User talk:Ottava Rima

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

Re: Problematic Decline

Don't bother, as I was working with that user via email shortly after that. He's already gotten a new account and will begin editing again soon.

In the future, if you do have a concern with something I've done, I'd really appreciate you talking with me first before you go running to the higher-ups. I find it somewhat rude that you didn't do this here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - A look at the user's block log would have told you this as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:KillYourselfNow Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but your notice above seemed to imply you were going to file a request with the crats whether I responded or not. In any event, I did discuss with the user the problem with their username, the other problems they were having (edit warring) and how to avoid both. When I felt the user had a satisfactory understanding of them, I released the block on his IP address to allow him to make a new account, something which is standard procedure when an account does not have any substantial edits attributed to it. I did what I was "supposed" to do; if I didn't do it the way you feel I should have, I'm sorry, but it's done now. There is no point in posting further at User talk:KillYourselfNow, as that account is no longer active. The user is back editing, with a name that is acceptable under policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, he emailed me. It seemed easier at that point to continue the discussion by email, and I noted such in the block log. If you believe I would unblock a user who I felt would continue edit warring, you are sorely mistaken. I am keeping an eye on his contributions. Contrary to your apparent belief, I am not being irresponsible here. Now if you do not mind, I have better things to do than be subject to baseless accusations of abuse. Good day. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, this happens all the time. You can see a comment from Jayron on the talk page now telling him to make another account, not to file a rename request. I don't see why you're making such an issue out of this, because it really isn't one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Gerontion

When you finish real life work, I would love it if you would take a look at Gerontion which I have worked on a bit since I felt left out of the Four Quartets party:) Mrathel (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Four Quartets pages has only about 50% of the information. I am currently in the middle of writing a real life article on the relationship of Four Quartets and The Waste Land, so I have been distracted. However, I will drag you into all of that for a GA push for the five articles after I am done (possibly by this weekend if all goes well). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Round

Over at the Ryulong ArbCom discussion, there has been use of the term "round". Perhaps we should change to a word that wouldn't seem so much like a boxing match? I just find it a tad odd. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I once compared workshops to rings... not of boxing but for vale tudo (MMA). But yes, I agree... so, let's change it! What do you suggest?

P.S. I suggest 'phase'. What do you think? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, "phase" makes me think of some kind of sci-fi show. I don't know why. :) "Section" wouldn't have the right "progression" feel. "Part" may have the "incomplete" feel to it and suggest a progression. There are other words - session, stage, etc. We could just keep the term "round" and include a fight to the death at the end. That may liven things up around here. :)Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

'Stage' seems right. I'll update it later on today. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIV

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

GA Congratulations!

The article you nominated for Good Article, Sermons of Jonathan Swift has passed! NancyHeise ^talk 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: your comment at the Graeme Bartlett RfA

Apologies if this isn't the appropriate venue, but I didn't want to disrupt the RfA with my response. I didn't think it was worth opposing since in a situation as the question described there would most likely be other involved admins that would be willing to pull the trigger if a block was the sensible move. Not every admin should be compelled to make blocks, there's always others to do the dirty work. In my view its better to have a single admin who doesn't go far enough with these than an admin who hands out blocks like ice cream cones at the seashore. ThemFromSpace 05:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have knowledge of a major misdoing, your first step should not be the warn the person and let them know that someone is onto their scheme. The first thing you do is you collect evidence and go to the proper authorities. I don't care if he blocks or not. You never go to the person who is destroying Wikipedia about things, because they obviously can't be trusted if they are doing it in the first place. The sheer amount of support there only verifies -why- Wikipedia is having problems with these sock masters. Newyorkbrad, for example, knows that the user MyWikiBiz over at WikipediaReview admitted to running a sock, and yet he wasn't phased at all by the answer to question 4. He knows directly that people are doing this, and yet doesn't see it as a priority. One of our Arbitrators! We really have only ourselves to blame for this sockmasters, because we are too weak to bother doing the right thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TCGJ

Hey Ottava,
Was wanting to know what the situation was with this one. You mentioned having sources that would allow for a more extended discussion of literature style/impact – are those online anywhere or are they in a physical collection? Just wanted to see where things were at; I think the article has potential and your thoughts here are appreciated. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have many books on Fielding, some dealing with his theories of novels. I also have some notes for a few other pages that dealt with the journal. After next week, I will have a chance to start devoting full fledge to Wikipedia. I've been busy with real life stuff at the moment. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

All in your own time. :-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA !votes

Hey there. I know you and I are like oil and water, but we just !voted similarly on two RfAs. And even agreed on some of the reasons for the votes. Looking for flying swine momentarily. Tan | 39 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets just hope that they don't have the flu. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Response from WT:RFA

"Burden of evidence is on the opposer? That is an utterly ridiculous statement that makes me have 100% -no- confidence in your ability to judge RFAs at all. The burden of evidence needs to be on the supporter, as this is a position of power and responsibility, and admin must be shown to be trusted. Anything else is a disgrace. Your comment is shameful in every respect and I hope you strike it immediately. If not, it will be used in any future closing of RfAs performed by you in order to see if you are really cut out to be a Crat."[1]

I'm honestly surprised by how venomous your response is. I've made a comment at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Response from WT:RFA that may shed some light on my attitude (in conjunction with User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings). However, I'm totally confused by the "it will be used in any future closing of RfAs performed by you" bit. Of interest to you may be User:EVula/opining/admin recall if you truly have a lack of faith in me as a bureaucrat, but this is the first I've heard that my attitude may not be "right"; too many editors I respect do have confidence in me as a bureaucrat for me to start second-guessing myself almost a year after becoming a bureaucrat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone, anyone, who treats RfA as a vote does not belong at RfA. A bureaucrat that counts supports without rationals, or those whose rationals are "no big deal", "why not", or other frivolities, are treating it like a vote. Wikipedia is based on consensus, which requires discussion. That is our fundamental belief structure here. Your comments were 100% inappropriate and go against the basic structure of this place. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another example of where you and I simply don't see eye to eye. I consider the idea of not discounting no-rationale !votes as being akin to treating the entire process as a straight vote a laugh. I fail to see how my comments were "inappropriate," though; I think we're using different definitions of the word. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XV

