User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 11

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

Samuel Johnson
In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.


 * 1. "The first two paras of the biography section take an inordinate amount of time to sum up questions about Johnson's biography that are, although interesting, not quite as relevant as all that, and probably more relevant to the article on the Life of Johnson." This will be moved to its own page when there is a chance. Its just left over from the beginning.
 * 2. "', to take a random example, is too involved and flits forward a couple of centuries to call in TS Eliot's (unsourced and unquoted) opinion, something that should really be removed to a properly cited footnote, before bouncing back to the 18th century via a quick nod to Walter Scott." You can blame Bate for that one. The citation is a summary from what Bate says. It is no longer necessary after I created a page on the poem and can be removed.
 * 3. "which is a rather ugly passive" Many different writers and many different tweaks. Feel free to rewrite and blame anything improper on me. :)
 * 4. "much-needed article on The Vanity of Human Wishes" I've been meaning to also. I have 11 sources on the work and title page and the rest. If you are willing to wait a few days, we can whip something up together.
 * 5. I relied on Bate because his would be the most renown based on the Pulitzer. However, I do rely on multiply biographies, and I did leave out Lain because of the year. I've been wanting to add parts from Robert Demaria's The Life of Johnson (1993) and John Wiltshire's Samuel Johnson in the Medical World (1991), but the new information they provide is on the medical side, which the MoS would prefer the doctors speaking instead of the biographers. However, I do plan to incorporate them into the various "works" pages that I have slowly built. Note - there are two Bate sources used, and its a little hard to see them as different from a first glance.
 * 6. Thanks once again for the help.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for such a prompt and polite response. I've already started on the Human Wishes article but am hampered by not owning a copy of the Yale edition of the poems, so my bibliographical data is a bit skimpy.  I am not a Johnson scholar by any means, just a lifelong reader of the guy and (though I say so myself) a reasonably good editor.  I look forward to working with you.  BTW, you do know that the Hibbert (i.e. Penguin) edition of Boswell's Life is abridged?  I have the OUP unabridged version.  It seems strange to be using an abridged edition of Boswell in an article on Johnson. Lexo (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. But heres the thing - the abridge version was easier to find the quotes used in the quote boxes. :D I guess I'm lazy. I will post some information on the poem here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the notes - am still trying to work out how to structure the article so as best to incorporate them. I have ordered a copy of the Yale Poems so as to flesh out bibliographical detail, because right now I am working from the Penguin Complete English Poems which was intended for students.  At the moment, my draft structure is as follows: Intro; Source - Juvenal; Composition history; Structure; Publication history; Reception; Critical responses; Legacy; Notes.  If you have any comments, let me know. I have sources for the influence of Johnson on Samuel Beckett, incidentally.  One last question: how acceptable is it to use Boswell as a source?  I know that Boswell scholarship is a field in itself and that the Life is not always trustworthy, but does that mean that it should never be cited at all? Lexo (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One final thing: I have a copy of the Clarendon edition (ed. C. Tracy) of the Life of Richard Savage, and would be interested in working on that article too, as I've always liked that book. (I used to be able to quote bits of it from memory.) Lexo (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful. I put Life of Mr Richard Savage on hold to work on some other pages. I have Richard Holmes's Dr Johnson & Mr Savage and a few other books that go into depth, but it would be very important to take some notable passages and place them on the page so everyone can see what the work is about. Feel free to work on anything, and if there is a problem we can work it out. Be bold and clean up later. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done some more work on the Human Wishes article. Please let me know if there's anything in it that you think is glaringly bad. It's only a start, but it's better than a stub. Lexo (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth I think your changes have greatly improved my fairly hopeful effort. I read and reread Eliot on Johnson this afternoon and failed to find a genuinely full-throttle positive remark, although it's clear that he approved of the poem.  There are a couple of small typos that I will clean up but I think it's looking pretty good for an article that didn't even exist a few days ago. I defer to you as the Johnson expert; if there is anything else you can point me at, I will look at ways to incorporate it.  While I'm here I thought I should let you know about the limits to my small library of Johnsoniana; apart from the Penguin English Poems and Clarendon Life of Savage, I only have Chapman's dual edition of Johnson's Journey to the Western Isles & Boswell's Journal of a Tour; an old pocket-sized Oxford edition of the Lives of the Poets with no notes or apparatus of any kind; Donald Greene's OUP paperback selection of the "Major Works", and Boswell's unabridged Life, also an OUP paperback.  I have no secondary literature of any kind - looked in a bookshop this evening for the Cambridge Companion and Bate's Johnson but no luck. Lexo (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and you have done quite a bit yourself. :) Whatever you can add, feel free. I will just follow behind and fill in more details. We can move onto the two journey books and work on them together next if you would like. I have a lot of the secondary literature, but I always get frustrated by what primary information to put in; I can never seem to decide. :) So, if you have any favorite passages from the Vanity, feel free to add them. Right now, I have access to the biographies by Wain, Demaria, Bate, Lane, Hibbert, Wiltshire (on Johnson and medicine), Normal Clarke (on Johnson and women), and Richard Holmes (on Johnson and Savage). I also have the Cambridge Companions, Bate's first book on Johnson, Yung's collection of important Johnson primary documents and paintings, the Thraliana, the Johnsonian Miscellanies and a handful of other works. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments. I have been weighing up the usefulness of acquiring a copy of the Miscellanies myself (Amazon has some used copies going for the equivalent of €50), but have regretfully decided that my credit card has taken enough beatings lately.  I will have to clock off from the articles for the weekend (my wife and I have a 15-month-old daughter) but I will get back to the Human Wishes article on Monday.  Being an Irish contributor I want to drop in a (short) mention about Samuel Beckett's unfinished play about Johnson, which was called Human Wishes; Beckett was a major Johnson fan.  I have a copy of it (it's in a collection of Beckettian miscellanies called Disjecta) and will provide a note. Lexo (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its probably easier to "long term borrow" from an old professor of yours (like I did) than pay for it. Last time I checked, it was going for 450 dollars on the US amazon. Beckett could be mentioned in the critical response section if you can find some quotes (and gratuitously mention the play too). I will continue to update the page while you are gone. Enjoy your weekend. By the way, I will need to rely on your "Irishness" for some other pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just went through the article and cleaned up the style a tiny bit; also, I managed to find a source for Eliot saying that it was Johnson's best poem in a readily available book (On Poetry and Poets). My Irishness is at your disposal but it's not altogether to be relied upon - I should point out, perhaps, that I don't have a degree in English lit, or for that matter in anything else, so I have no old professors to borrow stuff from. I just have (and have read) a lot of books. Lexo (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found the quote, and thats okay, I was being silly. abebooks and some other listings might have the miscellanies for a low cost. They are mostly a massive collection of anecdotes, but some are very interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally got my copy of the Yale Poems. It turned out to be less comprehensive than I'd hoped (for example, unlike the Penguin Poems they modernise the capitalisation, which I disapprove of) but still useful.  I added one interesting bit to the Composition section and provided citations according to your style rather than my own clunky manner.  I had hoped that there might at least be a facsimile of the title page, but I see that you added one.  (Do you actually have a copy of the first edition, or what?)  There is a photo of a page of the MS in the Yale edition (the "Toil  Envy Want the Garret and the Jayl" bit) that would be worth scanning and uploading, but I lack the software to do so. Lexo (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Vanity notes
Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:

Bate - Samuel Johnson - follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism
 * p. 277 - Written during Dictionary, imitation of Tenth Satire of Juvenal, written autumn of 1748, "told Geogre Steevens he wrote the first seventy lines 'in the course of one morning, in that small house behind the church.'" (found in Johnsonian Miscellanies Vol II 313-314, I have a copy if you need more detail of quote).
 * p. 278 - VoHW "discloses the inner landscape of his mind - that is, it reveals the image of reality that was fixed in him, and to which his experience naturally assimilated itself - more completely than any other single work"
 * p. 279 - VoHW "has a denser, more active texture than would be tolerable in essayistic writing. There is more activity within phrases, and therea re more interwoven strands of connection between phrases. All that is going on helps form and refine our sense of Johnson's imagination, its habitual processes and vision."
 * - "deeply personal"
 * - "Loosely based on a satire of Juvenal's, it adopts the closed heroic couplet of Dryden and Pope."
 * - similar argument to Augustine's Confessions, Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Holy Dying, and William Law's Serious Call (the argument is "the complete inability of the world and of worldly life to offer genuine or permanent satisfaction"
 * - leaves out "Juvenal's coarseness of imagery, and he voices less anger and contempt", less "playful" than Dryden or Pope, more meditative
 * - "formally a satire, but his irony differs essentially from that in most classical or Augustan satiric writing"
 * 280 - irony is "in the world", "Johnson is closer to Hardy than to Pope"
 * 281 - two themes - first is "he dwells on the helpless vulnerability of the individual before the social context", second is that he "traces the inevitable 'doom of man' to inward and psychological causes", "inevitable self-deception by which human beings are led astray"
 * 282 - beginning lines about "natural passions of man", "betrayal is from within"
 * - "When at the end of the poem Johnson turns to religion as the only true and lasting source of hope, the turn of feeling and argument is expected, magnificently handled, and yet also raises central problems of interpretation. Ultimately, they are problems in interpreting the character of Johnson's religion, and naturally cannot be explored in the context of this poem only." Problem stems from his use of Roman satire
 * 285 - "The imagery of The Vanity of Human Wishes is constant, condensed, concerely pictorial, and expressed with gusto."

Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World
 * p. 113 - "This serious, sober, pessimistic work reflects clearly enough his state of mind at the time, which is one of total disenchantment with life. The statesman, soldier, scholar are alike victims of delusion and disappointment; nothing is permanent or safe; even the rich man and the virtuous are doomed, and the poet, the dedicate writer, is no expection."
 * p. 114 - (important - "first to carry his name on title-page") "A theme so stoical and gloomy, so sternly expounded, was not likely to be popular with the public, and the poem, for which Dodsley paid Johnson fifteen guineas, sold less well than his London, which had run through several editions. Garrick, though anxious to praise his friend's new work, the first to carry his name on the title-page, found it heavy going: 'When Johnson lived much with the Herveys, and saw a good deal of what was passing in life, he wrote his London, which is lively and easy. When he became more retired, he gave us his Vanity of Human Wishes, which is as hard as Greek.'" (quoting Boswell's Life book I)

Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson
 * p. 36 "Each side profits from the process of questioning and asking. To be sure, as poetic narrator Johnson normally is the superior questioner, but so long as we also learn, engage various intellectual faculties, and are variously pleased, our dialogues with Johnson, with ourselves, and with our culture proceed generously - aas we shall see in the "Drury Lane Prologue" (1747) and in The Vanity of Human Wishes.
 * p. 45 "London and The Vanity of Human Wishes are Johnson's longest non-dramatic public poems. Each falls into that rich eighteenth-century genre called the 'imitation,' in which an earlier or even contemporary poem is adapted to modern or different circumstances."
 * p. 46 "London is well worth reading, but The Vanity of Human Wishes is one of the great poems in the English language. It follows the outline of Juvenal's tenth satire, embraces some of what Johnson thought of as its 'sublimity,' but also uses it as a touchstone rather than an argument on authority."
 * p. 47 "He unifies different portraits through a common denominator of vain human wishes and through interlocking metaphors, like collapsing buildings and life as a battle."
 * - "As guide, Johnson uses a plural pronoun to suggest that he shares our human weakness."
 * - "When Johnson invokes the laughing philosopher Democritus (49-72) to mock eternal folly in human farce, he reminds us of the importance of continuing our search before we draw inferences: 'How just that Scorn ere yet thy Voice declare,/ Search every State, and canvass ev'ry Pray'r' (71-72)."
 * - "Johnson shows his skill in human and moral psychology in several of the character portraits. Cardinal Wolsey rose so high that he seemed to threaten his monarch."
 * - "The Portrait of Charles XII of Sweden (1682-1718) is deservedly famous. He was the overreaching monarch and general whose bold but finally fatal attacks terrorized much of Europe. The passage skillfully includes many of Johnson's familiar themes - repulsion with slaughter that aggrandizes one man and kills and impoverishes thousands, understanding of the human need to glorify heroes, and subtle contrast with the classical parent-poem and its inadequate moral vision."
 * p. 48 "Johnson's ultimate target and audience is the human situation - hence he includes Juvenal and his parochial treatment of the North African Hannibal, Juvenal's original Swedish Charles. When reading the Vanity our response includes pity for Charles, for Europe, and for ourselves. In contrast, Juvenal enjoys the barbarian lunatic's death and miniaturization into Roman school-boy's declamation."
 * - "Johnson is cosmopolitan; Juvenal is local. Johnson is sympathetic; Juvenal is vengeful. Like Democritus, Juvenal is an inadequate guide for the Christian empiricist. The conclusion to the poem further illustrates its moral and poetic grandeu, and satisfies a key expectation of formal verse satire - praise of the virtue opposed to the vice attacked."
 * - "The final portrait before the Vanity's conclusion exploits that most enduring and endearing emblem of human renewal - the birth of a child. After all, what parent does not wish to have an attractive child? That child, alas, becomes a prisoner of the dangerous, cloudy, snare-encrusted world of Johnson's first paragraph, but now with the special reference to female fragility."
 * p. 49 "The antidote for vain human wishes is non-vain spiritual wishes; the antidote for an unreliable monarch is a reliable God; the antidote for overreaching is trust in God's knowledge of what is best for us."

Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.
 * p. 130 "Johnson's greatest poem"
 * - "a distilled statement of the central theme of his work of the late 1740s." "Although Johnson is in some ways an expressive writer, he was a professional writer capable of separating his personal and public lives. He continued to carry on a scholarly life that was concerned with particulars rather than the grand ends of learning, and he continued to be interested in particular political issues after he shifted his professional literary focus away from these areas."
 * - Robert Dodsley helped Johnson "broaden his audience and thereby achieve greater professional independence" knew Dodsley while writing for his Preceptor
 * - "Johnson called Dodsley his patron, and he frequented Dodsley's shop at Tully's Head."
 * - "the Vanity also seems written with Dodsley in mind, and it eventually became a part of A Collection of Poems by Several Hands, an anthology Dodsley brought out earlier in the same year that he purchased the rights to Johnson's great poem." Note on 321 says "Johnson revised the Vanity for the fourth edition of Dodsley's Collection (1755); he contributed other poems to the first edition of 1748."
 * p. 131 "In The Vanity of Human Wishes Johnson displays the moral blueprint of his Dictionary."
 * - "The Vanity is a great poem, and it therefore deserves and rewards treatment as a literary phenomenon unfettered by any but aesthetic and intellectual associations. As T. S. Eliot shows in his introduction to the Haslewood Press edition, the Vanity belongs in the artistic world defined by the poetry of Juvenal, Dryden, Pope, and Horace. It ias also, however, an artefact of Johnson's professional life in the late 1740s."

Irene
I note that the Yale Poems contains the complete text of Irene, which I've never before possessed. I have been looking at it in a worried kind of way, knowing that I'm going to try to read it and start an article about it. Interested? Lexo (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding all the stuff to Irene. I am really keen on working on this, because it appeals to my sense of humour to work specially hard on an article about a really bad work by a major writer. :)  At the moment I am collecting critical responses to it; I have never read anyone with a good word to say about it.  I read it this afternoon, and even after 15 years working as literary manager for a professional theatre company, I have to say that it almost defies synopsis, because the first two-thirds are so incredibly boring.  The eyelids just droop in mid-speech.  Then towards the end, something happens that happens with so many bad plays written by intelligent people - Johnson begins to sense that everyone's attention is waning, and he suddenly boots the plot into fourth gear, Demetrius arrives to rescue Aspasia, Irene gets done in and everyone goes nuts.  Don't worry, my synopsis will be a bit more responsible than that. Lexo (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the Bate quote. He pretty much hits the nail on the head.  I actually enjoyed reading it on a weird level because bad as it is, at least it's sincere - I read far worse, more stupid, more ugly, more cynical plays in the course of my professional duties.   You can see that it's by the same guy that wrote Vanity of Human Wishes.  And none of the versifying is actually inept or stupid - well, the bit where Demetrius runs on and says, more or less, "We are undone!" and Aspasia replies, more or less, "Is everything okay?" is pretty inept.  It's just very boring, as Johnson himself admitted somewhere - if you have a note of where I will put it in, but I expect it's in Boswell somewhere. Lexo (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Went through the article and added some more Irene-bashing. I undid your edit that moved the play's alt title "Mahomet and Irene" to the intro, sorry - I have known about the play for years, but only found out today that Garrick retitled it for the original production, and I thought it was confusing to list it in the intro as a proper alternative title when almost nobody apart from Johnson scholars would regard it as one.  After all, it's never called "Mahomet and Irene" in the literature.  It's not like e.g. Frederic Manning's novel "The Middle Parts of Fortune" being legitimately also known as "Her Privates We"; "Irene" is only ever called "Irene".  Lexo (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the lead, but right now I think the lead is too short to load it with quite so much info. I put "Mahomet and Irene" in bold later on to emphasise it. I really must get around to reading the MoS one of these days.  (I'm the kind of person who has all three editions of Fowler, and reads them for fun.) Lexo (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A query - these two sentences are inconsistent with each other:"He spent years trying to finish the work, and could not fully move onto another until he finished Irene. However, in 1737 he put off finishing the play and turned from it completely in order to work on other projects." If Johnson started writing the play in 1737, couldn't "fully move onto" anything else while he was writing it, and "spent years trying to finish" it, how can he then have put off finishing it in 1737 and "turned from it completely"?  Can you post the actual references from Bate on my talk page, so I can redraft these?  Thanks. Lexo (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know about losing the para - it was out of place, belonging in stage history rather than in background. I deliberately cut it so as to put it where it now is.  Well spotted, though. Lexo (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are enough pictures of Johnson floating about. I don't really see the need for a picture of Tetty on any page other than the article about her; that she liked the play isn't really a good enough reason to have her picture here.  A picture of Garrick would be great, but best of all would be a picture of Hannah Pritchard, who after all played Irene.  I have found a good one here, and have written to ask about copyright etc.  Perhaps you can tell better than me how free this picture is. Lexo (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC
I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't do anything right now. You can tell Sandy that mine has been moved to a "comment" without any obvious opposes. I'd need to have a closer look to move one way or another, and I wont be able to do so for four more days. I hope you see this message. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, it reads cleanly, and you should be commended on the work that you've put into the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Will do. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies
I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Once I remove something from my talk page, its because its no longer important to the here and now. I don't archive my talk page, because the only things that matter are the future tasks and duties. This is an encyclopedia. All that matters is the encyclopedia. I do feel bad that I removed my "thank you" to TravisTX before he could have seen it, which is a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to post at Travis's page regarding that? S. Dean Jameson 17:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do that in a few days. Time doesn't really matter too much. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contact my email about the following - I would like to ask you not to talk to Abd anymore. I also would like for him not to respond to you anymore. What is past is past, and I do not want to be the source of future conflict. I supported the move to indef me because I saw that there would only be more future strife between multiple parties, and that did not work. If either one of you happens to mention the other or the other's actions, I would ask that you take it up in my email and use that in order to express yourselves instead of going after each other. I would rather be able to deal with my emotional stress over this privately than have it aired all over the board. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer to leave this one last bit here. Further will be through email. If Abd ceases to claim that I've harassed anyone, I'll cease to defend myself against these accusations. Other than that, I have no desire nor inclination to communicate with Abd any further. S. Dean Jameson 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I already have rollback rights, but I hadn't really considered adminship. The main thing I enjoy (though I periodically am distracted from it) is writing. Why do you ask? S. Dean Jameson 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just trying to get to know you. Not much I can really do at the moment except for small talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that kind of stinks, but there just wasn't consensus to overturn the block at ANI. Again, I'm sorry for any mental misery my posting the proposal put you through. S. Dean Jameson 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I preferred to stay blocked. The only problems that really affect me right now is the fighting between you and Abd. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no more problem there, as far as I'm concerned. I've extended an olive branch at his page, that I hope he accepts. S. Dean Jameson 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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. (  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.
 * So, to me, the issue is how editors can help each other, for mutual benefit and the benefit of the project.
 * 1) It is very difficult to have a balanced view of one's own position in a dispute.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) 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)

Candide's redlinks
Thanks for the work on the redlinks in Candide. I'm especially impressed that you found an article for Great Council of Geneva... I search Google for at least an hour trying to figure that one out! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide
There are two points at the Candide FAC that I would like to hear the other reviewers' thoughts on. I have listed them at the bottom of the FAC. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson
I think is ready for PR, before you submit to FAC. (  Ceoil  sláinte 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It still has some work. If you want to start up a second PR, that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Outline what work is needed here, and I'll lend a hand before the 2nd PR. (  Ceoil  sláinte 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm giving Sandy some time to think of how she wants to use the biographical data on TS to incorporate some mentions into the biography. Then we need to figure out how to work a legacy section. We would need to see if DGG or Karanacs still have major outstanding issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that Geogre might also be a valuable voice before this goes to FAC. Why not; we all want the article to be as good as it can be. Better ye reach a tatcit understanding here, than continue as it is. If you are prepared to listen, that is.  Ceoil  sláinte 20:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can ask him to look over it and see if there are any glaring details left out. Also, I have plenty of other biographies, so ask him if there is a section that is too heavy on Bate and I can swap him out for another. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Will do. (  Ceoil  sláinte 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If he replies he's likely to be harsh. But in my exerience of review, the harsher the better. I took a fair battering here but came out of it with a vastly improved article. (  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When forging a sword, you need a combination of harsh treatment and graceful precision, at alternating times. I think its about time for someone to be harsh. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you checked your em-dashes on Johnson before you typed that; cause I'll cut your fecking head off for less. Ceoil <font color="E45E05">sláinte 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...–––... Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough. (  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Open up the PR. Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 07:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Ryan P.
I don't "think ill of him" for his action, why would I? He just did what he thought was appropriate. I am just suprised and disappointed by his decision, that's all, and I think it was a wrongheaded one. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dudley
Okay, I may have overspoke a bit. It isn't exactly clear. It is certainly cast in a positive light, including in quotes by him. He seems to bring it up uncoerced here:, but maybe it was already known or something. It's possible that he feels he has to talk about it, but it certainly doesn't seem presented that way to me, but something that he feels is an important episode in his life. I haven't personally spoken to him about it, nor do I know that anyone has, but given the CNN example, it certainly seems like something he'll cop to unprovoked. My own thoughts here might be a minority, but I do think if you read BLP properly, it does say "don't impose our morals on subjects, respect theirs". With respect to privacy, it'd probably be outrageous to list an American paleontologist's blood type, but it would be totally appropriate to list a Japanese Pop singer's blood type. Wily D 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the original hook read "... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?" The assessment took place ~1943, so I think you'd have to be daft to think race was irrelevent, though it might've been simple indifference, assigning of incompentent teachers to black schools, racism on the part of the tester or who knows what. Not sure he's said anything explicit, can't find any.

It's probably just a "I was disadvantaged, nobody thought I'd amount to anything, but I worked hard and I did." This generic read could be applied to a lot of young black people from poor backgrounds, so I'm not sure there's an explicit equation here. I don't know his mind well enough to say.

