User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 2

Portmanteau
Hi there, I saw you've been changing a lot of instances of the word "portmanteau", claiming they are improper uses of the term. I'm not sure why, though, these are improper uses, since a definition of portmanteau is "a new word formed by joining two others and combining their meanings". Could you perhaps enlighten me? -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  02:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC) On User talk:BlastOButter42, Ottava Rima said: Portmanteau is a term used to describe the playful use of Carroll's words, in which they took two words, blended them together, then make it impossible to see where one word meets another, so they are no longer proper blends (you can't recognize another word inside, see the use of slithy, which is s(lithy) lithe and sli(thy) slimy). However, people, out of zeal, see all words as portmanteau. Blends are any word that are combined together but not in their original form. Compounds are two words combined together with most of their original form. Amalgamation of acronyms is where you merge acronyms. For the word to be proper Carrollinian, it would have to have major criss crossing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talk • contribs) 02:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, carry on then. -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the description given at portmanteau and many of the words at do not follow the rule you suggest.  I have reverted your edit on Delmarva Peninsula, unless you can provide better evidence that "Delmarva" is not a portmanteau word.  Pilch62 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The OED recognises both senses of portmanteau, so there is no reason to change every "portmanteau" into "blend". Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See longer comments on this subject at Talk:Portmanteau. Your campaign against "portmanteau" is not supported by reliable sources, I'm afraid. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page you wrote:
 * Please look up blend before you try to correct it. Portmanteau words are specific instances of such things, and have special rules about them. It would be very hard to accidentally create one, and they involve syllabillic sounding. You are confusing compounds, blends, and the rest as portmanteau, which is inaccurate. The reason why I stated that the page was "wrong" was from the fact that portmanteau bags were kept separate, since they are one and the same. That is how analogies work. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only repeat that this distinction isn't borne out by the sources. Check the Punch quotation from 1896: it's the first known use of the word "brunch" and it's described as a "portmanteau word". Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If...
If there isn't a Wikipedia barnstar for getting rid of that awful word, well, there damn well should be. :)

Thanks for the work. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back portmanteau changes
There's obviously resistance to this change, and you haven't made a good case for why the OED isn't a reliable source for current usage of the word. I'd ask that you refrain from changing any more instances of this word until such point as there's consensus that you're in the right. For now, I'm going to revert these if I see them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise. The OED is a perfectly reliable -- if not the perfectly reliable --- source for this.  Nandesuka (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

More portmanteau

 * You need to stop doing this. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your particular linguistic preference, and you are clearly working against consensus. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' notice board
I've raised the portmanteau issue here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to convince me, though I think you're trying to enforce the literary sense of the word while ignoring the colloquial sense. You do have to work collaboratively with other editors and since you now have multiple editors disagreeing with your changes, please work out a consensus with them first.  Admins have no special editorial powers, so either your mistaken that one "authorized" you or that person over-stepped a bit; its quite possible that an admin agreed with you, but that's different than carte blanche to ignore other editor's concerns.
 * If you're correct, I'm sure everyone can work together to come to that conclusion. Nothings going to be hurt by taking a bit to discuss this first.  Shell    babelfish 16:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are other times mass corrections are done, especially in the case of spelling or grammar. But even in those simple cases, if there are objections, the right thing is to stop and deal with them, regardless of how wrong you feel the other parties may be.
 * Actually I think you'll find that Wikipedia treats expert and colloquial in a similar manner. We certainly don't exclude a prevailing opinion simply because linguists believe its wrong (see WP:NPOV where this is discussed in detail).
 * Ah Carroll and the cult that sprung forth -- yes, his first uses the word like, but the second reference does not. Regardless, I'm not sure Humpty Dumpty would be considered an expert on the subject.  Unfortunately, the book was a popular one and from it was born a vast misconception about the technical use of the term.  But, technically incorrect or not, its a widespread misconception and thus ends up with coverage in Wikipedia.
 * Again though, whether or not we change any use of the word to be "technically" correct is in need of a discussion since there are people objecting to your actions. Shell    babelfish 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusade
Please take a moment away from your crusade and have a cup of tea. Wikipedia works by concensus, and even if you are right, editwarring will not help you reach your goal. Leaving the articles at the wrong version and discussing with editors is probably the best way of eventually reaching your goal. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit Block
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. You were asked numerous times to stop edit warring and discuss your edits. Being WP:BOLD is perfectly fine, but when reverted, the next course of action is to discuss. Please take some time to think about how you can resolve this dispute when you return from your block. Shell   babelfish 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited four times. The first was to remove the word Portmanteau and add in blend. The second was to revert a revert. The third was to remove blatant vandalism. The fourth was to correct a mistake on a revert that claimed I reverted something to "blend", which I did not, and is clearly good faith. There is no 3RR violation.


