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 There is no point in posting further at User talk:KillYourselfNow, as that account is no longer active.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)

That would make a great April Fools DYK though!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:56, 28 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)

Related question: Why don't you trust me? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I start off by not trusting people in general, and then they have to develop themselves over time. Adminship is something that demands both experience and character and people have to trust that a candidate (from their word and how they present themselves) that they have both. My standards tend to be much higher than most - I read through the questions and comments, and if I see something that doesn't seem to match based on how I see how people turn out post RfA, I tend to oppose. If it is minor, I tend to support the second or third time around. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can at least understand your comment better. I guess your definition of "trust" is different from mine; I don't assume people are trustworthy, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on relatively minor things; if it is something serious, I won't trust them without proof. Is there something specific I've done to show you I'm untrustworthy? Is there anything I can do to show I'm trustworthy? Your feedback is appreciated and I'm trying to address the concerns brought up in the RfA. Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if it is your second time that I see you at RfA, and nothing new has come up, chances are I will support you if you have convinced some of your other opposers. Unless there was something major that I mention, chances are that I merely thought that there was something in your answers that made me think that you were not ready. If you fail your RfA, then others have also seen that. Regardless, just fix some of the more blatant opposes and I'm sure you will pass. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:07, 29 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

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)

It appears others did in fact come here and give you feedback that you need to tone some things down. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? You mean KillerChihuahua, dealing with something completely else and lacked a lot of support from the community? Or SB Johnny talking about the same issue? Or do you mean Ceoil, who is angry at me in general? I'm kinda confused Lar, because my talk page is quite open and quite visible, and it doesn't support your assertion. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 23 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)

I came to your page because of what I was seeing you do. That's not involvement, but it is awareness. Your arguments lack coherence. No one is trying to drive you away, your own actions will, if not corrected, eventually lead to you no longer having the privilege of participating here. You spurned my feedback asking for other feedback. You got it. SBJohnny is about as laid back as they come. If he tells you you are acting up, and you need to change your ways, you are, and you do. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You are involved at Wikipedia Review, which is what the issue is about. So yes, you are 100% involved. You want to act as if you weren't a member of the site for a long time? Fine, you can do so. It doesn't change facts. And SB Johnny hasn't actually said anything close to what you've said. I've worked with SB Johnny for quite a long time, and really, as I pointed out, he was responding to something else. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no... it's the weird conspiracy theory stuff that strikes a familiar "dude-able" tune, ya know? The "WR crowd" aren't exactly about the clandestine conspiracy thing, at least as far as I've seen. Also, keep in mind that while you can sometimes annoy people by pointing out the truth, you can also annoy people and still be wrong, just as much as you can point out truths without annoying people :-). The problem is that your argument gets lost when people just don't want to hear you any more. We've both seen what happens after that (atrocious song parodies, anyone?). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If I can find them in my email archives, I can dig out some emails that I was CC'ed and some other things I was forwarded about non-public (i.e. email and pm) discusses from WR, so its not all public. Plus, there are a few private forums and the rest. Then there is just the members being manipulated by other members doing this. Regardless, Wikipedia Review and a few key members were going after WMC for actions that he performed. This led to other incidents with him nearby being dragged into the fight, with it spiraling further and further out of control. So now, we have an ArbCom case and a bunch of other chaos. This wouldn't happen if people stood up against the canvassing at WR calling for more chaos. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's hoping an outside comment would not be unwelcome. Ottava Rima's commitment to stopping plagiarism at this site is genuine and longstanding. He's been screening DYK nominees for a long time and has participated at the plagiarism proposal/guideline since February. Many of the shrillest voices these last few days have been absent from the quiet long-term effort to implement best practices in a meaningful way. Many fuses have been shorter than they ought to be in relation to this week's events; that's regrettable on all sides. Yet the genuine and merited frustration--borne of months of hard work--ought to be more forgivable than equally or more strident behavior on the part of people who have never edited WP:PLAGIARISM or its talk page. Lar and SB Johnny, you both hold advanced ops that are well deserved and no doubt have done your research before posting here. The suggestion that Ottava Rima might lose his editing privileges over his reaction is balanced by proportionate sternness elsewhere behind the scenes? Durova^Charge! 19:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't suggest that. Like Ottava said above: we're old buds, and I'm just chipping in some thoughts. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you miss the point. I am not saying Ottava isn't a valuable contributor, in many ways. I just turned up here to see if Ottava would dial down the invective a bit. What resulted was a lot of "it's not me, it's you" and similar smoke about 19 different things. Important contributions or not, no one gets a free pass. Or shouldn't, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Free pass? You are giving a free pass to a group of users that canvassed on Wikipedia Review and started block proposals, AfDs, and the rest, as part of a disruption campaign while completely misusing our standards on plagiarism to try and drive a user away instead of working with them to fix pages. Did you ignore the multiple ANI pages? How about where Giano was blocked? Or the BN? Or anything else that was involved with this? Unlike them, I tried working with FlyingToaster to get the pages fixed. I didn't stir up as many processes at once and go about the wrong methods. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"If I didn't like you, I would just have up and blocked you for this disruption, and that would have been that." ... sounds like Lar gives out free passes to those he likes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.39.54 (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know what to make of that line either. We aren't friends, nor do we have any real involvement with each other. It could mean a few things - a way to say he is looking out for me, him saying that he respects my work, or just throw away lines. Who knows. However, people aren't willing to block me anymore because my early blocks have been revealed to have been performed under a cloud, so there isn't much support in looking at my history, and I perform 0RR and don't cuss, which makes it hard for people to say I am edit warring or being incivil. No excuses left. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead you toss around BADSITES hysteria that's so two years ago. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can talk about "badsites" all you want, but we do not allow canvassing in such way, nor do we allow stalking in such way. You can hide it, but it is 100% factual that these actions are problematic and there is a direct correspondence between what is being said and the actions carried out here. It is not about being a member. It is about violating our rules. Canvassing attacks on users is 100% unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 27 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)