There's also some discussion here: but this first link I gave you is the best, at least the best cited. Wily D 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, about half the links in the article cite the diagnosis. So presumably it's "known". Wily D 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my hook, I only found out about it after the whole brew-ha-ha over the hook. I think the hook cannot be read without an implicit "The diagnosis was wrong", but it would've been unharmful to be more explicit for poor readers (and English Wikipedia gets a lot of readers with poor command of English). The huge punch-up seems over the top, though, yeah. Wily D 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not wrong at all
By "hook" I meant that particular one mentioning mental retardation. Swapped with another hook linking to the same article. Sorry for the confusion. I've got to get away from the computer now -- someone's waiting for me. My point was if we give a few extra hours of publicity (with two hooks) to that one article is insignificant -- certainly less so than sending the wrong message to editors that mentioning mental retardation is somehow controversial. When I get back I'll look it over and maybe clarify my point. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your suggestion on the AN/I page. Noroton (talk) 21:14, 11 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)

List
Sorry, I haven't got time to look at that now, I'll try to remember to take a look tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

encouraging.
You comments on my talk about changing your ways are encouraging to read, I hope you can rise to the challenge, best of luck. As to the email, We'll see, I've provided thoughts on the matter at AN/I, and think that's sufficient. I oppose it, but if consensus goes another way, so it goes. ThuranX (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC (again)
Hello again. I have noticed that you have heretofore refrained from supporting Candide's FAC nom. Is there a specific reason you have not done so? Do you see any problems with the article? If the article can win your support with my efforts, I'd like to try... Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Responding to request from OR) - My only real remaining concern is the "Legacy" section. I feel that it is a bit haphazard and 18th-century literature is not well represented, but I don't have the time to do proper research to figure out what exactly should be included, so I'm supporting the article now. There wasn't a "Legacy" section before the FAC really and now there is one, so that is definite improvement. If you know of anything that should go in this section, that would be very helpful. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry
I fear you do not understand the significance of your accusation of my being a sockmaster, and most especially having done so directly to Raul who is obviously already gunning for me. This is unbelievably unfair.

You claim to have evidence, what is it? I prefer to have these things out on the table so that they might be addressed rather than referenced in vague and damaging statements on WP:ANI.

I have never done anything against you and we seem to share a common admiration of User:Abd so I don't know why you would launch such a damaging attack. --GoRight (talk) 19:03, 13 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)

Re: Edmond Malone
Oh, excellent. Thanks, and kudos on all your hard work on these articles! --Xover (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Samuel Johnson
In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.


 * 1. "The first two paras of the biography section take an inordinate amount of time to sum up questions about Johnson's biography that are, although interesting, not quite as relevant as all that, and probably more relevant to the article on the Life of Johnson." This will be moved to its own page when there is a chance. Its just left over from the beginning.
 * 2. "', to take a random example, is too involved and flits forward a couple of centuries to call in TS Eliot's (unsourced and unquoted) opinion, something that should really be removed to a properly cited footnote, before bouncing back to the 18th century via a quick nod to Walter Scott." You can blame Bate for that one. The citation is a summary from what Bate says. It is no longer necessary after I created a page on the poem and can be removed.
 * 3. "which is a rather ugly passive" Many different writers and many different tweaks. Feel free to rewrite and blame anything improper on me. :)
 * 4. "much-needed article on The Vanity of Human Wishes" I've been meaning to also. I have 11 sources on the work and title page and the rest. If you are willing to wait a few days, we can whip something up together.
 * 5. I relied on Bate because his would be the most renown based on the Pulitzer. However, I do rely on multiply biographies, and I did leave out Lain because of the year. I've been wanting to add parts from Robert Demaria's The Life of Johnson (1993) and John Wiltshire's Samuel Johnson in the Medical World (1991), but the new information they provide is on the medical side, which the MoS would prefer the doctors speaking instead of the biographers. However, I do plan to incorporate them into the various "works" pages that I have slowly built. Note - there are two Bate sources used, and its a little hard to see them as different from a first glance.
 * 6. Thanks once again for the help.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for such a prompt and polite response. I've already started on the Human Wishes article but am hampered by not owning a copy of the Yale edition of the poems, so my bibliographical data is a bit skimpy.  I am not a Johnson scholar by any means, just a lifelong reader of the guy and (though I say so myself) a reasonably good editor.  I look forward to working with you.  BTW, you do know that the Hibbert (i.e. Penguin) edition of Boswell's Life is abridged?  I have the OUP unabridged version.  It seems strange to be using an abridged edition of Boswell in an article on Johnson. Lexo (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. But heres the thing - the abridge version was easier to find the quotes used in the quote boxes. :D I guess I'm lazy. I will post some information on the poem here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the notes - am still trying to work out how to structure the article so as best to incorporate them. I have ordered a copy of the Yale Poems so as to flesh out bibliographical detail, because right now I am working from the Penguin Complete English Poems which was intended for students.  At the moment, my draft structure is as follows: Intro; Source - Juvenal; Composition history; Structure; Publication history; Reception; Critical responses; Legacy; Notes.  If you have any comments, let me know. I have sources for the influence of Johnson on Samuel Beckett, incidentally.  One last question: how acceptable is it to use Boswell as a source?  I know that Boswell scholarship is a field in itself and that the Life is not always trustworthy, but does that mean that it should never be cited at all? Lexo (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One final thing: I have a copy of the Clarendon edition (ed. C. Tracy) of the Life of Richard Savage, and would be interested in working on that article too, as I've always liked that book. (I used to be able to quote bits of it from memory.) Lexo (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful. I put Life of Mr Richard Savage on hold to work on some other pages. I have Richard Holmes's Dr Johnson & Mr Savage and a few other books that go into depth, but it would be very important to take some notable passages and place them on the page so everyone can see what the work is about. Feel free to work on anything, and if there is a problem we can work it out. Be bold and clean up later. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done some more work on the Human Wishes article. Please let me know if there's anything in it that you think is glaringly bad. It's only a start, but it's better than a stub. Lexo (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth I think your changes have greatly improved my fairly hopeful effort. I read and reread Eliot on Johnson this afternoon and failed to find a genuinely full-throttle positive remark, although it's clear that he approved of the poem.  There are a couple of small typos that I will clean up but I think it's looking pretty good for an article that didn't even exist a few days ago. I defer to you as the Johnson expert; if there is anything else you can point me at, I will look at ways to incorporate it.  While I'm here I thought I should let you know about the limits to my small library of Johnsoniana; apart from the Penguin English Poems and Clarendon Life of Savage, I only have Chapman's dual edition of Johnson's Journey to the Western Isles & Boswell's Journal of a Tour; an old pocket-sized Oxford edition of the Lives of the Poets with no notes or apparatus of any kind; Donald Greene's OUP paperback selection of the "Major Works", and Boswell's unabridged Life, also an OUP paperback.  I have no secondary literature of any kind - looked in a bookshop this evening for the Cambridge Companion and Bate's Johnson but no luck. Lexo (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and you have done quite a bit yourself. :) Whatever you can add, feel free. I will just follow behind and fill in more details. We can move onto the two journey books and work on them together next if you would like. I have a lot of the secondary literature, but I always get frustrated by what primary information to put in; I can never seem to decide. :) So, if you have any favorite passages from the Vanity, feel free to add them. Right now, I have access to the biographies by Wain, Demaria, Bate, Lane, Hibbert, Wiltshire (on Johnson and medicine), Normal Clarke (on Johnson and women), and Richard Holmes (on Johnson and Savage). I also have the Cambridge Companions, Bate's first book on Johnson, Yung's collection of important Johnson primary documents and paintings, the Thraliana, the Johnsonian Miscellanies and a handful of other works. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments. I have been weighing up the usefulness of acquiring a copy of the Miscellanies myself (Amazon has some used copies going for the equivalent of €50), but have regretfully decided that my credit card has taken enough beatings lately.  I will have to clock off from the articles for the weekend (my wife and I have a 15-month-old daughter) but I will get back to the Human Wishes article on Monday.  Being an Irish contributor I want to drop in a (short) mention about Samuel Beckett's unfinished play about Johnson, which was called Human Wishes; Beckett was a major Johnson fan.  I have a copy of it (it's in a collection of Beckettian miscellanies called Disjecta) and will provide a note. Lexo (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its probably easier to "long term borrow" from an old professor of yours (like I did) than pay for it. Last time I checked, it was going for 450 dollars on the US amazon. Beckett could be mentioned in the critical response section if you can find some quotes (and gratuitously mention the play too). I will continue to update the page while you are gone. Enjoy your weekend. By the way, I will need to rely on your "Irishness" for some other pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just went through the article and cleaned up the style a tiny bit; also, I managed to find a source for Eliot saying that it was Johnson's best poem in a readily available book (On Poetry and Poets). My Irishness is at your disposal but it's not altogether to be relied upon - I should point out, perhaps, that I don't have a degree in English lit, or for that matter in anything else, so I have no old professors to borrow stuff from. I just have (and have read) a lot of books. Lexo (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found the quote, and thats okay, I was being silly. abebooks and some other listings might have the miscellanies for a low cost. They are mostly a massive collection of anecdotes, but some are very interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally got my copy of the Yale Poems. It turned out to be less comprehensive than I'd hoped (for example, unlike the Penguin Poems they modernise the capitalisation, which I disapprove of) but still useful.  I added one interesting bit to the Composition section and provided citations according to your style rather than my own clunky manner.  I had hoped that there might at least be a facsimile of the title page, but I see that you added one.  (Do you actually have a copy of the first edition, or what?)  There is a photo of a page of the MS in the Yale edition (the "Toil  Envy Want the Garret and the Jayl" bit) that would be worth scanning and uploading, but I lack the software to do so. Lexo (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my slowness in thanking you for putting the "Vanity" and "Irene" articles up for DYK notices. I would never have got around to doing it myself, and was very pleased to see them. Many thanks. Lexo (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The plays of William Shakespeare? Holy s--t.  You won't get me touching that subject with a 3.33 yard pole, especially since I just sold my copy of the Norton Shakespeare and so for the first time in my adult life do not own a complete edition of them.  I do, however, have a modern facsimile of the First Folio - but I have read that its reliability is under question.  In the meantime, I am interested in looking at Drapier's Letters, but first I need to get a good edition of them.  I only have a selection of them right now, plus volume 3 of the Ehrenpreis biog (which is anyway in someone else's house). Lexo (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh right, sorry, you meant the Johnson edition of Shakespeare. Duh.  I am happy to help, but only on the level of copyediting; don't have enough source material to contribute anything, apart from whatever is in the Donald Greene-edited O.U.P. Major Works. Lexo (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a cheap copy of "Johnson as Critic". Should be delivered in a couple of days. Lexo (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that you've submitted Samuel Johnson for FA status. I wish you the best of luck; it's a thoroughly sourced and comprehensive biography.  I am not going to take part in the review process for two reasons; 1. I do not feel qualified, and am not sure that I am technically entitled, to offer an opinion; 2. I don't personally think that the article is there yet, and would rather spend time on trying to make it better than on getting bogged down in arguments with someone (like Davemon), who has never even heard of Johnson and who yet believes that he has the right to an opinion on an article about the guy.  Worst of all, he may be right to think so.  But I hope, for the sake of all your hard work, that you get what you want. Lexo (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Btw, I don't see FA as an end, or a completion, but more of one more step towards it. It means that the article is in a linguistic and organization state that makes it encyclopedic. Without the process, I wouldn't have received the attention that we tried to get for a while on some of these issues. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, of course; it doesn't really matter whether the article gets FA or not, so long as it is both well-written and transparently well-referenced, which must therefore make it useful. I always think back to myself, aged 16-19, looking about in vain for an encyclopedia about English literature at a period where such things were ideologically impermissible, and having to make do with George Sampson's 1941 (but, spiritually, waaay earlier) Concise Cambridge History of English Literature; I would have been very grateful for an article like the one you have supervised on Johnson.  My only hangup about it is that I can't help agreeing that there is plenty about the life, but not enough about the significance of the work.  That Davemon has never heard of Johnson, and can't tell from the article why the subject is notable, only shows up a gap in Davemon's knowledge, which he should be (but apparently isn't) ashamed of; but I do believe that if the article doesn't get FA, it'll be because there is not enough elementary information about Johnson's real and enduring influence (for better or worse) as a writer.  It seems to me that most of the negative comments you have been getting as part of the FA process have come from people who know very little about Johnson - and in some cases, the little they do know comes from the Boswell Life.  What, IYO, is the best source of biographical info about Johnson, if we aren't to trust Boswell?  Is it the Miscellanies? Lexo (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the Thraliana, or the many other biographies, the autobiographies/notes, the letters, and the millions of accounts, plus legal records and the rest. I don't trust any of them, and I trust them all. If I see contradictions, I try to understand them. There are just sooooo many biographical accounts, that its almost unimaginable. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For what my opinion is worth, I think that the changes have made what was an already really good article into a really great one. Even Davemon should be satisfied with the ample chorus of people describing Johnson as basically the greatest critic in the history of literature in English.  I corrected a single typo (in the Yvor Winters quote, there was no capital "J" in "Johnson").   If that's not FA-worthy, I don't know what is.  Congratulations. Lexo (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help in any way I can. I must point out, however, that the next six weeks are the busiest in my working year.  I am producing two shows that are to run consecutively, and have a major funding application to write.  But if you let me know what you think I can do, I will give it my best.  (Am currently reading a biog of James Murray and am awed and intimidated by the man's capacity for work.) Lexo (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have been doing a bit of an offline stylistic cleanup in the Shakespeare article, taking sentences out of the passive voice and having a go at making things a bit clearer. Let me know if you have any objection to posting my changes?  Cheers. Lexo (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Vanity notes
Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:

