User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 4

Thats funny
Because the the wiki Romanticism article credits John Waterhouse from the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, a contemporery to Rossetti, as being Romantic.

And appearently it goes on to say "The historian Thomas Carlyle and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood represent the last phase of transformation into Victorian culture. William Butler Yeats, born in 1865, referred to his generation as "the last romantics."

Then you have this, the Rossetti archive here.

We have alot of book references here. Like Abrams, M.H. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 6th edition. Volume 2. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1993 and Boas, F. S. Rossetti and His Poetry. London: George G. Harrap & Company, Ltd., 1918. Reprint, 1969, that supports the notion of what it written in the Lilith article. Xuchilbara (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What about this? Xuchilbara (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So where are these ideas coming from? And could you direct me to some academic books that prove your POV?

BTW sorry about thre reverts. I see you simply relabeled and moved the entire thing rather than reverting it, which is what i thought you had done. Kudos.

Xuchilbara (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you added book sources in place of the feminism.org? I'd really hate to see thoses sections go, since they influence modern ideas about Lilith as a feminist and Neopaganism (which drew much from the Victorian era).

Thanks for your help btw. I'm really intrested in Victorian, the Brotherhood, and somewhat Romantic art, but I am afraid at the moment I lack the resources right now. Xuchilbara (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Policy
Kim, I find your edit summaries as highly inflammatory. Not only is your above post contradictory (citing IAR, which would regard my reverts to the page as not in violation of a rule), but it is extremely condescending. I do not feel that comments such as (condescending) "as if you were actually a human being" or (sadistic) "Hmmm, would you like to figure out ways of discussing that don't get you blocked?" or (taunting) "I'm not blocked though. :-)" are appropriate. I cannot prevent you from making further comments like those in the future, but I would ask you to follow WP:CIVIL and respect my talk page. I take great pains to be civil to everyone I talk to, and I would expect the same consideration in return. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am actually trying to be civil to you. Each thing I have said is objectively true, and I have said them to you in a civil manner. Some of the things I have said might sting a little, but truth sometimes does that. I find that in the long run, it is often better to actually tell a person the truth (if in a nice way), rather than simply be nice to them.

I'm trying to explain that wikipedia is run by thinking human beings, and that I believe that you are a thinking human being as well. The fact that you are a thinking human being brings with it certain (sometimes unwritten) responsibilities though. These are responsibilities that a robot does not have.

"Points of order" aside, IAR does not actually state that your reverts were permitted, see WP:WIARM for some details on why not.

Finally, if you really don't want me to edit on your talk page again after this, I will honor that request. If you'd like to ask more at a later date, I can still be reached on my own talk page, of course.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kim, you are confusing policy with stuff that is not part of policy, while using rules in appropriately. My talk page is not for you to make condescending remarks. I have asked you nicely to follow that. If you were up to date on conduct and civil, it has a nice, clear message that says if someone does not feel that your actions are appropriate, maybe you should reevaluate your actions. My revert was to the properly consented version of a policy. If you cannot understand why the consented version of a policy is required to be visible by casual observers until a new consensus is formed, then I don't think you understand what policies actually are. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per definition, if you revert a good faith edit, you already know that neither version of the page has consensus. This is one of the reasons why reverting good faith edits is not really the greatest idea ever. --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a "good faith edit" and an edit that, according to the people wanting the edit, is "not really a change" and "has consensus" and "no one else cares" when it is clearly not what reality would state. Also, silence is not consensus, nor does it necessarily deal with policy pages, which have a different level of consensus needed to change their wording, since people are blocked and banned over policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A good faith edit is any edit that is a good faith attempt to improve wikipedia (as opposed to vandalism, advertising, SERPS, or what have you). Your views of reality might reasonably differ from those of someone else, so you cannot accuse people of bad faith simply over a difference in views.
 * If you disagree with WP:SILENCE, please show either by logic or by empirical means why that documentation is flawed. The place to do so is preferably on that talk page, and you are hereby cordially invited. :-)
 * People are blocked or banned when they are/become a net negative to the community, not necessarily (or even typically) when they violate a policy.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A good faith edit on a policy page requires it to deal with spelling errors or to have a consensus behind it. And I disagree with silence as do most people on Wikipedia, otherwise, it would be a policy and not an essay. And people are not blocked or banned on a net negative, because there is no such value judgment. People are banned or blocked to prevent a continuation of an action, and if the action is not continuing or possibly continuing, then there is no point for a block. I suggest you read that history on Wikipedia that I mentioned. You would learn a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Users Concerns on WP:NLT
These users have expressed concerns on some kind or interpretation on some kind that goes against the claim of "consensus" on Wikipedia No Legal Threats WP:NLT -

