you to withdraw your own false and misleading statements from the Freemasonry project talk page, as a show of good faith on your part, before making demands for others to do the same thing. John Carter (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ottava Rima (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no reason to block, nor is there community consensus behind the block.

Decline reason:

Moreschi gave a very clear reason for the block, as well as very clear conditions for unblock. As for community consensus, administrators can take independent action to block tendentious editors; consensus isn't a mandatory requirement. — Maxim_(talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

His justification is an essay, not a policy, and follows no protocol! Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No amount of ruleslawyering can help you here. So far you're only demonstrating that the block is well justified. If you want to continue participating here, you need to make substantial changes to your approach. Unless you're willing to do that, I don't see that anything can be done. Friday (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus clearly states that users are not obliged to follow that essay. Therefore, you are quite wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop ruleslawyering. Your actions are detrimental to the encyclopedia as a whole, and the essay describes behavior similar to yours. Maxim_(talk) 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The only one rules lawyering is you, Friday, and Moreschi for blatantly defying community consensus by acting like something clearly marked as not obligated to be followed as something that needs to be followed. This is a severe abuse of powers, and admin have been desysopped for such things. You cannot block someone for them to "cool down", nor can you block them until they say what you want them to say. That is clearly a violating of protocol. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(That's not what "ruleslawyering" means. Not even close.) Anyway. I've reviewed your block, and posted a suggestion here, in case you want to take a look. Bishonen | talk 14:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

I think some others had the same view as you. I'm not above apologizing. But I am a strong believer in a content dispute not falling into one person being blocked until they admit that they were "wrong", especially when the content dispute itself was ignored. Why hasn't anyone responded to my critique of MSJapan's alterations to the A Song to David page at the very beginning of the AN/I thread where I quote the whole text and show how my original summation follows the nuances where his distorts what Rose states? MSJapan is going on and on and editing further to follow his point of view during this whole thing. He only wanted me blocked so he could do just that. Look over at Christopher Smart for further examples. WP:V has been tossed out of the window for sure. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Please see the ANI thread for details. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your justification is an essay, not a policy, and you lack all community consent. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." WP:TE Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag is a lie. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn those leprechauns and their misleading tags! If only I knew before hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors are obliged to observe certain standards of reasonable behavior. It doesn't much matter whether this rule is explicitly spelled out or not. Friday (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to explain that now :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Leprechauns. They be everywhere. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava hasn't directly done anything wrong, but because Moreschi dislikes his approach he has indef blocked him until he says "sorry"? WTF? After I'm done with dinner here in a moment, I'll help you get this ridiculous block lifted, Ottava. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't stick your neck out for me. Apparently the leprechauns have been hording their gold. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't say they're completely wrong in the advice they're trying to give you, but this "method" is a pretty clear violation of the blocking policy. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And even lacking that, I don't think it's a good method of helping to resolve the issue. -- Ned Scott 07:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does seem to have helped a little bit, at least I'm being listened to now ^^;; . Hmmm, Do you think I should start wearing green? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I've always listened to you. However, I was always afraid of you developing an ego problem, so I never bothered to let you know. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

<falls over laughing> --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Offense

I hereby take offense to the following statement: Or, "as soon as you promise not to write bad poetry on ANI" (found here).

I find my poetry absolutely charming and delightful, and I believe the implication besmirches such quality! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Do you have access to Sources from masonic lodge number 9 Phoenix lodge 30, and/or to Masonic Records 1716-1886 at the moment? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sherbo was the one who quoted from the Masonic Records (if you look, there was a duel reference tag). I would need to ask the librarian to ship that one also. However, I do have a physical copy of the Pheonix Lodge 30 document being shipped to my person currently, as before I was only sent excerpts from the publication. Once that arrives from France, I shall be able to put together a more accurate quote. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My proposal

AN/I tends to operate on the principle of first come first believed, with very little beyond shooting from the hip. Facts are lost, because people don't care about facts. So, the following are a set of proposals to remedy this issue:

Proposal One - Community Acknowledgment

1A. The Events of this Incident

This, along with the corresponding user talk pages, is the origin. As you can see, I placed three wikilinks up for assessment. Blueboar states that Smart was not a notable figure. It becomes a discussion from there. John enters on a philosophical point about the nature of Wikiprojects. That tangent can be seen on his talk page.

MSJapan enters and makes claims such as all lodges must have records, and that there is no information. Sources are provided, they are ignored. All but himself have pointed out that lack of records does not mean that records never existed. Others, like John, pointed to more sources verifying Smart's membership.