Bate - Samuel Johnson - follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism
 * p. 277 - Written during Dictionary, imitation of Tenth Satire of Juvenal, written autumn of 1748, "told Geogre Steevens he wrote the first seventy lines 'in the course of one morning, in that small house behind the church.'" (found in Johnsonian Miscellanies Vol II 313-314, I have a copy if you need more detail of quote).
 * p. 278 - VoHW "discloses the inner landscape of his mind - that is, it reveals the image of reality that was fixed in him, and to which his experience naturally assimilated itself - more completely than any other single work"
 * p. 279 - VoHW "has a denser, more active texture than would be tolerable in essayistic writing. There is more activity within phrases, and therea re more interwoven strands of connection between phrases. All that is going on helps form and refine our sense of Johnson's imagination, its habitual processes and vision."
 * - "deeply personal"
 * - "Loosely based on a satire of Juvenal's, it adopts the closed heroic couplet of Dryden and Pope."
 * - similar argument to Augustine's Confessions, Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Holy Dying, and William Law's Serious Call (the argument is "the complete inability of the world and of worldly life to offer genuine or permanent satisfaction"
 * - leaves out "Juvenal's coarseness of imagery, and he voices less anger and contempt", less "playful" than Dryden or Pope, more meditative
 * - "formally a satire, but his irony differs essentially from that in most classical or Augustan satiric writing"
 * 280 - irony is "in the world", "Johnson is closer to Hardy than to Pope"
 * 281 - two themes - first is "he dwells on the helpless vulnerability of the individual before the social context", second is that he "traces the inevitable 'doom of man' to inward and psychological causes", "inevitable self-deception by which human beings are led astray"
 * 282 - beginning lines about "natural passions of man", "betrayal is from within"
 * - "When at the end of the poem Johnson turns to religion as the only true and lasting source of hope, the turn of feeling and argument is expected, magnificently handled, and yet also raises central problems of interpretation. Ultimately, they are problems in interpreting the character of Johnson's religion, and naturally cannot be explored in the context of this poem only." Problem stems from his use of Roman satire
 * 285 - "The imagery of The Vanity of Human Wishes is constant, condensed, concerely pictorial, and expressed with gusto."

Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World
 * p. 113 - "This serious, sober, pessimistic work reflects clearly enough his state of mind at the time, which is one of total disenchantment with life. The statesman, soldier, scholar are alike victims of delusion and disappointment; nothing is permanent or safe; even the rich man and the virtuous are doomed, and the poet, the dedicate writer, is no expection."
 * p. 114 - (important - "first to carry his name on title-page") "A theme so stoical and gloomy, so sternly expounded, was not likely to be popular with the public, and the poem, for which Dodsley paid Johnson fifteen guineas, sold less well than his London, which had run through several editions. Garrick, though anxious to praise his friend's new work, the first to carry his name on the title-page, found it heavy going: 'When Johnson lived much with the Herveys, and saw a good deal of what was passing in life, he wrote his London, which is lively and easy. When he became more retired, he gave us his Vanity of Human Wishes, which is as hard as Greek.'" (quoting Boswell's Life book I)

Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson
 * p. 36 "Each side profits from the process of questioning and asking. To be sure, as poetic narrator Johnson normally is the superior questioner, but so long as we also learn, engage various intellectual faculties, and are variously pleased, our dialogues with Johnson, with ourselves, and with our culture proceed generously - aas we shall see in the "Drury Lane Prologue" (1747) and in The Vanity of Human Wishes.
 * p. 45 "London and The Vanity of Human Wishes are Johnson's longest non-dramatic public poems. Each falls into that rich eighteenth-century genre called the 'imitation,' in which an earlier or even contemporary poem is adapted to modern or different circumstances."
 * p. 46 "London is well worth reading, but The Vanity of Human Wishes is one of the great poems in the English language. It follows the outline of Juvenal's tenth satire, embraces some of what Johnson thought of as its 'sublimity,' but also uses it as a touchstone rather than an argument on authority."
 * p. 47 "He unifies different portraits through a common denominator of vain human wishes and through interlocking metaphors, like collapsing buildings and life as a battle."
 * - "As guide, Johnson uses a plural pronoun to suggest that he shares our human weakness."
 * - "When Johnson invokes the laughing philosopher Democritus (49-72) to mock eternal folly in human farce, he reminds us of the importance of continuing our search before we draw inferences: 'How just that Scorn ere yet thy Voice declare,/ Search every State, and canvass ev'ry Pray'r' (71-72)."
 * - "Johnson shows his skill in human and moral psychology in several of the character portraits. Cardinal Wolsey rose so high that he seemed to threaten his monarch."
 * - "The Portrait of Charles XII of Sweden (1682-1718) is deservedly famous. He was the overreaching monarch and general whose bold but finally fatal attacks terrorized much of Europe. The passage skillfully includes many of Johnson's familiar themes - repulsion with slaughter that aggrandizes one man and kills and impoverishes thousands, understanding of the human need to glorify heroes, and subtle contrast with the classical parent-poem and its inadequate moral vision."
 * p. 48 "Johnson's ultimate target and audience is the human situation - hence he includes Juvenal and his parochial treatment of the North African Hannibal, Juvenal's original Swedish Charles. When reading the Vanity our response includes pity for Charles, for Europe, and for ourselves. In contrast, Juvenal enjoys the barbarian lunatic's death and miniaturization into Roman school-boy's declamation."
 * - "Johnson is cosmopolitan; Juvenal is local. Johnson is sympathetic; Juvenal is vengeful. Like Democritus, Juvenal is an inadequate guide for the Christian empiricist. The conclusion to the poem further illustrates its moral and poetic grandeu, and satisfies a key expectation of formal verse satire - praise of the virtue opposed to the vice attacked."
 * - "The final portrait before the Vanity's conclusion exploits that most enduring and endearing emblem of human renewal - the birth of a child. After all, what parent does not wish to have an attractive child? That child, alas, becomes a prisoner of the dangerous, cloudy, snare-encrusted world of Johnson's first paragraph, but now with the special reference to female fragility."
 * p. 49 "The antidote for vain human wishes is non-vain spiritual wishes; the antidote for an unreliable monarch is a reliable God; the antidote for overreaching is trust in God's knowledge of what is best for us."

Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.
 * p. 130 "Johnson's greatest poem"
 * - "a distilled statement of the central theme of his work of the late 1740s." "Although Johnson is in some ways an expressive writer, he was a professional writer capable of separating his personal and public lives. He continued to carry on a scholarly life that was concerned with particulars rather than the grand ends of learning, and he continued to be interested in particular political issues after he shifted his professional literary focus away from these areas."
 * - Robert Dodsley helped Johnson "broaden his audience and thereby achieve greater professional independence" knew Dodsley while writing for his Preceptor
 * - "Johnson called Dodsley his patron, and he frequented Dodsley's shop at Tully's Head."
 * - "the Vanity also seems written with Dodsley in mind, and it eventually became a part of A Collection of Poems by Several Hands, an anthology Dodsley brought out earlier in the same year that he purchased the rights to Johnson's great poem." Note on 321 says "Johnson revised the Vanity for the fourth edition of Dodsley's Collection (1755); he contributed other poems to the first edition of 1748."
 * p. 131 "In The Vanity of Human Wishes Johnson displays the moral blueprint of his Dictionary."
 * - "The Vanity is a great poem, and it therefore deserves and rewards treatment as a literary phenomenon unfettered by any but aesthetic and intellectual associations. As T. S. Eliot shows in his introduction to the Haslewood Press edition, the Vanity belongs in the artistic world defined by the poetry of Juvenal, Dryden, Pope, and Horace. It ias also, however, an artefact of Johnson's professional life in the late 1740s."