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 08:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Your comments in response to new york brad on RFA talk page

"Someone who is unwilling to stand up to what they believe in didn't actually believe in it to begin with. I have no respect for individuals without convictions." You see, the problem with DougsTech isn't his opinions, nobody has suggested his opinions are disruptive, but his behaviour, as in, how he expresses his opinions. If he start a discussion on an appropriate forum maybe he'd find people who agree with him, and nobody would have any problem with him at all. But what's he's doing now is disruptive.--22:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.145 (talk)

My comment wasn't about Doug. It was about people in general. If NYbrad would cower before angry masses then he would be showing weakness that can't really be respected. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, are you suggesting that if I make a particular edit or series of edits, and a vast majority of other editors (including yourself perhaps) tell me to stop, that I should keep on doing it to avoid "showing weakness"? You have never hesitated in speaking out against those you believe have done the wrong thing, but now you seem to be saying that people should never change their minds or back down in the face of opposition. I may be misinterpreting you, but I am having difficulty in reconciling this opinion with your previous actions. Raven4x4x (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you believe in what you say, then you wouldn't change your mind. If you change your mind, then you didn't believe in what you say. I have respect for the loyal opposition, but none for the cowardly ally. This is not about actions, but about beliefs. One should always pursue what they think is right, moral, and just. If not, then they shouldn't be doing anything at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it not possible though to believe something to be right based on the evidence available to you, but then encounter new evidence that forces you to re-evaluate your beliefs? For example, based on your edits here I believe you to be a principled person who stands up for what you feel is right, and I respect you for that. If evidence was to come to light that you have infact murdered five people, I would obviously need to rethink my beliefs. An extreme example I know, but changing my mind in this case would not be a sign of "cowardice" nor would it diminish the strength of my previously held beliefs.

Anyway, I think the point of Brad's comment was not about changing your beliefs or ceasing to act on them, but more about the manner in which you act. Certainly you should persue what you believe to be right, but there are ways to do this and ways not to do this. If you were to ask me to cease posting on your talk page, continuing to post because "I know I'm right" would neither win your respect nor convince you to consider my views. Raven4x4x (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of Brad's comment is that he has no opinion except for what the mob says. As such, his views cannot be respected, as there are none. Belief is higher than the mob, and if we followed the mob, then we would have nothing worth while. Your whole statement about murder has nothing to do with belief, and it shows that you don't understand the definition. Please, look up what "belief" is in the dictionary. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

The proposed decision is up in the above case. It is located here. The proposed decision will be presented to the Arbitration Committee for voting on May 11.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicolò Giraud

That's what I get for having five different tabs open, all Wikipedia. :| Zazaban (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I followed a link from the talk page Wikiproject:LGBT, and then thought I went to another tab. Clearly I didn't. I'm not sure what happened, I was trying to revert somewhere else, I don't actually remember where because, well, I had five tabs open :\ I have now cut it down to two to prevent this from happening again. Zazaban (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA/FA

I agree, and I will definitely enjoy working on them as a early summer project. I will send you an instant message soon and we can discuss a tentative time table. Mrathel (talk)

Just to let you know, I will probably not be on much this weekend due to Mother's Day, but i will be back in action on Monday, and will probably IM you at that time to talk. I am pretty sure my library will be open throughout May, so I will probably ask for a list of your sources so I don't duplicate. If you have any in mind that you might not have yourself, feel free to make a request for anything you can find here [2]. Mrathel (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist

Thanks for re-adding the comments to Everyking's RfA after that strange edit. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. You happened to revert it while I was staring at disbelief trying to understand it. I was able to parse everything afterward, so it was a team effort. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Complaint on the Linguistics Problem

Hi, I've registered a complaint against the specific admins on the community page to 1. Jimmy Wales, 2. the Help Desk, 3. the Arbitration Committee. Do participate in this if you feel there's anything you wish to contribute to resolve this issue. Thanks, Supriya. 122.162.199.27 (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you were engaged in the debate on the talkpage some days ago, so I thought I'd ask you if you wish to participate further? 122.162.199.27 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't really a debate, and most agreed to allow in a small mention in the Semantics area. I didn't have anything specific in mind, I just wanted to make sure that people were willing to allow for some expansion. What you did was the inappropriate way of handling the situation. If you want them to adopt something onto the page, post a section saying what lines you want, where you want it, and how far you are willing to compromise on the language. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

we hear

I think you have made your point here. Maybe be best just to let it run its course now? David D. (Talk) 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, and that was before all the stuff on the talk page. David D. (Talk) 21:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite has been an onwiki friend of Everyking and someone constantly attacking me for a long time. His oppose was never real. It was just a show. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not followed your edits at all, so I can't comment on your relationship with hipocrite but there comes a time when too many contributions to an RfA tips the balance. I'd say you are close to it, if not past it. So far you have documented your concerns more than enough, as far as i can tell. Do you have anything fresh to contribute? If not, anything extra just becomes counter-productive. David D. (Talk) 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The only real recent involvement I had on that page was based on Everyking's claims that defending the Catholic Church was hate speech in his answer to number 15. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Note; also an onwiki friend of Everyking? David D. (Talk) 14:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob agreed with me. Ameliorate! agreed with me. Those are the blatant ones. Then there are also the angry people who emailed me because of Everyking's and Rootology's attacks on the Catholic Church and calling it hate speech. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You knew well that the RfA was not the forum for such a debate. And predictably this is now at AN/I. David D. (Talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew? Nice. You just rewrote everything. Everyking was the one that made it personal in question 15. That has cost him even more votes, as yet more have opposed because of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is I could see where it was leading on the 9th May. You couldn't? And are you really trumpeting your behavior on that page as a success story? The answer to Q15 should stand as it is without your commentary. We can all read it. David D. (Talk) 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One last thing, and then I promise to shut up :) You can't blame everyking for answering the question. If he had initiated that point as a reprisal against your oppose, or in some other context designed as retribution, then I would consider it block worthy, but not in the current context, sorry. David D. (Talk) 16:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

