User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 5

Cleaned up. Feel free to drop a comment.

Sermons of Dean Swift
Just a quick note to say that I just spotted Sermons of Dean Swift, which seems to be all your work, and thought I'd just drop a quick note to say that it's a great article. Elegantly written and comprehensively referenced, I immediately assessed it as B-class, but I'm sure that it would fly through a good article assessment if you chose to submit it, and it is probably v close to featured article standard. Good work! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is misnamed, and it's odd that you keep this congratulations without keeping in mind the cautions about the quality of writing in the article from user:Geogre or the fact that you've lodged the article inappropriately from me. Still, it's your user talk page.  If you won't consider the relevant issues, you might want to remove the congratulations.  Utgard Loki (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tone
Hi Ottava Rima, I see you've started reviewing FA candidates. Thank you for your participation - there is definitely a shortage of reviewers! I'd like to encourage you, however, to moderate your tone a bit. Your phrasing often comes across as combative, which hopefully is not intentional. A calmer tone will often get better results, especially at FAC; no matter how correct you may be, people are less likely to listen to the content if they feel the tone is improper. Good luck learning the FAC ropes. Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem mostly results from the fact that there are multiple editors of the page actively participating on the FAC. A mob mentality does not help Wikipedia, and mobs tend to be defensive. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not speaking specifically of that FAC; I've read through several that you have participated on recently, and all share the same tone issues. I hope that you take these comments in the good will that they are offered and look closely at the way in which you respond to comments. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the responses from FAC not by the same group of people have been overwhelmingly supportive of my comments. The responses from that group have not. 2+2=4. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for letting me know about the updates on the Drapier's letters. I have entered a very busy period at work and will be doing a lot of overtime in the next week and don't know that I will have time to carefully review the additions and changes. You seem to be very knowledgable about the subject and I wish you the best of luck in the nomination! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

N/p
I'm not sure where I'm supposed to reply, my talk page or yours, but I just did a search on Wikipedia for "Cantebury" and corrected all the spellings to "Canterbury". It was nothing major, but thanks for the thanks. :)

You seem to be quite good with languages, have you thought about adding a Babel userbox to your page so people can find you if they need a good Latin/French/Spanish translator? Just a suggestion. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by O2mcgovem (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima/Printers
I've userfied this for now. Friday (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please Revert
(copied over from my talk page:) It makes sense, and I understand what you were trying to do, but there was a whole bunch of stuff that simply disappeared, even when I clicked on the box. I don't know why: you seem to have done the code right as far as I could tell. I didn't know how to fix it (if I did, I would have), so I just undid the box. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange. Wikipedia strikes again. It works for me, but if you are having problems seeing it, then other people will. So strike/remove my request for a revert if you wish. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I don't know if there's some kind of limit for those boxes (as there was a lot of text hidden) or what.  Anyhow, again, I'm no techno-whizz, so don't know how to fix it myself.  Sorry.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I was just trying to clean clutter. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The General in his Labyrinth
Dear Ottava Rima,

I have addressed your concerns at Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth and would be grateful if you could check whether you are now able to support.

Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm so glad. I knew we'd get there in the end! Your review was very much appreciated; thanks for taking the time. qp10qp (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I never regarded your objection as impossible to meet. Plot and character descriptions are peculiarly difficult to write on Wikipedia, and this book was very trappy in that respect, as you noticed. qp10qp (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Émile Lemoine
Comment addressed. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Another comment addressed. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est
Thanks for your offer to help out. I believe I have addressed the specific points brought up in the FAC, now I'd just like to get some feedback/comments from additional editors that haven't yet commented there. So we shall see how it goes. Cirt (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Drapier's Letters
Unfortunately, real life is rearing its ugly head these days and I'm pretty busy; I'm not too interested in the topic either ;). Good luck with your editing though! Budding Journalist 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Elegant citation system
Hello Ottava Rima. I just took a look at Drapier's Letters, and noticed that system of the tags. It seems very neat, though I'm curious how much manual labor is needed. (I'm used to the WP:CITET business). Can you point me to where the new system is explained or documented? I imagine there are some other articles that might be able to use it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Age of Empires
Replied. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied. I'd like to again (on top of what I said in the FAC) extend my apologies for my initial comments...which really sucked. Sorry about that. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You know me?
Where from? Feel free to email me via the "email this user" link beside my user page if you don't want to say on-wiki. You've piqued my curiosity. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well, it's worth remembering that even in the tradition of which you speak, there is a healthy regard for differences of interpretation and flexibility in civil discussion.  I don't believe Emerson was on the list, but I think most Johnnies would agree with him that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp size
I have found the proper policy points regarding WP:SIZE. I hope your would reconsider your opinion of the current article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony - If you notice, it was a comment, not an oppose. If you want, I can bury it under the standard hide template. I use dialup quite often, so such concerns are important to me. However, I have only opposed on such grounds once, because of the nature of continual expansion and summary concerns. Now, I have not made up my mind to support or oppose the article as a whole, and I am watching the responses to the other concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I clarified my thoughts in your section of the discussion. I will let you hide the comment when you have made up your mind.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the civility warning you just removed
I see you used the edit summary "removing improper warning that demonstrated user's lack of knowledge on the arguments being discussed". I wanted to let you know that the warning was proper, and that the arguments being discussed have no bearing whatsoever on the level of civility expected of you.

While you may discard that warning, or even this one, such a discard will not protect you from the consequences of uncivil statements.

My advice is to make your arguments civilly. Such a limitation will not reduce the cogency of your arguments but increase it while not going against the basic expectations of the community. undefinedUntil 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Until, the warning showed a misstatement of the facts of the case. Thus, the warning was completely invalidated because admin are required to follow a whole issue before responding, or at least have the facts of the case. This is part of the admin guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottave, please stop wikilawyering and understand that several people (myself included) have tried to help you. Your arguments may indeed by right, but your methods of making those arguments anger a lot of people, which make them much less likely to actually pay attention to your argument (and thus consensus will go against you).  Please, take a good look at the method in which you phrase your arguments and try to do so in a more civil manner.  Karanacs (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not "lawyering", which is a pejorative term, by the way. I am only explaining why I felt that the warning deserved to be removed. I can still plead my case. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Against the world (yet another civility warning)
I saw where you removed the civility warning. I have to ask, do you really think you're helping your case by fighting against every single person who tries to talk to you?

I've tried to assume good faith in your comments and actions from the beginning, but your policy of telling other users to leave wikipedia, and telling them to redact their statements is just flat uncivil, as numerous editors have pointed out to you.

I've made suggestions before, which you either ignored or responded to with further incivility and wikilawyering. I'll make one more plea. Please stop. Every single editor you have had contact with has found your comments uncivil, and you are doing nothing by prolonging this except making further enemies. If you want to be a productive editor, just let the matter drop and use more civility in your comments. Redrocket (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fighting against every person? That is a clear misstatement of the facts. I have dealt with a few of the editors who have stated such and many have seen my point of view. Your comments are quite wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you quickly revert comments on your page, but with your permission, I'd like to reinstate this one because your edit summary makes it appear that other editors agree your comments were not uncivil. Please explain, and show some evidence that someone, anyone, agrees with you that telling people to go elsewhere and to redact their statements is civil and appropriate behavior. Redrocket (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There were many who commented and were quite neutral on the matter, or who became neutral. I do not need people to actually agree with me to have them not agree with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. That's all I needed to know. Good luck in the future. Redrocket (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)