User talk:Ottava Rima: Difference between revisions

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

Poof

Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very fortunately, we Yanks have never adopted such things. I'd look pretty shitty in a barrister's gown and wig. Not that I look wonderful at the best of times (i.e., 1982).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Sorry to fool you, but I am actually an American (I proudly represent the lovely state of Maryland in the WikiCup). I just needed an excuse for a visual. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, such is life.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A precedent

Ottava, you may like to look at this precedent for the hassle you had recently. I'm disturbed by the uncanny similarities. --Philcha (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather worrying. It shows continued bad judgement from User:Gwen Gale, and not the sort of temperament I'd expect from an admin. Also, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that User:Malleus Fatuorum is a friend of yours, which makes me even more worried. Personally, I'm going to have a look at the users admin contributions, and if there is more worrying contributions then I'd be tempted to raise this elsewhere. Alan16 (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out before - Malleus isn't a "friend". We rarely agree on issues. However, we do talk a lot about the community as we are both very active in the same area (even though we have little mutual agreement on language, grammar, style, or weight). We've worked together on two major articles, but during that time fought a lot. Do I respect him? Yes, I do. Do I trust him? Yeah. Are we pals and the such? Well, maybe in the classic Irish rugby/hurling sense where you might go for a beer after beating the crap out of each other. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to that above. We did not pursue a desysop of her last time because she promised that she would never make such blocks again and she apologized for her mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know you that well (apart from one incident... Can't remember what that was about...) and I'd just seen Malleus on your talk page a few times so I assumed you were "friends". And this time? Alan16 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar is on my talk page a lot and we are definitely not friends. Etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "friend" is the wrong word here. How could Ottava and I possibly be friends? We live on different continents and have never met, and are never likely to meet. In fact I've never, at least to my knowledge, ever met another wikipedian. This isn't a social club, it's a collaboration amongst (hopefully) equals, each of whom contributes what they can. As Ottava says, he and I often disagree around the edges—I think he throws commas around like confetti at a wedding, and he thinks I play fast and loose with English grammar—but we still manage to work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. That's not to do with friendship, it's to do with respect, something that has to be earned. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I love me some commas like a Brits love sheep. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Brits, just the Welsh. Allegedly.--Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could really offend you by saying that there is no difference between an Manchester lad and a Welsh lad. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly Wales is only about 40 miles away, but if you wanted to offend me you'd have to try much harder than that. People from Liverpool sometimes call those from Manchester "woolly backs", but I won't melt your Internet connection by telling you they call the scousers. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Woolly backs?" You may be the mother country, but you've got nothing on us colonials when it comes to sheep jokes -- Euryalus (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Smart

Ottava, Iv'e left some more comments and done some copyediting. I'll be back when I can - maybe tomorrow. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin culture

Sir, how can I read more about 'admin culture' and the behavior of admins at Wikipedia? Are you capable of supplying me with a wealth of information on this subject, or else a modicum of information on this subject? If you and others are afraid to critically discuss Wikipedia's administrators then please let me know about this as well. Varks Spira (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is to observe what's going on around you. Or choose to to ignore it if you prefer. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a lot in a short period of time. A lot of squabbles that on first read appear to be wholly ridiculous. I know that isn't a fair judgment. I'm keeping an open mind. Varks Spira (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flore et Zéphire

Hi, just a heads up that the above, a ballet article, is top of the backlog list. I left it as you had expressed an interest in reviewing this type of article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I totally missed it. That was mostly why I wanted them separated. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, you started reviewing this, but didn't tag it for review at GAN. I went to GAN and tagged it to start reviewing it. Now, here's the catch. As I have flagged to the editor here (and have tagged at the article page), there is a copyright problem - the article leans very heavily on one source, sometimes quoting phrases without quote marks. That source is also the origin of a quote that is cited as a separate source in the article. It will need significant work to pass in my view, but I am hopeful that kathryncelestewright will be able to look at this. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting to hear back from her on the citation needed before I made any move either way at GAN. I tend to do all of the sourcing concerns at once, and, well, I wanted to hear back before I actually opened up an official GAN. :) If you want to open it up, you can feel free. I will check through everything and give any opinion if you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a brief analysis of the first half of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, given the nominator has not made any edits at WP at all since 28 August, and given the copyright issue that is outstanding, i have failed this at GA. If the nominator returns and wants to discuss, I'm happy to do that, and have left a note to that effect at the review page. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U

Thank you for your comment. The problem is that the footnote follows a sentence which says the University of Miami is commonly referred to as "The U", but at the very most (and I don't read it that way) the reference cited in the footnote merely quotes someone as saying "The U" after laying down a context and antecedent. If there were a press report that said that a survey was conducted and people nationwide associate "The U" automatically with the University of Miami, then we could use such a footnote to support the text. The reference and the article text must match; an example of one person saying "The U" does not prove that it is common (throughout the English-speaking world) for people to do that. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw multiple sources for the term and found it many times in my own search. I an unpersuaded by your statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New sock?