Im thinking this should be remominated at FAC; it has vastly improved with Awadewit's and others input. Are you ok with this, and are you ok with being listed as co-nom. Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fowler, Mattisse, and Bishonen had concerns. I am sure that Fowlers may have been met, but I would recommend asking Mattisse and Bishonen if they still had outstanding concerns. If you want to list me, that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Clinton

Would you care to comment on the record at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/GA1‎. It seems to be a contested delisting. Other opinions are welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Last time I tried to get people to try and cut the Clinton page back to MoS appropriate size, they tried to ban me from Wikipedia. It is part of the greater political minefields of those who want to cram in every last detail to glorify their deity. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Your comment is surprsing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

They tend to have that effect, but which FAR? I couldn't find any that I posted in that were still open. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[3] I really wish you had left your own actions there buried, but you opened the door back to them to oppose EK. rootology (C)(T) 13:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying that defending a matter of faith when it comes to gay marriage in a manner that does nothing to classify homosexuality in any matter is not hate speech. The fact that Everyking would claim it is only verifies that he is incapable of being an admin. Analyze my actions there and people will see how horrible WR is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can debate that side of it here before it derails the RFA inappropriately. I'm a firm believer that even if someone thinks gays/blacks/whatever is the best/worst thing ever should have no standing here on adminship if they don't post to advocate a strong POV on-wiki. You can go and found "catholicshateyousinceyouarent.com" for all I care, if it never touches your editing.

But all that aside, using the "no kids in marriage" thing is the silliest excuse our church has ever come up with to oppose. Did you see the pending NY law and the Connecticut laws? My legal people back home in CT nailed a home run and a half--the state grants same-sex marriage, but the church legally doesn't have to honor it. The perfect execution of separation of Church and State. Bob & John or Karen & Sharon can marry--and legally, no different than Bob & Karen. But--the church doesn't even have to acknowledge it; they're mutually exclusive if a particular church decides on it, and the church has legal immunity against suits involving that. What are your thoughts on Connecticut handling of it? I thought it was particularly genius myself. Everyone gets what they truly want--the government doesn't tell the Church what to do, and the Church, who has zero authority over those not of their flock (and even then, it's still subject to the flock itself) can't tell non-believers squat. rootology (C)(T) 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Marriage and sex being based for children only is one of the oldest standards of the Catholic Church and was rooted in reconciling Paul's comments about sex and marriage. The Church does not say homosexuality is evil, or having feelings is bad. What it says is that sex is -only- for procreation and marriage is only for procreation. To claim that this is gay bashing is ridiculous, and to claim that it is hate speech is ridiculous. Many Protestants say that homosexuals shouldn't marry because homosexuality is evil according to the Old Testament. That is quite different than the Church's stance. It is quite different from Phelps's stance. To classify defense of the Church's belief that marriage is about children as hate speech is utter ignorance.

Now, the "separation of Church and State" does not exist. What exists is the 1st amendment line put in to support the Carrollton family (Catholics) and their right to be Catholics and have government positions. The rule was to allow people of all Christian sects and all religions to hold government positions without worrying about losing their rights to vote or speak as they did in Britain. This means only that the State cannot pass laws affecting religions, but the religious can put forth their views on morality.

My feelings on Connecticut? To be honest, they are redefining a thousands of years old term in order to make a few people feel validated. To give a title that deals with the traditional family makeup in such a manner is linguistically demeaning. 1984 was all about people rewriting definitions to promote a view. It is only of the oldest political ways of deception. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The major problem with all of this is that it presumes that Catholocism (or even Christianity) is the dominant religion of our times, or that religious morality can take the place of given legal rights. In our nation, affirmed again and again and again and again since throughout the 20th century and again now in the 21st, is that all citizens are entitled to the exact same rights and treatment by the government. Every single time when it ultimately comes push to shove, that anyone's rights in any way are minimized by the state relative to what everyone else has, the law is adjusted to equalize the situation. Short of us becoming a theocratic government--which would be 100% impossible under our Constitution--can you see any other way that this all ends under our laws beside all men and women having exactly identical rights? rootology (C)(T) 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism was the minority religion back when the 1st amendment was adopted. It was adopted to ensure that Catholics had a right to be involved in politics. Thus, I think your statement is backwards. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we were the minority in this country then. But you didn't answer my question. Under the laws and traditions and historical direction of this nation from the 20th century onwards--hell, even back to the abolition of slavery--can you see any other way that this all ends under our laws beside all men and women having exactly identical rights? rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Our rights are defined in the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a traditional agreement based upon consanguinity that was created in order to separate bastardization/illegitimacy from rightful legitimacy. It was created to protect the rights of the child and the mother from infidelities of the father. Those under 18 cannot marry without parental consent, first cousins or closer cannot marry, and people cannot marry non-humans. We also restrict voting which is a right given in the amendments to the Constitution, so your argument falls flat. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was legally my right to own slaves once, so your entire argument on diverting the discussion into marriage not being a right falls flat right there. Blacks couldn't marry whites once, either. Did you know I also could have been heretical if I ate shellfish once, as well? Based on my faith, I predict in 2012 a black man will marry a white man deep in the heart of Texas, and as the shrimp cocktail is served at the reception, the polar gravitational tilt will occur, followed by Four Horseman riding out on Harley Davidson (since American bikes are better) motorcycles. ;)