I dont know exactly where you talk in private, thats why its private. Its because of the implied treath that you are so fond of this problem. Nice deflection again there, but are you aware that it is because of transparently specious reasoning that nobody is fooled. I dont feel like I am talking to an equal, more like a spoiled child. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed or contacted over IRC Woah, you might like to parse that there; very, typically, decptice. Sandy on IRCL? Me on IRC; but you do like smoke, no? Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC

I talk to people where ever I can get access to them: IRC, Skype, Instant Messenger, email, etc. I've even talked to some people over the phone when trying to coordinate on other projects. I don't care about transparency at all. All I care is about my work and those that can help get it along faster. Everyone knows that, and the sooner the finish the sooner I am gone. And "email" comes before "IRC", so, I think it is clear that I lumped all forms of communication together. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 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)

WT:ACN

Cat's out of the box and whatnot, I suppose, but that thread does in fact out him. Nathan ^T 19:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that people were playing games with this incident and came in for the wrong reasons. I also don't like that WR used such measures, and was being used as a tool against Wikipedia, let along people from there joining in here to further WR's agenda. I find it all distasteful and I hope the Arbitrators on the committee with accounts there know that WR has no respect for Wikipedia, that they only want to out and ruin the ArbCom any way they can, and that WR is not a tool that they can manipulate. Instead, it will only seek to manipulate us into chaos. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, my note was only to point out that if you find the outing distasteful, linking to it might be counterproductive ;-) I think the pattern of outing at WR will ultimately become part of the standard pressures faced by any new arbitrator, and I hope that future candidates understand and are willing to accept the risks. We can't control or even effect them in anyway, so the answer is to simply adjust. Nathan ^T 19:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an AfD on the page created by Rootology, a WR member. I do not know if that is really Sam, nor would I make a judgment either way. The thread is an -attempt- to out him, and the page is being deleted now. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