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C_DJ_Pusspuss.2C_Benjamin_Holman.2C_and_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless

New sock of Peter? Ikip (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put forth my opinion over there - there is no personality or editing connection between the two users from what I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAID

Progress is now being made at WP:Paid editing. The topic is very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you have any input, I'd love to see it on the page. Smallbones (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Britten 9 part DYK

On September 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles William Britten, Mariana (poem), "The Deserted House", Oenone (poem), The Lotos-Eaters, St Simeon Stylites (poem), The Day-Dream, Sir Galahad (poem), and "Break, Break, Break‎", which you created or substantially expanded.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Persian Empire

Putting [1] this text on Talk:Persian Empire and then blanking it a second later [2] is pretty silly. I really don't understand why you keep on bringing up WP:MEAT--how exactly do you think I'm violating that policy? I would appreciate an explanation. If you really believe I'm such a problematic user, please start a topic on WP:ANI or whatever noticeboard you think is appropriate, or start a user RfC. Otherwise, I would really appreciate it if you stopped saying things like "You just crossed the line, and this is your only chance I will be willing to give you to go back." Even though you erased that from the page directly afterward, I can't see it as anything but an attempt to intimidate me. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, I have already talked to many admin. My two options are ArbCom asking for a desysopping of everyone currently working with Folantin in abuse of the above policy, or directly starting an RfC with such intent. I have received many emails. Your history of performing this same action with her across multiple pages has been noted by many people. Diffs and links have already been provided in public. Your name was also on a list that was given out to people when Dbachmann started echoing Folantin as one to expect to appear. Your appearance only verified the problematic nature of your action and it is 100% exact to that at Talk:Ludovico Ariosto, which is a move almost too stupid for words. It has also been pointed out that many, many sources were pointed out, yet you willfully ignore them in order to echo what Folantin has stated. It is not a coincidence. You can either stop your problematic behavior now, or I will move forward. You may think that I am intimidating you. No, I am promising you that your behavior will not be ignored any longer. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had made it clear I don't want any more warnings. Please, start that RfC, file that request for arbitration, whatever it is that you think is best. But if you're still in a mood to give warnings, can you please explain exactly how I've violated WP:MEAT? I understand that you think I'm too chummy with Folantin, but you haven't explained why that's a policy violation... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, you are using their same arguments and using the same rhetoric that has been proven wrong over and over. Having Folantin say something, then Fullstop saying it, then Dbachmann saying it, then you saying it without paying attention or acknowledging anything else is classic use of meat puppets to violate a consensus discussion. Admin should know better than to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, but I am afraid that I don't agree with your interpretation of the facts or the policy. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why an RfC or ArbCom is necessary to ensure that your behavior comes to an end. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might know this...

Can you think of a way to briefly summarize Oxford Movement, in such a way that it won't baffle readers, but won't be so long-winded that it makes the section unscannable? (The article is question is Mandell Creighton, if you want a context - see the discussion on the talkpage.) – iridescent 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put - It was a reactionary movement that opposed the secularization of the Anglican Church while promoting high church views along with claims to a historical alignment with both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Do you need more? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's great - thanks. If you get the chance could you give Mandell Creighton a quick skim, to make sure I haven't wildly misrepresented the church; I'm not convinced even the Anglo-Catholics themselves are entirely sure what they believe, and I'm certainly not. – iridescent 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I have time tomorrow evening, I'll open up a full GAN on the matter so I can go through it all, settle any issues, and then allow for the fixes so it can be passed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give it another 24 hours or so, as Ealdgyth has found a bunch of extra sources that I need to check and work in if appropriate (see the talk page) so it may look quite different in a couple of days. I'm not at home at the moment and not wildly keen on the thought of trying to rewrite a section on a two-inch screen. – iridescent 2 14:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

