User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 16

Getting a bit worried ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lucy

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

The Treatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the literary treatment of spirits...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samuel Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

Fielding

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

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

New Samuel Johnson bios

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Copyright problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Notification

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

your advice on List of street names of drugs

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

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

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

CoIed?

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

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

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

To Autumn

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

Archiving a talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second Coming

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

Nonsense

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

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

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

WilyD 06:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

My swmpathies

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

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

Lucy

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

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

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

WikiCup Newsletter

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

Contacting you

Hi Ottava,

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

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

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

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

Walter Landor Dickens

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

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

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

Ottava Rima/Philosophy

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

WikiCup Newsletter

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

Charles Scherf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for adminship

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

Links to FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2009 DYK

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

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

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

Combining the three articles into one hook helped because I got DYKs for all three. Thanks. Chris (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Potomac Creek Bridge DYK

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

noticeboard

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

Where are admins discussing my blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

decasyllabic quatrain

A bit of a mess in the definions:

• the Encyclopedia Britannica defines the Heroic Stanza as :"in poetry, a rhymed quatrain in heroic verse with rhyme scheme abab. The form was used by William Shakespeare and John Dryden, among others, and was also called an elegiac stanza after the publication in the mid-18th century of Thomas Gray’s poem “An Elegy Written in a Country Church Yard.” "
• Yet the American Heritage Dictionary defines the term as:" A four-line stanza consisting of two heroic couplets." (hence leaving the possibility for a AABB quatrain)
• decasyllabic is defined as: a line of verse having ten syllables

Now, from what I have gathered, the "decasyllabic quatrain", while not defined as having an ABAB rhyme scheme in the sum the definitions of of "decasyllabic" (10 syllables) and quatrain (4 lines), is historically known to be 4 lines of 10 syllables with an alternating rhyme scheme that breaks from the use of the heroic couplet. But the problem is that while all sources I have agree that the decasyllabic quatrain does not have a rhyme scheme of AABB, it is not necessarily implied by the term itself. As for merpin's question , I believe that pentameter is 5 metrical feet, and decasyllabic is 10 syllables...hence, if you have a trisyllable metrical foot, u can meet the classification of pentameter but not decasyllabic. Anyway, I just wanted to see if you had any thoughts on any of this. Mrathel (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have that a little off. You could have trisyllable metrical feet in a line and have 10 syllables and be decasyllabic. Decasyllabic is just the amount of syllables. There are many variations. I'll look through some of my books later to come up with a definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the help, if you get a chance:) Mrathel (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

From William Harmon's nice little A Handbook to Literature:

• Decasyllabic - "A line composed of ten syllables. Iambic and trochaic pentameter lines are decasyllabic.
• Heroic Line - "Iamibic pentameter is called the heroic line because it is often used in epic or heroic poetry.
• Heroic Quatrain - "Four lines of iambic pentameter (or, much more rarely, tetrameter) rhyming abab, a "
• Heroic Verse - "Poetry composed in HEROIC COUPLETS"
• Heroic Stanza - "Another name for the HEROIC QUATRAIN"

The American Heritage Dictionary confuses Heroic Verse for Heroic Stanza. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So I guess my question is along the lines of: there seems to be a definition among critics that the "decasyllabic quatrain" is 4 lines of with ten syllables, arranged in ABAB with a period on the end of each stanza, but can they really make the assumption that such rules actually exist, or rather "is the term "decasyllabic quatrain" able to have a definition that goes beyoned the combined meaning of the words used to describe it"? If so, then there is a possibility of the "Heroic Quatrain" being the same as "decasyllabic quatrain" in some cases but not in others; if, however it is assumed that the decasyllabic quatrain can be composed of quatrains of AABB, then it is not any different than the "Heroic Quatrain". But the prevailing opinion among the few critics who directly mention the "decasyllabic quatrain" seems to be that it is unique in that it moved the 10-syllable line into the ABAB rhyme scheme giving it a complexity not seen in the use of traditional heroic couplets. I think that the actual problem here is semantic; the decasyllabic quatrain should be nothing more than 4 lines of ten syllables, but at least from a historical standpoint, the term has a more definite meaning. Either way, I am pretty sure I am going insane:)Mrathel (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not decasyllabic quatrain. Heroic quatrain. Decasyllabic has nothing to do with rhyme. Anything with ten syllables is a subset of decasyllabic meter, so can be included as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand now. It is a bit of a confusing matter becaues if you search for "Decasyllabic Quatrain," the only references you get are people talking about the "Heroic Quatrain", and they do not specify what they are talking about but insist that the use of the term "decasyllabic quatrain" implies "heroic quatrain". I am going to tweek the article a bit, add a section for the AABB rhyme scheme as well as free verse or any other rhyme patter that might qualify in the genre. Mrathel (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