False. Former member, gone since mid-2008. rootology/equality 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just like you have left this community multiple times? The fact that you still work on many of their issues, deal with many of their people, and the rest shows a close nit connection. It wouldn't be surprising if you had a few names there. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want, false as it is, but I'm telling you to not spread lies or innuendo (saying this as an editor, not admin) against other users. WP:AGF is a required policy, and spreading falsehoods or lies is a WP:NPA violation. I'll not reply to this thread again. rootology/equality 20:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your defense of Wikipedia Review lately, combined with your dogged defense of Everyking, makes your actions highly questionable. Your request for Sam's votes to be reviewed make this even more questionable, especially when Everyking and others were voted upon by Sam. Now, you can throw out AGF or NPA all you want, but there is enough proof that you are violating Point. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you now, or have you ever been, a communist WR participant? I thought this sort of BADSITES McCarthyism went out of style ages ago, but you seem determined to keep it alive. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can link you to posts that were actively canvassing for attacks upon these individuals. Canvassing is not acceptable, and the site has a history of disruption and problems. Regardless of what a few people thought about the "badsites", no one agrees that off site canvassing to promote disruption is appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XVII

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 20:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Just passing by

I couldn't help but notice the exchange on the talk page when I stumbled on the Nicolo Giraud page. You could be interested to see your friend has added N.Giraud and Byron to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pederastic_couples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofpotsandloons (talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I only care about the Giraud page. What other people do in linking to that page is their business. I am not taking part in the pederasty dispute, nor do I care. I only want the Giraud page to be accurate to the sources and reflect the standards regardless of which side is right or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Arnold

Thank you for raising the importance level of the Matthew Arnold page. I have attempted to get the biography in a little better shape, but the discussion of his works is really in very bad shape. I added an extended reference section, but this may be more than is needed in a standard wikipedia article; I don't know. I had grand intentions when I started but other writing chores have pulled me away. Hopefully the new classification will get this page the attention it deserves. Mddietz (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to plead ignorance here. I'm looking at the stack of Arnold's books behind me; I'm recalling that long dissertation I wrote comparing Arnold and Dewey; and I'm thinking, now Mark, how ignorant could you be to not know anything about these "six-points of light." So help me out, what did I miss? Where are these six-points of light? Mddietz (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the Johnson preface! Sorry, should have gotten that. Your reference to canon forming is what confused me. I had never heard this text raised to that level before. Culture and Anarchy, yes. Touchstones, yes. Truth is, I'm beginning to think the whole canon thing has led us away from really understanding the importance of Arnold and is best not fooled with until the two opposing sides can begin to behave like human beings again. Mddietz (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Eliot essays are pretty strong stuff. But the critics of Arnold have always had pretty good material to work from, as Arnold knew (he had a wonderful ability to laugh at himself which seems lost today on both his friends and his foes). My interest in Arnold is also in his way of dealing with tradition and the past; I'm trying to find ways to introduce his sense of the modernity of the past into Dewey's pragmatic reconstructions. Not the easiest task (trying to combine one of the patron saints of conservatism with one of the patron saints of liberalism), but it beats replaying the culture wars. Mddietz (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

your blog entry

Thanks Ottava! I feel notorious, and am probably about to fall off a cliff. Tony (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hanuman Temple, Connaught Place,

Hi! Ottawa Rima, Thank you for reviweing my DYK article. Is there anytning more that I should do to get the artcile through to the Main Page?--Nvvchar (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I missed removing the iffy reference.I have done it now. Added more book references and re-ordered the reference numbering. In fact, as mentioned by you, the contents of the article are mostly covered under earlier reference 2 (now 1) which is a book source. I hope the DYK can move forward now.Please tell me if anything more is to be done.--Nvvchar (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter XVII.V

This is just a quick reminder that the round ends this Friday, May 29, 2009. I wanted to let you guys know the current standings. If you are very close, but not close enough, work as hard as possible these next two days. Pool leaders are listed as usual, and under the 10 wildcards, are competitors that are still fighting for a spot. Also, if you currently have any un-reviewed GAN's up and you'd like them to be reviewed and counted for this round, you must place them on the appropriate thread of the WikiCup talk page.