Irene
I note that the Yale Poems contains the complete text of Irene, which I've never before possessed. I have been looking at it in a worried kind of way, knowing that I'm going to try to read it and start an article about it. Interested? Lexo (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding all the stuff to Irene. I am really keen on working on this, because it appeals to my sense of humour to work specially hard on an article about a really bad work by a major writer. :)  At the moment I am collecting critical responses to it; I have never read anyone with a good word to say about it.  I read it this afternoon, and even after 15 years working as literary manager for a professional theatre company, I have to say that it almost defies synopsis, because the first two-thirds are so incredibly boring.  The eyelids just droop in mid-speech.  Then towards the end, something happens that happens with so many bad plays written by intelligent people - Johnson begins to sense that everyone's attention is waning, and he suddenly boots the plot into fourth gear, Demetrius arrives to rescue Aspasia, Irene gets done in and everyone goes nuts.  Don't worry, my synopsis will be a bit more responsible than that. Lexo (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the Bate quote. He pretty much hits the nail on the head.  I actually enjoyed reading it on a weird level because bad as it is, at least it's sincere - I read far worse, more stupid, more ugly, more cynical plays in the course of my professional duties.   You can see that it's by the same guy that wrote Vanity of Human Wishes.  And none of the versifying is actually inept or stupid - well, the bit where Demetrius runs on and says, more or less, "We are undone!" and Aspasia replies, more or less, "Is everything okay?" is pretty inept.  It's just very boring, as Johnson himself admitted somewhere - if you have a note of where I will put it in, but I expect it's in Boswell somewhere. Lexo (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Went through the article and added some more Irene-bashing. I undid your edit that moved the play's alt title "Mahomet and Irene" to the intro, sorry - I have known about the play for years, but only found out today that Garrick retitled it for the original production, and I thought it was confusing to list it in the intro as a proper alternative title when almost nobody apart from Johnson scholars would regard it as one.  After all, it's never called "Mahomet and Irene" in the literature.  It's not like e.g. Frederic Manning's novel "The Middle Parts of Fortune" being legitimately also known as "Her Privates We"; "Irene" is only ever called "Irene".  Lexo (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the lead, but right now I think the lead is too short to load it with quite so much info. I put "Mahomet and Irene" in bold later on to emphasise it. I really must get around to reading the MoS one of these days.  (I'm the kind of person who has all three editions of Fowler, and reads them for fun.) Lexo (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A query - these two sentences are inconsistent with each other:"He spent years trying to finish the work, and could not fully move onto another until he finished Irene. However, in 1737 he put off finishing the play and turned from it completely in order to work on other projects." If Johnson started writing the play in 1737, couldn't "fully move onto" anything else while he was writing it, and "spent years trying to finish" it, how can he then have put off finishing it in 1737 and "turned from it completely"?  Can you post the actual references from Bate on my talk page, so I can redraft these?  Thanks. Lexo (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know about losing the para - it was out of place, belonging in stage history rather than in background. I deliberately cut it so as to put it where it now is.  Well spotted, though. Lexo (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are enough pictures of Johnson floating about. I don't really see the need for a picture of Tetty on any page other than the article about her; that she liked the play isn't really a good enough reason to have her picture here.  A picture of Garrick would be great, but best of all would be a picture of Hannah Pritchard, who after all played Irene.  I have found a good one here, and have written to ask about copyright etc.  Perhaps you can tell better than me how free this picture is. Lexo (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about Irene. I admit that I took a line on it, which is that it isn't very good, but I did so because I knew I could find support for the line; I think that it can hardly be disputed that it falls into the category of works by undeniably great writers that aren't their best, other examples (in English) being Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well; much of Robert Southey's poetry as opposed to, say, his Life of Nelson; a lot of Byron's early stuff; Flann O'Brien's The Hard Life; Samuel Beckett's Dream of Fair to Middling Women, etc. I do not find Bate's argument (about how we'd think it better if it weren't by Johnson) convincing, but I've given him the final word because I am basically kind-hearted. There is not a lot else to be said about the play, but again I admit that I have not read every single critical comment on it; just the ones that I've been able to obtain as an independent scholar without access to a university library. For some reason, I couldn't import to the article the image I found of Hannah Pritchard. I do think that the article needs a mention of the fact - did you tell it to me, or did I read it in the Yale edition? - that Johnson briefly considered writing another play about Charles of Sweden, but decided against it. It probably needs a lot of other things too, but I lack the resources to provide them. Lexo (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC
I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't do anything right now. You can tell Sandy that mine has been moved to a "comment" without any obvious opposes. I'd need to have a closer look to move one way or another, and I wont be able to do so for four more days. I hope you see this message. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, it reads cleanly, and you should be commended on the work that you've put into the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Will do. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies
I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Once I remove something from my talk page, its because its no longer important to the here and now. I don't archive my talk page, because the only things that matter are the future tasks and duties. This is an encyclopedia. All that matters is the encyclopedia. I do feel bad that I removed my "thank you" to TravisTX before he could have seen it, which is a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to post at Travis's page regarding that? S. Dean Jameson 17:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do that in a few days. Time doesn't really matter too much. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contact my email about the following - I would like to ask you not to talk to Abd anymore. I also would like for him not to respond to you anymore. What is past is past, and I do not want to be the source of future conflict. I supported the move to indef me because I saw that there would only be more future strife between multiple parties, and that did not work. If either one of you happens to mention the other or the other's actions, I would ask that you take it up in my email and use that in order to express yourselves instead of going after each other. I would rather be able to deal with my emotional stress over this privately than have it aired all over the board. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer to leave this one last bit here. Further will be through email. If Abd ceases to claim that I've harassed anyone, I'll cease to defend myself against these accusations. Other than that, I have no desire nor inclination to communicate with Abd any further. S. Dean Jameson 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I already have rollback rights, but I hadn't really considered adminship. The main thing I enjoy (though I periodically am distracted from it) is writing. Why do you ask? S. Dean Jameson 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just trying to get to know you. Not much I can really do at the moment except for small talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that kind of stinks, but there just wasn't consensus to overturn the block at ANI. Again, I'm sorry for any mental misery my posting the proposal put you through. S. Dean Jameson 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I preferred to stay blocked. The only problems that really affect me right now is the fighting between you and Abd. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no more problem there, as far as I'm concerned. I've extended an olive branch at his page, that I hope he accepts. S. Dean Jameson 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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. (  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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.
 * So, to me, the issue is how editors can help each other, for mutual benefit and the benefit of the project.
 * 1) It is very difficult to have a balanced view of one's own position in a dispute.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) 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 <font color="E45E05">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 <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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)

Candide's redlinks
Thanks for the work on the redlinks in Candide. I'm especially impressed that you found an article for Great Council of Geneva... I search Google for at least an hour trying to figure that one out! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide
There are two points at the Candide FAC that I would like to hear the other reviewers' thoughts on. I have listed them at the bottom of the FAC. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson
I think is ready for PR, before you submit to FAC. (  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It still has some work. If you want to start up a second PR, that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Outline what work is needed here, and I'll lend a hand before the 2nd PR. (  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm giving Sandy some time to think of how she wants to use the biographical data on TS to incorporate some mentions into the biography. Then we need to figure out how to work a legacy section. We would need to see if DGG or Karanacs still have major outstanding issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that Geogre might also be a valuable voice before this goes to FAC. Why not; we all want the article to be as good as it can be. Better ye reach a tatcit understanding here, than continue as it is. If you are prepared to listen, that is.  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 20:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can ask him to look over it and see if there are any glaring details left out. Also, I have plenty of other biographies, so ask him if there is a section that is too heavy on Bate and I can swap him out for another. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Will do. (  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If he replies he's likely to be harsh. But in my exerience of review, the harsher the better. I took a fair battering here but came out of it with a vastly improved article. (  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When forging a sword, you need a combination of harsh treatment and graceful precision, at alternating times. I think its about time for someone to be harsh. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you checked your em-dashes on Johnson before you typed that; cause I'll cut your fecking head off for less. Ceoil <font color="E45E05">sláinte 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...–––... Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough. (  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Open up the PR. Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 07:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Ryan P.
I don't "think ill of him" for his action, why would I? He just did what he thought was appropriate. I am just suprised and disappointed by his decision, that's all, and I think it was a wrongheaded one. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dudley
Okay, I may have overspoke a bit. It isn't exactly clear. It is certainly cast in a positive light, including in quotes by him. He seems to bring it up uncoerced here:, but maybe it was already known or something. It's possible that he feels he has to talk about it, but it certainly doesn't seem presented that way to me, but something that he feels is an important episode in his life. I haven't personally spoken to him about it, nor do I know that anyone has, but given the CNN example, it certainly seems like something he'll cop to unprovoked. My own thoughts here might be a minority, but I do think if you read BLP properly, it does say "don't impose our morals on subjects, respect theirs". With respect to privacy, it'd probably be outrageous to list an American paleontologist's blood type, but it would be totally appropriate to list a Japanese Pop singer's blood type. Wily D 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the original hook read "... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?" The assessment took place ~1943, so I think you'd have to be daft to think race was irrelevent, though it might've been simple indifference, assigning of incompentent teachers to black schools, racism on the part of the tester or who knows what. Not sure he's said anything explicit, can't find any.

It's probably just a "I was disadvantaged, nobody thought I'd amount to anything, but I worked hard and I did." This generic read could be applied to a lot of young black people from poor backgrounds, so I'm not sure there's an explicit equation here. I don't know his mind well enough to say.

There's also some discussion here: but this first link I gave you is the best, at least the best cited. Wily D 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, about half the links in the article cite the diagnosis. So presumably it's "known". Wily D 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my hook, I only found out about it after the whole brew-ha-ha over the hook. I think the hook cannot be read without an implicit "The diagnosis was wrong", but it would've been unharmful to be more explicit for poor readers (and English Wikipedia gets a lot of readers with poor command of English). The huge punch-up seems over the top, though, yeah. Wily D 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not wrong at all
By "hook" I meant that particular one mentioning mental retardation. Swapped with another hook linking to the same article. Sorry for the confusion. I've got to get away from the computer now -- someone's waiting for me. My point was if we give a few extra hours of publicity (with two hooks) to that one article is insignificant -- certainly less so than sending the wrong message to editors that mentioning mental retardation is somehow controversial. When I get back I'll look it over and maybe clarify my point. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your suggestion on the AN/I page. Noroton (talk) 21:14, 11 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)

List
Sorry, I haven't got time to look at that now, I'll try to remember to take a look tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

encouraging.
You comments on my talk about changing your ways are encouraging to read, I hope you can rise to the challenge, best of luck. As to the email, We'll see, I've provided thoughts on the matter at AN/I, and think that's sufficient. I oppose it, but if consensus goes another way, so it goes. ThuranX (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC (again)
Hello again. I have noticed that you have heretofore refrained from supporting Candide's FAC nom. Is there a specific reason you have not done so? Do you see any problems with the article? If the article can win your support with my efforts, I'd like to try... Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Responding to request from OR) - My only real remaining concern is the "Legacy" section. I feel that it is a bit haphazard and 18th-century literature is not well represented, but I don't have the time to do proper research to figure out what exactly should be included, so I'm supporting the article now. There wasn't a "Legacy" section before the FAC really and now there is one, so that is definite improvement. If you know of anything that should go in this section, that would be very helpful. Awadewit (talk) 01:35, 14 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)

Re: Edmond Malone
Oh, excellent. Thanks, and kudos on all your hard work on these articles! --Xover (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson
Hi OR, sorry for the delay on revisiting images; I'll check them over again today. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK (take a deep breath)
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 <font color="E45E05">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)

If everyone could...
Penis. That's all. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  01:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava
We've never spoken directly, but I've seen your name around, so please take this in the tongue-in-cheek manner in which I intend it... you asked at Moni's RfA, for a better explanation as to what she needed the tools for. My immediate (joking) thought was, "well, to block you of course" Of course, I might not have thought that, if I hadn't JUST read your comments over on MF's talk page about blocks ;-) --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, she will have my "support" if she promises to warn/block troublesome users like myself who, even if they are content providers, really deserve to be blocked sometimes. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava II
Of course I would be honoured to work with you if the Wordsworth offer is still open. Ceoil <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 14:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop the snottiness
I put a comment exactly where it belonged. It was something you needed to WATCH, so I put it there. If you cannot learn from your massive errors, how will you learn from minor ones. I fear your tutelage is not going as well as it should. I admire passion, but I admire admitting when you are out of your league/wrong even moreso. Your tutors need to know exactly how badly you're doing so that they can either help, or bail. Based on your commentary in AN/I (as polite as I could have been) you're not doing so well. You had many chances to save face, but you've succeeded in doing something extremely difficult: entering my "bad editor" books. Your snotty comment served to confirm it. Good luck. <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">BMW <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive) 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that you discussed this with Keeper76. During my block, you did give me some advice. I'm now formalizing the process; it's not surprising that Keeper76 and some others don't understand this at all, but disruptive, this is not. You are simply welcome, and your participation could be as simple as naming an editor whom, out of all Wikipedia editors, you'd think likely to give me good advice. Or just listing your name as interested. It should not be time-consuming. But it might get interesting. --Abd (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Johnson004.jpg
Image:Johnson004.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:James Boswell.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Johnson003.jpg is now available as Commons:Image:Hester Thrale.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Dictionary2.jpg is now available as Commons:Image:Johnson Dictionary2.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Dictionary3.jpg is now available as Commons:Image:Johnson Dictionary3.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh, I didn't know the bot added these notices. I hope you didn't mind.  If so, I apologise; I myself hate templating/auto-notifying of established users. ;)  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You could cuss and vandalism my talk page, and I wouldn't mind. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you caught this, but do you care about keeping the crop of Image:Pembroke Lodge.jpg? I'd let it go, as so little was cropped and there was a substantial size reduction (1,827 x 2,816 -> 298 x 563), but you may have your reasons to keep it.  In any case, either you or I can upload the crop to the Commons as a derivative if it's needed.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you were to change the page to saying "penis" every other line, I wouldn't hold it against you. Feel free to do what you will. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect Sandy would object. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dare try to speculate on how Sandy would feel. I'm just a lowly peon. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Interrupted template
I and many other editors create lists of "issues" after our initial comments and it is these lists that are being marked as "interrupted". See, for example: I hope this helps! Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/William de St-Calais
 * Featured article candidates/2007 USC Trojans football team
 * Featured article candidates/Alzheimer's disease
 * Featured article candidates/Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)
 * Featured article candidates/Pat Nixon
 * Featured article candidates/New York State Route 22
 * Okay, lets see.
 * The first article, first interrupt has your comments and Ealdgyth's comments interwoven. Second has Dabomb87 and Ealdgyth. Next set looks like I missed adding an interrupt.
 * The second article, first interrupt has Giants2008 whose comments are interwove with Bobak. Second is JKBrooks85 with comments interwove with Bobak. Third is your comments interwoven with Bobak.
 * The third article, first interrupt has your comments interwoven with Garrondo and OrangeMarlin.
 * This seems to hold true for the rest, unless I am missing something? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing you might do, Ottava, is to look at these FACs through my eyes. Ask yourself if you can sort the issues: is the resolution clear, is it clear that items were struck by the person who wrote them, can I tell if the concerns are resolved or what is outstanding. For example, a long correctly threaded exchange between Awadewit and Ealdgyth is easy for me follow and will typically be quickly resolved, so the template might add unnecessary bulk to the FAC. I need the templates in cases where discussion gets really long, is unresolved, there are unstricken concerns, threading is a mess, and it's hard to determine where things stand. It also has to do with how long the comments get: if I have to scroll down many pages to see who started the original comment, that's harder than a case that is quickly resolved, and I can still figure out whose signature is attached to the original. And, insider tip: the editor who most frequently forgets to sign and strike/append correctly is Tony1 :-) I can usually recognize his comments, but I still have to go back to the diffs to make sure it's him and attach an  template.  While I appreciate this help, remember I'm not the only person at FAC, and we want to keep FACs as tidy as possible; nominators are proud of their FACs when they close :-) Thanks so much for the help! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:02, 22 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 "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)

