User talk:Ottava Rima

I decided to re-prioritize and I will be gone for at least the duration of finishing my real life work.

A kitten for you!

Turn that frown upside down mister!

Theo10011 (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Kittens are delicious. Thanks. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

You seem to be under a lot of stress lately. So I thought maybe a warm cup of coffee could cheer you up! I hope you'll like it. If you ever need something, let me know. And enjoy the rest of your day! :) Cheers! —stay (sic)! 21:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm under no stress. :) I just got back from serving in the honor guard for the funeral mass of the Apostolic Nuncio. I'm feeling quite good - got to talk with many Cardinals and Bishops, and even saw VP Joe Biden. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Didn't realize you were so important within the Catholic ministry. Maybe you could share your experience with a few photos? Any who, just remember to keep a cool head. :) —stay (sic)! 21:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Important ministers are involved in the ceremony. I was merely an honor guard, meaning that I lead the procession in and out with my brothers. I was unable to take pictures, but I do have an image of Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan. It isn't the best because it was taken on my camera for me by one of my brothers who was wheel chair bound as my hands were full from holding my chapeaux. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

[1]. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Kudos. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why hello there, silly wabbit. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading about your recent ceremony participation, it crossed my mind that wikipedia is nothing much, while religious faith is very important. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is more than faith - community and brotherhood. A lot of people on the internet lack those, so it tends to lead to a certain kind of mindset: crabby. How has the internets been treating you lately? You seem to be staying out of trouble lately. Maybe an admin run soon? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree. :) As far as staying out of trouble is concerned, I've had other things to do and haven't had so much to spend here as I used to. Which is probably good. :) A try for adminship? I think I would have to wait longer. And even then, I might not have the time for it. But we'll see. Thanks for your encouragement. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We both know that adminship doesn't require a time commitment, only saying the right things, sucking up to the right people, and then being award with a "you get to be a total jerk to people for a year" pass. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to win an election to be a total jerk - I've done that pretty well as it is, from time to time. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha. But I mean you are invincible and thus you would be both immune and probably more likely to be a jerk for that year. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Where I would fall short is in the sucking-up part. I never learned that valuable social skill. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with coddled politicians and leaders all day for years, so I can't really deal with having to suck up to common Wiki people. That was always my problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not suffer fools gladly. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fools are fine. They know their place is to amuse. It is the people who honestly think they are far greater than they are and demand others to treat them that way that we don't seem to suffer. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the coffee really got you chatty Ottava. Couldn't help but notice. :) —stay (sic)! 00:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You must not know me, because chattiness is my greatest flaw. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Help?

I am looking for people who have enough time to helping me coding JavaScript and improving Commons from the technical side. Do you have skills and time? There are so many things to do. -- RE rillke questions? 08:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know java script. The last time I worked with any of that was when Flash was new and trendy. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. -- RE rillke questions? 11:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

unidentified cultivated roses

The cultivated roses can stay, they just annoy me. Ketzel Levine once called them "yellow spot on a stick" since they are so apt to become diseased. From learning how to make a rose for a cake decoration and across some decades, when I hear or read the word "rose" it is these controlled, hybridized bastards that come to mind; not the beautiful wild roses that often grow without control and without manipulation where I was born and lived for a very long time.

The discussion of the images of sexuality annoy me also. To be completely honest, there are very few people I ever wanted to see without clothing and that is not even approaching the sexuality part. I think I interrupted that thread at that time because my brain was taking an unscheduled break and wanted the public chats to take a break from discussions that I find annoying. This is an apology for my attempt to nudge the pump to meet my needs yesterday. How very rude of me!

I would like to think that the people who are managing the images of sexuality are managing them as well as the people who are managing the category for Rosa, which was in great shape, with the exception that all of the species has been moved from the genus into what was supposed to be a convenient listing. All of the non-species categories were supposed to be in a non-alphabetical listing. The categories are not tags and seem to have been treated this way in the last few years.