If took The Disasters of War to PR, would you mind having a look. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rain is killing my internet, so don't expect anything within the next few hours. After it ends, then I will tackle it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does rain effect your Internet? Where do you live for God's sake, on a remote island in the middle of the Pacific? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless they moved Maryland. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My connection is Satellite internet. Maryland, although between two major urban areas, has little fiber optic cabals out in the countryside. One of the disadvantages of living on a horse farm, it seems. Thankfully, I spend many of my days in DC so I can get online there (while at work, or from the Archives/LoC). But today is not one of those days. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my one and only visit to the States, if you can call California typical, I was struck by two things. The first was that between LA and Lake Tahoe—what's that, about 250 miles—was largely wilderness. The other thing that struck me was the "primitive but it works technology", and doughnuts for breakfast. Oh, and the other thing was the completely confounding answer when I happened to ask another skier on a chair lift we were sharing if he was an expert, as he seemed to be claiming. Naturally, being a good American, of course he was. Pity he could even get off the lift without getting his skis tangled. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ski accidents happen to experts all the time. That is what makes the Winter events so exciting. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This guy was no expert, except in his dreams. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it is more true to say that there are no experts on rocketing down steep icy slopes on tiny wooden planks. That is like saying there is an expert on terminal stupidity. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to believe that skiiing in Europe vs the US is a good indicator of the cultural gap that exists within wikpedia. Lake Tahoe is crawling with "skiing police", telling you to slow down, speed up, get out of the way, or whatever their mantra of the day is. Those kids wouldn't be allowed out without a note from their mothers in Europe. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-->Ottava. Good man. Rain? We are having a late summer here; first set of shiny days we've had in 3 years. And what am I doing? Looking at the internets. Go figure ;) Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go out and play in the fields! Go harass some sheep or something! Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, cant go near sheep, terms of parole and all that. I think I'll go climb a tree though. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ottava, that is exactly the feedback required. Good material for work. Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer at MF's page

Hey, would you consider looking at Rika's Landing Roadhouse and Alaska Road Commission with an eye to FA potential? One just got GA, the other is even newer but I think it has potential too... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll place them 5th and 6th on my list. I've been having to refresh over and over in hopes that these comments go through. So, hard to check over articles that wont even fully load. I should be able to get around to them today. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly at this point a very rough assessment is all I seek, ... are these even anywhere close yet or no, and if no, what (broadly) are the biggest things to work on? I have trouble calling my own babies ugly :). Hopefully not too time consuming. No rush. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 08:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXX

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 19:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Talk:Black Widower

You posted that on the wrong talk page. Can you please move it? :) Thanks, The leftorium 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I wrote that article long before my RfA and before I fully understood WP:OR. I simply haven't had time to clean it up yet and unfortunately the GA reviewer didn't notice the mistakes (and neither did I as I didn't have time to read through the article during the review). I know this isn't the best excuse but I hope you understand. I'll try to address the issues you brought up on the talk page. Regards, The leftorium 22:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is one of the old ones. It was one of the ones that I checked before but I didn't mention at your RfA because it was not a GA. I was surprised that it passed without the reviewer bothering to check. As I've said before, this is a failing of a reviewer for not checking more thoroughly. People think that a quick grammar sweep is enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I had many of Garycolmanfan's GANs open and I chose the wrong one apparently. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you posted it on the wrong talk page again. :-) It should be on Talk:Bart the Daredevil, not Talk:Bart's Friend Falls in Love, and User:Edge3 actually reviewed the article, not User:GaryColemanFan. Sorry for not being clear before. The leftorium 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These Simpsons titles are way too similar for their own good!!! >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow...

... with friends like this, Mal doesn't need any more enemies .. ;-) — Ched : ? 00:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviewing concerns for Bart the Daredevil

I'm sorry that you are not happy with the review. Did you try contacting the nominator or the reviewer? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a bajillion tries of trying to do it all in the rain (with in and out internet and constantly having to refresh), I think I now have the correct talk page and the correct user notified. LOL. Ridiculous. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not making a more thorough review. I will definitely use this as a learning experience for future GANs that I look through. If you want, you can also take a look at Talk:Lisa's Pony/GA1 to make sure that I didn't miss anything. --Edge3 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do check images before passing articles. The only thing that I probably haven't checked that much is the reliable source criterion. (That will change, though) Please note, however, that Internet sources don't necessarily have to exist during the time of the review. As long as there is an access date provided, I'm usually ok with dead links as long as the website can reasonably be assumed to be reliable. --Edge3 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So should I pass Lisa's Pony?--Edge3 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yeah, that review was a bit too short. I think he's learned his lesson though (see Talk:Lisa's Pony/GA1). :) The leftorium 14:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Shakespear's Plays

