User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 22

200 dyk

 * I came so close to beating you to the mark. Foiled! :D Thanks, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Race you to 300 then :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber, I almost beat you to 200 and you had a long head start. I'm about to pass you, and by the end of this time next year I should be over 500. You might as well give up now. :P If not, I shall taunt you a second time. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's quite a lot. Congratulations! ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request
First off wow, congrats on the 200 DYK medal. I'm still working on 25. :) But the actual reason I'm here is a copy edit request for 30 Rock (season 3). I worked up this article to save the Seasons of 30 Rock featured topic, and it has been at FLC for quite a while. Two voters are considering/weakly supporting the article, but numerous problems with copy-editing issues arose during the FLC and they requested a proper review by some third party. I can't think of anyone better than you, if you have the time. Thanks either way! Staxringold talkcontribs 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have time tomorrow. I have a list of articles to go through and I will add it onto my list. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Staxringold talkcontribs 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
It was certainly not my intention to get you blocked. I think the action was clearly premature, and I'm glad that cooler heads prevailed. I'm sorry you had to deal with that. Powers T 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about me. I do feel that it would be better if you spent times trying to fix the Byron articles instead of renaming. There are very few people who work on the literature articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad the block was sorted out, but I'm appalled that Chillum, Chief of the Civility Police, took it upon himself to review your first unblock request. I already thought highly of Deacon—who can also be a rather prickly character at times—but I was seriously impressed by his cool head and integrity in reversing what was obviously a travesty. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilayering
Re. . In my opinion your actions are self-explanatory. You badly miss-argue policy, and in a non-constructive manner. You also quote extremely selective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinions verify that you have no desire to do anything but make violations of policy while quoting something that explicitly says to not do what you are doing. The irony is amazing. I quoted the relevant statements that say that you are being incivil, and if you keep it up you are opening yourself up for a block. DRV is not a vote, nor is it a place to vote and then insult people for pointing out your misconceptions about our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation and with your behavior at the deletion review. I think you are bullying and wikilawyering - as in threatening me with a block or claiming another editor "must do" something. Is this going anywhere or should we agree to disagree? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can also disagree with the sky being blue, the grass being green, and water being wet. It doesn't mean that you have grounds nor are acting appropriately. The very essay you quoted said your behavior was wrong. If you don't even check before quoting things, then how do you expect to be taken seriously? You are on a quick path towards a civility block because you are unwilling to abide by our policies. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, in conjunction with your wikilawyer essay, makes it very clear that you cannot make such accusations as they are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:TRUTH. Please be assured that I read essays which I quote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the essay you quoted, then you would have recognized that your behavior was unacceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, you have now acknowledged that you purposefully violated our policies. Thank you for that acknowledge. It now explains why your actions are so hostile to our policies as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, you're heading into personal attack territory again. You might want to back off a bit, and take Stephan's offer to agree to disagree. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarek, you have already been found by multiple people that your claims before were completely wrong and unacceptable. Because you persist, I am asking you to User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria. Your statement right there about NPA territory is 1. a threat and 2. completely inappropriate per NPA and a violation of NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, that page is ready for your signature.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blake DYK
Thanks for addressing the issues I had with your interesting DYK nomination on the Four Zoas. Like everyone else at DYK, I try to help by proofreading hooks and articles and notifying authors of possible problems with content and DYK rules (also these). It's great to see how this process improves the quality of both the articles and the hooks.

I do, in fact, think that the articles have improved from what you added here. Readers of the articles on the Four Zoas and their emanations are likely to be somewhat confused by the multiplicity of names and associations, so it's good to have an overview of this in the Vala, or the Four Zoas article. It's not a bad thing that the same information is in multiple Wikipedia articles when that creates a more navigable set of articles. Perhaps it could be improved further when you put the Zoas in a table with their emanations and what they represent.

As I wrote before, it's great that you're contributing articles on these interesting topics to Wikipedia. I myself certainly do not have the knowledge I would need to write on these topics, but I do hope that I will be able to give some suggestions that help you improve the articles. Ucucha 23:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do think that a table would be in order, but where it should be included you of course know better than I do. Good luck with improving the other Blake articles and the main article! Ucucha 23:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned a serial comma issue with the formatting of the hook; as use of the serial comma is probably more an individual preference thing than anything else, would you address the issue? Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I concur with Durova. Great work, and congratulations on the silver medal!  The left orium  10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: GAN reviews
Busy time of the year for me so I won't be getting to those. You can see from my contributions that I haven't been around as much as I usually am...  Gary King ( talk ) 07:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hey dude, wanted to do something in honor of your prolific work in literature, so here's William Blake's self-portrait from a 1794 copy of Songs of Innocence and Experience.