I am seeing poles where I used to see trees.

So, please forgive me for my attempt to interrupt what I perceived was the same old discussion there and also understand that it was a break my brain took without permission from my list of things to do, nor my ability or lack of ability to see what problems my selfish interruption would do. -- Queeg (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry so much. :) Smile. Laugh. Take a break every once in a while. Have a drink. Or, as my user page suggests, have some tea. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmong-Kinder.jpg

What is the method to request a review for deleting an image? That image could be illegal under US law. Epoch Fail (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

When you open a page for an image, there is an option on the left hand side of the screen under "Toolbox" called "Nominate for deletion". Click that. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

epiphanies, encapsulations and elvis

I am playing with one of the propaganda posters that that dastardly bot put into my path. It is about taking a 3 day furlough, which I am taking while I work on renovating it which is not going so well. The wrong software, needing the original font, guessing at the original colors -- at least my renovation will look better than what time has done to the uploaded version. It's home will not be here; I have a place where it will get more attention and I will be able to write more freely about it. That location has nothing to do with wikimedia and wikimedia has nothing to do with what goes on there.

That, having nothing to do with epiphanies, encapsulations and elvis, is the reason I am here. I am on furlough and the subject of this "section" and the following have nothing to do with commons.

I read/scanned the contents of the link at the top of your page. I haven't read Shelley. I can say, however, that I am quite certain that having seen Abott and Costello meet Frankenstein does not even qualify me to say that I am familiar with Shelley.

Then there is ArbCom. I don't know what that is.

Then there is your past that lead you to write that and I know nothing of it.

So, simply saying that I did not understand that web log entry is not enough -- I have provided evidence that I clearly did not understand it and re-reading it would not change this without some other reading first.

So perhaps you could use some of my furlough time to encapsulate your epiphany of six months ago. How much of it still exists? <-- that would perhaps be the only thing that you get out of this. Reworking it for a person who doesn't know you and hasn't read Shelley and also doesn't understand the situation which it was written for may also help you but will certainly be enlightening for me and perhaps not the typical "I am mentally okay" answers that appear here and therefore, far more entertaining in its potential for shades of gray and of a wiki nick which is evolving instead of changing often and seemingly over night.

"Elvis" was included in the subject for alliterative purposes only.

I just took a couple of moments to check to see if I am trolling for a discussion of the works of Shelley and I might be doing that -- I have been unable to work "house of mirrors of which is the perception of others and not actual mirrors" into this question. Perhaps a discussion of the works of Shelley would be a way to work that in.... -- Queeg (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is ArbCom. This is what I was referring to about them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a link there also en:Unlimited Register Machine. This is about hypothetical computer language that works with 0, 1 and nothing. By the definition of copyright used there, the wiki would not exist because 0 + 1 has been published in some text as a proof somewhere and most technology uses some form of this syntax to get from nothing to something. The claim that caused its deletion was that the precise language of mathematics could be copyrighted. A vote of "popular or not" cannot determine copyright status.

Your friends, back then, almost completely sucked my soul dry by "hacking the vote" within this "mirrors which are the perceptions of others". I am not going to make you responsible for this, as I like you (although, I might have liked some of them also). It was difficult for me to return to this discussion to reply and I became very sorry that I had disclosed so much about myself here. The list of your friends is the reason for that. -- Queeg (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Binary has existed for over 100 years. It is no longer in copyright if it could ever have been since. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Adminstrator's Noticeboard

I've started a section at the Administrator's Noticeboard: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Ottava_Rima.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Your regular doze of Wikilove! This one is for eating unlike the poor kitten above. RIP. Theo10011 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mellow

