User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 19

Civility
Ottava Rima, although many people have said you've behaved against what many editors think appropriate on Wikipedia, I've thought you're just an "outspoken" and straitforward person with great contributions. Granted, you may feel annoyed that people like me do not comment about images that you've nominated and thought great. However the nomination takes too spacious, and people tend to skip nominations with TLDR and heavy things. When I first saw the image, the page had (still has) yet "no" actual review for possibly the space problem, so I've tried to help you with formatting. You said you're okay with me formatting it, so I did it. However, all you did was falsely accused me and insulted me. It is clear that you did not read my comment carefully. I never said 5 images are shown in a horizontal line, but your format has 5 rows that means 2 images per horizontal line. You misread my comment and have accused me of "destroying the nomination" and "highly inappropriate". I've participated in reviewing FP candidates, and I've never seen you there and never seen people say like you. Please do not attack my contribution and my good faith intention, and do not continue the intimidating tone. I've said my (new) computer is fine, and you do not believe me at all. I checked it with another computer. I guess the editor(s) to whom you talked about it would be heard the wrong message based on your misreading. Please keep "civility" in your mind. Regards.--Caspian blue 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The TLDR currently is from your off topic statements. Take it to the talk page. The formatting was "helped" by the creator of the images. If you want to talk to him about it, please do. If you would like to see me be incivil, I am completely willing. But as a note - he was the one that pointed out that your formatting changes destroyed how it appears at WP:FPC list. When I checked, you did indeed cause a major formatting problem there. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're indeed uncivil and rude as many people have said. TLDR statement is yours since that was elongated by your insistence on my computer being in error instead of blaming your own misreading. Since you "hate" my comment and do not assume good faith at all, I will move the comment to the talk page to avoid "you" from now. That is not worth my time.--Caspian blue 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NPA means that I would have insulted your physical being, which I did not. Your claim to such blatantly violates both NPA and Civility. Your actions on the page are completely disruptive. You were asked to stop and you continue. I will seek you being blocked if you do not change these inappropriate and completely unacceptable ways right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are also asked to apologize for claiming that I hate anything, as the term was never used in any manner or any condition. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, you're increasing the degree of your threats. My format was intended to make a smooth flow for viewers. Sadly that's who you're. I have no reason to bear your insults. Regards.--Caspian blue 01:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of information
In perusing the talk page on the current Honduran situation, I have read you to suggest that titling the article as a "coup" would violate BLP as it presupposes that a crime has been committed. I am not convinced that "coup" is NPOV for other reasons but I am intrigued by your argument. I am not, however, aware of there being any such crime as "coup" in any international court of competent jurisdiction as you have suggested. If no crime of "coup" exists, how can one who refers to the events as a coup be considered to be accusing anyone of a crime? In fact, there is a tradition in international law of treating a successful coup d'etat as a "law-creating" fact. See, e.g., Kelsen, Hans, General Theory of Law and State at 368 et seq. http://books.google.com/books?id=yQk8-JyWvPUC&lpg=PA368&ots=sXD1FGeZR3&dq=international%20law%20coup&pg=PP1 Abby Kelleyite (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been many international court cases that have tried dictators and included their original coup as part of their crimes. It is obvious by the reaction of the world against what is happening that the international community feels that such an act is a crime. Therefore, the more people claim that the world agrees that this is a coup the more verification that a coup is a crime and the application of BLP becomes necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-sysopping
I tend to agree. I think RFA is sensible (imperfect as it is) because it's the process that determines community trust to begin with. I would only restore access by motion for clear error situations, such as when an admin's account was verifiably hacked, or when they did nothing wrong to begin with. I'm especially opposed to the notion that another's RFA can be a proxy for someone else having their access restored. Cool Hand Luke 07:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel Coleridge's Conversation poems

 * Congrats; it's good to see some recognition for your work. The articles on the individual poems are great. I'm still snowed under in real-life, but will send you some notes in due course. Best, Easchiff (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You still get credit for the main conversation poems page, as you did provide a bulk of the original stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To Autumn
PASS to GA. Congratulations! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw. Once Mrathel and I have a chance to sit down, we will see if anything is needed for FAC. Since GA invites reviewers to work and improve the article, your work as a reviewer definitely makes us want to include you as a co-nom for the FAC push in order to acknowledge your hard work. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXIII
Delivered by – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