While finishing it, caught wind of your recent scuffle. The Spider-Man suit needs a trip to the dry cleaners. Try to climb down safely. ;) Best regards,  Durova 351 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Chillum's admitted constant drug use while "working" on the encyclopedia? Acid, on one use, can destroy the ability for the mind to process information. Seeing as how Chillum has been involved in dozens of really awful blocks, it seems that we now have a strong explanation as to -why- these blocks happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have always invited you to seek scrutiny regarding any admin actions I make. I think you disliking the blocks I make has your to do with your disagreement regarding the civility policy than the quality of my actions. Regardless you are welcome to gather up these "dozens of really awful blocks" and present them to the community for examination. I am confident that my behavior on this website will stand up to the scrutiny of the community as it has countless times in the past. Chillum 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I challenged your claims about WP:AGF that directly contradicted the policy and made it apparently that you were violating the letter of it with your claims. You refused to respond. Your claims that you allow scrutiny are not upheld in practice. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Um...(dodges flying projectiles)...had more in mind to mention that the complete Songs of Innocence and Experience is digitized. Have been on the fence about whether to attempt restoration of such a major artist, but most of the individual poems from the collection are redlinked. Does the prospect of DYK nominations with an accompanying illustration tempt you? (not urgent) Durova 351 20:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They've been online and I have published editions of restored versions of them. Sorry, but you are about 10 years too late. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Blake Archive asserts copyright over its digital reproductions and the Library of Congress hosts better quality files. This is Wikipedia, not Wikisource.  But I get the message; you're not interested.  Durova 351 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They legally can't assert it in the US. Regardless, they draw their copies from previous published sources which they did not own the copyright for, so they can't really have any claim. I -have- the published physical versions. I have multiple ones published by multiple groups. Two publishers maybe could assert something, but I have -three- collections of Blake prints. The LoC versions are the same as what they have, which verifies that they can't hold copyright over them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else can tilt at that windmill; there's no particular reason to anyway, when alternatives free of claim are available. If you don't feel like starting articles about the individual poems, that's fine.  You had done a lot of that type of DYK during the Cup and it seemed you might take an interest in that for next year.  Never mind if it isn't your cup of tea; I prefer Blake's painting to his poetry anyway. :)  Durova 351 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just going to propose uploading scans from the books I have which are restored copies of the LoC editions. I was just teasing you about people beating you to them. :P But yeah, the rest of Blake's works are on the list. I can't have too much of an author at DYK at a time or it would overload their display rate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the humor didn't transfer well in text (facial expressions and tone of voice are invaluable for that sort of subtlety). As usual, am getting ideas and requests faster than human hands can edit.  So leave word when you'd like to move forward and I'll tread water until then. :)  Durova 352 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What would cheer you up?
ice cubes and Doves i already used, but perhaps you prefer some roses, or perhaps some tea? How about some Cookies or a old good bar of of chocolate? Maybe something less material such as a simple smiley? Ask and you shall receive, as long as we actually have an image i can create a template with. :)

Somewhat more serious, remember not to press an issue to much - which actually goes for quite a few people; Perhaps even most for me as i am posting about the topic again. I think both stances regarding chillum's actions has been clearly voiced, which means i don't think that more talk from either side would be truly helpful as most people are quite heated up for now - and i didn't create enough icecubes for everyone :). Jimbo has been notified at his talk page, so i assume he will respond in due time. I would say we just see what he says, or lacking that, move it to a somewhat more official channel as a myrad of talk page's don't provide the best ground for any form of concensus.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard
I've raised my concerns regarding your recent behaviour here. user: J  aka justen (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

One user's claims
Was titled "Personal attacks - Final warning", change by Ottava Rima to read "One user's claims". 