User:Thebainer, User:Nsk92 (struck for clarification, the user stated above and on the page that they would be for a consensus), User:Swatjester, User:Ottava Rima (added User:Random832 who also posted a point on the matter contrary to "consensus"). Changes to a policy require a consensus that goes above and beyond standard consensus. These four people reflect a dissent which is enough to justify the lack of changing the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have got consensus against you, get over it. And please read this before accusing people of vandalism. Garion96 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not four people. Consensus is not five people. Your attitude is in breach of WP:CIVIL. I have read it and I have quoted it above. Now, I direct you to WP:Consensus which directly contradicts your assessment. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nsk92 actually reverted you and specifically said that he "by and large" agrees with Mangojuice. So I'm not quite sure how you could count him under support for your version. Mr.  Z- man  01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, he did not support all of the changes, therefore, is not part of a "consensus". Read: "I am sympathetic to some of the concerns raised by Ottava Rima regarding verifying that a legal threat has occurred" and "I do have one other minor quipe with the sentence "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community". I would prefer to see something like "on Wikipedia-relater matters" added at the end of this sentence, for clarification. For all we know, one member of a Wikipedia community may be engaged in a legal action against another member of the Wikipedia community on a matter having nothing to do with Wikipedia (e.g. divorce or a custody case). I don't think it is appropriate for a WP policy to discourage these kinds of legal actions." An agreement has not been made onto the wording, and thus, the wording cannot be changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we're in acronym mode, you seem to have skipped stage D from WP:BRD. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Guy, have you not bothered to look at the talk page? I suggest you look at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats and then strike your comments as being incorrect. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Guy, according to the policy about "edit warring", I should be allowed a chance to revert myself back to the previous edit to demonstrate my undesire to work in an edit war after receiving a warning. Why would such traditions be ignored all of a sudden, especially without even an appropriate template or the following of the appropriate methods on such situations? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