... is up now. I responded to you at my talk, in case you are not watching it. Thanks again! Kafka Liz (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the Frank Parson quote in the Critical Assessment section. I see the source listed in the Bibliography, but I don't have a page number for the quote, and I don't have easy access to this particular publication. Also, it's not crucial, but who is Frank Parson? I couldn't find any information on him. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank Parson was an early reviewer of the poems. This may give you more information. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll check it out. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Bad luck man with SJ. Try and keep cool and you'll get through it. Shitty auld week or what?! Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil - I only listed it because I knew it was heavily copyedited and I wanted to prove that your page got a bad rap. It mostly received flak because of me (as proven by the Johnson page). So don't think that the problems were with you. Just don't list me on the name next time. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No way in hell could Lucy be re-nominated without your name floating on the top. Anyway, I was very disappointed to see what happened today, I think the issues raised are far more trivial than we had on the last one, earlier this week. That said, if I was you I'd just ignore him, let the object stand - so what. There will be other reviewers, do not let one guy debunk the whole thing. Easier to say than do I suppose, but thats my openion anyway. As a side point, it amuses me tso see Malleus as the sobering and calming party on the SJ FAC! Cool, but I prefered the rough and ready Malleus we all know so well ;-) Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You had two articles at FAC. One with my name and one without. Both got different receptions. Just relist without my name. I can take credit my own way. Just don't let the trolls get you. I think it is nice that, as a side benefit, Malleus started working on the page. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not going to happen, so fuggetaboutit. I haven't read the Johnson page yet; off there now. Later. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

[3] ? Name change? If you don't want to discuss I fully understand. Pedro :  Chat  23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No name change. I was in contact with his sister from the beginning and helped guide her during the events. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! My respect for that. I feel embarassed now, as I've held some resentment towards you, and now you show me why I should never, ever, be negative about another editor. Godd on you and my apologies. Jeff meant a lot to me and my emotions surrounding this are a little tight. Pedro :  Chat  00:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't respect me or anything like that. Just keep on doing what you do. I have a lot of experience with death and helping people with death. I didn't know Jeff or anything like that. However, I did want to make sure that she was able to contact people without revealing too much personal information. Thankfully, there were those like SandyGeorgia and Alison that were around to do a lot of the work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#User_talk:MBisanz.2FRecall

Calling other editors children and talking about waiting for the adults to show up is not a personal attack? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malleus_Fatuorum.27s_lack_of_civility Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, my first accusation of sockpuppetry. I guess I've arrived at Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you need to duplicate everything? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

yes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

yes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 16 articles

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articles Henry Fielding's early plays, Actor Rebellion of 1733, Love in Several Masques, The Temple Beau, The Author's Farce, Tom Thumb (play), Rape upon Rape, The Tragedy of Tragedies, The Letter Writers, The Welsh Opera, The Grub Street Opera, The Lottery (play), The Modern Husband, The Old Debauchees, The Covent Garden Tragedy, and The Mock Doctor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot of 16 article DYK

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For having sixteen articles in one DYK hook, I award you this Barnstar. Believe me, I know how hard it is to put a 16 article hook together. Great work on Fielding. --Doug Coldwell talk 19:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks Doug. It was originally going to be only 15 but there was no article on the Actor Rebellion. There were three major drama filled Actor Rebellions and I thought that Wiki should discuss at least one. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You sure do know a lot about Henry Fielding. I don't know anything about him, but find he is a very interesting character after I started doing a little research on him. Was able to find some pictures from Flickr that I added to his article. Let's see how long this record will hold.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

