::::::::::Three blocks and none stuck. Plus, I am working on a 9 part DYK and 10 GANs, plus I have my FAC up. I still have plenty of time to work on a real life article, a lecture presentation, and to pretend to read ''Daniel Derronda''. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Three blocks and none stuck. Plus, I am working on a 9 part DYK and 10 GANs, plus I have my FAC up. I still have plenty of time to work on a real life article, a lecture presentation, and to pretend to read ''Daniel Derronda''. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Didn't this one stick? "''11:41, 31 July 2008 Nandesuka (talk | contribs) blocked Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 days (Disruptive editing)''". --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Didn't this one stick? "''11:41, 31 July 2008 Nandesuka (talk | contribs) blocked Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 days (Disruptive editing)''". --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::1. Nandesuka was a close friend of Geogre and Moreschi. 2. It was going to be an indef block but he blackmailed me in return for it not being one, and I wont get into that. 3. It happened in 2008. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
==Feel I need to say this==
==Feel I need to say this==
Revision as of 04:55, 29 October 2009
There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.
Hi! I notice you up to your usual improvements! Have you finished? I'm about to do a major on the alt descriptions and sizing. The article is looking very good and should be put up for promo. Do you think it's worth the hassle?Amandajm (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone else decided to tackle the alt texts, they're not my favourite thing to do! Thanks for the copy-edit Malleus (although I had intended it to be more fleshed out before I asked for your assistance, I'm a little embarrassed as the article's only half done); I intend to completely re-write most sections (as most of them are unsourced, there's not much that can be kept), so unless there's something really grating it's would probably be best to confine your edits to the origins and early castles and construction sections. The definition section is also more or less done, I just need to prune the unsourced info. Nev1 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the content is about 90% there. I just need to finish of the Defining characteristics section (hopefully toorrow), then re-write the section on revival castles and then it should be a case of polishing. I'd like to take the article to FAC next week, but I'll seek some input from other editors before I go for it and when the FAC is will depend on their replies (ie: are there any gaps). Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just watched it. Since when did the Pedlar John Law become a nobleman? Didn't even mention the two families involved. A pretty poor account really. --MalleusFatuorum00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire
Hi Malleus Fatuorum. About a year ago you de-listed the 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire article. I made some changes to the article, and think that it complies with GA guidelines. Unfortunately the backlog of the GAN is very long, so I wanted to know if you would be willing to check the article again? Thanks. Kind regards, LouriePieterse19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malleus. Thanks for the review. Currently I have some business to attend to in real life, could you please hold the article while I am busy? Thanks. Kind regards, LouriePieterse17:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did, but to be honest I'm about done with that pair, other than to watch that our article doesn't descend into the farce that too many others do here. --MalleusFatuorum00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Mary Toft was apparently of Welsh origin, and people used American English, according to the changes over the last few hours. Thank God for the undo button Parrotof Doom08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the party line is against protecting the featured article of the day, but I think it's just madness. Much of the time an article's on the main page it's been vandalised by some crazy or other. --MalleusFatuorum13:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because the people most vocal about the "don't protect the TFA" never write them, so thus have no concept of how hard it is to fight the main-page day vandalism. Or, they are hoping to gain the bit and need vandalism reverts to up their edit count... Ealdgyth - Talk13:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is more likely that the "anyone can edit" ethos is more important to them than the quality of one of Wikipedia's featured articles. Majorlytalk13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of course this is so valuable. (Granted, it's not on an TFA, but it was the first bit of vandalism I ran across in my watchlist this morning...multiply that by about 12 for a TFA day...) Ealdgyth - Talk13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, today's TFA seems to be a real vandal magnet. It's an insane waste of everyone's time having to continually revert complete and utter rubbish. --MalleusFatuorum13:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But but... you might scare off a newbie by locking it from them! They might have something valuable to add...! Best leave it open just in case. Majorlytalk13:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127 edits since I last looked, and only a very few of them constructive (I never knew that protagonist was a fictional character for instance). Thank you for keeping an eye on it while I was at work. Parrotof Doom21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Here, I'll make you a deal, Majorly - next time an article I nom'd for FA is at TFA, you can watch it all day and spend most of the day fending off "helpful" edits. Note that they'll get more "helpful" right after school lets out in the US, for some reason. Ealdgyth - Talk13:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could do what I did. Get the wrong day and log on late in the evening and discover I'd missed nearly the whole thing. Then I panicked and reverted what looked like some weird stuff only to discover they were improvements to my referencing system and get roundly slapped on the wrist by SG. Overall though, much less stressful than watching the damn thing for 24 hours.Fainitesbarleyscribs21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA prose query