Congratulations
Hello, Ottava Rima. Congratulations for the first FP. This message may sound awkward given that our discord on the trivial gallery format stemming from our mutual misunderstanding. However, I talked with both Durova and Shoe about our tiff after that, they said I have to give you a shot to reconsider you and your contribution. They said you indeed care Wikipeida more than editors, so sometimes, people could be hurt by your candid criticism, but that is clearly not from bad faith, but for the community's improvement. They are a few editors that I deeply respect, so I'm rethinking that you way of speaking and approach are just different from that of other editors, and that is part of charm that different people think differently. When you oppose somebody, people tend to agree with your boldness and rationales, and I've happened to be one of them time to time. Especially, when you're criticizing hypocrites without reserve, who idiotically believe themselves better than people, I feel some fresh breeze is passing in my mind. I clearly owe you for several things. I see that Shoe amended the gallery with the poems, and that looks great. If I had have known that you struggled for the format to get it right several times, I would be more than open to help you out. I was trying nothing but help you since I knew that the image nomination would be a great opportunity for the editor to come back to FPC and FSC. I admit that I have a thin skin on incivility and my limited English, so my interpretation would differ from other native English speakers. So could we let the disharmony behind the past? I think we can amicably agree or disagree things without any conflicts. I hope my message for reconciliation would work. Regards.--Caspian blue 13:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the fighting before - I was just frustrated from none of the formatting working out. I am glad that Shoemaker's was able to put together a gallery with quotes. I hate Wiki formatting sometimes. My complaint before wasn't against you personally - I just couldn't stand any of the formatting in general and it was being focused on instead of the images. If I had my way, it would just be links to the images. Next time, we can work together if there is a formatting problem, agreed? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. :) Thank you for accepting the reconciliation suggestion and I'm truly sorry for my overreaction. With your effort, Shoemaker come back to the place. --Caspian blue 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time will definitely be easier and less stressful. That is certain. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
Please revert. It was reopened before because an RfC deserves more than a couple days for discussion. It is also standard to allow alterations to the proposal and counter proposals. There has been multiple people expressing interest and support, and there are many more from the page that would be interested in counter proposals. This is to give you a chance to revert yourself so we can abide by WP:CONSENSUS instead of just shutting down discussion in a manner that defies our traditions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I decline to revert; it is abundantly clear that this proposal as-is is a non-runner. If you want to make or invite an alternative proposal, I suggest you move that page to (e.g.) Automatic Adminship/old proposal and start afresh. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be reverted regardless if you decline or not. This is to give you a chance to abide by standards. There was no proposal to close the discussion on the proposal, so there can be no claims about consensus. Please abide by RfC standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an RFC. Without waiving that objection, please point out the RFC standard you allege exists. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All proposals about policies or guidelines fall under RfC. It does not have to be listed under the RfC section at WP:RFC, nor are all RfCs listed. Standard is that all of these are given 30 days of discussion unless there is a proposal to close it, and that is only accepted if there is an overwhelming agreement. So far, this has only been up for a day (to be generous). Consensus takes more than a couple days, especially with differing levels of activity at different times of the week. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please specify the policy or guideline that backs up the following assertions:
 * "All proposals about policies or guidelines fall under RfC" (WP:CENT might disagree)
 * "Standard is that all of these are given 30 days of discussion unless there is a proposal to close it"
 * "Consensus takes more than a couple days" (you will see AFDs every day closed after hours)
 * Thanks in advance. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read - "4 Place the template at the top of the talk page's discussion to further publicize your proposal." Now, will you stop this nonsense? The above is well known and easy to find. You wasted too much of my time already. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That answers #1. Without waiving #2 and #3, you don't seem to have followed items 3 and 4 of the "Making a proposal" section. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not edit-warring anything; I've changed it once and will not change it again either way. I am not engaging in "defiance against Wikipedia", nor in an "inappropriate action", nor have I "crossed the line", nor will I be "blocked for edit warring".
 * The page you linked says that a bot will end an RFC after 30 days. It does not provide that a user may not end one earlier.
 * Indeed, AFDs stay for 7 days normally (my emphasis). Without waiving the foregoing, it seems reasonable to extend that RFCs might stay for 30 days normally, and this might be an abnormal case.
 * I don't think any further exhortations will change my position, and I think I fully understand yours at this stage, so I don't envisage replying to any further messages on the subject. What happens to the proposal happens. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A little Latin assistance request
Salve, Ottava Rima! I noticed on your userpage that you can read Latin. Unfortunately, my A-level is (literally) half a lifetime ago, so I wonder whether you can help me with this one, in connection with something I'm writing. Hugh Price founded Jesus College, Oxford, and is said to have put up a stone inscribed with "Struxit Hugo Pricius tibi clara palatia, Iesu / Ut doctor legum pectora docta daret." ("Hugh Price built this illustrious college for you, o Jesus, so that a doctor of law might bestow a wise heart"??) And someone is said to have replied (in view of Price's age and his plans), " Nondum struxit Hugo; vix fundamenta locavit / Det Deus ut possis dicere, Struxit Hugo." ("Hugh has not built it yet; he has hardly laid the foundations. God allows you to say, Hugh built this"??) Anyway, I think you had to be there to get the full force of the joke. The text is at p.18 of this book (out of copyright). If it ends up being something worth adding, I suppose I then have to try and work out how to source a translation reliably, but one step at a time... Vale, BencherliteTalk 18:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This problem came up in at FAC with Spanish translations. Normally, you provide the source of the Latin and the original in a footnote. If the translation comes from a reliable source, you can state that in the footnote. However, I couldn't find one. So, you will be stuck with a user translation. My only thing about your translation is pectora - it could mean soul also. Soul seems more appropriate to something dedicated to Jesus. Or, you could just say "wisdom". Regardless, WP:MMM had to translate many Spanish sources. You can get a sense by looking at their FAs on what to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help; I suspected it was a bit of a long-shot as I've not found a translation anywhere. Unfortunately, both the 1899 and the 1971 histories were written by people who assumed that all their readers could understand Latin (and a spot of Greek) whereas, these days, most will have little Latin and less Greek, as it were.  Regards, BencherliteTalk 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to dot the i's and cross the t's.
You are being discussed on AN/I here. → ROUX   ₪  00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User page indexing
Please note Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I've sent you an email. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ages
Gotcha. Tony  (talk)  17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Need to calm down
Ottava, I think you need to drop the argment with rootlogy at User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Advisory_Council (deliberately not linked). You're a prolific and very good content creator, and I'd hate to see you appearing at WP:ANI or Arb. But after seeing some of your comments in various places, especially Malleus' Talk page, I think you're heading that way - unlike Mattisse, who goes over the top when she thinks she's under attack, you seem to go looking for fights. In the case of rootology, the start appears to have been your theological differences w rootology  It would be really sad if the not too clever Advisory Council idea (IMO a feeble piece of spin-doctoring) became the trigger for an ANI / ArbCom case abuot you. From what I've seen I'd be surprised if rootology initiated a referral, but I bet the some of the civility police watch Malleus' Talk page, and yours. Please don't hand them ammo for free. --Philcha (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would welcome him taking it to ANI or ArbCom. He should have been banned for the nasty comments he made on my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL
Do you really think I would be blocked for giving a civility warning? Any admin who did that block would not be an admin for long. Chillum 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Chillum, you won't be an admin for long if you keep it up. Your "civility warning" violates the statement in CIVIL that says inappropriate warnings are incivil. You already demonstrated your inability to understand quite a few policies. You just added another to your list. Your abusive treatment to others has already crossed the line of what could be considered civil weeks ago. Do you even have one supporter left in these discussions? All someone has to do is go and click an RfC/U and you will be toast. Seriously, your political position is on such thin ice that everyone probably wonders why you aren't scrambling for the shore. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have the knack for judging what is a blockable offense and what is not. I have not been acting abusively, if you think I have then please gather evidence and subject it to further scrutiny. Scrutiny of my actions has always turned out very well for me. There is nothing political about expecting a minimal level of mutual respect, or in enforcing the policies the community has created. If a person is rude to another Wikipedian then a civility warning is very appropriate. I suggest that you will not find any admin that is willing to act on your interpretation of events, and that if you did this admin will find their judgment called into question by the community.

Once again, I am always open to scrutiny of my actions. Please by all means seek any and all attention you think anything I may have done might deserve. As far as I know, no admin has ever had their bit removed for asking another user to be civil. Chillum 23:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about bit removal? You have contributed nothing to this project, and your understanding of policies is utterly ridiculous. A ban would be the minimum of what you deserve, and Wikipedia doesn't have the authority to give you the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ottava. If you continue on your present track you will not be an administrator for very much longer. I'd suggest that you reflect on that before you say anything else. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I am open to scrutiny of my actions. Chillum 00:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a long chain of civility requests going back goodness knows where. Would it be too much to ask everyone to take a chill pill? ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) ''No pun intended to Chillum, of course. :-)''