Coalescing refs at Samuel Johnson
I did some samples; let me know if I should continue. As long as it's not a direct quote, and several sentences come from the same place, they can be combined, unless there's a reason in your field not to: makes it much more readable. Revert if you hate it, but Whiskey is a good editor, and that's what I'd do. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My only concern as a whole is that if someone adds in a line later, then people could mistake that line as being attributed by another source. However, whatever works, whatever works. I will keep a copy of the fully cited biography for my own use, and Wikipedia can do what it wants from there. I don't care for the FA process, only research, so my thoughts on what should make a page are quite different than others. I'm moving on to fill out Johnson's sermons before I double back and start working on other Anglican related works before moving back to the Romantics, which I promised I would work on after Labor day, which is coming up. Byron's biography needs a major clean up, as does Keats. It is more important to create a page and move it to a low B, or to take a page in distress up to a high B than the little things like that, and I seem to lose focus when I busy myself with the little things. However, I think, by Whiskey Dog's statistical quote, that there could not be over 160 references, so you'll have to cut a lot more to make his cut off, if you are striving for it. Good luck whatever which way you go. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about the stats. OK, so I'll keep coalescing, but when done, I'll save the pre-diff and the after-diff on the FAC, so you'll always be able to get back to the "every sentence cited" version.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I have a copy. Do what you do. Its your original project so its poetic to finish it up. If you want, I can write up one of my absurd poems to commemorate the event. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I"m sorry, my "statistical quote" was meant to be in jest, and I figured it wouldn't translate very well, but I wrote it anyway. Just ignore that bit. Anyway, in response to your message on my talk page, I have made my comment a ... "comment", on the FAC, and do not fear that I was out to make your FAC experience less enjoyable! Whiskeydog (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm... ok, this is getting pedantic, maybe, but just to be clear: while I may not be part of "the group" that hates citation, I am part of a one-man group that thinks the dominant approach to citation has gone off the rails; and that calls for citation, in general, often look very silly (see my user page where I currently have a rant about this). Thus, by my mind, wikipedia fails the middle way again. My comment in the FAC in which I introduce a measure of citation density was meant to be satire, and I didn't expect it to be taken seriously (I thought by the end of it that the whimsy would be clear). Whiskeydog (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ottava. You wrote on Sandy's talk page, "I think somewhere along the line the world went upside down. Most of the FAs should be standard GAs, many of the great articles aren't FAs". While I probably agree with your statement, I suspect different factors or sentiments are involved for each of us. :) I'm curious what articles you think are great but aren't FAs, if you have time to dig any up. (It's an idle question.) Whiskeydog (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, its not that per se. Its the topic. I just think some topics are worthier of the attention than others. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to agree about topic importance. It's become quite lost because it's so much easier to get support for a narrow article than a broader one. I still believe that putting a broad-topic article that's an 8 out of 10 on the main page would be a better demonstration of wikipedia than a 10 out of 10 article on minutiae. Occasionally, at least. Whiskeydog (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Our Sam
I see that starts, DYKs and improvements are flowing out of the Samuel Johnson spring clean and reupholstery. Last time I looked I saw that the image map of Sam and his mates at "The Club" was still there. I'm guessing that if it asn't already been deleted then someone may want to delete it or improve it. If its the latter then if you need any expertise then I'd be pleased to help. Victuallers (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The image seems to be fine. We improved the copyright information and Wikicommons just moved to allow things that might not be fully copyrighted in the US but fully copyrighted in the UK (i.e. paintings of a certain age) regardless of the situation, so there are no concerns here. It should be fine, unless you think there are problems with it? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Your note
I've just spotted your note on my talk page (got another message afterwards, so didn't see both). I hope to get a chance to re-review the article later. Colin°Talk 09:50, 25 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)

Johnson's Legacy
Hi Ottava,

Sorry I'm so late in responding. I've been busy IRL and I wanted to read the relevant pages (SJ, the FAC page, etc.) thoroughly before commenting.

I've looked it over (this version) and I think the reviewers at FAC have a point: the article is a little light on information about his actual writing. However, I don't think the imbalance is sufficient to be actionable. The trouble seems to me to stem from their expectation that Johnson is comparable, in this sense, to a Shakespeare or Ben Jonson; primarily known for their creative output (plays, poems, literature). It also seems to me—if I can put it thus without giving offense—that this problem is exacerbated by the somewhat curt manner in which you've chosen to respond to their concerns on the FAC page. I think had you opted for a more diplomatic tone the issue would not have become as entrenched and confrontational as it currently appears to be.

As for actual changes to the article that might remedy this, I am somewhat reluctant to give too specific suggestions. I am not sufficiently versed in Johnson. However, it might be useful to look for ways in the article—probably by way of phrasing, or possibly an extra sentence or two somewhere (the earlier the better)—to further emphasise and make explicit that his notability stems not primarily from what he wrote, but who he was. It might also be a good idea to try to talk more about his writings—what they are, why they are notable, and what influence they had—in the proper places to mention them (e.g. in the section on the period of his life when he worked on them); as it already does, but with the balance altered slightly away from the man and to his works. I think there are still biographical details that can be cut, and a very few that probably should be cut. At one point in reading the article there was a date given for an event that even I, who is primarily interested in biography even in the context of Shakespeare, felt was excessive detail (for Wikipedia, mark!). In other words, the core of the problem seems to be human factors rather then textual ones.

But overall I don't think more text needs be added. Rather, some sentences might be altered to focus on the work instead of the man, and some might be deleted and replaced with something ditto. A subtle change of balance, rather than a significant rewrite or addition of material.

In terms of the FAC overall, I don't think any of the issues brought up so far are "actionable" in terms of being valid reasons to not promote it to FA status. If there is anything in this sense "actionable" then it would be that the article isn't really "stable" (which would be a slightly comical objection since it's changing in order to comply with FAC reviews) and that the writing is at times not quite perfect (probably as a result of the cuts, insertions, and rewrites occasioned by the peer and FAC reviews). I don't think these are grounds for not promoting it unless one wants to increase the stringency of the requirements for FA (which might be a good idea, but hasn't been done yet). If I were to review the article there are a bunch of such minor stylistic and copy-editing issues I would point out (the single words in quotes, some sentences that seem malapropos in their paragraph, little stuff like that), but nothing that I wouldn't happily consider minor.

In short, they have a point but it's a minor one and one that, in my opinion, shouldn't determine whether the article is promoted to FA.