Hi, Ottava. Thanks for your comments. But it is not yet looking nearly as good as I would like it to look. I was sidetracked as always by all sorts of other things in life, but I have gradually been working up some revisions and additions to the section on Othello. I just noticed and fixed a minor typo, which clearly caught your attention; but very shortly, maybe even later today, I plan to add, finally, what I have been working out, combining what you already put there (and you laid down a great foundation) with some additional things I think need emphasis. Stay tuned. (But I know I hardly need to add that. :-) I can't imagine how you manage to stay tuned to so many different things, as well as carrying on the rest of your life.) --Alan W (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because I try to have my Wiki writing coincide with my real life writing. It makes it easier to do the research for one topic and use it multiple times. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Smart's confinement

Well done. Nice working with you. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Empire

Hello, Ottava, how things going on with Persian Empire recently? You've defended for keeping the well-known "English name" as a DAB page, so I'm asking this question. Some article that I've worked on has a brief mention of Persia, but the source that I have used for the passage exactly specified "Persian empire" (in Korean though), so I've wanted to link Persian Empire instead of Persia which redirects to Iran. Although I have to admit that I'm not keen at knowing of Arabic culture or history, I've never heard of Achaemenid Empire and it is ridiculous to remove the dab page from Wikipedia. Well, if you're stepping away from the topic, I'm sorry for bothering you. --Caspian blue 18:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary - I've defended the original page and have been agaisnt it becoming a Disambiguation page. Please see the talk page. There use to be an article there and a small group has removed it and edit warred out the page. I've been trying to build a clear consensus to the return of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a confusion on my part. Persian empire is currently redirecting to Achaemenid Empire, which is "shame". Sorry, the talk page has a wall of text and I currently have no time to dig up all arguments there for the mentioned article, so directly asking you could get a fast answer. Anyway, if there would be held a "page move", just let me know. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the article looked like for a very long time until it was edit warred into a redirect by those who did not like the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Grand Port

Thankyou very much for your comments at the FAC for the Battle of Grand Port. The article has now passed, and your interest and comments during the process were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I-70

Hi, I'm not sure if you noticed but Interstate 70 in Colorado has been put up for FA status here. It's been running for almost a month. I'm not sure if you remember, but you called the sourcing of this article into question during Davemeistermoab's RFA here. I'm not sure your concerns were ever addressed. I reviewed only the last section of the article and found problems, and I'm very concerned that none of the reviewers thus far have looked at the sources. If you have time, please look it over and provide feedback, or least a note about whether your earlier concerns were assuaged. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. Real life has been dragging on my time to perform close reviews and I never noticed that the page was listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Anyway, I got my wires crossed... it's I-70 Utah that you reviewed, and this is Colorado. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't "do" these but...

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For your work on writers and writings. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't -not- accept them, because that would be rude. I just feel that they get rather silly sometimes, and I tend to just write long winded messages or emails instead. Thank you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drapier's letters

here you go. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Please don't

It is not a harvnb function, check the coding, it is different. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, please show me where you created the coding? Please also show me this change in consensus? Cirt (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears the template is used on over 1,000 pages. However, if you feel the template or style of formatting should no longer be used, perhaps you should nominate {{Harvard citation no brackets}} for a deletion discussion. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses such as User_talk:Ottava_Rima/Archive_6#Elegant_citation_system would seem to indicate a positive response for use of that formatting, not negative. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One article does not a consensus make. Was there an informal poll, a discussion of some sort, post to the Village Pump, etc. ? Cirt (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, though I have politely given constructive suggestions on how to improve the article, (so far) it appears that none of the recommendations have been implemented. As I had placed the article on GA Hold, I will of course allow for the hold period to expire before reevaluating. However the original comments remain. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone

The tone you have chosen to use here [3] is a bit harsh. Let us try to please remain polite and cordial in discussion about how to best implement constructive suggestions to improve articles. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Cirt (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Branch

Cirt (talk) has extended an olive branch of peace. I am sorry that we got into it over at Talk:Four Quartets/GA1. I am going to disengage from the page and I have removed myself as GA Reviewer. I hope we can move past it and hopefully in the future interact with each other in a more polite and cordial manner. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's to more positive interactions in the future. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much for doing that. Good luck with the rest of the GA Review. :) Cirt (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this [5]. Much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolo Giraud