Based on a book devoted to claims about the membership of poets in organizations like the Masons (Roberts, Marie. British Poets and Secret Societies), I added Smart to the list of Mason's per Blueboar saying that if there is a verifiable source that claims it, to add him. MSJapan removed the link here per "The articles themselves cite no solid proof." If you notice, I wrote the articles. The sources, as can be seen here and here provide more evidence to back up the claim that scholars believe he was a Mason. However, MSJapan claims that there is no "solid proof". Pleas see "1B. Verifiability" below.

Finding that a revert war on one page was not satisfactory, MSJapan started reverting sources here. He claimed that I misquoted Rose, even though if you look here here you will see that my quote actually covers both sides of what Rose is claiming in that paragraph while his does not.

After proceeding to AN/I, he decided that he would edit other pages, such as here, to remove whole sale information that is directly attributed, and here to remove notes on a page that holds no relevance to him except that I was to work on it and add citations this weekend, which has obviously been disrupted. He has even gone to my own name sake to make rather specious edits here.

I would propose that the community acknowledge the complete unfolding and continual unfolding to recognize that the disruption is not from my person.

1B. Verifiability

Instead of going to the "Reliable sources" noticeboard for the community to weigh on if my sources are verifiable or not and can be used, MSJapan has removed my sources completely and claimed that his own personal experience and knowledge as a Mason outweighs 7 sourced Christopher Smart scholars, found here, a work by a woman who researchers secret societies and literary figures (Roberts, Marie. British Poets and Secret Societies), and a Masonic resource (Christopher Smart: Mason and Poet).

Instead of requesting a comment or trying to get community consensus, I have been called a liar countless times: 1."because Ottava was intentionally misconstruing statements I was making in order to try to make me look foolish, never mind statements about RS for sources he's never seen." 2. A copy of the above. 3. "Ottava may have the material in front of him when he writes, but he subjectively lifts passages and interprets what is being said by sources, instead of simply stating what the source says."

The user also posits himself as being above verifiability and claims that his own personal knowledge is more than what countless books and critics have stated. This demonstrates a slap in the face to Neutral Point of View, which would require information that you disagree with or think is unfactual if it has been adopted by many. Here are such examples: 1. "Now we've gone from questions of Smart's Masonic membership to somehow talking about the historical veracity of the Freemasons having built King Solomon's Temple because David was connected to the Freemasons (which has on truth to it whatsoever, and no reputable researcher believes this, though it is stated in the article on" (Note- his own link was proven to have verified that Freemasons see a connection between David and the Temple here) 2. "Another problem is where Ottava's sources are getting their Masonic info, which is apparently out of thin air." 3. A copy of the above placed on Kim's talkpage. 4. "that I don't know what I'm talking about every time I disprove his sources" 5. "ot one has any proof of Smart's membership. Without proof, a statement that smart is a Mason is baseless." "Ottava shows no willingness to see anything but that which he believes, despite having no training or experience in the field of scholarly Masonic research." 6. "He is making baseless statements on reliability of sources he's never seen," 7. "Until he is willing to admit that Freemasonry is not an area in which he is a qualified scholar and conducts himself as a willing student who will accept the opinions of others more experienced than he I can't help him." 8."There is some room for interpretation of Smart's status, yes, but I tend to put more weight on newer research that is uncertain, especially since the claims Sherbo makes are not provable reliably" 9. "His citation is vague at best and says nothing, so if he rv's again, please report him."

I would propose that the community acknowledge that a user who claims his own personal experience is more correct than multiple books and articles, and fails to provide direct citations, should be told not to remove content in the manner that he did, nor to rewrite content to only state half of an author's argument.

1C. Topic Banning

MSJapan has demanded that I be topic banned from Christopher Smart pages. He has done so here and here.

Note, I created the Christopher Smart in its current incarnation (the previous was built off of the 1911 Britannica, I completely removed it and rewrote from scratch). I have also created the other Christopher Smart pages (for his poems). As many here can testify, I am an 18th century scholar, and I publish on this matter. By claiming that I don't understand what I am talking about, that I am lying, and other such things, that is not only highly inflammatory, but damaging.

As you can see here, there are 7 pages of Christopher Smart that are DYK'd because of my actions. I have added over 200 references. As you can see from here, here, here, here, here, here, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hop-Garden&action=history here[, I have added about 125k worth of new text and pictures on the topic of Christopher Smart - all well cited.

I have personally gone through over 18 books and over 45 articles finding information and compiling it on each of his works. This process begun only on June 7th, 2 weeks ago, which can be found here.

Do you really think that I should be the one topic banned, where I have put forth countless citations and verifiable information, and MSJapan has only gone through pages of mine trying to revert and remove whatever information he can without prior discussion or going through the appropriate processes to do so?

I would posit that the reverse should be initiated, and that MSJapan would be prohibited from editing articles in a manner that changes them by more than 100 characters at a time unless he has gone through prior discussion before doing so.