I'll have a quick scan over the FAC page to see if there is anywhere it would be appropriate for me to comment to that effect, without further fanning the flames. --Xover (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You have pointed out most of my dilema. Most of the biographies talk at great detail about all of those sections that I have in the biography, and don't spend as much time on the works. I boiled it down to about a line every 4 pages. I get bothered by some of the complaints about the works not being discussed, because a work like Hamlet literally has a new article on it every single day, and yet (by Weight) it is not discussed to that length on Shakespeare's bio page. I could, as I proposed to Sandy, cut the early life and college section in half and move it to its own page, and then expand it there. I just don't feel that comfortable going way over the 10,000 word limit, and I proportioned out everything via percentages of material coverage towards this fact. Anyway, I rebalanced it to add in 9k more detail on the works. If people feel that there is a lot missing, I'd have to move the childhood section to another page to feel comfortable adding in more. Also, some of the single words in quote are to mean that they were called that facetiously (like Dame Oliver and her school), and are quoted in the biographies, or that the one words are quotes from biographies. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem with William Shakespeare is that there is such an insane lot of breadth to cover—take Authorship, the authenticity of his portraits, the frankly insane amount of analysis of his every written word, etc.—which makes the article possibly exemplary as a juggling act within the limitations of Wikipedia, but not so much so as an example of how a main article should look. But I do take your point; it too limits the discussion of any single work and defers details to a separate article on that work (in some cases even several articles on that work). But the main article does devote something like two thirds of its considerable girth to the works in one way or the other (being interested in biography, this rankled some, to me, but was probably appropriate). Had Johnson been, like Shakespeare, mainly known for his plays, then a similar proportion would, indeed, have been appropriate for Samuel Johnson as well.
 * But if the word limit is beginning to hurt, then moving things out into sub-articles is probably the right strategy. I'm not sure that moving parts of his life, delineated by era, out would be necessarily the best idea. For Shakespeare there is a separate article Shakespeare's life that is the purely biographical one, with its contents merely summarised in the main article, but I'm not sure that's an apt comparison.
 * I certainly can't see any easy solution to this. --Xover (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Johnson's is probably just as much. Remember, there were probably over 30 biographies written just after his death, plus daily newspaper accounts of his life. So, you have studies into all of these. Then you have at least 15 major biographies (sitting on my desk). Then you have the countless articles talking about biographies of Johnson, or talking about aspects of his life. And thats not any of his works, which cover 15 volumes about 350 pages each in the Yale edition. Then these all have a lot of studies, which also go into his biography.
 * Now, Shakespeare's life isn't as well known as Johnson. Johnson's life is probably more known than anyone else's. I don't really understand anyone who would look up Johnson for his works. He was obsessed over, even though he would do very little. Perhaps people during the mid 18th century clung to Johnson because of the stress of the constant fighting and the revolutionary problems. He was rather straight forward, classic, staunch traditionalist, and wasn't afraid to hide it. He basically became a symbol of England, or what was 18th century English. Shakespeare was just a playwright who may or may not have written some of the most well known plays. Johnson was a superstar who was paid 300 pounds a year from the government basically "just because". George III even set up a chance to "happen upon" Johnson in order to convince him to start a discussion with him. A king being gah gah over a person says a lot.There are scenes from Boswell of some of the most famous descriptions of Johnson scattered throughout the article for just this purpose. Each section has a passage, and I wish some of the people would read and realize the kind of image Johnson had. And yeah, this biographical status is why his Tourette Syndrome diagnosis is so important - people have the idea that TS causes people to cuss all the time and live disruptive lives. Instead, one of the most famous people in the world probably had TS and was able to live an amazing life. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's rejections
The text I removed was cited to Murray, who describes two job applications in the same year: The removed text mentions two schools and repeats verbatim the rejection given at Solihull. I don't think those are "an additional two schools with a different complaint". I accept the loss of one school (Staffordshire) and this could be reinserted if required. I don't know the precise chronology but I suspect both are prior to his creation of his own school and the Staffordshire one comes first. Certain that is the order Murray discusses them (Murray is available online so you have the source). Colin°Talk 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Assistant headmaster at a grammar school in Staffordshire -- "rejected because of his peculiar appearance and odd movements. It was thought that his involuntary motions would make him an object of ridicule with his students."
 * 2) Master's postion at Solihull School, rejected for the reason quoted earlier in the article.
 * Sigh, things are getting lost. There was another reference and I don't remember it being to Murray. He was rejected from Stourbridge, Market Bosworth he attained the job, Solihull rejected. I don't see Staffordshire at all in the biographies, unless this is Lichfield and I can't see anything in which shows that he applied to the Lichfield Grammar School. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could Stourbridge be the "grammar school in Staffordshire" -- close? Colin°Talk 00:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I need to dig back and see what use to be there. I didn't pay attention to what happened over a day and a lot of things apparently changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stourbridge was the Stourbridge Grammar School, which was also known as the King Edward VI school. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another that I forgot to list Ashbourne for a position as usher (under master basically). But that one was in Derbyshire. So, we have four schools, and one mysterious school. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Brewood. Thats the Staffordshire school. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people
Thank you very much for your kind comments and copy edits. Much appreciated Taprobanus (talk) 03:05, 27 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 <font color="E45E05">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 <font color="E45E05">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 :-)  Sandy Georgia  (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 ! Sandy Georgia  (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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 18:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Samuel Johnson's early life
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Samuel Johnson's early life, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ←Signed:→<font color="#380355" face="Ravie"> Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you disagree, remove it. I believe I did follow protocol, as one can find here. There is also a process to contest it if you disagree with it at the same location, Ottava. Thanks for your understanding. ←Signed:→<font color="#380355" face="Ravie"> Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 00:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Prod requires a legitimate reason, which yours lacked. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See, now, with that I agree a bit more. I'll remove the PROD; I'm a bit confused as to why you are moving the article around. ←Signed:→<font color="#380355" face="Ravie"> Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 00:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FAC review had too many people claiming that there was too much information on Johnson's biography, and not enough information on his works. The only way to indulge these desires is to trim the biography (which is seen as important by all of his biographers), to put in more information on his works. See here for more information on the dispute. I don't want to do it, but these select few feel that it is necessary. The new page will have expansions on his early life also (already added is over 4k of text). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I just trimmed 9k worth of text. So, can you remove the prod now? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the prod; there was no reason for it, and anyone can remove a prod. It would be helpful if E. Sanchez would read WP:SIGNATURE.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remove prods. Remember, my 0RR rule. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson (again)
I really have to say that I admire your patience and persistence with the Dr's FAC; to be honest, I'd have given up with it some time ago. There's an entrenched body of opinion that views Johnson as primarily an author, and wants to see an author-like article. And of course there's an entrenched body of opinion that will oppose just because they can. Stick with, I think the tide might be starting to turn. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm to the point where I don't care if it's featured (even though I acknowledge that you richly deserve the FA); I don't want to see the article damaged by push-pull opinions which are now coming down to personal choice of summary style over comprehensive, and the author over everything else as mentioned by MF. But the FAC has been an eye-opening experience from my chair, so for that reason, I'm also glad you stuck with it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just hope Raul will get the hint that the only people who know enough to actually had a legitimate complaint about the article are Lexo, Deacon of Pndapetzim, and Colin. Yes, the Scottish information was necessary to add (for NPOV), yeah, it may have had more early biographical detail that would be important in a subthread (as per Charles Darwin - DGG's suggestion), and the legacy section was rightfully expanded.
 * I'm wondering when people will realize that 1b says "major" and what the word "major" means. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SandyG. This article deserves to be an FA, but it's in an area where some have strong views. I think some have confused their own opinions with the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova has already admitted she has no view. She attempted to have me blocked before while working with Awadewit, and this was revealed by the community as being extremely bad form. It is no wonder that two people that Durova works with often have also showed up championing Awadewit's claims like Durova did. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottava, sorry I havn't been around - only catching up now - but "attempted to have me blocked before" is raking history and it has to be admitted that all sides have to let go of old slights (as hard as it may be) and move on. As Karanacs says below you are doing remarkable well considering the strain being enforced; so rise above those kind of cmts - all involved are well aware of the history here. Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

karanacs's two cents
I haven't been on-wiki much in the last few days to a mandatory visit by family. I just reviewed the Samuel Johnson FAC to see what was going on. Ottava, I know that it is very difficult to see people pull your work apart, especially when you believe that the article is ready, and I am impressed with the amount of work you have continued to put in to meeting some of the objections. I have not read the Johnson article in quite some time, but I suspect (hope!) that it has been improved. You work in a time period and topic that several FAC reviewers feel very strongly about. It is probable that some of their concerns are valid and some are not. As the nominator, you have to walk the tightrope of figuring out which concerns go in which bucket, explain why you don't agree with some, and do it in a polite way (it's a hard job). I know very little about Johnson, so I can't judge the validity of any of the FAC comments, but some of them look reasonable to me, and are issues that I have opposed other articles on (not giving proper context for facts, etc). But again, I'm not saying that those are valid in this case - I haven't read the article lately - so let's not argue those points here.

From the messages left on my talk page, I was expecting to see huge blow-ups all over the FAC page, and I was glad to see that it was nothing that serious. I have seen other nominators react as you have, and, as a reviewer, it makes for an unpleasant experience and sometimes prompts me to look more closely for issues, just because now I'm mad too. I see a few areas for improvement for you, and these are things that you've recognized before as potential problem points for you.
 * - Not helpful. You can think all of these things, and even write them down, but it is usually best to delete them before you actually hit Submit.   The very best thing for you, and for any FAC nominator, is to remain focused on the issues.  Whenever anyone (nominator or reviewer) resorts to negative comments on the person, they are unnecessarily escalating the conflict.  It does not really matter why someone appeared at FAC - any issues they identify should be seriously considered.  (Supports are a different matter - a canvass for supports is bad).  Durova is also not acting in an administrator capacity here, but as a reviewer and regular editor. Therefore, calling her actions unbecoming to an administrator is completely off-topic and unhelpful.  The only sentence I like from your post is  This page has also gone through an extensive Peer Review and had the involvement of many people, including many admin who feel that your claims are not supportable - but even so, if those people don't post at the FAC, their views aren't really included.
 * I know that this is a stressful experience, but your tone in other instances also comes across as combative. As an example, your wrote:  Before you start throwing out lines like the above, actually get some proof. Otherwise, you are demanding original research and asking for things that aren't allowable on Wikipedia.  - This could have been worded less combatively as I haven't seen enough scholarship to support that inclusion.  Do you have a particular source in mind that would cover that information?  The suggested sentence keeps the focus on the issue, not on the person who made the comment.

My suggestion: Take a deep breath, strike some of your comments, and think about how you would react if you were in the reviewer's shoes reading your comments. And overall, it looks as if the FAC is really not going that badly. Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson's health DYK
I've raised a concern on the DYK hook over at Template talk:Did you know.-Wafulz (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratrulations and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good gracious, Ottava, you are on a roll! Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For gosh sakes, Ottava; I'm a a week behind, struggling to catch up with my watchlist, FAC and around-the-house business, and you're creating content faster than I can keep up. It is going to take me several days to figure out where we stand, and I need to backtrack through four days of watchlist to make sure I didn't miss something.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Don't Despair
References for road articles are not easy. I cannot help them, maps help detail the road more than anything else. If I had extra sources, I'd use them, but every FA for USRD has gotten away with it (using maps). Also, per your question on the FAC, VT 74 does not significant history to permit an article, so we put the details for the ferry and the VT side in the article. If its better explained, we do that in several articles.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(UP) 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The second part of the problem is that road article use maps for history details when an online one does not exist. The main use of Google Maps is to cite the Route Description, the most important part. The history uses whatever books or maps we can use. It has never been defined as original research, and most travel guides have very little detail on the highway unless it is important. I can find references, but it would take months to get ahold of tons of them to find out.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(UP) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can order 62 counties worth of travel guides, but it would take a long time for all to come in.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(UP) 20:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, I've worked with Mitchazenia for a while, and I'm trying to help him with the New York State Route 74 article. To address the issues that you've raised, I was wondering if youy have access to any newspaper archives. If you do and you could do a little digging for me, I'd be very appreciateive. Cheers, –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the area, so could you provide me with the names of any major counties, towns, cities, etc, near the road? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing improvements at Samuel Johnson
I am readying to leave for India, so I'm not paying much attention to Wikipedia right now. Shocking, I know! Please drop a note on my talk page when you would like me to reread the Johnson article and reassess my "oppose" at the FAC. I will be more than happy to do so. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Phan Xich Long
Hello there. A photo has arrived for your viewing.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:22, 5 September 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  <font color="E45E05">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. Sandy Georgia  (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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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. 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 WikiProject Media Restoration.  If it's the extended Byron family generally you're working on, then that gives more freedom to work around.  The Library of Congress doesn't have much online media, so I'll see what I can find from British archives.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 03:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to put it as any high priority. The major concern right now is to get enough content, have it cited, and put up enough stuff so that most of the drive by editors don't destroy parts of the page like they have been. Having the name Byron tends to bring out some of the worst in people. :) Thanks for looking and keep up the important image work. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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


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

hey
I made an edit here (see the lower one) in which the page in the named ref didn't match the page in the ref template. It's the foot-stomping thing, I think. You may wanna double-check the page. Later! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was actually the reverse, but thanks for noticing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

revisit Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état
Hi, I've left some comments at Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état. If you have time, I wonder if you would revisit it? Thanks, Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;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. Sandy Georgia  (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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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)

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 <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">sláinte 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you move "West Wind" to the top of the section, you could move "Family Group" up a paragraph. Then you could move "Henry Moore" up a paragraph. I would move the long gallery photo into "Style" and the photo in Style into the gallery. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Samuel Johnson
Hi OR, sorry for the delay on revisiting images; I'll check them over again today. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI - response
I will look further at the related edit history shortly. With respect to the article itself, it does need to be expanded, and I have no issue with it remaining in a true encyclopedic form. Thanks for your comments! <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">BMW <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Necklack and CC 2.5
Could you expand on what the issue is with the CC license? Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing something here. It was by the description of the uploader made by them by cropping an image they had made. Since they control all rights isn't a CC 2.5 license that doesn't mention their previous version made by that same individual fine? From a hypertalmudic perspective, they released it to themselves and then made a new CC work with that. What am I missing? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ottava, IANAL but I'm very sure that's wrong. People can release and relicense things that they themselves made pretty much anyway they please regardless of how they licensed it previous. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up - getting back to work.

Double hook DYK? nom
You're such a friendly chap; your inclusion of Stratford490 is commended. --  CB ( ö)  04:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson
In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.