Ottava, next time you post on this subject of another editor's alleged drug use, you should be blocked for harassment and personal attacks. You're under a civility restriction. This is totally out of hand. Chillum is hardly my favorite editor, but I won't stand for you continuing to abuse him in this way. I'm heading offline. If you do get yourself blocked, it won't be by me, but the blocking admin is welcome to cite this warning. Jehochman Talk 07:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, you have no right to make such claims and I will drag you to ArbCom to have you desysopped. You have crossed the line multiple times and have been told that your statements above are direct violations of your admin privileges. I recommend you immediately remove your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman is right though. It's becoming a bit of a time-sink, isn't it? Give it up and move on to something better. --John (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava as much as I rarely agree with Jehochman, I must request you to not go any farther with this, it's not really Wikipedia's business whether or not someone uses drugs. --Coffee // have a cup  // ark  // 07:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I start the ANI thread? What about the three to one constant responses? Or the talk page harassment? I tried stopping a while ago. I tried to get a simple answer from Chillum and was attacked. Wikipedia Review is providing evidence to how Chillum's statements are probably enough evidence that his life will be ruined, which is probably why there is such hostility about talking about it. He has already sent me harassing emails. The aggression could be tied to the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing that this simply doesn't stop i raised another topic at ANI. Apart from this i meant what i said when i stated you are certainly a valuable contributer, and i also meant it when i sayd that i do not doubt your positive intentions towards wikipedia. But even so, i believe the teamwork part is currently becoming to scratched. Kind regards,  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cut the bullying, Ottava. It does not work on me. I've noticed you around for a long time, but never had any opinion of you at all, until I looked into the complaint that resulted in your civility restriction.  You're trying to pick a fight with me, and it won't work. Jehochman Talk 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An involved admin abusing his ops and threatening me, and -I- am the bully? Jehochman, do everyone a favor and resign your ops before making such claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a statement of the obvious will be helpful to the editors trying to bully Ottava: Admins posting about personal drug use and alcohol abuse is inappropriate. Abuse of drugs and alcohol is a very serious problem that shouldn't be encouraged or defended. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that such posts by an administrator about using drugs are inappropriate because they bring Wikipedia into disrepute. It would be appropriate for somebody to express these concerns privately to Chillum and ask him to remove any such content and stop sharing such details on Wikipedia. Perhaps Jimbo would step up and do this. Jehochman Talk 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been silently observing this on Jimbo's talk page for the past day, and figure I may as well leap into the fray now. My personal opinion is that while it's great no damage has been done, Ottava made a good point in the first instance -- a sysop editing while under the influence and *admitting it* is potentially damaging to the reputation of the project as a whole. Sometimes it doesn't matter what it is; it's how it appears that's the problem. Frankly, I am amazed that seemingly nobody has either considered, noticed or admitted this fact yet, and most are instead stoically defending a sysop's habits. Yes, raising the drug quote in the manner in which he did probably wasn't the best call on Ottava's part, but would you rather see it in your next hardly-worth-the-paper-or-ink newspaper? The media (as well as the commercial encyclopedias!) lap up this kind of stuff. Just my 5c. SMC (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So when you see something that might lead to embarrassment if the press hears about it, do you
 * a) start discreetly emailing people in order to get the situation under control, or
 * b) discreetly publish the full information at the one location that is better than ANI for creating drama and getting things into the press?
 * Bonus question: Having chosen b), is it a good idea to follow this up by
 * c) complaining about the potential damage if the press hears about it?
 * This was a clear example of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. A lot of the editors here have pretty low tolerance for that and consider it worse than what Chillum has done. Hans Adler 00:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best not to go down that road. There is indeed hypocrisy here, but perhaps not where you believe it to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Er - long before people started spamming it everywhere and spiralled into nuttiness and sprawled to every damn page, this wretched saga was taking place on my talkpage (for no apparent reason), and for the record wasn't even started by Ottava. My talkpage may be a magnet for drama-whores and number 375 on Wikipedia's all-time most edited pages list (I'm so proud), but "the one location that is better than ANI for creating drama and getting things into the press" is stretching it a bit. "The one location that is better than ANI for prompting a sarcastic comment from HorseyEcoTheo on Wikipedia Review", maybe. (And will you all stop talking about the press like they give a shit about an internal spat on a rapidly deteriorating website? They didn't even pick up on Poetlister; they're certainly not going to care about this.) – irides cent 2 00:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't seen your talk page and I wasn't aware that OR's first post regarding this incident was there. When I wrote about the "one location that is better than ANI for creating drama and getting things into the press" I meant Jimbo's talk page, where OR posted 4 minutes later.
 * (By the way, I don't support drug use at all. I am nearly 40 and have never smoked a single cigarette or been seriously drunk, let alone anything remotely illegal. But I don't believe in hysteria in such situations.) Hans Adler 00:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Point of information - The Register had a long article about "Poetlister". Here, it's important to keep in mind that "the press" isn't monolithic. AP wouldn't care, Valleywag might have it as fodder for one blog item on a slow news day, and WorldNetDaily would consider it more proof that Wikipedia is a liberal den of iniquity. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification, I did not edit while under the influence, I just mentioned that I had done it then went to a halloween party, then when I was down the next day I removed the comment(all before anyone said anything to me). Chillum 23:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well at least that's one fact incontrovertably established; you weren't making a joke. Doesn't really explain why you'd ask others to "please take any strangeness in stride" after you'd admitted to taking acid though if it wasn't your intention to edit. Just for the sake of clarity, I've got absolutely no interest in whatever chemicals you ingest, or why, and I've taken acid myself, so I'm perfectly well aware of its effects. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Relax, have a cake!

