| Revision as of 14:28, 13 October 2009 view sourceAkhilleus (talk | contribs)13,976 edits →WP:MEAT: ah good!← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:29, 13 October 2009 view source Ottava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →WP:MEATNext edit → | ||
| Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
| :::Perhaps you should pay attention and see that I already did. However, seeing as how you responded to me at 14:20, it is likely that you did see it and felt like making comments about it -anyway-. And Akhilleus, meat puppetry, responding for others,a nd going to multiple pages is the very definition of ]. ] (]) 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | :::Perhaps you should pay attention and see that I already did. However, seeing as how you responded to me at 14:20, it is likely that you did see it and felt like making comments about it -anyway-. And Akhilleus, meat puppetry, responding for others,a nd going to multiple pages is the very definition of ]. ] (]) 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Actually, I hadn't seen that you fixed it. That's good! ] (]) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | ::::Actually, I hadn't seen that you fixed it. That's good! ] (]) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::"Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" And ArbCom has already ruled that when there is meatpuppetry, the individual actions apply to the whole, so even if you weren't on some of the discussions, you are still treated as if you were at all of them. Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS makes it clear that your voice, dbachmann's voice, and Folantin's are considered as one regardless of what you may think, so your actions can't work to your benefit. ] (]) 14:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:29, 13 October 2009
Archived talk- 1. Archive 1 (Jan 27,2008-Feb 6,2008)
- 2. Archive 2 (Feb 7,2008-Mar 22,2008)
- 3. Archive 3 (Mar 23,2008-Apr 1,2008)
- 4. Archive 4 (Apr 2,2008-Apr 13,2008)
- 5. Archive 5 (Apr 14,2008-Apr 24,2008)
- 6. Archive 6 (Apr 25,2008-Apr 30,2008)
- 7. Archive 7 (May 1,2008-May 10,2008)
- 8. Archive 8 (Mar 10,2008-Jun 23,2008)
- 9. Archive 9 (Jun 23,2008-Jul 31,2008)
- 10. Archive 10 (Jul31,2008-Aug 4,2008)
- 11. Archive 11 (Aug5,2008-Sep21,2008)
- 12. Archive 12 (Sep21,2008-Oct8,2008)
- 13. Archive 13 (Oct 8,2008-Nov 8,2008)
- 14. Archive 14 (Nov 8,2008-Dec 4,2008)
- 15. Archive 15 (Dec 5,2008-Feb22,2009)
- 16. Archive 16 (Feb 22, 2009-March 31, 2009)
- 17. Archive 17 (April 1, 2009-May 29, 2009)
- 18. Archive 18 (May 30, 2009-June 29, 2009)
- 19. Archive 19 (June 30, 2009-July 31, 2009)
- 20. Archive 20 (August 1, 2009-September 5, 2009)
- 21. Archive 21 (September 6, 2009-October 10, 2009)
- 22. Archive 22 (___, 2009-___, 2009)
- 23. Archive 23 (___, 2009-___, 2009)
- 24. Archive 24 (___, 2009-___, 2009)
- 25. Archive 25 (___, 2009-___, 2009)
- 26. Archive 26 (___, 2009-___, 2009)
- 27. Archive 27 (___, 2009-___, 2009)
- 28. Archive 28 (___, 2009-___, 2009)
- 29. Archive 29 (___, 2009-___, 2009)
- 30. Archive 30 (___, 2009-___, 2009)
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
RfC
I'm giving up with this. Please don't ask me to assist with an RfC again. I knew it would happen, but someone has created the cupcake section again, and it's still not certified properly. It's a joke, frankly, and I have become the butt of it. So please do not involve me again. I tried my best, but frankly, I can see where several commenters are coming from. Majorly talk 11:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is certified properly. You know, if they think it isn't, all we have to do is post on her talk page: "Please explain why you aided Geogre's sock puppetry and resign" and just restart it again. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then do that. Just don't ask me to assist you. I'm fed up with this shit. Best wishes, Majorly talk 14:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ping
Pong. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:AN
Sorry, that's rubbish. Ikip will take any chance to have a go at Merridew, and he needs to stop it. The thread is about the WQA, not Ikip's grudges. Black Kite 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am causing disruption? I'm trying to stop Ikip derailing the thread. Black Kite 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup submissions
Hi, please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup#Why should you get credit for these?. iMatthew at 18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hi: Can I ask what it is that you (or others) have done that has caused this furor I'm noticing everywhere? I noticed that you said on SandyGeorgia's page: "I was unblocked, after it was determined that blocking someone for restoring a deleted RfA that was deleted out of process by someone involved was not against policy and consensus could not override policy." Are most of these disputes on Misplaced Pages about controversial articles where one side wants one thing written and another wants another thing written? Or does it get way more complex than that? Varks Spira (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is a timeline for you:
- 1. 10 April 2008: A FAC on Jonathan Swift related article came to Geogre's attention.
- 2. 12 April 2008: Geogre edits the page and makes his first comment about the sources and the page.
- 3. and 12 April 2008: I respond.