Pool A

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (647)

Pool B

1. ThinkBlue (247)

Pool C

1. Theleftorium (455)

Pool D

1. Candlewicke (539)

Pool E

1. Durova (479)

Pool F

1. Sasata (961)

Current Wildcards

1. Useight (393)
2. Scorpion0422 (372)
3. Rlevse (329)
4. Wrestlinglover (307)
5. Paxse (285)
6. Ottava Rima (248)
7. Mitchazenia (226)
8. Juliancolton (181)
9. the_ed17 (179)
10. J Milburn (168)
11. Bedford (156)
12. Gary King (147)
13. 97198 (142)
14. Ceranthor (111)
15. Tinucherian (106)
16. Matthewedwards (98)

 GARDEN ,  iMatthew :  Chat  , and The Helpful One The Helpful Bot 00:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism, from RfA

You said, "The four examples on the page show more than 3 words in an uncommon phrase taken from a source without being quoted, the very definition of plagiarism."

Respectfully, that is not correct. The very essence of plagiarism is "taking of someone else's work without providing adequate credit." That's from WP:Plagiarism. The OED (online edition): "The action or practice of taking someone else's work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one's own." The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (fifth ed., p. 30) cites Alexander Lindey, Plagiarism and Originality: "the wrongful act of taking the product of another person's mind, and presenting it as one's own. All italics are mine. Full citations available upon request. ;)

There is no definition that I am aware of that says that a phrase of more than three words requires quotation marks. As I said at the AfD, one could quabble over whether this was good paraphrasing or not, but even if it is terrible paraphrasing it still does not amount to plagiarism, for the simple reason that 1. adequate credit was provided; 2. since references were given there was no act of "passing it off as one's own"; 3. same for "presenting it as one's own." To call those instances that you spotted acts of plagiarism is simply not correct, and neither established definitions of plagiarism nor WP's article on plagiarism give you any reason to say they are. Now, if WP has a policy somewhere outside of WP:Plagiarism, or even practical guidelines on what constitutes good paraphrasing, I'd love to hear about it--but again, even terrible paraphrasing (and that's not what Kelapstick did, IMO) is essentially different from plagiarism. Regards, Drmies (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Without the quotation marks, one is essentially saying that the words are mine. The reference ensures that credit for the idea is given to the appropriate author, but not the words themselves. Karanacs (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much verbatim quoting, yes. As I said above, one could dispute whether this was too much or not. But you still haven't addressed the actual issue: the writer was not claiming ownership since he attributed the words to a source. Your argument in about the difference here between idea and words is specious, and plays no part in discussions of plagiarism. Plagiarism is the theft of words and/or ideas--but since these words and/or ideas are attributed, there is no plagiarism. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have worked in this area since last year, and I have a lot of real life experience with the matter in academia. I have seen people making your arguments time and time again. It is a standard response and reaction when people realize that plagiarism is a serious matter (people who don't recognize it make even worse comments). The thing is, this is an easily correctable mistake and needs to be identified and then treated. No blocks, no bans, nothing of the source. Just an identifying of passages that are too close for comfort followed by a rewriting of material.Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Comfort" is the keyword here. You might feel uncomfortable, and, honestly, I don't much care for all-too close paraphrase either. But this is simply not plagiarism, and by repeating that again and again you're unnecessarily questioning Kelapstick's integrity, and by drawing the comparison to FlyingToaster, who really did go too far a few times (without proper attribution, as far as I could tell) you are setting up a straw man argument of sorts.

Now, I have some experience in this matter also, having worked in the business of teaching writing and grammar for fifteen years now, the last couple of years as a professor of English. I have busted dozens of plagiarizing students and made them cry. This, simply put, is not plagiarism, and I wish you would say so in the RfA discussion. I do have the feeling that you agree in some sense, by talking about "correctable," and I wouldn't mind at all if such passages were rewritten.

