User talk:Ottava Rima

Merry Christmas everyone. Have a good end of the year.

If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. - Ottava Rima

Getting a bit worried ...

I'm getting a bit worried about your apparently new-found empathy and reasonableness Ottava. You're not trying to prepare the ground for an assault on RfA in 2019 are you? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How did you know he asked me to be a co nom along with Jimbo? Though you missed the date by six years, 2025 seemed like a nice round figure--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be refeshing to see a voter go neutral or oppose with "try again in sixteen years time". :-) Probably not so refreshing fot Ottava though. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did use that joke with someone else (co-nom with Jimbo thing). Haha. I have enough admin duties to handle over at wikiversity. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Great minds think alike!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support you Ottava, only because your RfA would be one of the most fun to read ever. Definitely a two-bucket popcorn event. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

Yeah I saw. I'm going to start heavy work on this now; you might keep an eye and jump in when necessary. Obviously I would preffer to see you fully focus in on the page, but if not I understand where you are coming from re FAC stress. However, I would prefer if you, not me, made the co-nom when the time comes. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Treatment

Thanks for raising a question about my statement, I've tried to clarify my perceptions of the issues.[1] Questions of etiquette and civility are clearly important, but in my view our primary aim is building an encyclopedia according to article content policies, and stamping out rudeness is a failure if it impedes our primary aim. Just my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 11:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just remember that my purpose is to treat and lighten things up a bit. What is with trench warfare if you can't have a Christmas with caroling? Even the worse problems need a little joy every once in a while. I like you, and I like KC. But I also like Elonka and some of the other people. I guess I am like Switzerland, sitting back, watching, and fretting because if everyone destroys themselves, who am I going to sell delicious chocolate and watches to? :( Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You sell delicious watches? Sounds tasty! . dave souza, talk 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. I need to rely on dashes to separate out items instead of that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And an obscure reference to one of my favorite movies of all time, Joyeux Noël. Although, if you didn't see the movie, I know you're referring to the Christmas truce. However, let us not forget, the war continued for another year. My Swiss watch is beautiful. I can't believe they misspelled Rolex, imprinting it with Rofex. So much for that renowned Swiss quality. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When you finsh shaking up the AN, AN/I pages, ruffling the feathers of the DYK admins, and being irritably correct on every issue regarding WP pollicy, how's about we knock out a few poetry articles together, get some GA's, FA's, and encounter a whole new gaggle of editors to file frivolous complaints against you?:) Mrathel (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Yes. I am finishing up some stuff on Henry Fielding. However, I prefer to work on two article tasks at a time. I will work with you while I work on a novel task with Malleus (I tend to like to have one of each type, but no more than two at a time - of poetry, novel, short story, and theatre). I have quite a bit of stuff on Keats, and I should finish this and put it up towards FAC. If you want to help, it would be appreciated. What I am going to do is use that page for the epic as a whole, then have the two individual pages on the poems. The epic as a whole page would go to FAC definitely. There are a lot of Keats poems missing, along with some Blake, Wordsworth, Byron and Shelley missing. I also have Leigh Hunt that I am dying to work on. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On the literary treatment of spirits...

I had a hankering to spruce up ghost in the manner of vampire, which occupied me for much of 2007. One thing I would really appreciate is some commentary of the use of ghosts in literature (eg in Shakespeare, Dickens, Wilde, as messengers/ etc.) Would you have anything to add? This is one of my weak points. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you be delving into the psychological ghosts - works like Wuthering Heights play with ghost folklore to talk about resonating psychological trauma existing in society. They aren't real ghosts (most of the time) but play with the idea. For notable ghosts, there is Jonathan Swift's spirit in Yeats's Words upon the Window Pane (during a seance). In Yukio Mishima's plays there are many ghosts, as with most of Noh drama (ghost plays are a type of "demon" play of the Noh theatre). There is an example of a "fetch" in Aoi no Ue (a woman's spirit is able to leave her body and make a phone call, similar thing sans phone happen in the Tale of Genji).