 * Probably. :-) I've always found Chillum's pseudonym to be bizarre, given that he's got to be at least a sergeant in the civility police. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We've asked Chillum to take a "chill pill" since day one and yet he doesn't seem to listen to anything else but the voices in his head that tell him solely to do the wrong thing. But yes, when Chillum made it certain that he couldn't understand that proposals to make a new policy are "RfCs" (even though it is rather blatantly stated on the proposing policy page), I knew that he couldn't be trusted to bother ready Wikipedia policies yet alone know how to enforce them. I doubt he even reads anything that is said here. I honestly wouldn't be surprised that if he just allows some bot to generically respond for him. It would make sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that Chillum's repeated "I am open to scrutiny of my actions" does somewhat remind me of the Turing test. I say he's a machine, not a human. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am a machine. But a machine with feelings. Chillum 01:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate isn't a good feeling to be your only one. Perhaps you should expand your emotional capacity to have other things, such as charity, warmth, tenderness, compassion, love, friendship, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hate? No, I am not programmed to hate. Chillum 02:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say you've mistaken me for someone who gives a shit. Why can't you get the hang of proper indenting anyway? Are there no software updates available yet? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dudes, maybe all three of you could chill? (A dude can hope, right? ;-)). Stay professional. At all times: If what you say is not part of a consensus negotiation to improve the encyclopedia, think twice before saying it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Keats
You rock. Email me if a dustup kicks up over those damned popular references; I don't log in much these days. Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And again. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for standing up for me
OR, I was impressed and touched that you would do that for me. You were very effective and I hope you stay on my side. I wish I knew how to tiptoe around words and make strong statements without getting bopped, as you are able to do. You do it by being clear headed and speaking the truth. (For me, the truth gets muddled when I am in a sudden dust up.) Also, feel free to give me advice any time you think I need it. I welcome it. Respectfully, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have (to my knowledge) never agreed on anything content wise. However, I don't like when people refuse to play fair, taunt, bait, and use their authority to try and cause others harm. The ArbCom decision was to state that people should focus on content. Instead, the events showed a complete unwillingness to listen to a concern and instead devolved into attacks. I am of the belief that if you allow one instance of a problematic behavior then you are slowly allowing other instances to appear. You have contributed a lot here, and you have done a lot of good. So, people targeting an individual like you with such behavior is destructive as a whole and makes a statement saying that everyone is up to being disrespected. I know Malleus feels the same way as I do, and so do many others. Just try to stick it through when people act in that manner, and, if you need to, work on some content so you can prove that you are here to improve the encyclopedia and they aren't. Many of the people causing problems barely work on anything. That is your strongest defense and only verifies that you should be protected. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bastille Day
I'm trying to hurry and prepare some Bastille Day updates, so I promoted Letters on a Regicide Peace to queue 2; in the process I tweaked the hook a bit, replacing "while" with "when"&mdash;sounded cleaner to me, but I'm not sure if it made a change in meaning, so please check if you have a moment. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the type of sentence, while and when are equally interchangable, since it is a co-occurrence. It could probably be tweaked again to be more specific to the French Revolution (as many people might not know that it occurred during that time). Perhaps it should alter "France when France" to "Directory of revolutionary France when the French" or something similar. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Just wanted to check since "when" could also imply a bit of ordering (I find 'when' often means 'right after'). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text and lawsuits
Thanks for the heads-up. Hope my edit helped. I fully understand wanting to avoid fights. Dunno if it matters, but they haven't a prayer of enforcing their copyright claims in the U.S. Eubulides (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Source for your statements on JC's talk page
"KC, your removal of comments from your talk page, your inappropriate posting of smears, your constant assuming of bad faith and attacking Julian in multiple forums only verifies that you are not here for an honest discussion. You are walking on very thin ice right now and you wont stop. Stop your insults. Stop your attacks. Stop spreading rumors and innuendos. Stop attacking the very foundation of Wikipedia and Consensus. Stop treating people like crap."

These are very strong statements you've made. Presumably you have diffs? Otherwise it is a long unsubstantiated personal attack. If KC is on "thin ice" as you claim, I hope you have the evidence to prove it. Auntie E (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The diffs are obvious. You can check her talk page for the diffs where she removed statements. You can check the BN for her reverting other people. You can check the BN for where she posted an email smear that violates both CIVIL, NPA, AGF, and other policies. She is very close to being blocked by multiple people for doing many similar things over the past month. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'd like some diffs on that too. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, these are really obvious but since people don't really seem to want to look (but just jump in blindly): This is the original violation of NPA, CIVIL, and the rest. You do not produce rumors and innuendos during an open RfB of such unfounded attacks. Such statements would not be acceptable in any form on Wikipedia and were completely inappropriate. She removes Jenna's pointing out that her attacking Julian was hypocritical. She does the same there. She also edit wars on the BN here and here. This is not the limit to the problematic actions, but the obvious ones that people should have seen before even bothering to comment. And SB Johnny, I have already provided you with this information at IRC. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, she has every right to remove comments she deems unhelpful from her page, especially comments like yours which were hyperbolic beyond belief. Telling her she's "destroying herself" and "spiraling downwards" are absolutely out of line, and erasing those comments like those doesn't mean one doesn't desire honest conversation. IMHO It's a matter of debate whether she should have mentioned the e-mail instead of just "trusting the bureaucrats" and forwarding the e-mail without comment (NOT JC who also asked for it), but you just call it an attack where she might just have had valid concerns. And btw, you are responsible for sourcing your accusations. It's lazy to toss off accusations and say, "Look it up." Auntie E (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of line? No, your defense of someone who put up a blatant attack upon a user of good standing that was supposedly from an email which violates WP:CIVIL is out of line. There is no debate. There is policy and you not caring about it. And sourcing accusations? Stop with the games. Your defense is inappropriate and unseemly. You can already see that multiple admin approved of what I said and supported it. You are in the minority here and you are bordering violating what can be considered civil conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Blatant attack? I don't think so. What policy are you talking about? Games? I asked an honest question and you show absolutely no AGF. Don't forget about that policy. Unjust accusations of violating WP:CIVIL are also against policy. I'll leave you before you accuse again. Good day. Auntie E (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but her comments at WP:BN were clearly inappropriate and your statements to the contrary are nothing more than trolling. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bling-bling
Hi, Ottava, you are said to have many FAs and GAs, but why I can not find the bling list on your user page? I'm interested in "reading (not contributing) English literature-related articles in good quality, so please brag your shinny blings to people like me? ;-) --Caspian blue 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't show off and I don't believe in having such things on user pages or the rest. My user space is devoted to priorities and what matters most. Such things as my FAs (like Samuel Johnson) are never truly complete. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. but have you ever thought that the showing-off could be a good guidance or model to other editors who want to get their articles up to FA/GA since your contribution history could be longer than any other editors? After all, we are here to build up contents, some navigation could be a good incentive for people like me. Besides, if people get interested in you, your articles (technically we do not own articles ourselves though) marks could mitigate some images that some people have in their mind. I'm just suggesting you an option.--Caspian blue 00:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am simply here to finish working on my original projected list and then I am gone. Nothing more or less. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your IRC comments to me...
...were totally off base. Enough so to more or less piss me off. I'm not in you cabal, or anyone else's cabal. 'Nuff said. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 00:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, yours were off base as were your actions. You didn't bother to do your research. You didn't bother to look. You opposed an RfB because of an individual who posted rumors and innuendos which violate our Civility policy made you completely lose your ability to see right from wrong. You have become JW Schmidt. How long will it be before you realize that the new Moulton is going to drag you down? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Days with the Lyric Poets
Images are half-toned, but seem very amenable to editing to remove same. Don't know if we'll get all of them through FP - I suspect Longfellow would go through fairly easily, Keats' more symbolic images have more trouble, and Burns be somewhere in the middle. - Shoemaker´s Holiday

Regarding FPC and NPOV
Hi,

You said that you "find it strange that the only images you consider to have EV happen to be those that show Europeans in an abusive and aggressive manner. You do realize that such treatment represents only the minority of the time, and that such an emphasis as you suggest goes against NPOV, right?". I've never said that EV was limited to this kind of pictures. I simply provided links to theses pictures and commented on them because it is relevant to the current nomination, since Durova said in the description of the image (and did it again in her answer to my vote), that Jamaica saw extensive slave use circa 1800. I've been around FPC for many years (although often on and off) and you can check out by yourself that I've never declared that EV is limited to Europeans abuse.