Please can we discuss an appropriate formulation for the sentences setting out Fone's views of the poem? You "undid" my last attempt with the edit summary "I could not see anything in the source to justify this, nor is the section about them but about Giraud." but no reply to my comment on the talk page. I have tried again. I'd be grateful if you would return to the discussion at Talk:Nicolo Giraud#Beckford, etc. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi Ottava, in case I seem a bit slow to respond, it's because I'm having to deal with some FA issues of my own, and then I have to go out. But I will definitely look at your point more closely later. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Quartets

The article looks much better. :) I could come back and reevaluate it for GA, if you like, or if you'd prefer I'd rather not that is perfectly fine and we can wait for another GA Reviewer to come by. Up to you. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to put aside the notes thing, I apologize if it came across as anything other than a suggestion. If I were to do another read-through I would pay more attention to grammar issues, perhaps doing some minor copyediting if that is alright with you. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd like me to do some copyediting and see if it might pass GA muster now? :) Cirt (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Four Quartets

The article Four Quartets you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Four Quartets for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome, excellent work so far. :) I am glad you were able to find additional material, and especially so that we were able to work things out after all. I hope you are doing well IRL. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that would indeed be quite helpful. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 10 part Ainsworth hook

On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Artist and the Author, William Harrison Ainsworth, Rookwood (novel), Jack Sheppard (novel), Guy Fawkes (novel), The Tower of London (novel), Old St. Paul's (novel), The Miser's Daughter, Windsor Castle, and St. James's (novel), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

So Why 13:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are very well done, congratulations. Ainsworth is much neglected. I have added some material to Jack Sheppard based on the material in the featured article on Jack Sheppard. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Busy bee

That's a lotta dyk'en ! Nice work. –xeno^talk 13:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks. Malleus and I also have the FA of the day. XD Ottava Rima (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hey Ottava, I posted a question about sources on Mal's talk page - and I'd like to get your input on it as well. Basically, what is your opinion of the HowStuffWorks site as far as being a reliable source? There's links to their about and jobs pages in my Mal post. Thanks. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 14:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indolence

Generally, I found it well done, although I'm concerned about the depth of discussion that required such an elaborate diagram of assonance. Perhaps that would have been better included in the article on assonance, and the link established. Or perhaps not. Don't know. I think in the second section, you have the wrong verb tense in the first paragraph. In 1819, Keats had left (or whatever). but you're missing the "had". That said, I'm not sure of the motive for this. It seems like the critics have largely dismissed this as "not" among his best work, so why is there an entire article devoted to this. I have the impression that this is a paper you wrote for the uni that you have converted to an encyclopedia article, is this right? I've read several of your other entries, and this is the impression I get. Just an impression. I'm not intending to be negative, it's just the feeling I get after reading them. But, something to think about...if this is what you are submitting, you'll need to assess whether or not this is encyclopedic, or whether this sort of article belongs in a peer reviewed journal, rather than an encyclopedia.
On a different note, at least slightly, I rather like Keats' clever use of the bit from Matthew...the Biblical definition of indolence, as it were... Is he actually implying here, though that the writing of poetry is an act of indolence? A puzzlement... Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The deleted message

I would just like to say that I asked iMatthew to not oppose such concerns as you have stated. I pointed out that there was enough responses to make it a concern. Although I do not think it is oppose worthy myself, others might. I think he would need to realize that regardless of how this RfA turns out. I informed him this directly. I believe that he wanted to ensure that there was no disputing or the rest intended, and he removed it immediately. A struck request still leaves a comment for the sake of the conversation. However, this was a withdraw before a conversation, so there is no real confusion. (By the way, I think you made a slip saying that it was an "AfD" instead of "RfA".) Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, that's pretty much what I thought had happened. However, you'd have to agree that if at this point in his Wiki-career an RfA candidate still requires this level of hand-holding and supervision, some might see him as not quite ready for adminship. Oh, and thanks for pointing out my typo! Owen× ☎ 14:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic poets

thanks for clarifying. I'd really like to see an improved Romantic poets article. Would you be able to tackle that? It appears that the Ode article suffers from the lack of broader context -- big themes of Romanticism, neoclassicism, etc. What do you think? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

don't forget to deal with the "why" templates...Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ottava Rima. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

I'm just posting this again because I am still so flabbergasted by the fact that you said it:

Rspeer, I have no confidence in your ability as an admin, let alone work in UAA. I talk to a lot of people who work in UAA and I deal with them often. I am sure they will feel the same way. Your statements go against multiple policy and I fear for those who you deal with as there is an obvious gap that can only possibly damage this encyclopedia.