Ghosts are a very important part of Japanese (and Asian in general) tradition. There are the "shades" in Homer's the Odyssey (when Odysseus experiences a vision of Hades), and Aeneas travels to the underworld (as with Dante) and sees various shades. However, shades are spirits that have normally passed out of this world and probably shouldn't be merged.

A famous ghost is the "white lady". The name has been played around with, such as in Wilkie Collin's the Woman in White (she isn't dead, but there is a play on her actually being alive in many scenes). Then you have spirits who may or may not be ethereal - Keats's La belle dame sans merci for example. I'm going to stop for now and get more examples. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd kick myself for not immediately adding these - Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Wordsworth's Lucy poems play with the idea of ghosts and spirits. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more - Henry Fielding has Tom Thumb's ghost (killed when swallowed by a cow) murdered in Tom Thumb. Horace Walpole wrote of the first ghost based Gothic novels - Castle of Otranto. The Orestia contains the ghost of Agamemnon, one of the first ghosts in a play. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are my manners - the Tale of Genji/Noh Play Aoi no Ue/Mishima's remake Aoi no Ue spirit character is Lady Rokujo. She is one of the most famous Japanese ghosts. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also - Yotsuya Kaidan. This may give you some things to think about as would this. Ghosts have to be one of the largest topics to discuss. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaargh, I hadn't given much thought to psychological ghosts, and I think touching on them is good. Wuthering Hts is a great example. Dammit, big topic :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, a small note (and Awadewit might be able to chime in with her own opinion) - in Wuthering Heights there were two types of psychological ghosts. There was the almost haunting presence of Heathcliff and the drama that comes around that (the constant "demonic" imagery). Then there is the final scene in which there are rumors of the two running about the moors even though they are clearly dead. Also, about ghosts in general, you may want to discuss exorcisms of ghosts. In Noh plays, this idea comes up often. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

FA! :) Lexo (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Saw it on the main page, and came here to say the same thing. Congrats... Lithoderm 02:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nice work indeed.MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's wonderful to see it there at last, congratulations and best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. But now I have to finish the last part of his early life so I can get that up for his 300th birthday. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fielding

I don't know why you are asking me this. Surely you know by now that the minimum length of an article for DYK is 1,500 chars, and your two current finished Fielding articles are well over that.

You don't have to do "full" plot summaries but I think for articles about plays there should certainly be a plot summary section giving some idea of what the play is about, even if it's only a paragraph or two. Gatoclass (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New Samuel Johnson bios

Did you see this in the Times? Awadewit (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That may be (??) the first real mainstream mention of his TS ... I told you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I added in parts of the Martin biography already. I haven't seen the Meyer's biography yet. I haven't heard of "basic books" and I am a little weary about the publisher. It use to be part of a popular publisher, but I don't know about its academic value. The Times article is troubling (but NYT is always troubling!) for phrases like - "No one who had ever seen Samuel Johnson in his infancy (as Jane Austen might have put it) would have predicted that he would interest a biographer." I don't know if that was ever the case, as most child prodigies that could memorize the whole Bible by 7 and could recite ancient Latin and Greek writers from heart by 16 are interesting. Oh gesh ("gives more weight than most biographers to the discovery made over half a century ago, by the editor of her diaries, of references to whips, chains, fetters and padlocks. What Meyers explains as a sado­masochistic pact, Martin puts down to Thrale’s role as “therapist” for Johnson’s fear of insanity.") I think the Meyer's biography needs to be burned. There were fetters and a padlock. No whips. No chains. >.<!!! The author couldn't even get the early biographies correct. At least the Times article is able to recognize that the two recent biographies are not so great.