His later plays will be another 16/15 part. The only other big hooks will come from an author like William Harrison Ainsworth. I don't really care about big or small, more about getting them out there for the public to see and draw more attention to the authors. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great! Especially for people like myself that know little or nothing of these authors. Once I got researching Fielding, I thought he was quite an excellent author and scholar. Also he did some other great things like starting a professional police force in London. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Doug. Definitely ties a record. Chris (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow ! That was good. I was surprised when your score jumped in WP:CUP suddenly ( both of us are in the same pool) and came here.. Well done ! -- Tinu Cherian - 09:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really active in the cup. :) My idea was to edit as I normally do and see how I match up to get a sense of how I am as a standard content contributor. If I manage to make it to the second round, well, that would be hilarious. :) Thank you by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad form

This edit, is in bad form Ottava. Please undo it. Thank you. Synergy 02:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If Malleus feels that it is necessary to have it back, he can add it back. I have done this before, and I do it not to harm him, to criticize him, or the rest. -I- dealt with it before someone else can say it wasn't dealt with and use it as an excuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like hiding to me. Striking would have been more appropriate. Best. Synergy 02:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've learned that people don't respect "struck" as struck anymore. If someone wants to fight with him over it, they will have to unbury it, which will show that they are not here to be civil themselves. So, that either keeps them away because they know it, or it removes their stance if they don't. Either way, it protects Malleus. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Your name came up in WikiVoices Episode 41 about the work you've been doing recently at DYK keeping plagiarism off the site's main page. I said that effort deserved a barnstar, so making good on the pledge. The episode should be edited in a few days. Keep up the good work, and best wishes. DurovaCharge! 05:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• off. Off the main page. :) Protonk (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed. Hehe. Ty Durova. Thanks for noticing Protonk. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. :) Durova^Charge! 05:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Martin

Oh, no problem, and great work on the article; I look forward to more of the same as the anniversary approaches. Martin happens to be lying on my living room table -- I was thumbing through him last night, so when I saw the FAC nomination today, the point came quite naturally. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC stuff

Talk page kitteh sez: No maor FAC dramalulz

1. This comment cracked me up :)
2. I've started a new thread on the FAC about the general problem of good writing and its subjectivity. Hopefully that should address the kernel of your problem with F&F while taking some of the vitriol out of the discussion. (But in the future, though, I would appreciate it if you would not use FAC to set a trap, even if he did fall into it.)
3. I'd also like to avoid bringing this to ANI, because ANI is hardly an environment conducive to measured or thoughtful decisions.
4. I might have been a bit hasty in archiving the Lucy Poems nom. Would you be up to renominating it? Raul654 (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Raul, my openion was that the archiving was a good enough call; it was going downhill anyway, there was nothing left to be gained there except maybe more dramalulz. We've taken the points made on baord and will resubmit when ready. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Ottiva. I didn't think you directed anything at me in particular, although I'm concerned that some people will take your comments and use them as a weapon against the prose requirements. I'm particularly annoyed at Raul for raising the matter in the way he did. Tony (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you probably remember that I used to cause a lot of trouble by being rude to nominators—if not rude, brusque. But over the past year, I've learnt a lot from Lightmouse and Colonies Chris on the value of firm politeness. I don't seem to have trouble now (except for a few, like editorofthewiki, who challenge just about every point I make). Tony (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have real problems personally with FAC. They are:

1. I'm not retired, in which case I'd probably give lots of time I now devote to paid professional work to FAC, since it's in me to try to improve people's prose.
2. As it is, FAC reviewing (of prose) is too much like my paid work. It's not the same, but requires me to use similar areas of my brain. This is a turn-off not because I need money (I don't), but because it's just more more more more of something that is hard work and no longer sufficiently rewarding. In the early days, at least I learnt a lot from doing the reviewing at FAC—now I don't. Thus, I've craved the ability to make an impact on WP in other ways over the past year. That underpins my shift towards style guides, and the spearheading of major reforms such as date-autoformatting, the revamping of the FLC process, and AdminReview. Watch this space for more of that, if I survive the current ArbCom hearing. I guess it's also behind my continued although slow expansion of my userspace tutorial pages. The latest, I simply must finish, which is the great bug-bear for many non-native speakers: "the"/"a".
3. In any case, there are too many nominations coming through, and always have been, for the number of skilled reviewers. This is a psychological problem for all of us, since the job is never done. Five a week, and there would be much more satisfaction in giving all nominations the attention they need, and a feeling that, together, we reviewers were able to uphold professional standards. This is hard when there are 30–50 in the cascade.