Hi Malleus, your copyediting of Oliver Typewriter Company was invaluable and I was wondering whether I might get your input, or even assistance, with another article I'm beginning to put through its paces - Sholes and Glidden typewriter. It's undergoing a GA review and the prose has been called "quite personal and chatty". My prose has been called "circumlocutious" before--and I'd agree--but I'm not sure what to make the current comments. Any thoughts on why what's written is inappropriate for GA level and/or how to remedy it? Эlcobbolatalk15:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice article, I'll be happy to help. I see what the reviewer's getting at, but I don't think it's a general criticism of the prose; there are a couple of places early in the article—in my opinion—where it's arguably a little chatty, but that's easily fixed. --MalleusFatuorum15:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would have taken them about 5 minutes to grab the source, make their own 16:9 crop, blurring out faces, and reducing the noise! I should complain but I'd be cutting my nose to spite my face... Parrotof Doom19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nicely written and well researched article though, attributed to wikipedia. I doubt that the BBC could have done any better themselves. --MalleusFatuorum19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think he got his arse handed to him. I don't think Jack Straw came out of it particularly well though, he rambled on a fair bit. Parrotof Doom23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well frankly it just pisses me off. You work hard, do your best, and despite hating the cunt for what he is, people can still somehow assume that by trying to make the article neutral, you're somehow a supporter! I try not to take these things personally but it makes me angry that someone can look at hours of work, and brush it all away as rubbish just because it doesn't include enough criticism of the man. Jeesus, looking around print sources and online sources, you can't find anything but criticism of him! Parrotof Doom00:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess many of us feel like that. There's very little thanks here, just abuse for doing anything. All you can do is to shrug it off and continue to do whatever you know to be right. I long ago gave up caring what people I don't know think about anything; what's important to me is what I think. --MalleusFatuorum01:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might just have to update the notice on my userpage, outlining my feelings on the matter, and re-iterating my objection to the man and his views. I may just spite the above person(s) by working on the article and getting it to FA. I can just imagine the shock and horror if his face was ever to appear on the front page (although as its protected, I wonder if that would be possible). I can be incredibly stubborn, when pushed to it. Parrotof Doom10:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can surely hold your head high for your diligent work. Many people use Wikipedia as a political football. Editors who recognize that it is actually supposed to be an online encyclopedia (as in, erm, Pillar One) and understand what this means in practice are few and far between. We can be very very stubborn about it – lets stay that way. Geometry guy20:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. The article by the way got 175,000 views over two days. That's significantly higher than I ever expected. By the way Malleus, Mary Toft got just shy of 80,000 views - not bad methinks Parrotof Doom08:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buildings and architecture of Bath - help with GAN comments
Hello Malleus, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [1] Thanks! NancyHeisetalk01:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! But could you look at the "Suggested formatting" section of WP:TFA/R (things like, we need an article link in the first line, add the image that Smallbones put on the talk page, things like that)? If you're out of time, I could work on that sort of stuff, but not sure how to work the title in to the first line ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for your support, and your suggestion about the lead. I've had a first shot at doing what you suggested and wondered if it was what you had in mind. Also, i've left the wikilinks in the last section that are now also in the lead. Do you think that's overlinked and I should take the second lot out? It isn't exactly a long article. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I had in mind, and I think the linking is fine as it is. Shame I just missed being the first support, I was so looking forward to that leap into the unknown. :-) --MalleusFatuorum14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isles in oblivion