You are angry and not thinking clearly. Unless you want this to escalate, I suggest you withdraw this immediately. rspεεr (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ode

Hi Ottava, I don't quite know what's going on with the Ode FAC, and your reluctance to comment. My thinking is that the pre-FAC version (at least that section) was better than it is now, and so maybe we should return to it, or take the best from both. But that suggestion seems to be upsetting you. It could be that you're just upset in general about the reaction of other people—and if that's what it is, you have my sympathy, because I'm going through something similar myself, where an article I got a lot of pleasure from working on has been somewhat ruined for me. This is a general problem with the FAC process that I wish we could find a way to sort out.

However, if I'm making that situation worse, please feel free to tell me, onwiki or by e-mail, and I'll happily butt out. And don't feel you have to be polite: my supporting it or not won't be affected by politeness, or lack thereof. :) Consider me at your disposal, to comment or not, to help with the writing or not, as you see fit. Best, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to comment because I have 1. emailed Karanacs about the FAC as a whole and 2. it is no longer the page that was nominated, nor is there any real certainty anymore. Too many people are saying too many things that are 1. going against sources, 2. introducing errors, or 3. have little to do with FAC. As such, it is no longer a FAC at all, as the process ended a few days ago and entered into something that Alice may have experienced. The worse thing is that 7 people have completely rewritten large chunks of the page and only one bothered to support after doing so. So, massive changes and nothing to show for it. I have other pages to focus on until I hear back from Karanacs. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, those are all fair points. I'll hold off from commenting any further for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ottava Rima. You have new messages at Hamiltonstone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Listing people in image caption

Hi there. I made this change (which you reverted) for two reasons:

Printouts of the article contain the information
Readers don't need to mouse over the image and look at their browser's status bar just to find out who the people are

I don't really understand your remark that "It uses a special command so that they don't have to be listed". I think my edit improved the page and I'd like to restore it. What do you think? --P3d0 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are redundant. It was set up so people could find the names in the images if necessary. The "right to left" would only be important for those who can see visually. Thus, there is no way to claim that actually listing the individuals would be appropriate, especially since it would be taking up room in a completely unnecessary way. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, none of your points addressed my two reasons above. Printouts of the page have no "cursor" to place over the people's faces, and I'm sure I'm not the only one using a browser who prefers not to be required to mouse over images. I believe my additions were neither redundant nor unnecessary, and I wonder if you could agree to a modest lengthening of the image caption as a reasonable price to pay for these two benefits? --P3d0 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how things work. Your two points do not apply in any kind of regard. The caption would be completely unnecessary and violate the caption guidelines. There is no possible benefit from listing many people on one biography in which it 1. doesn't represent the whole group 2. nor really pertinent to the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I disagree and have restored the caption to a state I think is consistent with the spirit of WP:CAP#Special_situations. Perhaps we can continue this discussion on the article's Talk page if you still disagree. --P3d0 (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you are basically saying is that your only intent is to edit war until you get your way? Are you asking to be blocked because you refuse to accept that redundancy and unnecessary assertion of such material is inappropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have no interest in an edit war, and I hope we can resolve this amicably on the article's talk page. --P3d0 (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted the guideline that says 100% not to do what you are doing. "Larger groups should have an index photo with numbered silhouettes and a key listing each person's name." is rather clear - the image is -indexed-. What do you think those numbers are at the very bottom? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why such a harsh tone?

Hi Ottava Rima

I am absolutely mystified why you should write in such incivil terms to me when all I have done is expressed an opinion on a board. You think I understand nothing about what the boards are for? I'm not sure that's true, and in fact I used to weigh in quite a lot on RSN without usually disagreeing with the other regulars. I know we had a run-in before over what I also think was a very minor issue. All I can think is that you have completely misunderstood my purpose in contributing to the encyclopedia, which makes me a bit sad. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think it is incivil shows that your judgment is flawed in the matter. Being told you are wrong is not incivil. If you want to promote things that completely go against our policies and are destructive to our encyclopedic integrity, then you have no real justification of being "sad" except in realizing your own actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want to promote things that completely go against our policies and are destructive to our encyclopedic integrity. A question was posed to a board, for editors interested in sourcing issues to comment on. I'm an editor interested in sourcing issues. I commented on it. Don't you want to encourage people to participate in boards like RS:N? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You insist that a guy who has no publications on Oscar Wilde is an expert on Oscar Wilde's sexuality. That alone should deserve a block for disruption. There is no way to logically make such a claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in the noticeboard discussion you have referred to the WP:Fringe policy. In the context of the Wilde debate, Maynard is better called a minority view rather than fringe (if Maynard said Wilde was from Venus, or was a 500 year old woman, that would be fringe); the relevant policy would therefore be WP:Undue - is Maynard's view of sufficient notability to be cited, and form the basis of a key section, or not?Martinlc (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe views are minority views, and minority views are fringe views. There is no difference to them. Undue is not for minority views. It is for minority -aspects-. That would be the "sexuality" section vs a section on Wilde's writing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ottava Rima. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (This is me, of course. I'm finding this very heavy going. Hopefully we can get some uninvolved and disinterested comment from the wikiquette people. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not intending to post further on that topic. I entered into the discussion on the quality of the source in good faith. As you know, I haven't edited the article, and I don't intend to. My edit summary for my last edit was "final comment". Please feel free to go ahead and initiate an investigation of your/my behaviour in this case, and in previous cases if you like. I am completely mystified why you are so angry with me, or indeed with the other editors who disagreed with you on the status of the Maynard article before I weighed in. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you mean well ...