 * 1. "The first two paras of the biography section take an inordinate amount of time to sum up questions about Johnson's biography that are, although interesting, not quite as relevant as all that, and probably more relevant to the article on the Life of Johnson." This will be moved to its own page when there is a chance. Its just left over from the beginning.
 * 2. "', to take a random example, is too involved and flits forward a couple of centuries to call in TS Eliot's (unsourced and unquoted) opinion, something that should really be removed to a properly cited footnote, before bouncing back to the 18th century via a quick nod to Walter Scott." You can blame Bate for that one. The citation is a summary from what Bate says. It is no longer necessary after I created a page on the poem and can be removed.
 * 3. "which is a rather ugly passive" Many different writers and many different tweaks. Feel free to rewrite and blame anything improper on me. :)
 * 4. "much-needed article on The Vanity of Human Wishes" I've been meaning to also. I have 11 sources on the work and title page and the rest. If you are willing to wait a few days, we can whip something up together.
 * 5. I relied on Bate because his would be the most renown based on the Pulitzer. However, I do rely on multiply biographies, and I did leave out Lain because of the year. I've been wanting to add parts from Robert Demaria's The Life of Johnson (1993) and John Wiltshire's Samuel Johnson in the Medical World (1991), but the new information they provide is on the medical side, which the MoS would prefer the doctors speaking instead of the biographers. However, I do plan to incorporate them into the various "works" pages that I have slowly built. Note - there are two Bate sources used, and its a little hard to see them as different from a first glance.
 * 6. Thanks once again for the help.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for such a prompt and polite response. I've already started on the Human Wishes article but am hampered by not owning a copy of the Yale edition of the poems, so my bibliographical data is a bit skimpy.  I am not a Johnson scholar by any means, just a lifelong reader of the guy and (though I say so myself) a reasonably good editor.  I look forward to working with you.  BTW, you do know that the Hibbert (i.e. Penguin) edition of Boswell's Life is abridged?  I have the OUP unabridged version.  It seems strange to be using an abridged edition of Boswell in an article on Johnson. Lexo (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. But heres the thing - the abridge version was easier to find the quotes used in the quote boxes. :D I guess I'm lazy. I will post some information on the poem here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the notes - am still trying to work out how to structure the article so as best to incorporate them. I have ordered a copy of the Yale Poems so as to flesh out bibliographical detail, because right now I am working from the Penguin Complete English Poems which was intended for students.  At the moment, my draft structure is as follows: Intro; Source - Juvenal; Composition history; Structure; Publication history; Reception; Critical responses; Legacy; Notes.  If you have any comments, let me know. I have sources for the influence of Johnson on Samuel Beckett, incidentally.  One last question: how acceptable is it to use Boswell as a source?  I know that Boswell scholarship is a field in itself and that the Life is not always trustworthy, but does that mean that it should never be cited at all? Lexo (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One final thing: I have a copy of the Clarendon edition (ed. C. Tracy) of the Life of Richard Savage, and would be interested in working on that article too, as I've always liked that book. (I used to be able to quote bits of it from memory.) Lexo (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful. I put Life of Mr Richard Savage on hold to work on some other pages. I have Richard Holmes's Dr Johnson & Mr Savage and a few other books that go into depth, but it would be very important to take some notable passages and place them on the page so everyone can see what the work is about. Feel free to work on anything, and if there is a problem we can work it out. Be bold and clean up later. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done some more work on the Human Wishes article. Please let me know if there's anything in it that you think is glaringly bad. It's only a start, but it's better than a stub. Lexo (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Vanity notes
Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:

Bate - Samuel Johnson - follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism
 * p. 277 - Written during Dictionary, imitation of Tenth Satire of Juvenal, written autumn of 1748, "told Geogre Steevens he wrote the first seventy lines 'in the course of one morning, in that small house behind the church.'" (found in Johnsonian Miscellanies Vol II 313-314, I have a copy if you need more detail of quote).
 * p. 278 - VoHW "discloses the inner landscape of his mind - that is, it reveals the image of reality that was fixed in him, and to which his experience naturally assimilated itself - more completely than any other single work"
 * p. 279 - VoHW "has a denser, more active texture than would be tolerable in essayistic writing. There is more activity within phrases, and therea re more interwoven strands of connection between phrases. All that is going on helps form and refine our sense of Johnson's imagination, its habitual processes and vision."
 * - "deeply personal"
 * - "Loosely based on a satire of Juvenal's, it adopts the closed heroic couplet of Dryden and Pope."
 * - similar argument to Augustine's Confessions, Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Holy Dying, and William Law's Serious Call (the argument is "the complete inability of the world and of worldly life to offer genuine or permanent satisfaction"
 * - leaves out "Juvenal's coarseness of imagery, and he voices less anger and contempt", less "playful" than Dryden or Pope, more meditative
 * - "formally a satire, but his irony differs essentially from that in most classical or Augustan satiric writing"
 * 280 - irony is "in the world", "Johnson is closer to Hardy than to Pope"
 * 281 - two themes - first is "he dwells on the helpless vulnerability of the individual before the social context", second is that he "traces the inevitable 'doom of man' to inward and psychological causes", "inevitable self-deception by which human beings are led astray"
 * 282 - beginning lines about "natural passions of man", "betrayal is from within"
 * - "When at the end of the poem Johnson turns to religion as the only true and lasting source of hope, the turn of feeling and argument is expected, magnificently handled, and yet also raises central problems of interpretation. Ultimately, they are problems in interpreting the character of Johnson's religion, and naturally cannot be explored in the context of this poem only." Problem stems from his use of Roman satire
 * 285 - "The imagery of The Vanity of Human Wishes is constant, condensed, concerely pictorial, and expressed with gusto."

Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World
 * p. 113 - "This serious, sober, pessimistic work reflects clearly enough his state of mind at the time, which is one of total disenchantment with life. The statesman, soldier, scholar are alike victims of delusion and disappointment; nothing is permanent or safe; even the rich man and the virtuous are doomed, and the poet, the dedicate writer, is no expection."
 * p. 114 - (important - "first to carry his name on title-page") "A theme so stoical and gloomy, so sternly expounded, was not likely to be popular with the public, and the poem, for which Dodsley paid Johnson fifteen guineas, sold less well than his London, which had run through several editions. Garrick, though anxious to praise his friend's new work, the first to carry his name on the title-page, found it heavy going: 'When Johnson lived much with the Herveys, and saw a good deal of what was passing in life, he wrote his London, which is lively and easy. When he became more retired, he gave us his Vanity of Human Wishes, which is as hard as Greek.'" (quoting Boswell's Life book I)

Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson
 * p. 36 "Each side profits from the process of questioning and asking. To be sure, as poetic narrator Johnson normally is the superior questioner, but so long as we also learn, engage various intellectual faculties, and are variously pleased, our dialogues with Johnson, with ourselves, and with our culture proceed generously - aas we shall see in the "Drury Lane Prologue" (1747) and in The Vanity of Human Wishes.
 * p. 45 "London and The Vanity of Human Wishes are Johnson's longest non-dramatic public poems. Each falls into that rich eighteenth-century genre called the 'imitation,' in which an earlier or even contemporary poem is adapted to modern or different circumstances."
 * p. 46 "London is well worth reading, but The Vanity of Human Wishes is one of the great poems in the English language. It follows the outline of Juvenal's tenth satire, embraces some of what Johnson thought of as its 'sublimity,' but also uses it as a touchstone rather than an argument on authority."
 * p. 47 "He unifies different portraits through a common denominator of vain human wishes and through interlocking metaphors, like collapsing buildings and life as a battle."
 * - "As guide, Johnson uses a plural pronoun to suggest that he shares our human weakness."
 * - "When Johnson invokes the laughing philosopher Democritus (49-72) to mock eternal folly in human farce, he reminds us of the importance of continuing our search before we draw inferences: 'How just that Scorn ere yet thy Voice declare,/ Search every State, and canvass ev'ry Pray'r' (71-72)."
 * - "Johnson shows his skill in human and moral psychology in several of the character portraits. Cardinal Wolsey rose so high that he seemed to threaten his monarch."
 * - "The Portrait of Charles XII of Sweden (1682-1718) is deservedly famous. He was the overreaching monarch and general whose bold but finally fatal attacks terrorized much of Europe. The passage skillfully includes many of Johnson's familiar themes - repulsion with slaughter that aggrandizes one man and kills and impoverishes thousands, understanding of the human need to glorify heroes, and subtle contrast with the classical parent-poem and its inadequate moral vision."
 * p. 48 "Johnson's ultimate target and audience is the human situation - hence he includes Juvenal and his parochial treatment of the North African Hannibal, Juvenal's original Swedish Charles. When reading the Vanity our response includes pity for Charles, for Europe, and for ourselves. In contrast, Juvenal enjoys the barbarian lunatic's death and miniaturization into Roman school-boy's declamation."
 * - "Johnson is cosmopolitan; Juvenal is local. Johnson is sympathetic; Juvenal is vengeful. Like Democritus, Juvenal is an inadequate guide for the Christian empiricist. The conclusion to the poem further illustrates its moral and poetic grandeu, and satisfies a key expectation of formal verse satire - praise of the virtue opposed to the vice attacked."
 * - "The final portrait before the Vanity's conclusion exploits that most enduring and endearing emblem of human renewal - the birth of a child. After all, what parent does not wish to have an attractive child? That child, alas, becomes a prisoner of the dangerous, cloudy, snare-encrusted world of Johnson's first paragraph, but now with the special reference to female fragility."
 * p. 49 "The antidote for vain human wishes is non-vain spiritual wishes; the antidote for an unreliable monarch is a reliable God; the antidote for overreaching is trust in God's knowledge of what is best for us."

Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.
 * p. 130 "Johnson's greatest poem"
 * - "a distilled statement of the central theme of his work of the late 1740s." "Although Johnson is in some ways an expressive writer, he was a professional writer capable of separating his personal and public lives. He continued to carry on a scholarly life that was concerned with particulars rather than the grand ends of learning, and he continued to be interested in particular political issues after he shifted his professional literary focus away from these areas."
 * - Robert Dodsley helped Johnson "broaden his audience and thereby achieve greater professional independence" knew Dodsley while writing for his Preceptor
 * - "Johnson called Dodsley his patron, and he frequented Dodsley's shop at Tully's Head."
 * - "the Vanity also seems written with Dodsley in mind, and it eventually became a part of A Collection of Poems by Several Hands, an anthology Dodsley brought out earlier in the same year that he purchased the rights to Johnson's great poem." Note on 321 says "Johnson revised the Vanity for the fourth edition of Dodsley's Collection (1755); he contributed other poems to the first edition of 1748."
 * p. 131 "In The Vanity of Human Wishes Johnson displays the moral blueprint of his Dictionary."
 * - "The Vanity is a great poem, and it therefore deserves and rewards treatment as a literary phenomenon unfettered by any but aesthetic and intellectual associations. As T. S. Eliot shows in his introduction to the Haslewood Press edition, the Vanity belongs in the artistic world defined by the poetry of Juvenal, Dryden, Pope, and Horace. It ias also, however, an artefact of Johnson's professional life in the late 1740s."

Candide's FAC
I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't do anything right now. You can tell Sandy that mine has been moved to a "comment" without any obvious opposes. I'd need to have a closer look to move one way or another, and I wont be able to do so for four more days. I hope you see this message. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, it reads cleanly, and you should be commended on the work that you've put into the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Will do. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies
I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Once I remove something from my talk page, its because its no longer important to the here and now. I don't archive my talk page, because the only things that matter are the future tasks and duties. This is an encyclopedia. All that matters is the encyclopedia. I do feel bad that I removed my "thank you" to TravisTX before he could have seen it, which is a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to post at Travis's page regarding that? S. Dean Jameson 17:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do that in a few days. Time doesn't really matter too much. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contact my email about the following - I would like to ask you not to talk to Abd anymore. I also would like for him not to respond to you anymore. What is past is past, and I do not want to be the source of future conflict. I supported the move to indef me because I saw that there would only be more future strife between multiple parties, and that did not work. If either one of you happens to mention the other or the other's actions, I would ask that you take it up in my email and use that in order to express yourselves instead of going after each other. I would rather be able to deal with my emotional stress over this privately than have it aired all over the board. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer to leave this one last bit here. Further will be through email. If Abd ceases to claim that I've harassed anyone, I'll cease to defend myself against these accusations. Other than that, I have no desire nor inclination to communicate with Abd any further. S. Dean Jameson 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I already have rollback rights, but I hadn't really considered adminship. The main thing I enjoy (though I periodically am distracted from it) is writing. Why do you ask? S. Dean Jameson 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just trying to get to know you. Not much I can really do at the moment except for small talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that kind of stinks, but there just wasn't consensus to overturn the block at ANI. Again, I'm sorry for any mental misery my posting the proposal put you through. S. Dean Jameson 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I preferred to stay blocked. The only problems that really affect me right now is the fighting between you and Abd. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no more problem there, as far as I'm concerned. I've extended an olive branch at his page, that I hope he accepts. S. Dean Jameson 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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  <font color="E45E05">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. (  Ceoil  <font color="E45E05">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)