Regarding NPOV accusation, I suggest you slow down a bit on the name-calling. It is both irrelevant in FPC (since we're only judging quality of pictures, not the ideology they may represent), and wrong on a personal level since you're basing this on a single comment misinterpreted comment (and it so happens that I'm a white European, so i would be hard-pressed to launch a smear campaign against white Europeans). Ksempac (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing your reaction makes me confident that there is, indeed, a problem. I never claimed that you were violating NPOV. However, you assumed I did. A guilty conscience is easily revealed. And your rationalization that you can't possibly be biased against a group because you are a group is easily dismissed by the commotion notion of "self hating" and that it is quite a visible mentality within the world of such things. I thank you for verifying that your original post had any possibility of being problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit I reacted strongly, because as I told you NPOV is almost a non-issue in FPC, so i was really surprised that suddenly someone i never saw before on FPC decided to brought this out. But it seems to be pointless to discuss with you, since you prefer to focus on what you imagine (my conscience is clear, thank you for caring) instead of facts (for example : my contributions to FPC which would show you my views on what EV is). So let's agree to disagree, because this discussion will clearly leads us nowhere. Ksempac (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a simple fact that your statement at FPC lacked all merit and it was pointed out that if anyone was foolish to follow with your statement that we would be violating an important policy. Now, you are just digging yourself in deeper. You can disagree all you want, but it is obvious that your judgment is flawed because of your unwillingness to acknowledge that your claims in there are destructive. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :)  iMatthew  talk   at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXV
Delivered by JCbot (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Lucy II
FAC nomed, again. May god have mercy on our souls. Please be civil this time, and you wont hear from me again, hopefully. Ceoil (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wakka wakka wakka. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't, per WP:Wakka wakka wakka. Verboten. Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. You should write an essay and turn that link blue. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally my talent for bullshit has an audience! The ADF will be tricky, but I think I can do it. Since viewing your page is like drinking poison, and you are a tool, please forget the below. Ceoil (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, since you are all about work and willing to do a lot for work - I have a few pages that I am working on for various paintings. One of them is one of my favorites and one of the best portraits I have ever seen. I will require you to work on it sometime coming up after August. I wont reveal details, as it is one of the few major portraits that is currently redlinked on Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

relevant to the process?
This is 100% on topic and deals with the point. Your reversion goes against the talk page guidelines and is vandalism. Don't you dare vandalise in such a manner ever again, especially when you are bickering with someone while making it clear that you don't understand WP:V and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still stand my that edit based on this, 2nd bullet, and this, 3rd bullet, but I will give you a chance to tell me how your comment-- which was interesting-- could possibly be relevant to the process to improve the article. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 19:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But this article is not and never will be a Wikipedia article on the intellectual debating internal consistency and divine inspiredness of the Bible... and if it this article ever did or does include that topic, it won't include the topic in the opening sentance... and even if did somehow include it in the opening sentence, that section of the dicussion page was about some other means improving the article and so your comment could not have helped improve that article in any way shape or form.
 * I am sure you saw that the "basic rule" has some 16 sample exceptions, the 3rd of which is deleting material not relevant to improving the article. Not only was your comment not about improving the The Age of Reason article, it was not even about the topic itself, The Age of Reason. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 05:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have posted our disagreement at here at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, per HelloAnnyong, (and reqested it be delisted at Third opinion per the Wikiquette alerts policy.) User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude

3O
Hi. Just so you know, the 3O page isn't a place to have a full discussion. The listings there are meant to be anonymous and neutral. Your complaints should be posted on the page in question - in this case, Carlaude's talk page. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a complaint. It is a statement that protocol was breached and therefore it was invalid. Please pay attention before responding. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II/archive1
Hi, could you check to make sure your concerns have been resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As my opinion is stated as neutral, that should suggest that they are resolved. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Job
I have to admit that would never have occurred to me regarding you, and I salute you for your holding to principle. Having said that, I can see how it might be true that you might at times see obvious mistakes in articles which you perceive you might have a conflict regarding editing. If that ever arises, by all means let me know, particularly if you have sourcing which substantiates your claims, and if they make sense to me (as I assume a lot of them will) I will do what I can to address the situation. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sent you an email. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gnome
Good boy! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. Well, after trying so hard with gnome work that wouldn't get me yelled at, after a year and some I finally did something right. Apparently, I wasn't a broken clock but a broken calender (one with only one date, and now its my turn to shine!). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm so easy to please :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On the "see also" sections
I wasn't aware the MOS frowned on them. Could you please point out the page? Do you, yourself object to me doing this? It should be very useful to readers to have a link from an article about a poem to the "[year] in poetry" article about that poem, but from what I've seen in the discussions about the MOS numbers & dates policy, including the recent, huge RfC on it, was that piped links to thematic "year in" pages were generally frowned on. To put the link in the prose of an article without piping seems distracting. So I include it in "See also", which I thought was acceptable since I see these "See also" sections all over the place (and found them referred to in WP:LAYOUT -- by the way, please look at that (specific link: WP:SEEALSO). That seems to support the idea of having "See also" sections. You also write The articles themselves are unnecessary, especially with the categories that we have. Do you mean the "[year] in poetry" articles are unnecessary? Have you seen many of them? Many have information that categories can't have, and they are a work in progress. Thanks for your note. Reconsideration (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're talking about the "See also" sections in the "[year] in poetry" articles. In list articles, these seem useful to me, given the purposes of list articles. Given the nature of "year in" pages, mass additions or mass changes are to be expected and are the only way to make some changes, including additions to "See also" sections. You didn't answer my question. Reconsideration (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide an example. I'm adding a link to the corresponding year-in-poetry page to the "See also" sections of articles on poems and books of poems. It isn't some kind of stretch to see why that could be useful for a reader. I don't actually recall doing so for any GA or FA articles, but if I did, that would be perfectly acceptable, since plenty of FAs (including many recent ones) have "See also" sections. Examples: List of castles in Cheshire, List of tallest buildings in Chicago, List of tallest buildings in Tulsa, Freedom Monument, Anne of Denmark, Fauna of Scotland, Thriller (album), John Calvin, 2006 Westchester County tornado, and Talyllyn Railway. Please take a look at Benjamin Harrison. That article is about to be featured on Wikipedia's main page. The "See also" section has a link to List of American Civil War generals. If I add a link at an article about a book or poem to a list about contemporary poetry, there's a pretty strong reason for that link, at least as strong as the one on the Benjamin Harrison page.
 * The "[year] in poetry" articles and similar pages are, like all lists, partly for navigation, partly for information, partly to help serious students and people who browse to find related information, so in the right spots, links to them are very helpful. Reconsideration (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My RfA
Hello,

You recently !voted oppose on my RfA. I respect your opinion and do not wish to try and change your !vote. However, since I honestly want to improve I came here for more guidance.