 * Space cake? Interesting. I've never heard of that kind before. It almost looks like it has poppy seed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is being used in Cannabis foods. The existence of that kind of food is a cultural shock to me. --Caspian blue 18:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have pot brownies where you are? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center FAC2
Thanks. Now WP:CHIFTD is one away. Next up is Jay Pritzker Pavilion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Image guidelines question
If you have a moment, I would love the chance to discuss images with you in terms of how they are to be judged for GAN purposes; I was just wading through a few entries and came across No god but God, and I was unsure about all the different licenses and what they mean in terms of free use and whatnot. Reading through the WP policy on images is enough to make my head spin, so I wanted to see if you can explain the policy more clearly. Mrathel (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I started a FAC for Ode on a Grecian Urn, I believe this is what we discussed being next, but I apologize if my rash decision has thrown the order out of whack:)Mrathel (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the themes section, I think its high time we get rid of the Melani statements and replace it with viable content. You mentioned expanding it the other day, so let me know what you have or just add it whenever and I will fill in for what we will have to take out. Mrathel (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents
To formally notify you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
It was unsupported in that post, which is my point. No-one is going to take the time to chase down the diffs unless you provide them. Black Kite 19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I know what you're talking about now, but I wouldn't have otherwise... Black Kite 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a link to the RFAR would've been enough, to be honest. Black Kite 19:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
I felt a chill when "you have a message" appeared on my screen. Just remember what happened to Julius though! :)  Leaky  Caldron  22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Awards
Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already!  iMatthew  talk   at 23:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.86.33 (talk • contribs)

Who are you?
I noticed that once upon a time you stated that your job required knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine (or something to that effect) and, given that relatively few jobs require this, this piqued my curiosity. Bwrs (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have two aspects of my life: I am a researcher with a background in both Classical Literature and 19th century Literature with an emphasis on religion and religious rhetoric. My other aspect is my work as a Catholic apologist with a Catholic ethics column, advocation for the Catholic Church, work with the Knights of Columbus, promotion of Catholic issues, and various lobbying. Because of this, I am not allowed to work on Catholic related pages (CoI). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what age group are you in? Of young people (18 to 35), or middle aged or seniors? I assumed you're in the first one because of your flamboyant character, but I could be wrong....but you seem to have exceptionally high moral standards in contrast to modern young people. If this question is not appropriate, feel free to ignore it. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case
It's your right to file what you feel you need to there, but I don't think that doing so here is going to help you or be constructive.

Today's thread on edit restrictions was long, convoluted, and ugly. But it did produce a clear consensus. There are a lot of people who are concerned about your behavior. There are some who feel that you're behaving ok - but they are in a clear minority of those who responded.

The prior edit restrictions discussion/proposal was not closed as cleanly as possible. But - the fundamental issue is, does a consensus exist that your editing has been problematic. I believe that both the prior thread, and todays, show that a consensus exists on that point.

You have a tendency to respond to criticism very tactically, and very legalistically. I have been trying not to engage you on either front - because most of the problems in Wikipedia with user behavior (on all fronts - not specific to you) are much clearer in bigger picture review than in laser focus on a single edit or single comment. I think that, in this case, it's causing you to miss the point.

You several times today said "No, nobody thinks I'm being abusive or harrassing people, why would anyone think that?", and missed that people had said that they felt that way a couple of comments up, or seem to have rejected it when someone replied to that saying "I felt that way". Big picture - there are people very concerned by your behavior. I don't think you're seeing it very well because you're focusing in too tightly.

I recommend that you take some time and take a step back. Re-read both the earlier thread and today's, exclude your own comments and only read what other people said in them. Consider what it says about the situation that your comments seem to have been about half the total word count/line count.