When someone challenges an addition like this, we're supposed to listen to those editors. I've failed to do this myself in the past on pages like WP:FICT, and I know how easy it is to just attack the one editor who disagrees as being "disruptive". Ottava Rima is right on the money, this change was made without consensus, and we should be able to discuss it, like a community. Don't punish editors for disagreeing with you. -- Ned Scott 02:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's just wrong, he's even blocked, and I hope you learn from the mistakes of others. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have verifiable proof that I was wrong? Do you have proof to back up your claim that policy can be made without discussion? Or that my wanting the discussion to continue until the wider community has had time to react beyond a small group of involved people proved to be fruitless? Actually, it seems that quite a few people ruled and that there wasn't a consensus towards the change. Kim, you are verifiably wrong, regardless of what you claim. A block does not mean that the block is correct or appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not blocked though. :-) I never said that policy can be made without discussion. I'm just saying that your mode of discussion is disruptive. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, would you like to figure out ways of discussing that don't get you blocked? --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently, warnings are no longer issued before blocks. The idea that blocks are preventative no longer matters. Now Kim, please look at the time of my reverts. Then look at the talk page and look at what was stated until that point. Then please show where I did not make any attempt at discussion. After you do that, please look at what I have stated as the reason for my reverts, which have been to point out that the discussion has not ended and that WP:Consensus needs to be followed. Consensus states that policy changes have to have a lot of exposure and take time to make. That is not a few days or a week, but could be months or longer. And my mode of discussion? I think the fact that there were so many admin willing to jump the gun, make an edit while ignoring consensus that any block resulting from the situation is highly speculative. Especially seeing as how they are admin and held to a higher standard than just me, a normal editor. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Kim, could you please be civil? Your last comment is a taunt. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean seriously, literally would you like to figure out ways of discussing (policy) that won't get you blocked?. :-)
 * And the ideal feedback time for forming consensus is 1/25th of a second. That's probably not going to be practical anytime soon (though you never know, it's the 21st century after all), but we can try to approach it as closely as possible anyway :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC) maybe I'm blowing your mind here, since this might be very different from your perception of wikipedia. Things tend to get counter-intuitive at some point...
 * "And the ideal feedback time for forming consensus is 1/25th of a second. " That is patently absurd and directly contradictory to Wikipedia. Wikipedia deals with the principle that changes are slow. Your philosophy is directly contradictory to one of Wikipedia's root philosophies. If you honestly believe in the above, maybe a different encyclopedia would be best for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the name "Wiki" chosen because it is the Hawaiian word for "fast"? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rome was not built in a day, so an electronic encyclopedic empire can take more than a few seconds. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Would it be possible to write an encyclopedia using a wiki?" --J.Wales (2001) "Certainly, but it would not be an encyclopedia, it would be a wiki". --W. Cunningham (inventor of wikis, 2001)
 * Sure it takes time, and sure Rome wasn't built in one day. But Rome would never have been completed if it had been built at a rate of 1 brick per day ;-) (query: How many articles per day must have been written if you know the current count is 2M articles, and that wikipedia started in 2001 ? ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an article in the NYT Book Review on a book published about Wikipedia. I suggest that you should read that review for a nice overview about how Wikipedia has evolved over the years. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be Wikipedia, the missing manual. I've had the book itself in my hands, thanks. :-) You can also find more data at Special:Statistics
 * The reason I'm giving you those numbers is so you can Do The Maths(tm) for yourself. Some quick back of the envelope calculations based on Special:Statistics show an average rate of roughly 1 edit per minute over the last 6 years of wikipedia operation. This is somewhat misleading, however, as the edit rate has been growing at a geometric rate.
 * If you log on to the special irc server irc.wikimedia.org and /join #en.wikipedia you can see an IRC bot listing edit summaries live as they are submitted. By direct observation we can see that the current edit rate is closer to several edits per second. We use that as a demonstration at times, to show how powerful wiki-based collaborative editing can be. :-)
 * This should be sufficient information for you confirm for yourself that at least part of what I am saying here (namely, that a wiki is typified by rapid editing) is correct.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Kim, I was refering to the review, not the book. The review is far more enlightening and telling than the book is. And so you know, there are many users, so your ratio is completely off. Since people work in projects and the rest, consensus is able to span days and sometimes weeks while still producing quite a lot of new pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please limit comments on protected page to those necessary to explain new or extended blocks
Responding to prior comments of the blocked editor or commenting on the actions of other admins are not really consistent with the protection policy. This page is fully protected, not only the blocked editor but all non-admins are unable to post here. If we need to discuss this page we should be doing it at WP:ANI or another appropriate location where non-admins can comment, or we should wait until the block expires. Commenting by admins while the page was protected was the reason I lifted the protection before. Please leave any response on my talk page. Thank you.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As Kim notes, the page is no longer protected, so this comment is no longer of immediate relevance. Please take note in the future though, should protection be reinstated, that we have to be really careful about commenting on protected pages.  This user is particularly wont to accuse others, particularly admins, of breaking the rules - no reason to provide ammunition.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now Doug, I am sure you don't mean to convey the phrase "wont to accuse" in a negative way, especially seeing that my complaint about your actions on another page was quite apt. Admin are human, and they are apt to acting improperly, and a reasonable person is willing to look at their actions in an unbiased manner, in which you have demonstrated in your previous action. Without others mentioning potential problems, how would anything get done on Wikipedia, especially when such is one of the foundational aspects? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice chatting
It was interesting chatting with you yesterday. --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What basta means
It's not a swear. Wrad (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can claim what you want, but its a derivative of "bastard" in English. This is an English Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can assume bad faith if you want, but it ain't what he meant. I don't even see how you can construe his use of it as being directed at you! I've left a note with him suggesting he not use the word again, though. It is very easy to misunderstand. Wrad (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume bad faith? No. The word is a cuss in English. Intentions no longer apply. He should know better than to use such language, even accidentally. If he wants to show good faith, he can remove the word as with all other things that do not belong in a feature article review page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point. He wasn't cussing at all. The word doesn't even exist in English. He's an academic who knows a lot of languages and isn't used to people not knowing what he means. You are the one who needs to show good faith by understanding he did not mean it as a cuss word and wasn't even directing it at you. You are being emotional, defensive, and paranoid and need to chill out. Wrad (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't exist? The word Bastard and Basta exist in the English language. Check an Urban dictionary.Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you piqued my curiosity, and I wondered if there was indeed any etymological relation between "basta" and "bastard." It would certainly have the first I'd heard of it! But no. So the two words are, it seems, completely unrelated. :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The RAE says of "bastar": "(Del lat. vulg. *bastāre, y este del gr. βαστάζειν, llevar, sostener un peso; cf. it. bastare y port. bastar)."
 * The OED says of "bastard": "[a. OF. bastard, mod. bâtard (= Pr. bastard, It., Sp., Pg. bastardo) = fils de bast, ‘pack-saddle child,’ f. bast (see BAST n.2) + the pejorative suffix -ARD. Cf. BANTLING.]"
 * Basta is slang for Bastard. Should I pull out an urban dictionary? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Basta doesnt exist in the urban dictionary, and I also have never heard it used to mean anything else except for "Enough". The English Wikipedia is a multicultural editing environment, and as such it is important to try your hardest to read the best possible meaning into anything, and take as little offense as possible. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are multiple "urban" dictionaries, and your online dictionary isn't the only one, nor is it exhaustive on the subject. It doesn't matter if "shat" might mean "great job" in some other language, if I used it on Wikipedia to describe a page, yes, the connotation will be offensive. Its called respect to Wikipedia. We have rules about cussing for a reason. When in doubt, don't use a word that has such connotation. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Just passing by) Ottava Rima's user page says "I work with literature of all types, and I can read Latin, Italian, French, and Spanish". So he or she really ought to know what "Basta!", one of the commonest Italian phrases means. --Folantin (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Basta is not literary. 2. This is the English Wikipedia. 3. Commonest? No, and the user made no acknowledgment as if he was Italian. 4. Claiming its another language does not excuse an English definition. That has already been pointed out. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh quanto è corto il dire e come fioco
 * al mio concetto! e questo, a quel ch'i' vidi,
 * è tanto, che non basta a dicer "poco". (Dante, Paradiso XXXIII, 121-3)--Folantin (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And when did Florentine Italian become modern Italian? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think "basta" is an issue, this can probably just be forgotten about. undefinedUntil  18:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it will be, unless people keep coming to drop their opinion here on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)