The times, they are a' changing. rootology (C)(T) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And homosexuals can marry those of the opposite sex, so their right to marry is not removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh... the church, if they had their way, would stop gays from marrying. My whole point is--and always has been--is that religious law and belief has zero place as state law in any form in our nation, and state law has no business telling religion what to do with their private business. rootology (C)(T) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The Catechism and Papal bulls on the matter are quite clear: if anyone wants to marry someone of the opposite sex and have sexual intercourse for children, then that is acceptable. If people want to have sexual intercourse for anything but reproduction, that is not acceptable. It has nothing to do with being "gay" or not, as everyone is under the same restriction. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This still all presumes that the Vatican has preemptive authority over anything but the citizens of the Vatican State, and actual clergy.... rootology (C)(T) 17:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Vatican has authority over all Catholics and can deny communion to those who knowingly break the catechism. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Claimed authority; the Catholic church has many factions, sects, and groups. We Catholics are also not the singular Christian nor religious authority on this planet. rootology (C)(T) 18:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You can claim yourself as Catholic all you want, but you are heretical if you do not acknowledge the leadership of the Pope and fail to follow the Catechism. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm going to make a prediction. As each state in turn adopts same-sex civil marriage as legal--NH already did but it isn't live yet; NY I think will pass--even many Republicans are now publically on their fence, since their constituents want it; and Rhode Island is so liberal I'm surprised they haven't done it yet--the whole of the Northeast beside New Jersey will be legalized. NJ is pretty lefty, as well, so they will be next. PA after. The question will be, afterwards, is what happens when other states start to adopt it--or the exact opposite. When a state next tries a legislative or executive approach to ban it, mark my words: it will be heading for the Supreme Court at last. rootology (C)(T) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that many states voted a ban into their constitution. The Supreme Court will just remove the ruling from lower courts as marriage is not a Constitution specified right. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick

Good job, I think we can improve it further, will have more to say when I get my MacCarthy back. Haiduc (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There was one critic mentioned on the talk page but was not listed at the bottom. I don't remember the name, but it came up when you mentioned the Nicolas naming. Perhaps you could track that critic down too? I haven't had any luck. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Milton

I have been through John Milton once more. There are still a few rough patches, I suppose, but I think the overall impression is good. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Consider this a warning. You will not attack myself and other users, and you will take it to ANI or stop. Do you understand? Your obnoxious poisoning of the well needs to stop, since you're already on this ice. Take it DR on ANI before you post another attack, or you'll be brought to ANI rootology (C)(T) 15:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning? You can't warn people, you are one of the ones making hateful comments. You compared the Catholic Church to the KKK. You attack people and are being incivil. Yes, you should be blocked. And look at my block log. I haven't been blocked for a very long time, so you think you can threaten me while promoting hate and lies like that? That is really sad. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take it to ANI if you intend to continue doing this, or else the next time you do this, I will. rootology (C)(T) 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Take it to ANI then. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. rootology (C)(T) 15:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Pending further discussion and decision on this, consider yourself banned from posting on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5. Step away from the horse, its just bones now, and try to disengage elsewhere. Limit this to the ANI thread. thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me say "Dude!"... you know where that leads, right? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Why aren't you on IRC lately? Wikiversity too quiet lately to bother? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm, uh, on sabbatical :-). Seriously though, I was starting to feel like a drama magnet so I'm taking a year off. Also busy in RL, and wanted to focus on WP and commons for a while. Not ircing much for the same reason... need to cut back on online distractions!

Seriously though, you really should chill for a bit on the RfA related thing you've gotten yourself into, young mentored :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing RfAs for a long time. However, I like how someone is able to attack someone's religion and people are okay with Wikipedia being used for it. Great stuff. Notice how I am also called one practicing hate speech and homophobic, yet I'm the only one there that works with the LGBT project, improves LGBT related pages, and even rescued one from AfD and improved it to GA level. Great stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, like Rootology said: if you feel you're being subjected to personal attacks, bring it to AN/I, rather than responding in kind or bossing people around (again, don't make me say the D word, eh?). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you addressing me, Johnny? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I can explain the reference via email if you like (Wikiversity thing). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no worries. Just wanted to ensure I wasn't ignoring a post to me, however confused I was by it. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I now see how your archived talk pages get so numerous:) I am not really Catholic, and I was really more vested in quelling the arbitrary use of labels for religious groups, but I think the next best thing to getting an appology for being called a hater is to rack up a few GA's and FA's on Keats's odes. Maybe we can throw in a Ginsberg poem for good measure:) Oh, and I have been plucking away at Elizabeth Barrett Browning for a little bit; a brief rewrite of the publication section might make for an easy upgrade. I am planning on devoting Thursday evening to some good pushes. Mrathel (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm studying French translation right now (translating Boileau) for a post-graduate level proficiency that I need to retake for whatever reason. Bah! After Thursday I can concentrate on multiple topics. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Je comprends. Bon courage! Mrathel (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, French will be the hardest. Spanish will be the easiest. Latin will be... interesting. I hope I don't have to take a fourth language. Never specialize in multiple fields and try to do the work simultaneously. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, I can only imagine; I took Latin in elementry school, and now when I try to read Horace, I do it with a French accent. Mrathel (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. That reminded me of an old mentor of mind talking about a conference in which there was this German scholar talking about Horace and reading it in Latin. When some young person in the crowd asked why he didn't translate, the German scholar said something like (in a heavy German accent) "Translate Horace? Why would anyone need to translate Horace? Horace is easy". Now, I don't know what the original accent sounded like, but the fake German accent of the Latin and the quote above was quite delightful. On another note, I learned Church Latin from an Irishman with a thick accent. I'm unable to speech Latin properly to this day. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Your edits are being discussed here. Please note my comment in the section. I am going to block you should you take any further part in the RfA. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I opposed the Everyking RFA and I am going to strongly advise you to stay off that page, leave EK alone, and let the issues be resolved with a whole lot less drama, please. If you don't take this advice, just letting you know, I will support Ryan's block. Jonathunder (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryan's block for what? Reverting an edit that inappropriately discusses a situation that was closed without support KC's stance? Or putting forth something that supports KC's lack of process edits and actions? Or how about having a comment by Xeno that is prejudicial, inappropriate, and discusses KC's acting in an manner that she does not have authority to act in? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If their edits on that RfA were that inappropriate, the crats and other contributors can take care of it. Your views on Everyking's RFA have been more than sufficiently clear. The main reason I opposed Everyking is because, though he can be a good editor, I saw too many situations where he could not view something in proper proportion or simply stay away from drama. You are doing the same thing now, and it isn't helpful to the project. So, let's both go do something else, OK? Jonathunder (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As Moni points out, they are a BLP violation. Many people have already expressed their outrage at the comments. The fact that no one will remove them or block Everyking for making them is a disturbing lack of appropriate action. Rootology even compared me to Phelps, the guy that says "God hates fags" and attacks people all the time. The same guy that attacked the Catholic Church multiple times. A guy I spent many years refuting. And yet both Everyking and Rootology are allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform of hate. That is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've heard the proverb that sometimes it is better to let someone else defend your reputation. As for myself, I'm off to photograph an interesting historic bridge while the sun is still on it. I hope you can find something other than this to do, too. Regards. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