But Sandy, people were speculating about TS for a long time. They knew he had "tics". Many of the biographies discuss them but failed to label them as TS. The two from the 90s jumped out and said it. The people who don't accept that he had TS are insane, but you know that already. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed ... but I said it may be the first mainstream (meaning, media) mention of his Tourette's, not just oddities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but they use in it a way that makes it seem like an oddity (how the article read to me - Sam Johnson may bore the rest of you, but look at this goofy kid with TS and you'll be bound to want to read about his early life!!). I was disappointed. The woman who they got to write the story doesn't even deal with biographies let alone with Johnson. They just picked her because she is a Harvard liberal that would make the Times seem more smart. Johnson had TS. It isn't something to poke fun of or mock him over. It complicated parts of his early life, but it didn't make him into the clown that the article suggests. ~.~ meh. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just sent an angry email with a list of corrections to Price. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Copyright problems

In regards to the USS Connecticut page and copyright problems in regards to this copyrighted book (looking for phrases that include 3 or more consecutive words that are duplicated and thus violate copyright standards):

• Article: "After an eight-day period known as 'Navy Farewell Week' during which festivities were held for the departing sailors, and all sixteen battleships took on full loads of coal, stores, and ammunition, the ships were ready to depart."
• Original: "The following eight days were known as 'Navy Farewell Week.' The preparations and festivities concerning the fleet's departure were extensive. Every battleship took on coal, stores and ammunition to capacity."

Addition of "full loads" and a few rearrangements but preservation of many original phrasings.

• Article: "After three Japanese men-of-war and six merchantmen escorted the Americans in, festivities began. The celebrations culminated in the village of Uraga, where Commodore Matthew C. Perry had landed 50 years before."
• Original: "Three Japanese men-of-war and six merchantmen joined up as escort. The black hulls of the merchant men were emblazoned with WELCOME in large white letters. Aboard, men, women and children cheered and sang American patriotic songs [...] Their triumph concluded at the village of Uraga, where Commodore Perry landed more than fifty years before."

• Article: "On 2 November, Connecticut led the Presidential Fleet Review in New York and remained in New York until 12 January 1912, when she returned to Guantánamo Bay. During a March overhaul at the Philadelphia Naval Yard, the battleship relinquished her role as flagship to the armored cruiser Washington. After the overhaul's completion, Connecticut's activities through the end of 1912 included practicing with torpedoes in Fort Pond Bay, conducting fleet maneuvers, and battle practice off Block Island and the Virginia Capes"
• Original: "On November 2, USS Connecticut led the Presidential Review of the Fleet in New York. She maintained station in New York waters until January 12, 1912 [...] Following her refit, USS Connecticut spent the rest of 1912 engaged in torpedo practice at Fort Pond Bay, then in fleet maneuvers and battle practice off Block Island and the Virginia Capes."

Three random passages found in addition to the previous problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you bold the alleged violations, the specific "3 consecutive words"? Grsz¹¹ 19:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you would like a date or "Navy Farwell Week" reworded. Like mentioned already, the text isn't a word-for-word reproduction. If you looked at any article here you could find portions just like this. Grsz¹¹ 19:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Notification

Thanks for the heads up. It doesn't bother me if you cite the Cup for something like this. I agree it is likely the speed thing that gets people.  GARDEN  19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

your advice on List of street names of drugs

I have been browsing AfD lately to avoid doing anything meaningful, and I came across wp:Articles for deletion/List of street names of drugs (3rd nomination) , which I thought to be a clear case where an article provided nothing but the "slang or idiom guide" discribed in wp:dicdef, but the admin who ruled in the case seemed to disagree. Since you seem to understand these rules better than I, I was wondering if you could lend me your thoughts if you have time. Mrathel (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

4 deletes plus nom (5) and 2 transwikis. 3 keeps. I'm not sure why Julian kept it. You could ask him yourself. He is a decent fellow. I will ask him personally to find out some more about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the delete "votes" was invalid, as it was based on the notion that CSD G4 applied, while one was proven faulty by another editor. After excluding the nominator, who has the obvious bias, we have two valid delete votes. Transwiki closures default to keep, at least in my experience, so it essentially came down to 4 deletes/3 keeps. Then I took into account the strength of the arguments presented by each side, and the editors in favor of keeping the article backed up their claims with more solid evidence than those in favor of deletion. Thus, I feel my closure was appropriate. Regards, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CoIed?