The passages you identified may be examples of poor writing or poor paraphrasing or whatever, but it is not plagiarism, and I feel it is imperative that we agree on what I, above, have quoted from three different sources, including WP, that it's the lack of attribution that makes something plagiarism. Can we, and give Kelapstick a fair shake in the process? If you want me too, I'll look over every single edit with him; besides, I can tell you that my comfort level and yours, when it comes to close paraphrasing, are probably very close. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't assess to which extent we still disagree, but I appreciate this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always argued that there is a difference between copyright problems and plagiarism, and that when people show a mistake in it (lack of complete paraphrasing, for example) that it is something that is correctable and understandable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"To copy from one is plagiarism. To copy from many is research" Something my English prof told me in College...just thought it might bring a smile to your face. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The variation I heard is "To take from one author is theft. To take from all of them is art." The artist calls it "allusion". :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sig

Thanks for adding my sig...totally forgot to hit the button! I have a script that automatically signs my posts, but it only works on talk pages...so I sometimes forget to add it to the wikipedia pages. --DougsTech (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it more pleasant adding one in than having sinebot making its mark all over the place. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Ottava

You're too much, old friend =) –xeno^talk 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What's too much is that Ryulong was told not to contact people for support in blocking people he disagrees with, and Sandstein, a person with a track record of working on Ryulong's blocks and denying unblocks without discussion along with other things happens to be the one to indef Dougstech. This is a clear violation of the ArbCom ruling and Ryulong should be blocked. Disgusting behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hah! I may be a member, but I'm certainly not well-received over there. –xeno^talk 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You aren't blocked, so why would you be well received? Once you revealed that you were a member in good standing and an admin, your "street cred" dropped quite a bit there. The problem is never what the WR staff think of our members, but what the Wiki members think of the WR staff. I've seen Lar, LessHeard, and others get chewed out quickly when they state something unfavourable to their cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XVIII

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 14:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.

One-man crusade

Sometimes less is more Ottava. Sure, there are many daily injustices here: editors blocked by ill-tempered admins, admins not even warned for behaviour that would get a regular editor blocked ... but that target's too big, you need to conserve your fire and aim it wisely. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You vent your spleen your way, I vent my spleen my way. Sometimes a spleen isn't a pleasant thing. I know that if I had to hold one it would probably be disgusting. However, I should probably finish this 15 part DYK already so I can finish the last 4 pages for Ainsworth. I'm sure you are getting bored with nothing to do. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion on Piratesmack

Hi. While I fully respect your opinion and appreciate your weighing in on the matter, I thought it might be useful to point out that the diffs you were looking for were available on this version of User_talk:PirateSmackK but had been removed (as all constructive conversations were quickly removed) from that talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for comming out

Hi Ottava, before I start thanking people en masse for participating in my RfA (of which I withdrew when it was sitting at (48/8/6)), I wanted to thank you more personally for your assumption of good faith by going neutral following my addressing the concerns that you brought up. As I had said, I felt that your diffs were probably week if one were trying to hang me for plagiarism, but certainly acted as an appropriate wake up call. Regardless of how we view what is and is not plagiarism I believe that we both agree that it is best to fix the problem (both the article and the editors practices) rather than shoot the offender. Thanks again, and keep up the good work. --kelapstick (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I always believe that those who put citations at the end of sentences are trying to do the right thing regardless if they don't meet the highest expectations. Unless there is egregious copying and pasting (whole articles, etc) then I feel that any problem can be remedied without a problem. I am glad that, for your sake, the group that pounced on the last person did not pounce on you, as the drama would have taken away from what matters most - the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagreements

We disagree on... well, lots of stuff, but on some we agree. "Management types" we don't need. rootology/equality 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we might have agreed on something once before. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Why do we fight so much? It can't be just the fact I used to post to another website, or that you're the Papa Bear O'Reilly to my Colbert? rootology/equality 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think we fight. I think you make random attacks while bored. As Somey put it, I'm an equal opportunity hater, so I rarely have a specific object that I attack but more of a set of actions or a philosophical view. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Newington Green Unitarian Church