← Ottava, you've offered me advice often enough in the past, so I hope you won't mind if I return the favour. I've got absolutely no doubt that Ryan's finger is hovering over the block button even as we speak, but please don't give him the satisfaction of clicking it. I agree with you that Everyking's characterisation of your comments as "hate speak" was despicable and unsupported by the facts, and that it should have been stamped on, but it wasn't. Leave Everyking's RfA to fail, as it fully deserves to, and let him reflect on the wisdom of making similar remarks in the future. Your work is done. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in communication with a few Arbitrators right now. Having both Ryan and KC ignore the major personal attacks by Everyking and Rootology is completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, you can't blame everyking for answering the question. If he had initiated that point as a reprisal against your oppose, or in some other context designed as retribution, then I would consider it block worthy, but not in the current context, sorry. Further, I was already warning you to back off before he even answered q15 so as far as I see it you are just trying to escalate this whole thing. How is that NOT disruption? David D. (Talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? You can't? He could have said that he "got me banned at WR". Or we "fought at WR". Instead, he claimed that I practiced hate speech. That is a severe violation. If refuting a major attack like that against my character is inappropriate, then people no longer care about our time honored traditions and standards here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One it was at a different site. Two, no one said you could not refute it. But you have taken it to many different pages and have not stopped. Will not stop. That is disruption. As I said before, you have to know when to step back. David D. (Talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He said that on WR he had thought some of your posts, there, were in the category of hate speech. He didn't quote you, he didn't say whether he still thought that. He answered the question with history - past history between you two. You are acting like it was a current charge. It was not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He accused me of practicing hate speech (doesn't matter where) in an entry on Wikipedia. That is a BLP violation, as BLP carries onto talk pages and about living individuals. Any mention of that is a problem. Since hate speech is a major law, it is the equivalent of saying I think you practice stealing or I think you practice rape. Laws are laws, and they are not to be used in accusatory fashion regardless of if they are hidden behind "thought" or "feeling". The comment does not belong in any fashion on Wikipedia and was only there to damage my reputation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No he answered the question. One that was asked because you would not stop going on about WR. He never directed any comment at you. David D. (Talk) 23:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

People aren't thinking clearly here. Using the term "hate speech" was clearly inflammatory, but wikipedia uses the term "disruption" basically as a device to silence unpopular editors. As I said earlier, don't give Ryan the satisfaction; Everyking is paying the price for his indiscretion without you having to say another word in your defence. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Everyking is paying the price for his indiscretion without you having to say another word"; exactly, but try and tell that to OR. I tried to point out that he was in fact undermining his credibility but he will not stop. David D. (Talk) 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

EK was just answering a question about what happened. It seems OR brought it on himself really, he was well aware of what EK thought at the time, an if he hadn't trolled the RfA to such an absurd extent, no one would ever have asked what happened. the wub "?!" 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He did not answer what happened. He said it was "hate speech". That characterization is an attempt to diminish my reputation with an untruth. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been EK who made the original allegation of "hate speech", and who chose his own RfA to repeat that claim. Hardly a demonstration of good judgement on his part. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So, in retrospect, maybe the savvy move would have been to rebut and leave it at that, right? RfA over, no arguments. Its not rocket science, as they say. David D. (Talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten a lot of angry emails from people involved in the RCC page that see this as just the condoning of the same action. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground so Catholics shouldn't be forced into a corner this way, attacked, accused of being hate mongerers, and just treated like crap. We have CIVIL, NPA, BLP, etc, to protect people and yet people are turning a blind eye. I protected KillerChihuahua from people at Wikipedia Review since September. I deleted posts. I banned IPs and random users. I even defended her on Wikipedia Review. And the thanks I get? As I told her in email, she made it clear that she doesn't care what kinds of attacks come from those on Wikipedia Review, so I wont care either. I guess Wikiversity can become a platform for hate against her again. That's the way the Wiki burns, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You started the fight, as far as I see it. And now you won't stop it. Please stop trying to frame this as a religious dispute, that is a red herring. My first comment to you regarding the rfa was on May 9th. David D. (Talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OR, what you have done or not done for me on any site has nothing to do with what you are doing now. I'm not sure what you're talking about, I have not received an email from you about this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the email just came in. What is this, petty vengeance, retribution? OR, I cannot block someone because you want me to. I see no personal attack. I am sorry this disappoints you, but I would prefer you realize I am doing my best, and that you are placing me in an impossible position when you expect me to support your disruption. I am sorry if you feel you need to retaliate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