I was confused by this for a long time - "to Cole" as some sort of trasnitive verb I had never seen, but then realised it was a capital i not a small l... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Where? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the Ravenloft item. Yeah. :) I think I am the only one to admit their conflicts of interest anymore, so, its an acronym rarely employed. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To Autumn

There has been a series of edits to To Autumn which has created a problem with the page, I am not sure if you have the rollback feature, but I don't have the patience to do it manually at the moment:) Mrathel (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page

Doug Coldwell ^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Was going to make some comments to National Register of Historic Places Registration Form but noticed that section seems to be missing off your Talk Page. I am in direct contact with Patrick A. Schroeder, the Park Historian. If you like I can give you his e-mail address and you can communicate with him directly. He gave me advice on some of the 16 Appomattox articles for additional improvements which I made. He said everything looked good and accurate, as far as he was concerned. He is doing some additional research I requested and should be getting back to me soon (suspect in the next few days). If you would like I can forward his reply to you also.

Either I don't see your Archive Section with your various archives when you removed sections off your Talk Page from time to time -OR- perhaps you accidently forgot to Archive the sections when you removed them from your Talk Page. This should be of benefit: Help:Archiving a talk page. Cheers! --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My talk page is only for work. Once a topic is removed, I no longer have consideration about it. You don't need to forward the reply. The community already decided on it and its not worth pursuing further. I am willing to thrash against waves but I know when to get out before I drown. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Ottava. Didn't understand what you were doing on Archiving. Just suggesting, as I notice others always Archive their Talk Page and not just remove the sections. Apparently it has historical reference that they felt should be kept. Will not forward the Park historian's reply to you, only to the other Wikipedia editors that requested his information. Cheers! --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My talk page is a notebook. When things are no longer important to my work, I rip out the pages and keep it clean. Good luck with it all. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting method - just never heard of that before. Good luck to you also.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I have done the grunt work and set up an Archive Talk Box with the archives up to date for you. All you have to do is cut and paste into the blank ones in the future when you clean up. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Coming

In reference to this edit, I don't see this as a trivia section; it's a list of other art that references the work, which is common in film and literature articles. I won't disagree if you claim this list in particular is haphazard and poorly written, but deleting instead of revising it is information loss. Xsmasher (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

I'm not sure how to explain nonsense if you don't understand. Emoticons have nothing to do with it. If it's uncomprehensible gibberish, it's nonsense. If you understand what they're getting at, it's not. WilyD 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nonsense is a very easy test. Either you read it and understand what the author is getting at, or you don't. If it might be a biography, or about a species of fish, or a coming of age ritual, it's nonsense. If you know it's a slang term used to tell someone to be quiet, it's not nonsense. This really isn't an area for interpretation, it's simply what the criterion says.

“ Patent nonsense. Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. ”

WilyD 06:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Err, sure, but the entire article has to be meaningless gibberish to qualify for G1. Not merely a bit of it. WilyD 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, your statement seems to be a true-ish interpretation of the rule, but fails to apply to Shut your mane, which clearly communicates that it's a term used on www.blogtv.com to tell people to be quiet. At the point where it's clearly communicating information, it's simply not gibberish. WilyD 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

While I did delete this article as lacking the needed context to be even a stub, and not being a likely foundation for a good article, I do agree it was not 'nonsense'. The nonsense criteria is more for "Flippity floppity floooo!!!!" than for that type of article. Perhaps CSD did not strictly apply, but I felt it was in the best interest of the encyclopedia to delete it anyways. Chillum 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Ottava, by telling you what the article's about, I demonstrate incontravertably that it's not nonsense. If it was nonsense, I wouldn't be able to tell you what the article was about. That's probably the sole criterion here. WilyD 17:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Bad and aggresive speedy tagging are the single biggest factor driving away new controibutors. It's better to apply the criteria as they are. Whether we should be overly aggresive or not is a matter of opinion, I guess, but there's no reasonable way to construe the page as "gibberish". There's no hurry - something that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria can be deleted in a tardy fashion (hence my PROD - it's not exactly like I thought the article should be kept.) WilyD 00:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My swmpathies