Namedropped you here already so you may be getting a request anyway, but thinking about it you may be the best person of all the four I've mentioned to have a look at the article in question, as you understand both the religious and the literary contexts, but have (AFAIK) no knowledge of the area at all so will possibly spot things Malleus or I would take for granted. I'll give it a workthrough as well when I get the chance and it looks from the history like Malleus has already started dotting i's and crossing t's. – iridescent 23:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, hello. I was just going to say, Iridescent suggested I ask you to have a look at my first substantial article, Newington Green Unitarian Church. Apparently you are well up on Christianity and literature! The article holds relatively little on the building itself, a weakness I hope others can help with (ecclesiastical architecture is not easy for me to paraphrase). Instead, it focuses on the people and history. This was the building and congregation that brought Mary Wollstonecraft to soak up the sermons of Richard Price, so it is significant on both sides of the Atlantic. (Wollstonecraft was taken by John Hewlett, then a mere young schoolteacher but later eminent and too respectable to remember her, to visit Samuel Johnson. That was a few months before the old man died, so she may have been one of his final new acquaintances; his words of encouragement must have helped her, as she had not then published anything . -- But I am speculating, in an attempt to draw you in!) I would welcome any more information or context you might be able to contribute. Any comments welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you still willing?

If you continue to be willing and able to act as an advisor/mentor/monitor (whatever the term), then I would greatly appreciate your contribution to my plan to put forth to ArbCom. Currently the proposals are being work on in the following places:

• User talk:Mattisse/Plan
• User:Mattisse/Plan
• User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom
• User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom

I solicit any feedback you can provide.

With thanks. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments about innocent persons and banning, on WP

Your comment that:

"If they were unjustly banned, they wouldn't be seeking revenge and trying to disrupt. They also wouldn't make the kinds of attacks they do. They wouldn't hold multiple accounts and brag about it. They wouldn't put websites compiling personal data or mocking WMF members whenever something happens. These are the actions of the innocent."

Well, Mr. OR; you may well be an expert in literature and languages, but you are a crappy psychologist. Innocent people do a lot of strange things when attacked unfairly. Some of the attacks on this website have been outrageous, and have affected people's lives. Your wounds have been ego deep and look at what hissy-fits you've thrown.

Ergo: innocence (or not) really isn't the issue, per se. Frustration tolerance and abuse-quotient are the order-of-the-day.

In your theory, you need to replace the "the actions of the innocent", with the "actions of the attacked". I'd say that innocent people tend to squall louder (and hit back harder) because they are driven by the "rage of the righteous" and "wrongfully abused". Adding to that the corollary comment that: once attacked, innocent people can get pretty g--damned pissed off. After which they can become very vindictive. With absolute justification.

Perhaps you presume they deserved it in the first place. This is black-and-white "police officer" thinking, i.e. very simplistic. Also self-justifying. And obtuse.

What, have you run through life without experience with an unfair event? How very nice for you.

In any event, you seem to have over-focused on syntax and syllogism, and underfocused on the main point of all that writing you've done (or read). Because you've missed the proverbial 'metaphor' - clearly. 85.0.114.96 (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As for your comments on publishing names and websites. You aren't seeing that situation for what it really is. The person in question has no clue why he was attacked. You do. You assume he does. He doesn't. He attacked back. You say that that was justified. Well, not really. It didn't teach the guy a lesson; how can someone be taught a lesson when the message and the propagating action aren't linked, or perceived? All it does is create more chaos and drama. Which frankly, may have been the point of the attackers to start with. It pays their salary; doesn't it? 85.0.114.96 (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see - random IP shows up and starts mouthing off. That sure seems 100% exactly what I stated above, thus, you have proved everything I stated while trying to do the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP does have a point, though; it's not that hard to find people who've been unfairly treated and used it as a reason to lash out, both in Wiki-land and in real life. Never hear the phrase "if we can't play my way I'm taking the ball/doll/game home with me"? – iridescent 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The only point the IP has is to post jibber jabber on my talk page while everyone knows that I 1. wont bother reading and 2. don't really care what IPs have to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try it again

Mouthing off? Please. I had a very good point (of course).