Proposal Two - Ending Silliness

2A. Claims of "Wasting Time"

Bishonen has claimed that I have "wasted" everyone's time. Time is not something that can be forcefully wasted, and it seems inappropriate to describe such on a forum that you can move on and ignore if you feel that its a time waster. Instead of redirecting the blatant content dispute towards the reliable source noticeboard, where MSJapan's claims rightfully belonged, her actions only furthered a divide which invited Geogre, a well known antagonist of mine to enter.

I propose that administrators, and all users, stop using such dismissive, inflamatory, and inappropriate descriptors to AN/I pages, especially in such sections as this.

2B. Assume Good Faith Bishonen has claimed that I tried to restart a fight between John Carter and Geogre. If one was to read what I stated, I mentioned twothings - "I must point out here that Geogre's definition of "civility" includes belittling editors constantly, especially his recent outbursts against John Carter over his assessing pages as "start" even though they clearly fit the criteria as such."

Both of these things I was directly involved in. Geogre came to my page and insulted my style of writing and criticized my use of many citations. He then proceeded to delete a page of mine in order to put his own up, an action that was reversed by community consensus. Then John started assessing pages, and Geogre reverted his assessments in order to demand a "B" class to a previous classified "Start" class page. I was the one who alerted John to Geogre's actions, and I was there to defend John against many of Geogre's attacks. I also brought in outside admin to help mediate between the two, because Geogre would not stop attacking John.

I brought this up because Geogre's characterization of my person and his claims to know what "civility" meant were stated in a blatantly hypocritical manner.

Instead, Bishonen has been in incidents with Geogre before, and instead of acknowledging Geogre's constantly incivility to editors like myself, she has tried to claim that I was starting a new war while not acknowledging that Geogre's entrance into the AN/I was over the previous one.

I propose that Bishonen acknowledge her mistake and that admin will remove themselves from making such claims if they are unwilling to acknowledge the history and background of the action.

2C. Claims about Collaborate Editing Many editors have jumped in and claimed that I need experience on collaborate editing. However, it is demonstrated that I have worked with many people in order to mediate and to come up with a consensus on how to appropriately deal with controversial content. As you can see from my work on Rosalind Picard and talk page, I dealt with the issue in a way that quickly ended the majority of the problems.

The claims that I would need to learn such a practice is a pejorative at best, and fails to recognize that MSJapan has traveled to multiple pages and performed actions that radically change pages and lack a discussion. His edits also remove valuable content. See 1B for further evidence of this.

I propose that MSJapan, if anyone, be given a mentor to show him how to work with other editors, to come to a consensus, and to respect critical resources that fit Wikipedia Verifiability.

Some false claims

From here:

1. "For example, when I removed "John Newbery" from the list of the eighteenth-century children's authors because the evidence that he is an author is very limited" Actually, the evidence is substantial, and a major encyclopedia, Literature for Children Macmillan Encyclopedia of Death and Dying (2003) blatantly states "In 1744 John Newbery wrote A Little Pretty Pocket Book for children." Her response? That can't be true because another work only tentatively claims it for him, even though uncertainly in one source does not cancel the certainty in another, only a denial could. If she thinks my source isn't appropriate, she can take it to the reliable sources notice board. For everyone's information, she complained the last time I took a source there in order to have community consensus support my claim that it was reliable. For more information proving Newbery's authorship, she here, which cites an updated version of her source that claims these books for him, verifying my source.

2. "such as that the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is reliable." If you read, I stated it was reliable to show notability. If the 1911 mentions a person, chances are they are notable. It doesn't mean that their content is correct. Awadewit completely misconstrued this argument for whatever reason.

3. "Ottava Rima and I had mini-2RR which he mischaracterized as "edit warring". I" Actually, 1RR going back and forth can be characterized as an "edit war". I am sure many people will agree that there was edit warring going on.

4. "These are but two of a long list of strange encounters I have encountered with Ottava Rima that have not convinced me that he knows the scholarship he claims to know." I have proven to others that I know the scholarship that I know, and that is enough.

5. "out that after the previous ANI thread that I brought against Ottava Rima, he returned just as invicil and unproductive after his self-imposed wikibrea" Actually, the AN/I discussion pointed out that she brought the complaint to the wrong forum, and I voluntarily stepped down from FA Review ONLY. And unproductive? I have created 8 new pages and added more references these past two weeks than she has for quite longer.

Her characterization of these events are extremely troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

block period

In accordance with the discussion at AN/I, I have reduced the length of the block to 96 hours total, ending at 15:53, June 24. It's my expectation that efforts will be made to engage in friendly cooperative discussions of all issues, present and future, without descending to personalities or disparaging editors, or trying to prove the truth in an absolute academic sense, rather than just attaining a verifiable encyclopedia article. Needless to say, this is what is expected of all editors at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)