I'd much prefer a system in which nominations were bumped off at an early stage if they clearly were not ready. But I don't think this would be politically acceptable. Tony (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this could be done if some opposers who are not merely opposing to get cosmetic changes made titled their opposes "Oppose and urge withdraw" and set forth their reasoning. By the way, Tony, thank you for your comments and support on Wolters, and I've made the changes you proposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly FACs could be "bumped off at an early stage if they clearly were not ready" if reviewers would just Oppose !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Example: I just made my first pass through FAC. There were 54 FACs on the page, and exactly one FAC had Opposes sufficient for archiving. Typically, each FAC has one lone oppose, and nothing else. If reviewers aren't opposing and backing each other up to indicate when a FAC should be archived, are the FAC delegates and director supposed to be sole arbiters and dictators? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm quite prepared to post at the talk pages of regular reviews an argument that we do more opposing, then. This is what I proposed some time ago. The "quick-fail" idea is the filter we need to that reviewers are not swamped. God knows how many more reviewers we'd attract if the flow looked more manageable. Tony (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Quick fail" has no meaning if it comes from only one reviewer; we are still lacking reviews, and I can't archive a nom because of one opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Opera of Operas

I wanted to note that I performed this because The Tragedy of Tragedies page now contains the information and it is a mistake to connect Opera of Operas with the original version (Tom Thumb) and not the later expanded version (Tragedy of Tragedies). I used part of your sentence and expanded on it with dates and the rest here. I hope this makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as they are all linked. I've revised Tom Thumb to clarify the various stage versions. Goustien (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

categories

Could you take a look atthe nomination for deletion of Category:Characters in German novels Your opinion may help clarify this. DGG (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		No oyu haven't been blocked! For all your great work :-) Pattont/c 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Gilma (2006)

I'm curious, since you're not a member of the tropical cyclone Wikiproject, how did you hear about the merger proposal for the aforementioned article? Also, I was a bit offended by your comment on the AFD.

The user did not get his way at the merge and is moving to delete the page in order to make way to meet the article percentage for 
featured topic. He is abusive processes to get more "featured" items, which can only be seen as a status symbol.

If you read the first paragraph, I didn't want to delete it. I wanted to merge it, after JC suggested I take it to AFD. I'm more offended that you thought I was abusing the process to get more "featured" items. FWIW, I want less fish storms, as they're not notable and they shouldn't be a precedent to the WPTC. Before I was getting my featured topic ready, I wanted to deal with the fish storms, as I have long thought they should not exist. Less fish storms would mean my featured topic would require less featured articles. I don't want to get any more non-notable articles of mine featured, simply put. How is that for a status symbol? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me or curse at me on IRC ever again. I don't know how or why you got so involved, but I didn't intend to do game the system and do major violations. I was also a bit annoyed when you said I should've stayed retired. Would you be able to respond somewhere on Wiki? Say what you want, but I am here for the betterment of Wikipedia. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You seek the removal of 3 GAs from having their own pages in order to get the percentages for a Featured Topic. This is an assault on the dignity of the whole featured system as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I wanted to deal with three articles, whose existence I disagree with, which happens to affect the percentage for the Featured Topics. Could you respond to anything else I said. I'm still annoyed you threatened me and cursed at me. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When you can get a star simply by removing 3 pages, chances are there is a conflict of interest with you in arguing for their merging/deletion. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have long wanted those sorts of storms to be merged, and these three storms happened to affect the topic. I wanted to get the ball rolling, as there had been some discussion, but nothing significant. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't respond on IRC. Do you really want me to retire again? Am I that much of a menace, seriously? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to remove three GAs and benefit from it by getting another star, then yes. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read any of what I said above, you'd realize that you misunderstood me completely. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I only misunderstood the situation if 1) three GA were not going to end up vanishing and 2) if you wouldn't end up getting your FT through without having to worry about the percentage decrease from the three GAs. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fishing Trip?