I do understand what you mean by "I don't see enough experience in other processes that would meet the minimum standard for adminship". I do have some experience in just about all admin related actions (obviously to a varying degree). (My PROD work is only my most recent work, not the extent of what I've done.) Are you simply saying I don't have enough experience in, for example, page protection, or are you saying there are some areas where I lack experience entirely?

I know I don't yet have any GA/FAs so if you oppose is based primary on content contribution, I understand completely. To date, my article work has been mostly first stage "get the article up to minimum standards" type work and I only last week got involved in the GA process for the first time (as a reviewer).

Anyway, please don't view this as "badgering" as I am honestly only looking for constructive advice on how to improve.

Thank you for your time, ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All of your statements were "prod, prod, prod". Prod is very minimum at Wiki. Vandalism, sure. AfDs, sure. You could go far running on just one, but even that wouldn't be a winner. You should try and be more well rounded, show your views on copyright matters, on BLP, etc. Right now, you are equivalent to a bot, and we have plenty of admin like that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That you for the response. I agree I could definitely improve in some areas, but I'm not really all PROD. :)  Lately I've been mostly prod, but in the past I've been mostly other things.  I tend to go through phases where I concentrate on one area: my first month in was vandalism fighting, then Sarah Palin articles, then typo fixing, then writing my first 2 bots, then some more vandalism fighting, then I took a stab at writing my first article (Superstars of Dance - which isn't very good), then writing WebCiteBOT, then more typo fixing, then AfDs, then swine flu articles, and finally prod.  Mixed in there I did some de-orphaning, new page patrol, and dispute resolution through WP:3O on occasion.  I have also contributed to policy discussion and AN from time to time.  Granted, most of my edits are botish or at least gnomish.  Do you see any major areas where I am completely lacking?


 * I have recently written a few articles that I found on PROD such as Barbara McGuire, Household Hacker, John Lakian, and Legends of Mount Shasta. I would be interested in your opinion on my writing if you care to give it.


 * Anyway, thank you for the advice. I think I definitely need to work more on content creation and have recently switched away from reliance on automated tools.  Personally, I think I am still maturing as an editor and am surprised I haven't received more opposes like yours.


 * Thanks again for your time, ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked a series of questions that shall get at the bottom of your mindset to see if you are up for admining or not. By the way, I don't really see any "correct" answer for the questions nor do I expect a set of answers. Having a belief and sticking with it is important, so answer honestly and show what kinds of things would go through your head during it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I will answer them shortly. I honestly did come here for advice on my editing though, and not to try and change your opinion, so if you do have any specific advice on areas I need to improve I'd like to hear it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words about my clue level. If you have a chance to review my contributions more fully and have some constructive criticism for me, I'd love to hear. If you don't want to and/or don't have the time, I understand completely. I won't bother you any further. :) Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucy
Ottava, I have removed you from the nominators list, so obviously and blatently were you trolling the FAC page. I never took you as particularly bright, but I dont think you are so thick either as you are trying to have us believe here, and then with your aw shucks excuse.. Grow up. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, act reasonable. I took you off, not because of your contrib, but because you dont have the social skills to engage review. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, please check the FAC of The Lucy poems. Ceoil decided to play games and remove me as a co-nominator. Seeing as how I wrote most of the content, provided most of the sources, and also did much of the work getting it to GA status, I would think that it would be completely unacceptable for him to proceed as such. He also wants to give credit to Awadewit who provided almost nothing. It takes a lot to tolerate his constant abuse and incivility that he has inflicted on my talk page for the past six months, but the above is completely overstepping bounds and FAC standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Spin it as you want Rima. My first role here is as another reviewer. Although I am listed on the nomination, I haven't had a direct role in the page for many months, and the page has changed a lot from the original userspace version that I worked on.. As I mentioned on your talk, your main contrib to the FAC thus far has been to twist words and alienate reviewers, as was the case in the first review. Crying to Sandy, well thats just sad. You might try and defend yourself, your self. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never denied being a co-nom in that entry and you are misrepresenting what I even said there. My comment is very clear - I was serving as another reviewer because there were problems in that page and those problems were introduced by others, just like that last problem was introduced by another. I left the Lucy poems page because of your constant attacks and criticism about captions in images. I came back to rescue it from a failing GA nomination. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For god sake. You made the cmt when you had already ruined the first FAC, and you were trying to shift blame and distance yourself from a sorry tale. Now you are just baiting, in a repeat of the first FAC. Nobody is denying your input, but why do you act the way you do? I would have liked to have included you as nominator, but you have left me in an impossible situation; if include you, you will badger and harass any reviewer until they just...loose interest and morally appose. What is the point in that. Wiki is supposed to be a collabarative project, but you seem to miss that. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first FAC was admittedly closed prematurely. Regardless, the central concerns during it were attacks by Fowler against your writing style. It was later proven that Fowler was acting out of control and inappropriate. And I did not harass any reviewer. It was asked why it was there and I linked to where the entry came in. People who were -not- reviewing came and harassed me and expected me to answer for why -you- introduced an error. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I did not harrase any reviewers.Sockpuppet investigations/Fowler&fowler. Please. You took them to WP:SPI. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