I have a great respect for what you do with content here. I have a great fear that your behavior at ANI is becoming disruptive and exhausting the community patience. People who argue that much on ANI are often approaching an unfortunate enforced end to their Wikipedia career. I would hate to see you driven away by the community or Arbcom bans. I urge you to take a step back and reconsider your own big picture.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * GWH, I have demonstrated how RegentsPark stated that it was 22 to 8, when it was 18 to 14. That is a large discrepancy and he was involved. Furthermore, many of those involved were involved in the previous thread, which reveals a troubling set of behaviors. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than worrying about others, why don't you look at your own behavior. Has it been perfect?  What would you do differently going forward?  Jehochman Talk 14:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, there is a difference from being imperfect and constantly having people say you are imperfect and putting you to a much different standard than everyone else in order to ignore any discussion and just try to "win". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you acknowledge that your behavior has not been perfect, and make a sincere effort to improve (and I have great confidence in you because you appear to be highly intelligent and sincere), I will do my very best to get people to give you space and stop antagonizing you. It's a two way deal.  The more effort you make, the more effort I make. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, I have made it clear to you multiple times, as have others, that I do not feel comfortable with any of your posts here or your involvement in any of these because of your long background with many of the involved parties. You have also been told by many prominent individuals that your approach, your unilaterally restrictions, etc, are damaging. Your actions are extremely aggressive and have their effect on people's emotions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh* I am trying to help you, and I have no involvement with any of those people. You need to understand that I have an academic approach to life, and I am not on anybody's side.  Some people agree with me more often than others, but I am under no obligation to agree with anybody.  I'm great friends with SandyGeorgia, for example, but we are in a strong disagreement at this very moment. I am sorry for causing you any stress.  That is a regrettable consequence.  Jehochman Talk 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, you want to be neutral? Look at my block log. Tell me why there were almost constant, regular blocks in the beginning of my career, a year long gap, and then the same pattern. Tell me also why the same group of people appear. Try and explain that year long gap. Many people know what happened and why the before and after are there. It is clear it was not a change in my "behavior", as people have made it clear that I have never worked right with people and that I never change my behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can read too much into that gap. It just means you didn't do anything blockable that drew notice during that period of time. Jehochman Talk 15:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, it means, as many of the Arbitrators and about a few dozen admin know, that I was used by two admin to aid them in an edit war and POV pushing campaign against User:Haiduc for an extended period with the promise that they would stop pursing things against me as long as I kept up a defense of their actions and behavior. You can ask Lar about when I trolled Commons to disrupt a discussion in order to protect one of the said admin when people were calling for him to be desysopped or blocked on Wikipedia for his actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent)
 * I think your response and the thread above illustrate part of the point I made at first. Very tactical and legalistic response rather than big picture.
 * Again, in short summary - please take a step back and consider how many people did go on the record saying that they're concerned about your behavior. It's clearly more than half - the count is disputed, yes, but even you agreed that much.
 * Even if it wasn't half, wouldn't even only 40% of admins and ANI participants saying such things be a clear indication of a problem? Once a large number of people have significant concerns about your behavior, that should be a sign of a problem.  Arguing about if it's 56% or 73% is somewhat missing the point.  It's a lot of people.
 * Even excluding people (on both sides) who are particularly your supporters or detractors, there are a lot of people who didn't seem to be ones you've been in conflict with expressing concerns.
 * I think that you think I'm too involved and biased on this. But I hope you listen to the people who haven't previously been in conflict with you who are expressing concern.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right; You have a point here. But yet, would you consider to retract your statement for now for the sake of peace considering this thread below?After all this ...(whatever...from Ottavas side), ;Let's give him a chance and some time to think and reconsider I'd say.!!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think a "rest" for Ottava (as I called for at Jimbo's talk page) would change his approach but let's give him one more time to proof us wrong, I'd say. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not escalating beyond the polite discussion here - I see no reason to join the arbcom case, the furball down below here on the page, and stayed out of the ANI discussions. If he thinks I'm contributing to the stress level I'll lay off for a while, but I figure that communicating clearly and politely is most likely to help resolve things in the long term.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to "shut you off" at all. I'm just trying to give Ottava a slack, even so he put me on "the other side". What a nice editor I am. Ain't I? :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Georgewilliamherbert please do me a favor - you looked at Malleus's dispute again. Can you please compare those who responded on the Chillum matter with the Ncmvocalist poll, which were back to back. Can you please list a number of people that crossed over between the two that were negative in both? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can look at that tomorrow morning, I just spent 4 hours in a datacenter with a balky firewall and power distribution problems after 10 hours at the office, and sleep beckons. I agree that there's been stuff worthy of looking at on both sides (I wish it weren't lining up "on sides" - on either side - but it's clearly happened to some degree).  I am trying hard to stay uninvolved in the two sides per se and review abuses impartially.  There's just been so much abuse in the string of incidents that it's hard to "get started" properly...  Sigh.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All I've ever asked for is someone who was impartial. They can rule for me or against me, I don't care about that. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am looking at it, but today's looking sort of swamped. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite fine. Thankfully, people have quiet down enough that I could get back to writing. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC and the prior RfA, and discussed Rjanag's conduct with him directly and at an AN/I.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
 * (a) posting their own view; and/or
 * (b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:


 * RfC Conduct
 * RfC Guide
 * RfC Guide 2
 * RfC Rules

Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U - Courtesy Notice
I have been preparing an WP:RFC/U to discuss your conduct and ways the community might deal with that conduct. Given that you have commenced proceedings before the ArbCom, I will desist from opening an WP:RFC/U for now. Regards, Crafty (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts
Ottava, I dropped by to give you my thoughts (and no, I don't intend to engage in a lengthy discussion :). I don't think you need to view the current editing restrictions as prohibitive or unproductive, in spite of admin abuse that we all know occurs and may occur in your case. Here's why. I spent most of my Wiki editing "career" under de facto editing restrictions, per the admin cabal that I previously pointed out to you, that would have gleefully pounced on any small mistake I might have made to have me sanctioned. In the end, those de facto editing restrictions served me well, as I had to learn to defend my causes carefully and to pick my battles. In the end, the abusive admins were sanctioned or desysopped, and I'm still standing. Per this, it can be argued that you need to adapt a different style in defending your causes, and those restrictions may serve you well; I hope you can view them in that light. I most likely would have joined you in the admins-on-drugs cause had it not been such an inflamed issue by the time I caught up on it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the admin. What I care about is that every conversation I am part of, someone always falls back on making some excuse for ignoring the point and trying to cast aspersions about me. There is always the same group of people that appear, and there is always the same distraction. Here is a good example. Another good example. I discuss something. I put forth evidence. They dismiss it and make some claim. I offer them a clear compromise that I would submit to and nothing. Was I able to compromise with Awadewit on Johnson? Yes. Was I able to work with you and Malleus? Yes. Was I able to work with Ceoil and compromise? Yes. What about Haiduc, which I admitted to above being used to edit war, POV push against, and basically harass for 8 months? Yes. Why am I able to work with them and not these same individuals here? Because those people all 1. bothered to be willing to compromise and 2. acknowledged that there was something in my argument worth while. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know all that; what happened to me was just as bad, if not worse. It's how you deal with it that will determine your future on Wikipedia.  Now, give me some chocolate and shut up :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy, you know that I owe you far more than chocolate. A pound of my flesh is the least, and I would not quibble over the blood. Ottava Rima (talk)
 * If you convince me that you have a legitimate grievance with the way these people treat you, and you take care of your own behavior, I will be glad to help you. Jehochman Talk 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have sent you my contact information in a way that you can easily see and verify. If you would like to talk honestly about things, we can work through that, find a line of communication, and I can give you the complete background on all the events and my true participation since the beginning. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But Ottava, my suggestion is that you stop fighting and start picking your battles, and how you defend your causes, more carefully. I wasted no time in fighting the cabal; I merely saved diffs until they came in handy.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's something I've suggested to Ottava as well. Nobody can fight every battle, we each have to pick the battles to fight. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like to fight. I prefer to be left alone. I don't like to collect diffs, to hold anything up, or to wait to pounce on someone. If someone does something, I want it to be made public and then everyone can move on. I have stated that I am here merely to fix 20 authors. I am about 40% of the way through. Once I finish, I am gone. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The proof is in the pudding; if what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it. I had to watch my every word for years, hold my tongue, and build my reputation.  Which way worked best?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not here for years, nor am I here for whatever "here" is. I merely want to finish the work and go. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then can't you do your work better and faster without admin fights? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried and I am followed to various pages and edit warring starts, or people feel that I am doing something awful, or whatever such thing. Talk:Drapier's Letters, Oscar Wilde, 18th century, George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron etc, all had people complaining about various things (with mostly the same people). This originates back when Geogre deleted one of my pages and started stating that my work on Swift was awful. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, you are going to get no sympathy from me on these points; as far as I could tell, Geogre hated me. It's still how you deal with it that matters.  Besides that, I came here only for two reasons:  Tourette syndrome (FA) and Hugo Chavez (massively POV article)-- you win some, you lose some.  Along the way, I decided I liked it here.  But I didn't have an easy time on either of those articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would gladly switch to such problems only happening on two pages. However, my area is an expertise field in which many people have to read the works in highschool, so they come in with a background that has more "feeling" than anything else, and when people have "feelings" on a matter, explanations rarely satisfy. Swift pages, Fielding pages, Blake pages, Byron pages, and Coleridge pages all have difficult histories. You can add to that Wilde, Tennyson, and some others. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You still get no sympathy here. Do you remember me once making a smartaleck comment somewhere about dead 18th-century writers?  TS and Chavez affect real people's lives and livelihoods.  Take it in stride! It's only a website.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If words, attacks, and intimidation didn't work online, then people wouldn't use them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, did my way work "work" or not? "Words, attacks, and intimidation" can only work if you take the bait.  Swallow it for a while, as I did; try something different.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Je; I guess I have a better understanding now of what Ottava has been dealing with. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree very much with SandyGeorgia's advice here. The editing restrictions are no big deal--they are quite unlike any of the other restrictions on that page, as in fact they ask you merely to act the way in which all editors are expected to act--and by manifestly staying within them you strengthen your position rather than weaken it. What weakens your case, and what stirs up opposition, is not the activity of some cabal or other, but rather your tendency to make mountains out of molehills, and to escalate disputes. Opening up an Arbcom case on your own editing restrictions is merely the most recent and perhaps most spectacular instances of this. Really, it doesn't help you either in the short or the long run. Step back from such disputes, even if you believe that you are the one who is being antagonized. You will only be antagonized still more in the future if you further garnish this reputation that you have. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark his/her words. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break so the above conversation can stay quiet