- 3 13 April 2008: I create a page on Jonathan Swift's printers.
- 4. 14 April 2008: Geogre attacks another Jonathan Swift related page, Sermons of Jonathan Swift, after it received praise by a third party.
- 4. 15 April 2008: We fight.
- 5 During this time: I take his attacks against my other articles and against myself on my talk page to WQA and then I remove them and attacks from his sock puppet Utgard Loki were soon made on my talk page .
- 5. 2 hours later he deletes the Swift's printers page. WQA comments and ANI. After discussion at ANI, it is recommended that I go to DRV.
- 6. 16 April 2008: the page Geogre deleted goes through DRV and is restored. Geogre, Guy, Moreschi, and Folantin all fight to have the page kept as deleted.
That is the beginning of this current mess. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Geogre seems to be a difficult person to deal with. "Swift's printers" might not have been the correct title for the article, or it might have actually been correct, but an article dedicated to printers who worked on getting Swift's works put into print is definitely worthy of an article. You seem to have written a fine article in the draft mode; it's a lot better than my article on Misplaced Pages administrators. How can someone like Geogre be an administrator? Anyhow, I see that the dispute centers on Jonathan Swift-related articles and wrongheadedness in writing them. Thanks for the answers. There appears to always be Misplaced Pages article(s) lurking behind these disputes. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- The original Swift's printers because the basis for Motte v Faulkner. The dispute later went to Christopher Smart, when I had 12 books that claimed Smart was an important Freemason and those on the Freemasonry project decided that he wasn't. I reverted 4 times across 3 pages and it was deemed edit warring by Moreschi, who you can see involved above. He indef blocked me, and Bishonen, with Geogre and the Utgard Loki sock, called for my banning from the project. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- So Geogre won the debate about not having a "Swift's printers" article? This call for your banning is a little extreme considering it was only an argument about whether or not Christopher Smart was a freemason. Almost seems like if you lose an argument about the writing of a Misplaced Pages article then the intensity of that argument continues to haunt you afterward. Either way, I think the standard reading is that it is currently unknown/undecided whether Christopher Smart was a freemason or not, and that debate between scholars is actually well documented in the article about Christopher Smart. Is Smart's article balanced at this point? It seems to me like there is very little room for dissent on Misplaced Pages. Varks Spira (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, he lost the debate because many prominent Wikipedians told him that he abused his ops in a personal dispute. So, he set about getting revenge and many of my blocks in my block log are directly attributed to it. By the way, Christopher Smart won out as a freemason, as all of the biographies declare him as such and consensus allowed for it. They don't actually care about the pages and move onto the next one. They moved onto Talk:Ludovico Ariosto next. After that, they went after Talk:Persian Empire and then Talk:Oscar Wilde. When Bishonen showed up to cause problems at Talk:Drapier's Letters while it was at WP:FAC, I put up the RfC against her. And thus, everything we have now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's actually incorrect. Not all the biographies declare Christopher Smart to be a freemason. Chris Mounsey says in the notes of his book "Christopher Smart: clown of God" that "Since neither Smart's name nor his pseudonyms appear in the records of the Freemasons, it is highly unlikely he was ever one of their number. See, however, Marie Roberts, 'British Poets and Secret Societies' (Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1986) for an account of Smart's work which accepts his association with the Freemasons." I think something to this effect should be written in the lede, actually. This "went after"ing of articles that you worked on at Misplaced Pages is what is really disconcerting. It sounds like a witch-hunt to find fault with your work and exactly what I figured... the intensity of arguments continues to haunt you afterward. I guess you can do that at Misplaced Pages since there are no departments to keep order. Varks Spira (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mounsey was proven wrong by the London Freemason Library which stated that the records were not complete nor could a lack of a name verify that a person was not a member. I have documents from them and from a Pheonix Lodge on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's actually incorrect. Not all the biographies declare Christopher Smart to be a freemason. Chris Mounsey says in the notes of his book "Christopher Smart: clown of God" that "Since neither Smart's name nor his pseudonyms appear in the records of the Freemasons, it is highly unlikely he was ever one of their number. See, however, Marie Roberts, 'British Poets and Secret Societies' (Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1986) for an account of Smart's work which accepts his association with the Freemasons." I think something to this effect should be written in the lede, actually. This "went after"ing of articles that you worked on at Misplaced Pages is what is really disconcerting. It sounds like a witch-hunt to find fault with your work and exactly what I figured... the intensity of arguments continues to haunt you afterward. I guess you can do that at Misplaced Pages since there are no departments to keep order. Varks Spira (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, he lost the debate because many prominent Wikipedians told him that he abused his ops in a personal dispute. So, he set about getting revenge and many of my blocks in my block log are directly attributed to it. By the way, Christopher Smart won out as a freemason, as all of the biographies declare him as such and consensus allowed for it. They don't actually care about the pages and move onto the next one. They moved onto Talk:Ludovico Ariosto next. After that, they went after Talk:Persian Empire and then Talk:Oscar Wilde. When Bishonen showed up to cause problems at Talk:Drapier's Letters while it was at WP:FAC, I put up the RfC against her. And thus, everything we have now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- So Geogre won the debate about not having a "Swift's printers" article? This call for your banning is a little extreme considering it was only an argument about whether or not Christopher Smart was a freemason. Almost seems like if you lose an argument about the writing of a Misplaced Pages article then the intensity of that argument continues to haunt you afterward. Either way, I think the standard reading is that it is currently unknown/undecided whether Christopher Smart was a freemason or not, and that debate between scholars is actually well documented in the article about Christopher Smart. Is Smart's article balanced at this point? It seems to me like there is very little room for dissent on Misplaced Pages. Varks Spira (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- The original Swift's printers because the basis for Motte v Faulkner. The dispute later went to Christopher Smart, when I had 12 books that claimed Smart was an important Freemason and those on the Freemasonry project decided that he wasn't. I reverted 4 times across 3 pages and it was deemed edit warring by Moreschi, who you can see involved above. He indef blocked me, and Bishonen, with Geogre and the Utgard Loki sock, called for my banning from the project. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- That would be an excellent addition to the article. Is it possible to read these document somewhere online? These are official statements by freemason associations? They are not sure themselves, I guess, as to whether or not Smart was one of their own? Of course, a freemason institution is biased somewhat, but their opinion is very valuable. I'm sure they are more than okay with having Christopher Smart considered a freemason. Good for their history. Are there other, more recent, sources on the matter? I started a section on the talk page of the Christopher Smart article to deal with this. Varks Spira (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have them in my email somewhere. They were used as evidence when the banning happened. Anyway, the issue was dealt with over a year ago. It wasn't a major point of interest in his life, so it wouldn't really be great to rehash it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I like verifying facts. Could I possibly view the evidence somehow? Varks Spira (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe in November when I have more time to dig for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. This sub-subject is not really any sort of interest of mine, but it did grasp me for a few hours there. I guess all these arguments can be time consuming and in the end they take you away from the main subject. Didn't mean to bring back any ghosts. I was just trying to comprehend some of the debates that are ongoing around here. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe in November when I have more time to dig for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I like verifying facts. Could I possibly view the evidence somehow? Varks Spira (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have them in my email somewhere. They were used as evidence when the banning happened. Anyway, the issue was dealt with over a year ago. It wasn't a major point of interest in his life, so it wouldn't really be great to rehash it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- That would be an excellent addition to the article. Is it possible to read these document somewhere online? These are official statements by freemason associations? They are not sure themselves, I guess, as to whether or not Smart was one of their own? Of course, a freemason institution is biased somewhat, but their opinion is very valuable. I'm sure they are more than okay with having Christopher Smart considered a freemason. Good for their history. Are there other, more recent, sources on the matter? I started a section on the talk page of the Christopher Smart article to deal with this. Varks Spira (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
RE: Leigh Hunt
Certainly; had rather a long day (my significant other and some aussie guy nobody has ever heard of came up to uni for the day. I'll get right on the ledes in about thirty seconds. Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XXXIII
| The WikiCup Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WP:MEAT
Hello Ottava,
By this comment I can only assume that you are continuing your accusation of meatpuppetry. On previous occasions, I've asked you to stop making this accusation, or start an RfC or request for arbitration. You included me in a request for arbitration that was declined; are you going to start an RfC? Or stop making such comments? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, why are you still referring to Folantin as female? I thought this issue had been fixed. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The accusation already had diffs provided at ArbCom. Therefore, I can make the accusation all you want. And the ArbCom was not "declined". It was procedurally closed without prejudice. And "her" was referring to the Persian Empire, which is clear from the context. Now, you can stop harassing me. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not "harassing" you, Ottava, I'm asking you to please stop accusing me of meatpuppetry. Apparently, you don't want to stop.
- By the way, if, in this post, "her" is supposed to refer to the Persian Empire, you might want to go back and edit the post, because that is not what it says. "her edit war" != "the Persian Empire's edit war". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should pay attention and see that I already did. However, seeing as how you responded to me at 14:20, it is likely that you did see it and felt like making comments about it -anyway-. And Akhilleus, meat puppetry, responding for others,a nd going to multiple pages is the very definition of WP:HARASS. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I hadn't seen that you fixed it. That's good! --Akhilleus (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" And ArbCom has already ruled that when there is meatpuppetry, the individual actions apply to the whole, so even if you weren't on some of the discussions, you are still treated as if you were at all of them. Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS makes it clear that your voice, dbachmann's voice, and Folantin's are considered as one regardless of what you may think, so your actions can't work to your benefit. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should pay attention and see that I already did. However, seeing as how you responded to me at 14:20, it is likely that you did see it and felt like making comments about it -anyway-. And Akhilleus, meat puppetry, responding for others,a nd going to multiple pages is the very definition of WP:HARASS. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, if, in this post, "her" is supposed to refer to the Persian Empire, you might want to go back and edit the post, because that is not what it says. "her edit war" != "the Persian Empire's edit war". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)