Would the Compleat Angler, user:Ottava Rima, like to join me in a fishing trip for sockpuppet salmon? We plan to start our mad dash around the world in Bombay, India, the city of Kipling and Rushdie, fishing for the sockpuppet's cousin, the Pomfret. The next leg of our trip will find us in Chicago, Illinois, smelt-fishing in Lake Michigan. Recall that "smelt" is the second cousin of "stink", according to fishing expert Dr. Johnson. Soon, however, we will be in Champaign, Illinois, fishing in several farm ditches whose waters will gradually become both murky and muddy. Our friend Tom Sawyer from not-too-distant Hannibal, will join us as well. Sadly, we will have to turn down the invitation of our other friend, Huck Finn, to go after bottom feeders, since it might constitute cannibalism for one of our party. We will be in New York next, joining another friend, Ishmael, before he heads off to New Bedford and beyond on his Nantucket sleigh ride. Did I say "sleigh ride?" Well, "camel ride" would have been better, for we will soon be fishing in the Karakash River before it is lost in the sands of the Taklamakan Desert; in case you have forgotten, we will, of course, be looking for the sockpuppet salmon, the third cousin (fifth removed) of the fabled Himalayan salmon. What does it matter that we are more likely to find that sockpuppet in the icy waters of the Kenai Fjords? We will after all be feeding a windbag's paranoia. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing to see how both of you don't leave a single opportunity to belittle each other. Sorry Ottava Rima for giving this chance to Fowler. My edits gave him a chance to prove that you are "paranoid"! But I feel you both are quite similar. I mean, you are "same" guys on different sides of an argument/internet connection. Both of you display the same behaviour. Its time this mudslinging stops! BTW, Fowler&fowler has accused you of "slighting the people of Mumbai"?? IMO, this is grossly false as I couldn't find any edit from your side indulging in any such action. Good bye and I shall stay away from any discussion involving you guys, 59.182.7.219 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, what do you think this doozy is? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnson

Just thought you might like to know I'm currently working on cleaning up this: [4]

It's pretty heavily damaged, so may take a while, but, thankfully, most of the damage is in the trees and such, where it can be repaired much more easily, and there's no places where a key element, like Johnson's face, would need complete reconstruction. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, very cool. I've never seen that before nor have I seen it appear in any of the many books on Johnson. That would definitely help put Wiki ahead of Johnson scholarship. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is nowhere near done, but it corrects a lot of the worst damage, so if you want to start using it (it should be ample for thumbnails): File:Vauxhall - Dr. Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Mary_Robinson, et al.jpg. The changes probably aren't that noticeable: Bits that I spent 20 minutes on are only a few pixels when it's shrunk to 1280 pixels wide, which is kind of annoying, really =P

A more finished version should be available in a day or two, but I'll just upload over. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you want some details from this - it's quite large, after all - just give me some idea where. Though I'll batch job them when it's done, if you don't mind. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Author's Farce

HI,

Have you had a chance to look at the style, since I left my review comments. I reverted some edits by User:NuclearWarfare, which made the grammar worse. Looking forward to seeing some work on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Thank you for inprovements, I have now passed the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

she was on my list of 20 authors I am getting to FA before I retire

I'm going to hold you to that, you fucked up! I just spent the last 10 minutes cross posting between yourself and F&F, its very fustrating when two people you like and respect are at each other's trougts. I think there has been wrong on both sides, but what would it cost if ye just walked away from each other? Let his objection on SJ stand, live with it and just ignore him from now on, ye both are dragging yerselves down into shite. This battle will never be won, yer as stubburn as each other. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

If we meet in hell, please be sure to bring chocolate chip cookie dough. :)

May the best man/woman/humanoid win. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

20:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Delivered for the WikiCup by  GARDEN  at 20:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Queries to my talk.