 * (ec with many other edits) Sorry, but this is plain ridiculous. Remember this talk page? That's where I first formed an opinion about you. I found an obvious typo in the quoted text. To be ultra-cautious (and polite, because Durova was preparing the article for DYK) I brought it up on the talk page. I made it very clear that the typo was in the Gutenberg text (presumably the text used by Durova) and that I also found it in Google Books, but only in books that appeared 2003 or later. All pre-2003 editions found by Google Books did not have the typo. You responded with Google Books links that confirmed this. And then suddenly you claimed that we need a first edition to fix the typo. Since when can a Gutenberg edition only be trumped by a first edition? That simply doesn't make sense. In the end you abused the fact that I didn't want to make a scene at Durova's article and bullied me away. As a result the typo stayed in the article until you fixed it almost 3 months later. Based on ... not a first edition.
 * The travesty in the second section of the talk page unfolded in parallel. Being tired, (as it was night for me) I made two errors which I readily admitted when I became aware of them. I was completely shocked by your idea that the German title of a German text should be capitalised according to English title case rules. It took you a long time to offer something remotely like a convincing argument. Initially you offered the following reasons why you were right:
 * "This is the English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia." (Who'd a thunk it?)
 * "We have standards here." (How fortunate you, um we, are!)
 * "MoS states that we must abide by the spelling and usage of the subject's native way of using English, which means that English capitalization is used according to American dictates on all titles as Twain is American." (So presumably one of my papers would have to be cited as "Strict Orders prohibit Elimination of Hyperimaginaries", an eccentric capitalisation not found in the original, mimicking German capitalisation.)
 * "Please do not alter the page against the MoS consensus and push a POV that is inappropriate for the English Wikipedia." (Wow! This is really convincing.)
 * Which of these four reasons was the one that was supposed to make me change my mind? Your behaviour was so outrageous that for some time I couldn't believe we were not talking past each other. Later you followed up with wild links to policies or guidelines that either didn't apply (surely we were not talking about a trademark, for instance) or only arguably applied (do general MOS rules really talk about pieces of text in German when they don't specifically mention foreign languages and even contain the qualification "applicable"?)
 * I would have let this go if I hadn't learned that you are behaving like this habitually.
 * I put it to you that you are not a scholar. You are obviously not capable of reasoned debate. Please answer this direct question: Are you Essjay? Hans Adler 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you first had a problem with me and have been following me ever since. I pointed out to you that the "typo" was in many editions, and there was never a first edition put forth to see whose mistake it was (i.e. which publisher printed the wrong thing). And you can claim that I am not a scholar all you want. However, my real name is known and easy to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hans, the above link is more then two months old; i don't see why this has to be brought up again as i don't think it adds anything to whatever discussion. Let this entire issue fade out; i'm already eternally glad that neither Ottava or Chillum decided to take an extended break or even quit over this entire incident, as both are valuable editors.