...Don't mind me; dum de dum. Just adding liar to the reasons I dislike you. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was proven that Fowler was harassing me. The fact that you befriended him later and took his side is rather common. Now Ceoil, you better be glad that you still have a shred of my respect left. If not, you would have been blocked for your nasty comments months ago and yet you still open yourself up to such with constant personal attacks and abuse. Do knock it off as you are coming to the very end of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeesz, I though you just said you became so aggressive was cause he was defending...ME. the central concerns during it were attacks by Fowler against your writing style. Or did I just dream that. But anyway it wasn't an attack; he was willing to work with it, until you fucked it into an us vs them situation. No personal attacks here, just repeats of your shifting logic. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ceoil - he attacked -your- parts of the page. He tore apart the grammar and copyediting and said that it looked like you didn't know English. I defended you and he started harassing me multiple places, said he would tear apart any of -my- pages, and was exposed in his harassment through the Johnson early life page. Then you decided that he was the greatest person in the world. He is the guy who said that the word marriage was "antequated" and not to be used, which is such an absurd and ridiculous statement that it is hard to even talk about it. The fact that you so support of him is utterly frightening. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a mud sticks tactic, eh? We saw this before; in SJ, and it's prolonged FAC, where you needed multiple CE's to carry you accross. And you are now saying that the multiple ces be myself, Liz, Modernist, and the many many others, are not enough to turn your half understood ramblings into coheriant prose. Most of what you wrote was babble and pseud. It took 8 months to repair the article, and now you want to talk to me about ce. A man who is unable to 2'd guess an all caps in a direct quote of a verse, but would prefer to be aggresive to FAC reviewers. That imdicates you are not serious, but more interested in points. Give me a break. Ceoil (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bull crap. Everyone knows that there was one reason why Johnson took so long, and it had nothing to do with the language or grammar. No one "carried it across" but me. I wrote about 80k worth of text because one individual decided to abuse their power in a corrupt manner and no one had the nerve to call them out on it and give them the proper block for disrupting the whole process. The reason why there were so many supports was because so many people did not stand that individual's action. And most of what I wrote was babble? Yet it is still there. Most of the problems come from your inability to reference things properly, your constant adding in of mispellings and half clauses, and trusting people who claim to know how to copyedit and who show a strong misunderstanding of the rules of grammar. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Ceoil, I merely linked. Aggressive? No. People attacked me, when all I did was merely point out your mistake and then asked me to explain why you randomly add nonsense into the page. Wonderful stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And lets be honest here - you deserve -no- credit for The Lucy poems. You have contributed almost nothing but errors and problems. Do you know how many botched references I had to clean up today because of things you introduced? And I had to drag the page through GA kicking and screaming, fixing many of the errors you, Awadewit, and others introduced into the page. Yes, I talked to people today and they suggested that I should remove you and the rest as nominators for the page as I was the only one who actually bothered to put any real effort into the page, I did the referencing, I made sure it was verifiable, I corrected all the mistakes you and others kept putting in, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A the old Rima tactic of "I have had hundreds of emails today which confirm my position". How boring and limited your defenses are; I was wondering when you would pull out that bag of shabby cats. Through GA kicking and screaming; har, Liz pushed that, and I like to see diffs for either Kicking or screaming. "People attacked me"....That's your whole problem; your ego is so fragile, and built on such hot air, and because you know in your heart its bullshit. Any threat and you lash out like a small spoiled child - I will take you to AN/I. Um, did I not warn you at the start of the Lucy nom not to attack reviewers; to be cool? And what did you do? I stand 100% behind the decision to take you off the nom list, you are like great weight to the page, dragging it down. Ceoil (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Liz pushed it through? Where did you make that one up? Did you even bother to read the GA review? Count how many times my name appears, then count the times I talked to Ricardiana directly, and how many times I had to fix what the others did in their "corrections" because they caused an error of whatever sort. Ceoil, if you aren't going to bother to respond according to reality, I really don't know what to tell you. I didn't attack any reviewers. They attacked me. They attempted to disrupt the page. And you can remove my name, but you deserve -no- credit nor does anyone else on that list. So really, that is just more evidence how wrong you have really become. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * O for fuck sake. They reviewed, you attacked and made personal. When they responded you gave variously SPI, AN/I and the tempation of spending a week or two with you arguiung in a web of wikilayring, semantic, specious bullshit. Ug. The irony here is that if you believe the page is so damaged and botched, why on earth do you want your name attached, considering you won't lift a finger to correct a simple CAPS error. There is no logic to what you are offering, and you are entrenching yourself deeper and deep in a web of mistruth and mire, and general horribleness. As is your habit. Well, have fun with that. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Is that the story you are going to stick with? Lets see: From this, it is clear that it was asked -why- nonsense was there. I linked to the person who put it there. Then, the snide response was "Simply linking to the edit that created them doesn't answer the question. Why are they there?". Yes, because -I- would know why -you- did something that doesn't make sense. I responded with "Ask the individual who added them.". The only person who can answer why is -you-. Everyone with any kind of sense knows that. The response was "It is your job to respond to questions". Yeah, my job to answer for why you screw up. Yeah, that isn't an attack all right. The nonsense from Brian continued. Way to go, not only did you make a mistake, you defended the guy acting rude because of your mistake. You have a serious problem Ceoil. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try; I dont suppose in the same corner I could have done better however it pains me to say this; Ottava: FAIL. At the dregs of this argument you are as totally unconvincing as when it began. I notice you have only a few frail fall back positions, sorry for being cruel, but they are all tired now and I'm sick of them and you. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, if you are sick of me, then leave my talk page alone. You have burned through the last of my respect and patience. You have been quite incivil, and if you keep it up then I wont stand in anyone's way like I have many, many times before. Good bye, Ceoil. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pope
Have emailed you a transcript of the poem :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends, is it debauched, sick and factual? Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See this, from the treasure trove. Of course I'll help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the final para of the article now, see what you think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still seems a little funny to have an opening of something at the conclusion of something. Instead, try something along the line (and stay true to sources, of course, so the wording will have to change) - "Of the parodies, Alexander Pope's poem, The Discovery, summarizes the harsh views held against her: (then poem)" You want something that really wraps up and pulls together the whole page. Pope can do that. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please bring problems up with me
I was perusing 's talk page and I saw this comment to : "Shall I start with Awadewit, where I have sent you lists of multiple MoS violations within references, images, and other things that were obvious from just clicking on the page?" - If you have problems with articles I have worked on, please bring them up on my talk page, on the article talk page, or fix them yourself. Thank you for your consideration. Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