Sir Malleus, I wonder if I might ask for some advice? Some time ago, Islands of the Clyde was a "Collaboration of the Month" during which some progress was made. However it still resides in B-Class oblivion and I think these dreich little isles deserve better than that. The problem is that the article is a mixture of prose and lists, and whilst a contender for improvement it might fall somewhere between a GAN and an FLC. My hope is that with more attention to the text it is a possible GA, but any comments would be appreciated. BenMacDui14:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I never. I remember as a kid going on school trips to Rothesay, which I always thought was an island. Now I see that it's just a town on the Isle of Bute. Another childhood illusion shattered! My suggestion would be to prepare the article for FLC rather than GA by condensing and merging the History section. I think you're right, it does fall midway between GA and FLC right now, but I think it's more naturally a list. --MalleusFatuorum14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the article is now ready for your perusal. There are a couple of points that still need addressing, for example Scottish and Irish tower houses need a mention, but I believe the content is 99% there. Any help making the page meet 1a would be great. Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at this sentence from the lead for a few minutes, but I can't quite get the sense of what it's trying to say:"Initially, castles were adapted to use small artillery and until the 15th century when they became powerful enough to breakdown walls, castles do not show adaptation to deal with bombardment by cannons." Castles used small artillery? Small artillery became powerful enough to break down castle walls? Castles were initially adapted to use small artillery? None of those make much sense to me. --MalleusFatuorum15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to do too much with that sentence and have trimmed it to "Castles do not show adaptation to deal with bombardment by cannons until the 15th century when artillery became powerful enough to break down walls". The fact that small cannons were mounted in castle before castles were actually adapted to being shot at by cannon can stay in the main body of the article. Nev1 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's up next. He's had a PR, so any comments/concerns/copyediting is welcome. I'll be gone this upcoming weekend, so not planning on putting him up until a week from today when I'm back home. Ealdgyth - Talk17:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look, of course. I'm beginning to wonder if the game's worth the candle though. No matter how well written something is there's almost always someone claiming it still needs a good copyedit—by which they generally mean it's not written the way they'd have written it—or, perhaps even worse, making a big song and dance about having had to slightly rewrite a couple of sentences where the commas were in the wrong places. There, I feel better for having got that off my chest. :-) --MalleusFatuorum17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late now. Anyway, I know that it can sometimes throw some sensitive souls into a tizzy, but I think it would be a really good to give at least some idea of what the value of £3,000, and 100,000 marks, was at that time. Was it the equivalent of the country's GDP, for instance? Where did Longchamp get 3 grand from? --MalleusFatuorum01:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inflation template starts at 1254ish, so that won't help much. It's really hard to say at that point, honestly, other than it's a LOT of money. Where he got it, he would have actually pledged that he'd pay that much, and would have paid for it out of the profits of the office after he was in office, most likely. Ealdgyth - Talk01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked out the UK's National Archive site,[3] but that only offers inflation adjusted figures since 1270, when, would you believe it, £3,000 was the equivalent of about £1.6 billion today. Serious money. --MalleusFatuorum01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The converse calculation is interesting, e.g. $3,000 in 1270 would be 300,000 man-days of craftsman labour according to National Archives. But MS Calculator suggests that £1.6M would now buy about 6,700 man-days, at £240 a day (plumbers are expensive!). Index problems are hard enough for a few decades, since baskets of goods and services change composition (no most buggy whips), relative price change (electronics cheaper, food more expensive in the last decade) - and Longchamp was probably not a typical consumer, as a rising courtier. Might be best to avoid spurious precision and see if you can get a contemporary cost for e.g. a nice manor or castle, or the earnings of a similar office. --Philcha (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did mean million. Your suggestion about comparing with the cost of building a castle is interesting. Orford Castle, built in the 1160s, cost £1,400, at a time when Henry II's annual income was £10,000. That kind of comparison does give some idea of the £value of £3,000 then. --MalleusFatuorum14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that sort of comparison is worthwhile in this time frame. I've been reading a lot of economic history lately (it's helping with the insomnia) and most of the historians I'm reading aren't willing to say that a "wage" economy existed much before the middle 1200s, which makes figuring an inflation figure a bit more difficult. I'll try to dig out some comparison figures next week. Ealdgyth - Talk14:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noting your hard work on this article, it reminded me of a classic piece of graffiti... "Guy Fawkes - where are you now that we need you".... Pedro : Chat 21:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to be allowed to do some real work on Guy Fawkes, but all I'm really doing is trying to hold back the flood of V for Vendetta fanatics. Perhaps though if I keep up the whack-a-mole it might just be possible to see Guy Fawkes on the main page on 5 November next year. We can but dream. --MalleusFatuorum21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why anyone bothers with that risible recall idea is a complete mystery to me. It's just embarrassing watching administrators trying to wriggle out of their moral obligations. I note, for instance, that you reserve the right to alter your recall criteria at any time, presumably including during a recall, as other administrators have attempted to do. --MalleusFatuorum14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to smile when you see Chillum arriving for an impartial look at the civility block of another admin........? Block review has to be one of the worst WP processes ever. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to discuss my review of this incident then you are welcome to bring it to my talk page. Or you can just talk behind my back, whichever you are most comfortable with. Chillum14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Behind your back? You're here aren't you, obviously having watchlisted this page, which you promised a little while ago you would take off your watchlist. --MalleusFatuorum14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took you off my watchlist, then you followed me to my page and continued trying to fight with me. You got back on it because even when you are not on my watchlist your behavior draws attention. I did not really come here to talk with you, but if you want to my talk page is always open to civil discourse. Chillum14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Name calling is a nono here
Please do not resort to name calling such as calling other volunteers "Pompous". Nobody here gets paid and we are all here because we are donating our time to this project, as such none of our volunteers deserve to be abused(not even if you disagree with something they did). No part of you making your point requires name-calling, everything you are trying to say can be said without being abusive. You are welcome to criticize actions without name calling.
As you know from past incidences personal attacks are against policy and you have had a full set of warnings in the past. Further warnings are not likely to inform you of anything you don't know so they are not likely to be presented to you. Chillum14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<gulp> shhhhhh. here's chillum riding in with the stalwart sword of civility on high, glinting in the bright morning sunlight. be afraid!!!! be couth!!!!! be most of all ....... be beige!!!!! Do let us know when the shuttle has landed. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would a valid criticism of actions be presented if using an adjective such as "pompous" is not allowed? I feel like I have to point out here that name-calling is by definition ascribing a noun to an individual, such as assclown, doofus, idiot, choadlicker, and on. "Pompous" is an adjective, and not a name. If one thinks that certain admins are arrogant, that they think themselves above the opinion of general editors, would this not be an accurate description of that sentiment? --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful if Chillum were to produce a short dictionary of those words he considers to be acceptable. Shouldn't take him too long, as there don't seem to be that many of them. --MalleusFatuorum14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not afraid. Why should I be afraid? Any more than I should be nice to people who don't deserve it? I'm no Christian missionary, turning the other cheek. If you behave like an assshole then I'll tell you that you've behaved like an asshole, like it or lump it. I consider honesty more important than being nice. --MalleusFatuorum14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do try to turn the other cheek (although I'm not so much the missionary), but I also believe there are prime opportunities to change what is faulty so cheek-turning is no longer necessary. Criticism is an effort to change what is systematically faulty. It is often difficult to take criticism as an attempt to change what is wrong to make it right. I am concerned that blocks are placed on editors who offer valid criticisms, invalidating them by labeling their opinions as crude or uncivil. Even riots happen for a reason. --Moni3 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been happening for a long time here, Ottava's block is just the most recent example. I've been blocked for making a general comment about "sycophantic admin wanabees", not directed at any particular individual. There are far too many administrators like Chillum who interpret incivility as anything they don't like, and IMO there needs to be a root and branch clearout of the admin corps to get rid of them. --MalleusFatuorum15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is one thing. He claimed that I wasn't assuming good faith. When you make such claims, you have to cite where the other person mentions motives. Without any mention of motives, there is no assumption of faith good or bad, and a claim of not assuming good faith without evidence is a direct violation of AGF as spelled out clearly twice. Chillum dropped the ball there. But I am simply stating this here to clarify that he was not discussing civility but AGF. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum supported Sarek's block, which was for incivility was it not? And he refused your unblock request did he not? And he pranced around here waving his big block hammer because I dared to suggest that an administrator was pompous did he not? Don't try and tell me what Chillum is, I know what he is. --MalleusFatuorum01:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going off of what Chillum said in his unblock statement. It is the only time I've ever seen AGF used as a justification for a block, and it was a bad use of it at that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Tony, I've got no idea. All I do is to put the {{GAR}} template on the talk page and transclude the review. Is there something else I ought to be doing? --MalleusFatuorum23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There looks to be an opening at WP:TFAR for nominating the Mummy for Halloween, but the window of opportunity may be closing soon. Or perhaps I should say the coffin lid may be closing. I suggest 3 points, 1 date relevance + 2 for no mummy articles in the last 6 months. You might want to do the nominating, but if you wait too long I might try to grab the opportunity. Smallbones (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm as likely to oppose as to support; it's vexatious having to deal with all the vandalism on mainpage day, so I'll let others decide. --MalleusFatuorum18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, not being funny but talk about putting words into people's mouths - "you have expressed before....for his abusive and completely false.....destruction of this enyclopedia". I think you need to rewrite the above as I doubt Malleus has said (typed) any thing in such inflamatory language. Pedro : Chat 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just above he stated - "Ottava's an easy target for the pompous, overly officious, out of control administrators like SarekOfVulcan." I think my statement is a rather mild and factual summary of Malleus's statements regarding Sarek on my talk page and his. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I said, but I've never wished for Sarek's recall. In fact I recall specifically saying that it would be a waste of time if you look up. Neither have I ever suggested that his actions have "resulted in the destruction of this encyclopedia", and nor would I ever be likely to use such a hyperbolic turn of phrase. I've no intention of asking for Sarek's recall over this one incident, even if I had any faith in the recall process. I think that Sarek made a mistake in blocking you, but it was soon rectified. Anyone can make a mistake. I would encourage you to think again, and to put this bad block behind you. It isn't necessary to fight every battle, better to choose which battles to fight. --MalleusFatuorum00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can quote you posts on WR where you have gone on and on about how bad admin destroy the encyclopedia. However, if you believe that someone who persists in pushing something that is 100% directly stated as completely wrong and actually a violation of our policy in a manner that would block content contributors shouldn't be challenged through the system, then fine. I choose to fight battles, instead of making derogatory remarks about them and doing nothing about removing them. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quote away, but can you quote me anywhere as having said that I believe that SarekOfVulcan is destroying the encyclopedia, as you claim that I have done? Or that I believe his interpretations of policy are "abusive and completely false"? I very much doubt it. --MalleusFatuorum02:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you, Ottava, seriously believe that your recall request will result in the removal of SarekOfVulcan then you are sadly mistaken. It's far more likely to boomerang back on you. --MalleusFatuorum02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least I can say that I tried. I take pride in following the rules, following the process, and actually -acting- instead of sitting on a talk page throwing out random insults without ever actually doing anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you take the trouble to read the recall criteria? You've had four blocks in the last four months, one of which stuck. Surely you've got better things to do than this? --MalleusFatuorum04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three blocks and none stuck. Plus, I am working on a 9 part DYK and 10 GANs, plus I have my FAC up. I still have plenty of time to work on a real life article, a lecture presentation, and to pretend to read Daniel Derronda. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't this one stick? "11:41, 31 July 2008 Nandesuka (talk | contribs) blocked Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 days (Disruptive editing)". --MalleusFatuorum04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nandesuka was a close friend of Geogre and Moreschi. 2. It was going to be an indef block but he blackmailed me in return for it not being one, and I wont get into that. 3. It happened in 2008. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel I need to say this
Comments by several over the last few days supposing that they know what I think about certain issues, like Ottava's block and what ought to be done about, and my attitude towards "civility" here on wikipedia leads me to believe that my position is widely misunderstood. So I'd like to clarify it.
David Hume said that truth springs from argument among friends, an idea with which I very much agree. Friends sometimes disagree, but a disagreement on one issue, like say a bad block, does not mean that there can't be agreeement on other issues. What I object to on wikipedia—strongly object to—is the facile notion we're all either enemies or friends, and that those who don't agree with us, or who describe one of our friends as "pompous", must be chased away as uncivil pariahs. I find that childish, just as childish as the idea that we all have to be nice to each other, all of the time. Life ain't like that. What we should be aiming for is to be friends, in the sense that Hume used that word, unafraid to speak the truth as we see it, yet adult enough to acknowledge that we will never agree about everything, and it would be unhealthy if we did. And if we can't be friends ... well then we can always strive to avoid each other. Let's try and behave like adults, not like squabbling children. --MalleusFatuorum02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