Which I will repeat: People being angry about unfairness, are as much likely (if not more likely) to be angry innocent persons, than angry guilty persons. And your thesis was self-justifying. Terribly much so. 84.253.58.64 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wah wah wah. Get an account or bug off. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Coleridge

Most of those need leads. I'll try to start with the wikifying soon. Sorry, I haven't been online much as of late. Syn 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think all of them need leads. :) If you find any that seem way too short (I made sure all were over 5k) I can go through articles and the rest in order to expand. I cut off at about 40% for each poem - enough to get the gist of it but not enough to complete for GA/FA quality. Obviously, some of the longer poems have a lot more about them than the shorter ones. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, but I'm not sure if I have the time anymore. You may want to ask another editor, perhaps Jake. You may notice I haven't been editing recently, and I just don't have the time to work on it with you. But I still want to do one in the future, and sorry for bailing out like this. Syn 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

[4] My man - just be bold and remove the tag - or tl it - nowikiying it just breaks the code. Just a heads up - I'm not disagreeing or agreeing if it's resolved just fixing the markup! Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it in there that way so people know what was stated and it can be easily undone if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but you'll get someone else trying to clean it up, as it breaks all the sig code and just renders markup over the screen (at least on IE). Not fussed one way or the other to be honest! Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

They could have just moved the end cap for the nowiki forward. : P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

True!- if you want it still showing tl it is best to be honest - it's easier and cleaner. Pedro :  Chat 

June 2009

Oh God Ottava, you must surely know that there are more than a few administrators itching to kick you out on the slightest pretext, much less this. Leave Tan alone, he's what he is. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they may be itching. However, the moment they dare they will end up desysopped. They know it. Stifle will probably end up desysopped for his recent abuse, and the admin that dare support his blatant CoI are only bringing themselves closer to the chopping block. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't often say this, as it goes against my genetic programming, but I'd be inclined to back off a little if I were in your position. There are loads of rubbish administrators, and Tan is hardly the worst of them. But you're a big boy, you don't need me to tell you what to do or not to do. I'll just remind you though that admins are excused from the civility laws so often used against the likes of you and me; they get away with stuff that would have us blocked in a heartbeat. But then you already know that. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By being one of the ones to chase Shoemaker off this project, Tan has done far more harm than most of the administrators. There is no excuse for that, especially from an admin who got there under false pretenses. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava -

You need to walk away from this one for a while.

You're pushing enough buttons that I need to call you on it. Your ANI behavior in the last hour or so has been terrible. You've personally attacked several people, gotten into a shouting match, broken WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF left and right.

The irony of getting abusive when you're complaining about someone else you feel was being abusive may not be evident to you right now, but it's shining rather brightly at the moment.

Please take a breather and find something else to do for a couple of hours. If you chose to continue, please remember that our civility policy means something. If you keep pushing buttons one of them will have consequences.

I don't want to inhibit legitimate discussion into administrator abuse. But - if you cannot contribute to such discussion without abusing people, you should not contribute.

Please calm down and re-engage in a constructive and civil manner. You can argue points much more effectively if you stay calm, and it's much more pleasant and policy-compliant if you do. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Any user may warn another user. Should you refuse to either refactor your personal attacks or back them up with diffs, I am well within my rights as an editor to seek to have you blocked, just as i was within my rights to warn you in the first place. Further, nothing I said here was either incivil or violating policies, despite your (again) unsourced allegations to the contrary. Nor despite your baseless accusations have I ever pretended to be an admin. And finally, you were banned from my talkpage some months ago for egregious personal attacks. Heed it. //roux   01:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)