Whilst the temperature is raised on a number of sides at Commons talk:Nudity, you're crossing a line in attacking people and calling into question their good faith. Please relax a bit - this sort of thing does nothing to help your cause. (If you were trying to defend the status quo and shut down discussion about change, then attacking people might serve that - but you're trying to get change agreed, which requires rather more diplomacy and attempted compromise than you've recently shown.) So in your own interests, if nothing else, please tone it down. Rd232 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no attacks on the page from me and it would take a radical redefining of the term to make such a claim. Your claim that I need to mellow and that I am not relaxed are rather absurd and show that you neither know me nor understood what I wrote. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your response here, an don my talk page and the DR, merely proves my thesis. To answer the question you should have politely asked ("what are you talking about? examples please"): 04:40, 2 December 2011, 16:44, 1 December 2011, 15:42, 3 December 2011, 02:25, 3 December 2011, 15:44, 3 December 2011. The last one in particular. Rd232 (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your response on your talk page and here is 100% hostile, vulgar, incivil, and contain many statements that are really unbecoming. You also try to reinforce your BLP problems with the incivility, which is bad. To say your behavior is disappointing is the least that can be said. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your responses are increasingly perplexing, is probably the kindest thing I can say. Rd232 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you have said has been kind, and your hostility has been clear from the start. I'm not sure what your purpose here except to attack people, which I find highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if that was your impression. Rd232 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about apologies, I care only about what is best for the project. It doesn't matter how you argue or how you feel. What matters is what ultimately serves our purpose in the best possible manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:W&J College tobacco silk.jpg

You commented on the undeletion for File:W&J College tobacco silk.jpg (archived at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-12). You might be interested to know that 2 days after that image was undeleted, it was again nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:W&J College tobacco silk.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Chinchilla_party.JPG

File:Chinchilla_party.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Come_Along,_Tea-Time.jpg

File:Come_Along,_Tea-Time.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Charles_Cowden_Clarke.jpg

File:Charles_Cowden_Clarke.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They may have oversighted my edit

But we all still know who you are [redacted Rd232 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)].

I wonder why you're quite happy having you name plastered all over the place at WR, but onwiki it's a different matter? --Lovetinkle (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

For your info

I have raised the topic of you here --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

YGM

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My support for blocking you

Well, you haven't made any content contributions since October. If you produced some good quality (VI or QI) contributions in the next few days I might change my mind, but I think you seriously need to rethink your attitude here. We tend to avoid drama on Commons. --Claritas (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not, Ottava, but most users consider your behaviour antagonistic. Yes, I have made fewer uploads, but unlike you I have uploaded several featured pictures. If I were you, I would refrain from editing Commons namespace and so on for a few weeks, and take the time to upload some pictures of artwork from the net (Maximilien Luce is a really good one to go for, because they've only just become PD, and hence Commons lacks a lot of his artwork). You're your worst enemy - you've got plenty of good contributions across the board, but unfortunately you only get attention for your dramatics. --Claritas (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Let's not disagree. --Claritas (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollback erfor

Sorry for the unintentional rollback on turelios us'er talk page. I was navigating with my new iPad and my fat fingers erronously hit a rollback link in my watchlist instead of an intended link. I think I have restored it again (I never use rollback)---Slaunger (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is about par for what I've had to go through lately - sock puppet harassment, canvassing from WR, being told I should kill myself, claims of problematic behavior without any evidence or links, etc. Wonderful stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

{for 1 days per my warning to you on my talk page and on the admin board Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Herby, I have to agree with Ottava here. There is no evidence of blatant edit warring (as you stated in the block log) and you are an involved admin. If Ottava is to be blocked, someone else needs to make that call. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Commons for the following reason: Persistent disruptive communication methods [2] --99of9 (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Quite a few major errors: "Overall it is approximately 23 support, and approximately 13 against (although obviously Ottava's "vote" doesn't count at all)." Actually, my opinion does count. Furthermore, there were only 21 supports with 2 from IPs, whose opinions don't count. You had multiple people with no background on Commons or recent actions voting support, but everyone voting oppose has had a lot of activity including recent. Furthermore, the supports never once provided any evidence, which goes against our blocking policy. The only supports that count have evidence, which that would mean none.