It is awful to go through what you must be going through right now. My deepest sympathies go out to you and your family. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Its nothing to worry about. I just wont be able to devote time to working on the Fielding stuff. Priorities, priorities, priorities, and all of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

I'm away from home at the moment, but can check the bio tomorrow night. Are you happy enough with the page otherwise? Ceoil (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with going to FAC, but as its a lith article its worth waiting to have it just so. A few days wont kill us; any input it might recieve between then and now would be great. Am, well done Ottava, it was great to see you work. Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I kind of asked Liz to nom[2], so lets see. Hand on to your seat. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

21:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 21:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Contacting you

Hi Ottava,

I'd like to tell you something outside of Wikipedia. Can you suggest a way? Keepscases (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is always that email function. Or, there is the IRC chatroom. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, but I have absolutely no idea how to go about emailing you. Keepscases (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a space in "toolbox" on the top left that has "e-mail this user", or you could just click here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Walter Landor Dickens

Hi, that's a kind offer. Could you look in the index of your Forster and look up 'Dickens, Walter - death' Thanks Jack1956 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's very helpful...thanks very much. My reference was in an actual copy of the book...I'm not too good at these online citations. Jack1956 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have an actual copy also. However, it is easier to do this than to worry about scanning it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima/Philosophy

Ottava, I have added some thoughts to your philosophy page. Hope they are beneficial.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles Scherf

I find your accusations that I have copied information and dealt in original research an insult. The alleged OR is supported by other sources, and my wording is completely different from that of the source. However, to placate this nonsense, I have reworded some of the sentences. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this version, there was only one citation. This is the one I saw via the timestamps. You cannot add in a source later and then attack me. Now, a phrase is 3 or more words. As per the bold, there are too many duplications of language in many key portions. At one point, you have over 20 words in a row that are duplicates. Please address the problems now and then I can look over the page and see if it is clear of any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, how would you expect someone to react whan accused of such things? I did not add the source in later, it was already present just a little further down. There are no copied phrases, and definately not one as long as 20 words; they had all been placed in my own words. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. As such, you are not your article. If your article is critiqued, it is not a reflection on you. You do not dominate it. You do not have to feel as if anything about it is your responsibility. Please keep this in mind. It will help you differentiate people who are focusing on an article you worked on vs people who are focusing on you. As pointed out in number 6, there is more duplicate phrasing than is acceptable:

"posted to Headquarters Air Defence Great Britain, as a controller of Intruder operations. Despite his new posting, Scherf occasionally returned to No. 418 Squadron when he was off duty and flew in operational sorties with the unit." vs "posted to headquarters, Air Defence Great Britain, as a controller of 'Intruder' operations. When he was off duty he revisited No.418 Squadron and flew combat sorties."

That is a lot to be "coincidental". Regardless, passages like this should be rewritten to conform to Wikimedia copyright policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What has WP:OWN got to do with this? Of course I don't own the article, no one does. However, all of the wording in that article at the present time is my wording. No one else has of yet significantly contributed to the article, so I do view this as a personal reflection on my editing and writing abilities. Yes, perhaps that wording is slightly simular to the original text, but it is not the copy you are claiming it to be. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-worded again. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN makes it clear that you should not take offense when someone criticizes an article. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How can I not take offence? The criticism of this article reflects on my writing and editing abilities. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reread WP:OWN then. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read feeling. I believe I have addressed all of your conerns. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for adminship

Hi. Thank you for voting in my request for adminship. I have added more to my answers and hope this gives a little more insight into why I would like to become an admin. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2009 DYK

The only thing I can think of to hook all three of them (cross country skiing, nordic combined, and ski jumping) into one is to have the number of skiers who won their first individual medals in the events though I don't believe any of them are hooked in the inline cites. I would prefer to have one of the articles not make DYK if separate hooks than loose all three in a single hook. Chris (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. It just seems a waste to create three at the same time and not have them together. By having three different ones on the same topic, it just causes a slight problem with trying to diversify the types of hooks. But yeah, it's your call. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did put a combined link in with Germany, Norway, and the United States medaling in all three disciplines for the championships. It may be hard to justify the inline cites, but eay once you see the results and the subsequent cites for each events. I hope this helps. Chris (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Potomac Creek Bridge DYK

Thanks for pointing out the issues with the article. It was my mistake and I've rewritten it. Let me know if there is anything else. BaomoVW (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

noticeboard

yes indeed. DGG (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are admins discussing my blocks?