KC, I blocked people making the same comments in regards to you from Wikipedia Review. I remember you complaining about them. I could have blocked you at Wikiversity many times for the same things as you characterize as disruption. Instead, I knew that those at Wikipedia Review did it because they want to cause problems within Wikiversity. So, we looked beyond it and blocked the real trouble makers. But since you made it clear that you think such actions are inappropriate, I wont be performing them at Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would hope you did such because you eflt they were appropriate, not for any other reason. If someone were to come here from Wikipedia review or any other site and attack you, I would certainly address that, up to and including blocking. That has not happened, so there is no sense to your claim that I "made it clear that you think such actions are inappropriate." I find dealing with those who are trouble makers to be an integral part of adminship. What you're missing here, Ottava, is that in this case, you are the one "causing trouble". I am sorry you cannot see that. I am sorry you are taking this personally. And I am very sorry you are declaring your intentions to allow trouble makers to go unaddressed on Wikiversity if they chose me as their target. This is beneath you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This was your comment that I was responding to above. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a non sequitar. Your post does not address anything I said there. You are saying I think "you think such actions are inappropriate" regarding blocking troublemakers. I have never said anything of the kind, and the post you link to does not even address blocking or troublemakers at all, except to tell you to stop being one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a trouble maker because I pointed out how WR is used as a platform to attack people and then I had my religious beliefs dragged onto Wikipedia. This is exactly what Moulton and others did. Based on your logic that you have used, I should have blocked you at Wikiversity when you complained about the treatment. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

that's not even close to why you were a trouble maker. You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you have completely missed what multiple people have been telling you for several days now. I give up. I am taking a break from trying to discuss this with you; I am having no success with any sort of meaningful communication. You have misread my words so completely there is no resemblance to my meaning at all. This is an exercise in futility. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My dear, you can say I am obtuse all you want, but we blocked Centaur for actions similar to your own in regards to Moulton. However, unlike those, I kept my concerns in one area, did not respond to the incivil comments with kind, and I stood up for the integrity of the project when there were clear that people from Wikipedia Review were here only to disrupt. I deleted Moulton's comments that were 100% like Everyking's and Rootology's because they were unacceptable as they were stemming from a Wikipedia Review mentality. Based on your logic, the right thing for me to do was instead let Moulton continue and block you. I felt that I made the right choice back then. You obviously disagree. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Per my note below - anyone who I find continuing to aggrivate this disruption by taunting or abusing Ottava here on his talk page will be blocked without further warning. Find something better to do tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruption - Please stop now - final warning

Ottava - I believe that you may be right that you may have been provoked on these points. However, your response has pushed past reasonable boundaries of proactive into the relm of active disruption.

Someone else having provoked you is not a license to go around causing problems on Wikipedia.

Though I have some sympathy for your situation, this has to stop. You've made your point. Further disruptive activity will result in a block. You are welcome to file an Arbcom case about the abuses, or a user conduct RFC. Those both may be appropriate at this time. However, you need to stop.

Please find a way to de-escalate this. I understand that you feel attacked and want very badly to respond to that. But the situation has become unreasonable.

This is not a judgement on who is at fault or degree of provocation. I will be following up on those points elsewhere. But at this point the focus of the current problem is your behavior responding to the provocations.

Please take a short break, and if you still feel this upset tomorrow, write up a Request for Arbitration and follow it up there.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, all I wanted was the descriptive "hate speech" removed. I can deal with Rootology's attacks on my talk page and on the RfA talk page, but the attacks in the answer are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Note - I wont be responding to the ANI thread anymore. If any Arbitrators want access to some of the emails I've received on the matter from people who are upset, I will ask permission to forward. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your authorship claim is false

Why are you claiming to be author of something that you are not? I am referring to the photograph of Johnson House in Lichfield. I took that photograph and I uploaded the original version - Julian Ward-Davies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.252.8 (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missreading the credit. It clearly states that you are the author. Ottava happened to upload a cropped version and that is logged. In no way is he claiming authorship by editing the photo. David D. (Talk) 12:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up now. Apparently something went wrong when File:Johnson house Lichfield.jpg was moved to Commons. Ottava cropped the image and uploaded a new revision of it, but made no change to the licensing information. The commons upload bot however was apparently confused by that. Not Ottava's fault.
Amalthea 12:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The timing of the above is interesting because of this thread. I am glad that you (Julian Ward-Davies) has come back and reasserting yourself as owner, because it will clear up any future doubts. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To explain the timing issue: I have this image watchlisted on the Commons. I saw an IP remove the license template, so I wanted to investigate to see what the problem was. Everything should be fixed now; it was just a bot glitch that populated the most recent uploader instead of the original uploader as the author. Эlcobbola _talk 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yellow bar

		The 100 DYK Medal
		Most excellent, Ottava Rima! Good work. Please do continue to improve Wikipedia with your talent, it doesn't go unnoticed. Try for a 50 article dyk! :) Synergy 12:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

50 Article? No, people get upset now. I was thinking about improving all of the letters of the alphabet and having a DYK saying "... that the standard English alphabet has 26 characters, a, b, c, d, e..." lol. I'm sure I would end up bludgeoned in some alley. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Poetry collaboration