I know you removed my comment with the best of intentions Ottava, but I really did and do mean it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you do. However, it would be nice for you not to be blocked for over a week, as the word "fool" now equals a week, so your terms must equal far more. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia's governance has now degenerated to the point that calling a spade a fucking shovel is a blockable offence then I have no place here anyway, and neither do you. Wikipedia's long-standing problem is that very few have the courage to stand up to the pov warriors, because it's a hiding to nothing. I'll not be backing down, whatever the consequences. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fools! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what he is doing, but you being blocked for a week will only encourage him to do it more. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I get blocked at all I will go nuclear. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that comment is rather teenage emo angsty. You should have expected editing that page that some Fenian would be after you as not pushing their view hard enough. Don't act all surprised once it happens. I mean, gesh. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the least surprised, and in fact I welcome it. The Irish Republican nonsense has been tolerated for far too long, time that changed. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bramall

What was that quote you gave me I said I'd use? Majorly talk 16:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I don't know. It seems like forever ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was one about it being one of the best preserved houses in England. But it's not necessarily needed. Could you have a look over it please before I take it to FAC? Thanks, Majorly talk 18:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ottava

I am a little surprised by your endorsement of Kww in the RfC and I would not be surprised if A Nobody is not particularly hurt. After all, he praises your good arguments as the 54th supporter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ottava_Rima#Support. In fact, they make it seems as if A Nobody opposes practically everyone because he has too extreme of an inclusion criteria and yet http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rfap/index.php?name=A+Nobody confirms far more supports than opposes. And actually reexamining most of these, he typically cites a few different reasons for supporting or opposings. He only has out of nearly two hundred RfA votes only a handful, i.e. only those they cite in the RfC in which he strongly opposed based on weak AfD votes, but these choice examples are in actuality the clear minority approach he takes and a misrepresentation of how normally approaches RfA. Anyway, I would be interested in your opinion about this. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry you are having problems (below) Ikip (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to make it personal nor do I have any personal concerns against him. On principle, the abuse of RTV like that is troubling. I read this as "should he return after agreeing one more time to leave" - one last chance not to repeat it. From what I can see, his talk page is still active so he has not used a RTV lately. So, there is no worry about a ban, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your empty threats

Ottava, you have nothing on me. Your threats are empty, hollow, meaningless, and foolish. I defy you to produce anything. Go on: do it. Your threat by e-mail to have my desysopped was particularly odious. The proper response to bullies is to stand up to them, and to you, Ottava, I call bullshit. Antandrus (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on you? Antandrus, I sent diffs to Arbcom of over 11 different pages in which you meat puppetted and reinforced your friends, threatened to block, made aggressive warnings, and basically reinforced people that were blatantly acting disruptively. I've been constantly sending emails about the situation over the past month. Do you think that when your group decides to mess around with what Wizardman clearly said was inappropriate that people wouldn't notice when you pulled these games? It is one thing to pick on and bully unknown users at the RS and Fringe noticeboard. But you went after an Arbitrator when doing this. People pay attention to that and don't look on it kindly. The only bully here is you and the rest of your group. Please, for the sake of the encyclopedia, pack up and go. Your group constantly chases away decent editors while promoting hundreds of policy violations, disruptions of articles, out right trolling, and abuse. It is no wonder that my article creations, DYKs, GAs, and FAs for this whole year out number -all- nine of you for your whole careers here. It is about time that you were kicked out because you have done -nothing- worth while here and have spread a lot of hate and outright distruction. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to start an arbitration case or a user conduct RfC soon, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, I guess you don't understand that when I am going to have a case on you guys operating as a group, tag teaming, and other abusive tactics, that the best thing to do is not to respond for someone else in a way that looks like tag teaming that has been going on for a year. The only reason why I have not bothered to initiate an ArbCom case right now is time. However, I have been in constant communication with Arbitrators and the problematic actions have still not ceased. Antandrus's cheering on a clearly problematic block that was no where even close to policy and demanding another that was clearly not a personal attack be met with a block is more than enough evidence that Antandrus has been acting in an inappropriate manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, OR, I don't think I have anything to worry about from an arbitration case, except that it will chew up an inordinate amount of time. I am, however, rather annoyed at your insinuations of abusive behavior, and if going through an arbitration case is the only method to make you stop them, so be it. Honestly, though, I doubt that you're going to go through with it; you've been threatening all sorts of people with desysopping and blocks, but you never seem to follow through on the needed steps of WP:DR...