 * As for the "You are obviously not capable of reasoned debate" - i find this a tad odd currently. Ottava, at the ANI debate i might have agreed with this, but the above section somehow feels like a complete 180 degree turn. I do not know why you suddenly seem to have switched debating style, but the style here is most pleasant compared to the previous one. Hence, had you used the same style on ANI i would have never even considered complaining about personal attacks, nor do i think any other editor could have.


 * Finally, i agree with User:jbmurray. Don't make mountains out of molehills, nor be pressured into doing so. Hence, the entire debate didn't talk about drugs anymore since day two, but rather turned around to user conduct and seemingly kept feeding itself. Sometimes its better to just disengage instead of fighting a futile battle. Finally, i would like to wish you the best of luck with the article's you are creating as i keep saying your patience and commitment in writing those is praiseworthy; And i hope the past ANI discussion didn't give the impression that i'm going to be another user hounding you. Hence, if you ever get that feeling just take a trout and give me a whack. Oh, just remember to attach a note to it so i actually know what its for :). Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consciously debate anywhere except on article talk page. If my style has changed, I don't know how to explain it or anything else. If I could reproduce it all the time I would. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your last statement above in the final(?) paragraph. If you can stick to it there should be no recent matter that needs to be solved.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * After I came here to comment on a DYK a few days ago, I forgot to unwatch this page and so I got some sense of the things that have been happening here--a lot of heatedness and drama that doesn't quite bring this encyclopedia any further (but you also got an for being the runner-up in the WikiCup, I noticed--congratulations!).
 * In Excirial's post above, there was one phrase that caught my eye and that seemed especially important here: it is always better to just disengage than to fight a futile battle. I think that is also implicit in SandyGeorgia's comments that confrontation may not be the right way to right a wrong. Everyone involved, including you, should best move on, do some great work in the encyclopedia, and not care too much about what others are doing and thinking. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, neither for finishing an article or for having some wrong redressed, after all, and forgetting and forgiving may in the end be better for everyone than holding grudges. Ucucha 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At what point should you go eat worms?:) For Philip Larkin's sake, maybe it should be a slow worm. It might help pass the time until another one of your fans tries to "speedy decline" another FAC because you didn't make it clear whether examining a poem entailed observing it or giving it an multiple-choice test:)Mrathel (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

FOUR
I think you mentioned that you qualify for WP:FOUR awards. We would be honored if you would present your articles to our group.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Possibly from all the work he did for me last year in compiling stats for my ArbVotes page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 9 part William Blake Hook

 * What's your record now for new articles in one hook? Karanacs (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 17. I try not to get too high. I could have easily combined the top three Coleridge hooks into one but wanted to break it up. I have a big Keats hook coming up, a Byron hook later, another Coleridge and Wordsworth hook, and another Fielding hook to do. I might get around to Blake's smaller poems sometime. I always have Samuel Johnson's sermon works in the prep if I ever need to push something out. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

some friendly thoughts
Ottava,

Re, I'm not any of the editors you mention but I wish you would cool it some. You're a good and insightful editor and we'd be worse off without you. Your remark "academia is primarily based on reputation, and reputation provokes the greatest emotional response possible" might explain some of the trouble you're having. Wikipedia isn't academia, and reputation here isn't as important or useful as some editors seem to think it is. A better value to adopt is "if you have knowledge and the teaching instinct, here is a classroom of the world". Don't worry about reputation; just make good edits and let your reputation take care of itself. You can even abandon your reputation completely. As a long-term unenrolled editor, I have no reputation that goes back further than when my IP address last changed, and I don't miss it in the slightest. I don't recommend that approach to everyone, but it's made me a much happier editor than back when I used an account. It makes it much easier to walk away from conflict, among other things.

I think that Raul, YellowMonkey, and SandyGeorgia (the three editors who you mentioned that you listen to) all have generally good judgement and that your naming them reflects wise choices on your part. If you're not up for doing something drastic like changing accounts or quitting using one, you might ask them for advice more explicitly, or even for them to take you on under an informal mentorship, and to intervene if they see you overreacting to something. Taking a few months away from Wikipedia is also a good sanity-restoring measure (don't edit at all, and if you have to keep reading articles, at least stop reading any dispute-related noticeboards during any such break). You might think that the stupidity of the place will get worse if you're not around, and it will, but it will do that no matter what you do, so stop worrying.

Keep cool,

69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)