List
By all means, post the list of editors/articles on my talk page. I would advise you to make sure that the editors named would not be offended by it. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Make sure? Seeing as how Awadewit reacted when it was pointed out that she was one of my people to receive weak reviews that care more about shoving her articles through than actual MoS or writing habits, then it is only certain that other people would react the same way. The only reason Theleftorium didn't go crazy is because of the overwhelming support of my complaint that his use of original research in an FA was problematic to Wikipedia as a whole. You can see from the FAC of that page that the comments were empty. Even your review lacked any in-depth analysis that overlooked the very blatant original research in the middle of that page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Feel free to email me, and I'll think of what to do then. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I welcome your criticism of my reviews. I don't pretend to catch or even look for everything; as you know, it takes a long time to do a "full FAC review". Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)See above - I reacted in a calm manner (which anyone can see btw), asking you to bring up the problems on my talk page, on the article talk page, or fix them yourself. If you cared about these issues as much as you claim, you would point out the problems in the article or fix them yourself instead of creating this drama. Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can calmly threaten. Tone does not mean intent, nor does it provide ramifications. Your behavior in response to my opposes on your pages over legitimate concerns has resulted in all sorts of wonderful things up to and including you starting a ban campaign against me. You couldn't even handle having an image formatted on the right. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava, by implication you sought to shame a wide number of editors in the list you said you sent to Dabomb. Dabomb has given you licence to publish, I urge you to do so the other 9 can defend their names. Obviously you are well respected and 100s of people mail you each day; a lot is riding on this. Publish the names you claim are a disgrace to FAC. Ceoil (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If nobody objects, I myself will post the list if is sent by email. This is a wiki, and we should strive to keep communication open. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That statement undermines any ability to trust you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do not want the email to be posted, I will respect that request, as I believe some policy says that emails cannot be posted without the sender's consent (note that "If nobody objects"). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sent. I left some of the names out, but you should be able to figure out who some of the others I mentioned are. I have more that I can send you if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If people are shamed by the fact that they get crappy reviews, then good. Maybe they will start demanding people taking a serious look at their pages instead of passing through things like blatant policy violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its more about balls than shame Ottava. You will snip, but you wont / can't / shant.... whatever / say who you are sniping at. Dabomb, you seem like a good guy, and sincearly, I'd like to know. You are throwing daggers at shadow faces, and by implication hitting me, Awad, Sandy, and whowever else bothered to read your pages. Some integrity please. Ceoil (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's start over
It seems that wherever I go, I seem to start a firestorm, so let's start over. Ottava, I understand that you do not want to openly list names of people / articles that have issues because of the backlash. I, however, am still curious about which articles have issues (the editors' names aren't important). I respectfully ask that you post/email a list of these articles that have problems. If you do not want me to post that list on-wiki, then so be it. If other editors request me to send them the list, I will ask you first. I know that claims of articles having significant issues are serious, and that editors, being humans, may not respond well to these claims, and some of their displeasure may bounce back at you. Let it be known that I will take responsibility for any complaints about you regarding this issue. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have sent you a list of names. Here is an example: this was passed with two support. The two support say wonderful and fun to read. In the second to last paragraph of "Reception", we have two quotes from Groucho with one ambiguous, and they both seem out of place. This is also in a -reception- section, and seems to have very little on topic information, and what information that is there is either too playful to be helpful, or isn't from an objective source. Then you have problems like "BBC Radio adaptation" having three sentences in the second paragraph completely uncited. The reference list is not alphabetized. Other problems, such as a line in "Early development" having a footnote that relies on the dictionary to explain what words mean, which cries out original research. Did anyone notice that the first reference in "BBC Radio adaptation" was to a youtube video? The video lacks most of the information, states that the actors were playing the previous -people-, not the previous characters. It also lacks any information on it being "updated" in any way. There are more problems, but this is just an example. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not pass articles with two supports, FYI. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy is correct: Supports from Karanacs, Awadewit, and Morenoodles. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I see Morenoodle's now. However, you honestly consider Karanacs's statement a true support? I already put up many things that were obvious from just skimming. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, we've never had any negative interaction, so how come you've never come to me with your concerns or posted them at the article's talk page? I'll work on addressing them soon, but feel free to take it to FAR if you want. Matthewedwards : Chat  23:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My concerns are with the reviewers who wont do their job. Many of this mistakes are just mistakes, but they should be pointed out. I use to do such stuff, but no one ever bothered to defend me so I left FAC quite a while ago. Obviously, my emails to Sandy fell on deaf ears, and the reaction by those like Moni show more of a desire to further a "we are friends so we don't care" kind of mentality than an actual review process. I only mention it now because Sandy made it certain that the reason why I failed to get any real reviews over a month for my FAC was because I wasn't friends with enough people. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Received email and responded (multiple responses, in fact). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It will take me a while to respond - google mail doesn't feel like opening. I don't understand why networks refuse to rely on something trustworthy like outlook. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - just got it to work. We can look at examples on Wiki if you want. We can add these concerns to the list also. So, there will be one video game article, one radio show article, and two road articles we can analyze. I have other examples from other fields too. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the issues raised at Dave's RfA, although I did not participate in the discussion. What "other fields" are you referring to? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any, I just don't want to seem like I am picking on one content area. After the reception I've received over the past six months and especially Sandy's greater and greater unwillingness to protect me from some of the inappropriate criticism I've received from people who can't take honesty and the pointing out of major problems, I backed away from FAC. The last one I really bothered to take a stand in, I was left out in the cold. That was a runic page, and it took a lot to try and get the guy to budge even an inch. I even provided a whole journal devoted to the subject matter written in English, and he still refused to bother looking up more information. As such, I just put many of the pages in my favorite list and wait until the people go up for RfA where I can use the policy violations as proof that they don't deserve adminship or get enough support to put them up for FAR without a backlash. FAR is a very dangerous thing and very risky. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is foolish on my part, but obviously something I think should be stated. It takes courage to speak up in the face of opposition. It is cowardly to mutter unfounded innuendo to promise full disclosure in secret to an individual who has no ability or jurisdiction to address what legitimate problems there are. You are meeting stiff and justified opposition here in light of previous correspondence on Wikipedia that has been handled in secret (SlimVirgin--Durova). This list of yours sent to Dabomb is stupid, pointless, and a waste of your time, Dabomb's, and everyone else who has been sucked in to yet another of your attention-seeking schemes. Your campaign against Awadewit that you refuse to explain or back up with evidence where she and anyone else can read it may actually hurt her. Your careless words have an impact, and you either do not realize it or worse, simply do not care. You twist Awadewit's words (no reasonable person who is fluent in English can muster a threat from her statements here, yet you accuse her of threatening) and allude to private correspondence with SandyGeorgia that does not exist. You manipulate Dabomb into being a part of your ill-considered scheme by insisting you deserve to be trusted all while accusing loudly with no evidence, veritably proving that you should not be. You have been invited, encouraged, and urged to make these claims public in the interest of community improvement and basic human decency so that the editors you claim are violating policy in their articles passed at FAC have an opportunity to respond to them and FAC regulars can make necessary improvements where they need to be made to the system as a whole. Now, stand up and speak your opinions with evidence, or be branded a troll and flair out of FAC and Wikipedia like a dying firecracker. Your support is waning. Only you silence yourself. I will withhold response to your inevitable reply that my interpretation is flawed and I am making these things up. I will happily engage in any genuine attempt to address areas of improvement at FAC at the FAC talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what a wonderful campaign I've set up, including going as far as... to be upset that I was removed from a nomination of a page that I did most of the work on while Awadewit is added to the nomination which she did very little or added errors that were later corrected as part of various reviews. But Moni, I really don't care what you have to say. You already proven that you are all bluster and that you refuse to even bother to read what is stated in public. With your attitude, it makes me wonder how the word "improve" could ever be used in relation to your activities. You can take your taunting elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I no longer wish to take part in the discussion here, and will return to the pursuit of improving articles. I encourage Ottava to continue to post criticisms of articles, and forget the personal issues. I cannot post the emails he sent me due to Wikipedia policy, and will not forward / reveal the content of the emails as per his request, but I hope that he realizes that to make claims without publicly posting evidence will prove more damning than stating the problems in the open. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be damned by the few that I've already stated about publicly then be damned by the others also. Sorry, but there is only so much drama nonsense that one can deal with, and people like to cause problems on anything. It is easier to just vent in private than to bother in public. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But you've already vented in public. You can't un-say the things you've said about various people here. I've sat and watched you impugn almost every editor I know in the last 24 hours. I've worked with many of the editors you've insulted and they are all here volunteering their time to make this the best place they can. The only thing you've accomplished here is to alienate the people you work with and show that there is no bite behind your bark. Your credibility is less than nothing at this point. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I only stated in public what people already know about my opinions. And Laser brain, you stated yourself that the original research was quite obvious in the FAR. The thing is, you say that I lack credibility. Sure, I lack credibility with the FAC crowd that lets things slip. That is why I left FAC and I have to resort to RfA in order to get things fixed. That is the sad truth. Sandy is unwilling to fix it. You, Moni, and the rest, are unwilling to take the effort to do thorough reviews of sources and stop focusing on the decoration and instead get at the real articles. If you were willing, you wouldn't be spending your time attacking me or saying I lack credibility. There are many pages like that Lord of the Rings page that give FA a bad name, and Wikipedia a bad name. I know for damn sure that Raul wouldn't tolerate it at all as he put together all of this to make sure that we had only the best promoted. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you this: Do you think the effort you've put into reviewing Donnchadh so far is sustainable by you or anyone else, given the number of volunteers we have? I don't think you're being realistic in expecting that depth of review for any FAC. If you reviewed every article like that, you'd get one done a month, unless you are unemployed and lack any responsibilities. All of us do the best we can with our time and resources. If I could work at Wikipedia as a full-time job, I'd do it, and every article would get looked over with a microscope. As it stands, I do what I have time for. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am one reviewer. That review I am doing for that page is a -true- review. That would be the whole thing reviewed. Each person can do aspects of that. However, everyone seems to focus only on the window dressing. As I stated before - it doesn't matter how good the outside of the house seems when the interior is rotted. Our priorities should be policies first, guidelines second, opinions last. Instead of focusing on the use of "this" in my article, did you bother to see if it was neutral? The GA reviewer went after its neutrality in the very beginning. I fixed it, but other people may still consider it non-neutral. That wasn't mentioned by -anyone-. What about verification? Did you bother to see if all of the references were inline? Did you question when a reference seemed old? Or why I prioritized certain scholars? Did anyone? How about the generalized structure of the piece? Is it even organized correctly? Did anyone bother to check? That is my page. However, most of the other pages need these same considerations and need to be stated as following them. A brief glimpse at the references at that FAR would have tipped someone off that a book from the 1950s was being used in a video game article. What about possible plagiarism? Does no one even bother with that one? I've gotten into fights with people who are my -friends- over it. Look at ed 17. He didn't cite something properly. Yeah, this stuff is extremely important. I work my ass off to make sure that I use high quality references, that the content matches the references, that they are worked on neutrally, and that they are tertiary. I expect people to actually check and make sure. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People review what they review. In my experience, almost no one has time to provide a comprehensive review. There are people that look at images, sources, prose, and so on. I suppose you view prose issues as trivial, especially when they are subjective, but that's what I personally tend to look at. 1a by its nature is subjective. Prose can be correct but crappy. However, I have commented many times to people that their article lacked flow or structure, or that the sources were bad, or that it was a hagiography. You don't even need to look back 30 days through my contributions to see examples of all of those. If I make a mistake, I admit it, as I did with that video game article. If I thought your article had structure or POV issues, I would have said so. That doesn't mean I didn't consider it. But you're content to attack the quality of the review just the same. No one measures up to your standards, not even you. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I always gave comprehensive reviews and no one ever bothered to defend me or stick up for me during them when the nominators started attacking me because they felt that they wouldn't have to put up with an analysis of factual inaccuracies, bad sources, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure many editors would gladly defend your contributions. However, it's impossible to separate your contributions from your behavior, the defense of which is impossible. I don't think you understand this point. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * History says the contrary. You can blame me all you want, but I've been viciously attacked in putting up supports and offering some suggestions without passing -any- judgments. It doesn't take a genius to see that I have a history of being unfairly targeted, especially with many recent desysoppings of those who pulled a lot of those early stunts. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVI
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 15:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