--Midnightdreary (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the early life section goes, I made a few quick edits, but I will leave it to you for the final cut. I came across a few relevent sources while trying to put something toghether for the "Poetry" section and thought I would add what I could. I hate to overlap, especially if you are working on putting large chunks of info together, so let me know if I get in the way:) Mrathel (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been taking a vacation this weekend from editing... not out of choice but because my cabel internet company thought I should. Anyway, I am sorry to hear of the dispute on the Coleridge article and just want to know if there is anything that can be done. I am not too versed in references myself, so I might not have much to add, but I think we can probably agree to let the issue slide and fix it down the road, unless there is something I don't know (I am going to go back and read the talk pages in a bit) Mrathel (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your observation at the topic ban discussion

Heya, you were correct in that according to the linked to policy there wasn't any cause of action. I've addressed my error and I wanted to thank you for brining it to attention. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it was really weird. I see the new link and I am neutral on the matter. I noticed it come up before when someone else made the same mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's good you did. Honestly they look identical as you said (hence my confusion). You may wish to note you're now neutral, etc. Thanks again. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the case either way. I just felt that the grounds needed to be corrected before people jumped in on the wrong thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The conversation poems

I can put together the background sections for the poems if you put together some of the rest. How does that sound? And should there be one main page discussing the conversation poems as a whole as per The Lucy poems and pages like that? By the way, I have each of the sources listed in your subspace and a few others if you need anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC) By the way, I'm referring to creating new pages for the individual poems. If you only want to work on the section in the bio, that is fine and I will perform all of the work on the poems. If you just want to help out a little on making the new pages, that is fine to. Just drop a line about what you would like to do so I can prepare my schedule. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My immediate goal is to help create a subsection of a few paragraphs length for the main Coleridge article; I think it's important to help keep that project moving. Although you're evidently far more knowledgable about this area than I, I'd be happy to draft the main article text in my subspace. If this is agreeable, I'd certainly appreciate having your additional references. You can drop them at the bottom of my Sandbox2, or let me know where I can pick them up.

Once I've managed this task - probably a few more days - I could be useful on a related article or articles. An overarching article on the Conversation Poems now looks justified to me, as do individual articles at least for Frost and Dejection. I'd prefer that you take the lead there, but let me know how I can help.

Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick diversion - any other literary jackdaws?

If you can think of any literary allusions of jackdaws I have missed, let me know, but don't spend too much time on it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XVI

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Ottava! Thank you so much for your support and comments in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Hello

Just wanted to say, I admire your defense of User:FlyingToaster at WP:BN with those excellent arguments. I know you've fought with her in the past, and that just makes it more praiseworthy. Cheers, AvN 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please...

Try to dial it down a bit... you're apparently on quite the tear. We get along pretty well for not agreeing about everything, but I can't abide the amount of discord you seem to be stirring lately. You can make your points without being quite so non collegial. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Discord that -I- am causing? Yes, because I caused the discord about FlyingToaster? Did I also force PeterDamian to use Wikipedia Review and a false understanding of how we deal with plagiarism too? Lar, I have been dealing with this topic for quite a long time while here at Wikipedia. The others have not. You placed your warning in the wrong spot. Is it possible that your membership at Wikipedia Review may have clouded your judgment? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything is possible... but yes, I think you are a significant (if not the only) contributor to the discord that swirls around some of the places you happen to be at the time. My warning stands, you could try to temper your words if you wished, and I suggest you not try to cast aspersions. ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Lar, but admin's CoI keeps you from having an actual warning on the matter. Now, if you want to actually go in an area that would be appropriate, you can block Peter for using Wikipedia Review as a blatant means to canvass an attack upon FlyingToaster, AD, and others. Then you can compound the block of Peter and add a block to Lara for violationg WP:POINT in order to further disrupt Wikipedia in order to cry out against her FT being passed. But we both know that you wont. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin's CoI? You're confused. I've taken zero position on the FT matter. You need to focus on the issue I'm bringing you, which is your own disruptiveness. I'm not the only person that sees it. "But so and so is doing it too" doesn't work when my kids try it, nor will it work here. I offered you advice. You can take my advice or not, as you like, but don't say I didn't warn you that your behaviour is going to lead you somewhere you don't want to go, sooner or later. Maybe not this time, but sooner or later. Hope that helps clarify matters. If not, oh well, I tried. If I didn't like you, I would just have up and blocked you for this disruption, and that would have been that. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My "disruption" deals with criticism of Wikipedia Review, a site that you are a prominent member of. Thus, you are blatantly conflicted. If others see it, then others are perfectly capable of coming here. I don't care if you block me or not, as you are not capable of being unbiased on the situation so your opinion on the matter means nothing to me. Unlike most of the people involved in the discussion, I have worked with plagiarism on Wikipedia, I build content, I am still building content, and I actually put forth a real effort in fixing this place instead of going around trying to cause as much chaos while cheering on more retirements on Wikipedia Review. So yes, throw out "sooner or later" all you want. I have proven my ability to contribute along with my not personally attacking people, without cussing, without vandalizing, without edit warring, and the rest. So guess what? There is no excuse to block me. However, threats like the above are a breach of civil. So, next time you return to my page, please point out where I listed a series of AfDs because of Wikipedia Review canvassing while stretching the view of WP:Notability to try and cause as much disruption as possible, where I go to the BN to list people in retaliation for being blocked by one of their defenders, or where I have gone to someone's page, made a series of edits, and then link that in order to taunt another. Instead, I have calmly pointed out the difference between copyright and plagiarism and how we deal with plagiarism (I have experience with that on Wikipedia for a long time), I have pointed out how notability applies and even linked (I have quite a bit of experience with that too), and I have not resorted to disrupting the encyclopedia because a canvass was performed on a website that heralds on the destruction of this place. You want to say -I- am being disruptive? Come back and say so after you spend over 6 hours a day building content on this place, because I have the ability to prove that I do that during all of that "disruption" you accused me of. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're blowing smoke. It's not going to work. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blowing smoke? Work? What does that even mean? You come here and make a block threat. I gave you justification above why I really can't respect it. If you want to block me or not, that is your prerogative. I really don't care either way. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big blocker, and in fact I never said anything about blocking you... I came by here to give you some friendly advice. Which you spurned, with a big discussion about how you're not doing anything wrong and how I should go ahead and block you if I dare. Again, if I cared to make a case about it, I would. I just wanted to give you a nudge to cool it, but you turned this into a heated discussion too. Whatever, you don't have to take my advice if you don't want to. I'm done. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you should block me. I just said that I could care less if you did or not. As I stated above, I think you are too conflicted to see the matters around you because this all deals with a series of incidents that were connected on Wikipedia Review dating all the way back to Peter Damian being blocked by WMC. Thus, if you think I am acting problematically and think that others see it, it would probably be best for others to say so. Regardless, I haven't responded to Lara since before you even bothered to come here, which only verifies that your perspective is skewed (in fact, not since 18:54). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have pointed it out too, OT. I almost had to say "dude", if you recall. Seriously though, you do seem to be engaging in more than your fair share of drama lately, and Lar was giving sound advice here. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sound advice or no, the recipient has to be in a frame of mind to listen to it, so your timing is probably not the best. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely different situation, SB Johnny. And its one thing for people to block someone like Giano, who outright attacks others. However, I don't give people the excuse, so any block against me is definitely punitive, done without good intentions, and is ultimately disruptive. If I cause that much annoyance to people with simple, unadulterated arguments, then it shows that my words are effective at exposing the problems. For Lar to show up here only verifies that my attacks on the corruption caused by Wikipedia Review and their campaign of chaos hit home. As Lar stated himself, he had no involvement in the matter, and yet comes here. Funny how that happens, no? If someone wants to do what is best for the encyclopedia, I can point them to over 400 pages that need to be worked on. The thing is, -I- am working on those pages and others are not. Actions like Lars are the reason why people like Giano aren't here anymore, and guess what? This is an encyclopedia, and we need people like Giano. So, if that means bending rules, making allowances, and stopping nonsensical attacks from admins who aren't busy content editing, then yeah, that is how it should be. I'm here to stay, and if people don't like my personality they can stay off my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You