 * You were edit warring across at least (and I'm being generous here) 20 articles over the same change even after having been counseled here and on ANI to stop and discuss. You are correct that you only made 3 reverts to one single article, but more than 40 of your last 100 edits have been reverts over the same word and all after you were warned.  Shell    babelfish 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are clearly wrong. One of my edits was against vandalism, and I did not revert more than twice. That is, unless you think "A colloquialism in the British music DAMN CRACKERS!!" is acceptable to be on Wikipedia and should not be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point here. There are other articles you reverted three times, plus more than 40 that you reverted at least twice and all over the same issue. That's very widespread and disruptive edit warring :( Shell    babelfish 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If this was wide spread disruptive edit warning, you would have blocked all parties. Instead, you chose not to, and there have been other parties that have reverted three or more times. Your double standard and your lack of actually reading the reverts shows an abuse of authority, and I have filed an official complaint against you over that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And you are sorely mistaken. All instances of me producing "three" reverts are false. The one you provided included me removing blatant vandalism, and the one provided below shows the same thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal Block
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threat stands. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at [mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org info-en@wikimedia.org] and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.


 * Please contact me for further details on the evolving situation. Thanks. Shell    babelfish 00:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Provide a diff on which I supposedly made this legal threat on Wikipedia, or withdraw this as a frivolous. If you cannot provide a diff to prove that I have stated such on Wikipedia, then I will take that as an admittance that there was no such diff. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be a good time to stop and take stock. Things have been going considerably down hill since your edit wars this morning.  You may think that emailing your legal threats somehow exempts you from sanction, or you may think that using only 3 reverts on 40 different articles isn't violating the 3RR - the community feels rather differently about both of those cases.  I have already provided verification of your threats earlier, but declined the indef block since I felt you were just blowing off steam; since you have persisted, WP:NLT is clear; until such time as your legal actions are concluded, you will be asked not to edit Wikipedia.  Shell    babelfish 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My dear, not only have you blocked me frivolously before, but you have just blocked me for something that you cannot provide a diff for. I emailed you a notice of an official complaint. If you want to construe that as posting a legal threat on Wikipedia, then you are not following any Wikipedia standard. This will be added in addition to your conduct previous in a follow up complaint to the Wikimedia foundation. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And NLT is clear on the matter: "You should instead contact the person or people involved directly. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organisation, the Wikimedia Foundation." which is not against the rules. They suggest contacting people directly. The rule is only for editing the Encyclopedia. Please, learn the rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you want to re-read the first part of that paragraph "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.". Shell    babelfish 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, thats if I made a legal threat about a page. Which I did not. I filed a complaint with Wikimedia about an admin. There is a huge difference. But since I did not make any "threats" on Wikipedia which you can link to, you cannot block me. And that "requiring" not to post is for me to do such, not for you to block me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you initiated legal action against an admin? John Vandenberg (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not. Which, I must add, I stated in the unblock. Shell, who blocked me, claimed that I made an accusation in email. I only informed her that I have sent in a formal complaint about her actions, which she has misconstrued into legal. I must note that emails are also outside of Wikipedia, and it would deal with her, not Wikipedia and would not fall under the bounds of the rule. However, its impossible arguing over such when it comes to the person who blocks you, which is why there is a "bias" rule for admins to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO, nothing at WP:NLT requires that the threat be made at en.wikipedia.org. An e-mailed legal threat involving Wikipedia, if verifiable, would qualify for sanction even if a WP-based diff is not available. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  01:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ZimZalaBim, are you interpreting "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia." to not mean "on Wikipedia"? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that NLT is meant to prevent users engaged in legal action from editing. E-mailing a threat of legal action, so as to avoid having it "on" Wikipedia, would, IMO, be construed as merely trying to twist the particular language of the policy in order to get around the spirit of the policy. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  01:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Legal action? So, if I sue Wal-Mart, I cannot edit? Or are all politicians banned now, because they perform "legal actions"? Or are police officers banned for the same reasons? No. It deals with Wikipedia and Wikipedia pages - in particular, claims that an edit is copyright infringement or something of similar matter, which would mean that Wikimedia would be deemed legally responsible in some manner, and guess what? If you do it calmly, politely, and to an admin, even that is allowed. Yes, it necessitates it being literally on Wikipedia because that is the only way Wikimedia is liable, and the rule is there to protect Wikimedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm referring to legal action that involves WP. The spirit of NLT is to avoid any possible conflict of interest with edits from users involved in legal action relating to WP. I suspect you realize this, but are just trying to be argumentative, which doesn't help matters. I have seen the message sent to Shell, in which you mention "This is your notice that an official legal complaint has been filed against you with Wikimedia for blatant abuse of authority and breach of Wikipedia policy." Can you please clarify what you mean by "official legal complaint"? -- Zim Zala Bim talk  02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just working out the policy with you. The action above that could be construed over the email doesn't deal with Wikipedia or a Wikipedia page. It deals with an admin and its a complaint filed to those at Wikimedia about an admin. Now, it is quite suspicious that you would have access to a personal, private email, and then copy and paste said email onto Wikipedia, when posting private information isn't allowed. But you have forced me to copy and paste what I originally sent, which is: "I am filing a complaint as to an abuse of authority." Later, I stated "I filed the official complaint." Now, if you cannot understand the terms "Wikimedia" as how it is not "State of Florida", "US Government", "__ County", etc., then I can understand where you would think it would be a legal threat. However, Wikimedia is not a government entity, and is not a legal body. Thus, filing a complaint with them cannot be deemed a legal threat. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You used the phrase "official legal complaint" -- we're just trying to figure out what you meant by that. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I must ask, did Shell violate my expectation of privacy by forwarding you such emails without my permission after I specifically stated that said topic does not belong on my talk page nor do I believe that it belongs on Wikipedia? Furthermore, I stated clearly in the email that I filed a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation over an Admin. It cannot get more clearer than that. That is not a "legal threat" nor does it fall under such considerations. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ottava -- just let me be clear: do you have any intention of pursuing a complaint through any kind of legal channels over something that has happened on Wikipedia? You've said Shell was misinterpreting your email, but you haven't come flat out and said that you don't intend to pursue any legal action.  Is that the case?  Mango juice talk 02:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Legal channels? No. And I swore I said twice that I have put forth no legal complaint in the unblock requests and in the above. If I haven't, here is this - I have not made a legal complaint. I have no intended to make a legal complaint. I don't feel like hiring a lawyer. I'm too lazy to go down to Florida. I have better things to do. Is that enough? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mango - I hate to be a stickler, but can you undeny the above until after you have the page changed to remove the very specific "on Wikipedia"? As of now, it does not apply to Wikia, Wikimedia, or anything else. Until that time, I would assume that good faith would prevent you from expanding the rule until it has been deemed by a consensus as to allowing said power. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to take that as a retraction and unblock you. As for the above denial - trust me, it's just a matter of the wording being confusing: this is already the rule, and I could probably dig out many past examples where the rule was applied this way.  WP:NLT means that anyone who makes legal threats against Wikipedia or its members is not allowed to edit until the threats are withdrawn or the legal action is completely resolved.  Mango juice talk 03:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. The use of the term "legal" in the comment made to Shell does not appear to have been intended to express actual legal action. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  03:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reduced your block to 19 hours, which represents the remainder of the time you had left on your most recent temporary block. Mango juice talk 03:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mango, this is what swatjester has stated on the issue over at WP:NLT:
 * "Such policies are non-enforceable off-wiki. If the user has legal threats off wiki but are related to wikipedia, direct them to info-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org and have them email OTRS, or consult your own attorney. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)"
 * For your consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mangojuice - the block reduction is a good step. I denied the unblock request because it said there were no legal threats "on Wikipedia", which I took to mean that there were legal threats via email, and legal proceedings were being initiated.  I am sorry for my part in prolonging this; if there was any hint of a legal threat in the emails we havent seen, it has definitely been retracted by the above. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

on IRC
they were saying that you needed to be blocked as "he refuses to fall into line" - not sure what that was about but thought you should let you know - it's wrong how the admins decide things like that off wiki and then look for reasons onwiki. --87.112.67.165 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delightful. I guess someone will edit your post out. Its funny how many people want "portmanteau" to be spread across Wikipedia, even if the word is used improperly and in non-defined linguistic ways. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so it is clear, I didnt see this IRC discussion, and it didnt occur on the admins IRC channel. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weird, nonethelessOttava Rima (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I cans honor caturday?
The above is so tiring. So, there is this: I know its not yet caturday, but it soon will be. Today wasn't that "good" of a good friday. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)