You state that here: "For a time this thread was mostly devoid of evidence, and Ottava rightly pointed out that that is problematic." As such, any admin can overturn your block because all blocks need evidence. There is also no evidence that the blocking policy was followed because bans need to be preceded with blocks first and there is no allowance for blocks like this. There is also no right to have conditions based on it, especially when you admit there is no evidence.

Then there are outright falsities: "misrepresenting the statements or actions of others in order to make them appear supportive of your positions or that their comment about you is a grievous personal insult" That is 100% not true. I have email and IRC evidence that can be used to support that I talked to every single person listed and I can quote them publicly on their responses once they allow it. Rd232's claims were 100% false and were proven so before.

Now proof that this block has no basis within our policy based on "evidence":

"using "100%" as an adjective as though it makes the statement more true (ok, so maybe it's just me that gets annoyed by this)." And that was inappropriate for you to make such an assertion.

"claiming the support of undisclosed individuals who have not publicly commented." Nothing wrong with that at all.

"disclosing private communications without approval or notification" Any email comes to me can be forwarded to anyone. That has always been true. There is no rule against it nor can Commons put a rule against it. They can only put a rule against publishing it on Commons.

"repeatedly seeking people out to further arguments spawned from another context, which has caused people to legitimately feel harassed. (e.g. [26]) Instead keep the discussion in the original context." No. User talk pages are always used to contact users about issues. It is even in our policy.

"excessive accusations and disproportionate calls for exclusions, blocks and de-sysops, especially against those with whom you disagree. (e.g. Herbythyme, Rd232, ...)" Everyone has the right to call for a block. That is in the policy.

As such, the block cannot be deemed as legitimate in any form. All blocks need policy based rationales and clear evidence. Not one item has been produced by 99of9 and his block, like Herby's before him, reflects poorly on him. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A note

This incivility and those like it from Rd232 are over the top. Every single claim I have about private communication I can back up with actual physical evidence. The claim like that of SJ is just him trying to save face. I find it interesting how Rd232 tries to smear me and my recollections while simultaneously decrying that I send "private information" to others. You can't have it both ways. I bcc others on things all the time for protection from people's claims, especially those like SJ who are in a position to have their comments be really inappropriate for their position. It is only common sense to always send information to third parties when dealing with admin or other officials. It is never good to be in a "he said she said" situation when they use it to try and bully and intimidate because they don't want the world to know of how they really think and their real reasons for acting. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see hypocrisy in action: "Ottava makes unfounded accusations against almost any editor who disagrees with him." followed by other charges without any evidence. Rd232 wishes it to be true and since he got some people who made it clear that they don't care about our policies to agree with him then he can silence opposition and smear. Wonderful stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious problem

99of9 said "Can you point to any other context where a blocked party got counted in the vote to block themself??"

Ban proposals are not a counting of votes. They are a discussion that requires evidence and serious analysis, along with appropriate following of policy. Policy was not followed, evidence was not provided, and this verifies that 99of9's block was seriously problematic, especially with them willing to discount my opinion while counting multiple IPs and members with very little background or history. That, along with many of the supports, shows a complete disregard for policy and that is extremely disappointing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the entire diff. Of course ban proposals aren't a counting of votes, I emphasized that in the decision. Also I did not discount your opinion, only your "vote": "his comments and opinions should be given due consideration (...) I agree entirely, and certainly considered them (I've even mentioned them, sometimes favourably, elsewhere in my closure)" --99of9 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your own statement exhibits the logical contradiction. If you really didn't see it as a vote, you wouldn't describe me having a "vote". You wouldn't mention the word vote at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should pay careful attention to the supporters of the block that appear in the AN thread. You will see that they are all interested parties that gain from my not being around and do not have a good record of having the best interest of Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Yeah" Decline reason: "In the phrase "Yeah" I detect nothing that suggests anything has changed (indeed I wonder if it is really OR) Herby talk thyme 17:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)