I find it very hard to stomach your support of Giano, when his fight is vs. IRC mobs, of which you are now the supreme example, as you so often like to remind by email. You are such a self serving changing butterfly, so absent of a clear coheriant agenda (likely not by design), it makes me sick I ever stuck up for you. Your principals are so shifting, mercurial and your arguments so self serving and adaptable, I have regret that I stood up for you before. Just so we are clear. I think your problem is that you thought you could make new friends qicker than you could loose old enemys using off wiki means, but it just caught up on you. I hope the irony is not lost, and that the walls of you deceit and backchanneling close in before you do more damage. Sincerely, Ceoil, aka Ceoil. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You are free to publish any of the excahages we had, as I never trusted you, and I was always careful and I regret nothing I said to you, even in reply to when you were canvassing arbcom votes. Rememeber thoes? Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil, I have always defended Giano staying here. I am also not part of the "IRC mobs", and I have criticized their blanket support at RfAs for a long time. I have no friends nor do I wish to have friends. I defend people when it is necessary that they are defended as they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and I attack people when it is necessary that they need to be removed for the betterment of the encyclopedia. If you think email is backchannelling, then disable it. I only send emails as a courtesy as to not embarrass the recipients or when the matter is delicate. And, my dear Ceoil, your definition of canvassing is quite off - I only discuss matters with people directly involved in the matter, and I normally discuss issues with those who are opposed to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not very convincing Ottava; perhalps four out of ten - with points given for imagination. You constantly appeal in private correspondance to a wider audience that never reveals itself, except on mass when blindly forming 'conceus'. "I have like, five or six / seven or eight admins" talking to me now on IRC who back everyword I say". No? Have you not said that or not, several times, to me? Or did I misunderstand direct treats and simple and basic english. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Who do I talk to in private? Well, I have emailed or contacted over IRC you, Sandy, Moni3, Karanacs, Malleus, most of the Arbitrators, Jimbo, Cary, Prodego, JulianColton, ResFirestarter, Ed17, Garden, X!, Durova, Awadewit, PeterSymonds, Jennavecia, Backslashforwardslash, NuclearWarfare, and on and on and on. I've probably contacted directly almost everyone who has ever dropped a message on this talk page. Have I contacted them because I agreed with them? No, as I contact people that I disagree with. When I disputed Coren's restoring the block on Malleus I chased him down on IRC. When I need to, I talk to a lot of people and discuss the matter with a lot of people regardless if they agree with me or not. I am not afraid of talking to people, direct or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU 2

I've already warned User:Ceoil about his posts here; I would have though that a mature editor would not have risen to the bait. However, this kind of diatribe or dialectic is inappropriate in a third party's RfA, and I have removed your reactive comment in fairness to LHVU. There is a thread on my own Talk page in which I set out my position, which I believe is fair to all, whilst being realistic. I'm not going to mediate, but I will have no hesitation in kicking this upstairs if the parties don't take their personal beefs elsewhere, because I see them as disruptive and irrelevant to the RfA. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rod, please block me for this as you wish: So Otava is now "mature" and my regret at realising that he fooled me for entering into a mentorship, which he gamed, indictes, what, that I am no where near 'mature'. Right. 3 weeks seems about right. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)