Am I to be told? Is my input desired? Is there a list of actions that are considered problematic? Is there any particular reason why I have been left in the dark regarding these matters? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a reputation for being harsh when it comes to length of blocking. Regardless, this is not an RfC on your conduct. It is simply to try and have a fair state for a user that has another antagonizing them while they are indef blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In looking up "tariff" and its use (because its odd to see the term used with blocks), I have found quite a bit of use from you. You asked for previous accounts and I think that some of these may shine some light.

1 Has PMAnderson 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC) mentioning similar concerns as expressed above. ::2 has you stating that there is a "standard tariff" (13:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC) ), which suggests that you recognize a standard of progression.

3 was another case of an indef block with Firsfron of Ronchester 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC) questioning. This was followed by Kingturtle (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC) and Blueboy96 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC).

4 where you call for another indef at 14:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC). You even acknowledge that it "might be draconian".

5 is another call for an indef block to be put after a 24 hour warning. That is a large jump.

6 is a time where you only blocked for a month at 12:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC). It is an interesting jump from 24 to a month and not indef, and this is about copyright matters which are suggested to have an indef block if they come up frequently.

7 you "put the tariff at 2 days as I am aware that there is a RfC" at 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC). Hard to participate in an RfC when there is a 2 day block, but it is also less than the one month block called for.

8 you "concur with Ned Scott" about indef blocking being inappropriate for a first block, but obviously not for a second.

9 you state "but I was unwilling to block for a stated length as I considered they would quickly resume the same behaviour as before". This would seem to go against WP:AGF. Note, the one who put up the ANI report also said "I'm not sure if indef is called for at this point" Farix (Talk) 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

10 this is a block of a user for a week on their first offense based on a standard incivility action at 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Now, I find it interesting that you use a term connected to criminal -punishment- when we are supposed to have a system of preventative blocks that do not deal with retribution or punishment. Administrators are not judges of criminals, but sysops who are supposed to keep things clean. The only other person I have seen use it in looking up the use is Roger Davies at one time, and during a 4 day block as the length for a third block. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tariff is not exclusively judicial, but also monetary - the list of charges is also known as a tariff, hire by the hour/day/week is again known as a tariff. I come from a previous background of accountancy, where I am familiar with the monetary terminology - and especially in the UK. I think you are reading too much into the judicial use - and drawing conclusions based upon that aspect which are not that which by which I became familiar with the term. I see the matter of Tarysky is concluded, so I shall not be commenting there again, but I realise the question of the use (and supposed severity) of indefinite blocks is one that you are going to pursue - so I suggest that you consider opening a discussion/rfc on the matter; I would participate in that, seeing as I was not party to the concerns expressed regarding my use of such blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if its monetary, its still odd. And if you want to know where people talk, why not show up to events, go to IRC, hang out at message boards, or just watch talk pages? You should know that you have a reputation as you almost admit it in some of the above. You are partial to indef blocks in a lot of situations. By the way, I was only pursuing it with Tarysky because I saw one user that was problematic and going about Tarysky's block in a way that would drive people off of the pedia. Unfortunately, Tarysky was a sock. Apparently, based on his actions, he was actually getting to the point of reforming his old ways but not everyone is capable of doing so. It doesn't matter now. Like Ned Scott, I only sought to stick up for the person who no one cared about sticking up for in order to do the right thing. You have your indef block of Tarysky, but for different reasons. Take care. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)