(BTW, would you be willing to make any of the evidence you've been sending to the arbitrators public? Presumably, it is a compilation of publicly available information like diffs and such...) --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should refresh your memory with Talk:Ludovico Ariosto and many other instances in which you have joined up with the same group to push the same claims that go against our policies in order to bully people into submission. This little tool is perfectly available so you can program in a few key names and see what pops up. It is amazing what happens. Constantly meat puppetry on RS and Fringe, on multiple talk pages, and at even Arb cases. Your manner of responding and taking turns in responding and speaking for others in responding here, multiple talk pages, and on various noticeboards is almost enough to suggest that it is more than just standard meat puppetry. You honestly think your behavior is acceptable? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He'll start the arb case to desysop you right after he starts the one to desysop me, of course. "Empty threats" describes perfectly the way that Ottava Rima has been interacting with a lot of people this week. rspεεr (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, come on, let's have an orderly queue here. You wait your turn until User:Maunus has been desysopped for daring to disagree with Ottava Rima [6]. --Folantin (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate crimes

Hi, you wrote - And yet above you claim that people should be labeled as hate criminals even if courts don't decide such. That is the very definition of promoting libel. There is no way for you to justify or excuse such a claim. You may have not intended to put words in my mouth but intentionally or not I think you did. I never suggested we should call a crime a hate crime if a court ruled it wasn't. The usual scenario is that a court can't rule sexuality and gender-based hate crimes are such because the law has not yet allowed for this. We call these hate-crime enhancements and they mostly don't yet exist. So, similar to Matthew Shepherd we allow reliable sources to note who considers the crime a hate-crime in accordance with NPOV negating the need for Wikipedia to print anything libelous at all. Also just because a crime is considered a hate crime does not mean there even is a criminal named in the case or that they have been tried for the crime. If a criminal is tried but hate-crime enhancements are dismissed, not mentioned or otherwise accounted for we simply state that. IMHO, it's generally not needed to mention the alleged criminals of hate crimes at all unless it's commonly printed in RS and seen as needed for the relevant content. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand - any description of a criminal act is not reliable unless there is a verified court case to back it up. You can have 100 sources saying Ted Kennedy murdered the woman at Chap and we can't claim that simply because there was no trial that proved it. There is no difference here. Criminality is not allowable when a trial has confirmed it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 523: / Line 523: @@
 :::::Perhaps you should refresh your memory with [[Talk:Ludovico Ariosto]] and many other instances in which you have joined up with the same group to push the same claims that go against our policies in order to bully people into submission. [http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py This] little tool is perfectly available so you can program in a few key names and see what pops up. It is amazing what happens. Constantly meat puppetry on RS and Fringe, on multiple talk pages, and at even Arb cases. Your manner of responding and taking turns in responding and speaking for others in responding here, multiple talk pages, and on various noticeboards is almost enough to suggest that it is more than just standard meat puppetry. You honestly think your behavior is acceptable? [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima#top|talk]]) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 ::::He'll start the arb case to desysop you right after he starts [[User talk:Rspeer#Warning|the one to desysop me]], of course. "Empty threats" describes perfectly the way that Ottava Rima has been interacting with a ''lot'' of people this week. [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 05:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
+:::::Hey, come on, let's have an orderly queue here. You wait your turn until [[User:Maunus]] has been desysopped for daring to disagree with Ottava Rima [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maunus&diff=312019249&oldid=312017707]. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 08:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 == Hate crimes ==