DYK nomination of A Vision of the Last Judgment
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

WBFAN
In spite of my IRL workload and issues, I'm taking time here to discuss the nom concerns at The Lucy Poems. I am not willing to get involved in scraps at FAC that are an artefact of WP:WBFAN-- that is not my job. I'm having a hard time keeping up with this scrap, as it is occurring across numerous pages now. However, I have observed that: 1) the three nominators listed are worthy; 2) Ceoil indicated somewhere a good faith reason for removing you, based on your own commentary; and 3) from my involvement at Samuel Johnson, you do have a tendency towards combativeness on FACs.  We should keep the best interest of the article in mind.  I will be happy to add you myself at WP:WBFAN should the article be promoted, but I do not want to get involved in scraps over nominators.  Nowhere have I taken "sides" in this issue:  it's just not my issue.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look at the actual quality of the edits by those individuals. Yes, I made only -100- edits. However, that included the bulk of the prose, and mass fixes while most of the others made very tiny edits almost one at a time. If you look at the GA and match up the times, you will see where I had to fix changes made by others in their "copyediting". I can respect what Malleus did at the Johnson article. I find it extremely hard to accept the fluff and what mostly set the page back heavily as anything worth while. Even during the "fixes" Ceoil did for the recent nom, he was still introducing more errors. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me.
I only used The Register initally because it was the first one I picked that actually mentioned it as involving Wikimedia Commons. This incident has gotten alot of coverage. And Wikinews is not Wikipedia either. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Your statement that 99% of the sources on that list were unreliable is a bit flawed. The "summary of top stories", 15 stories, some more in-depth than others, are all from reliable sources or otherwise notable groups (including the Wikimedia Foundation, Open Rights Group, Creative Commons). ViperSnake151   Talk  23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is not specifically a biography of the person. WP:ONEEVENT justifies only the creation of an article on the person and not the person itself. In addition, the page is not a fork of any other existing page at all. I am also working on balancing the viewpoints and putting in WMF response and that too. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So I guess the BBC is unreliable now? ViperSnake151   Talk  00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your claims
I kinda dispute your policy claims. Could you please provide specific quotes on the policy you are trying to cite? ViperSnake151  Talk  02:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Points
Yes, you can save anything (not already submitted) for the next round if you want.  iMatthew  talk   at 01:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It never really went "in effect." It was just a "if we don't know it passed, we can't force you to add it to your submission pages" things. So if you have content not added to it yet, you may add it to your submission page whenever you'd like.  iMatthew  talk   at 01:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Faxai (2007)
I have to say I'm surprised to see your support for this article after all your diatribe about checking research and sources. It's almost as if you were casting about accusations and hot air purely for the sport of it. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have checked the sources. Was there anything in particular that you found out of line? Your statements as to notability are completely inappropriate and off-topic. This has been dealt with before and there has been consensus to keep these articles. FAC is not about notability. I would have expected you to know that before making such snide and inappropriate remarks on a talk page if you were a true believer in FAC and the FAC process. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about notability. I'm talking about the fact that all primary sources are used, which is against policy, neverminding the FAC criteria. My "snide" remarks are a result of the enormous stink you whip up about quality of sources at other pages, but then ignore at your leisure. -- Andy Walsh   (talk)  21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My "stink" was about using the sources properly. It had nothing to do about the quality of the sources. It had everything to do about summarizing what is said in the sources, not relying on original research, and not plagiarizing. It also had a lot to do about having people actually read the sources. Yes, I checked the sources and they seemed to be fine. I had a few comments about fixing some things to the sources also. You obviously missed my point then and now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain I see the point of this discussion Andy, as Ottava has made his position clear. You may not agree with, I may not agree with it, but it's a perfectly credible position nevertheless. The distinction between "primary" and "secondary" sources seems like a bit of a movable feast anyway, just look at any biblical or religious subject, where the Bible will be quoted ad nauseum. Is the Bible really a secondary source? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember who stated it, but someone said that none of the storm articles have primary sources simply because storms lack the ability to write. I thought it was clever and if someone finds out I said it, please point it out. I would love to claim it as my own. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In a recent article I wrote I quoted the "primary source" extensively, as it is in fact the only source. How could you write any literary article without using the work itself as a source? The issue isn't one of primary, secondary, tertiary sources, it's one of using appropriate sources appropriately. The good medieval hisory articles are exemplary in that respect, I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB
I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.)  Thank you for taking the time to ask me some questions, and reconsidering your oppose as a result. I enjoyed answering the questions and thank you for your kind words about my clue level.  If you ever see any problems with my behavior, please do bring them to my attention as I am very receptive to, and indeed appreciative of, criticism.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVII
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.