Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:17, 27 October 2009

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)

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)

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

The WikiCup Newsletter Round IV, Issue 6 - October 10, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continuing for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced. Top 5 Sasata (1153) Ottava Rima (1148) Theleftorium (1025) Durova (1010) Eliminated 3 Candlewicke (534) Mitchazenia (352) Juliancolton (314) Withdrawn Shoemaker's Holiday (1183) All scores are accurate as of 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC). Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ottava Rima (7) Featured lists Nobody Featured topics Nobody Featured pictures Durova (26) Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday (19) Featured portals Nobody Good topics Theleftorium (1) Ottava Rima (1) Good articles Theleftorium (22) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (42) In the news items Candlewicke (eliminated) (36) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. For Round 3 stats, see Newsletter 27. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 4 final total of: 13 Featured articles 0 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 42 Featured pictures 19 Featured sounds 0 Featured portal 2 Good topic 58 Good articles 132 Did you know? items 37 In the news items This combines with the Round 1, Round 2, and Round 3 totals to make a grand total of: 45 Featured articles 61 Featured lists 5 Featured topics 235 Featured pictures 44 Featured sounds 6 Featured portal 8 Good topics 325 Good articles 676 Did you know? items 166 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Sasata 849 1153 304 2 Ottava Rima 910 1148 238 3 Durova 914 1010 96 4 Theleftorium 938 1025 87 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores Generated from this diff. From the Judges Hi everyone! We're very sorry we didn't get this one out anytime sooner. We've all been pretty busy IRL. But down to business: Since the last newsletter, the first half of the round has ended. We said goodbye to Candlewicke, Juliancolton, and Mitchazenia. We'd like to thank them for all of their hard work getting this far. Shoemaker's Holiday has also withdrawn, so we'd like to thank him for his hard work too. Congratulations to Durova, Ottava Rima, Sasata, and Theleftorium for making the top 4! Good luck to you all. You also may have seen from the WikiCup talk page that we have a new judge! J Milburn is joining our judging team effective immediately. J was assigned after Garden and Thehelpfulone announced they would be highly inactive throughout the remainder of the WikiCup. It is likely you will see J return as a judge next year as well. Good luck again to the remaining four contestants! 20 days left in the Round, so make sure you get all your content nominated soon! You've all worked hard for this, since the beginning of January. I'm sure you're all tired by now, but you've come too far to just give up now. Congratulations Top 4!  GARDEN , iMatthew , J Milburn, and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. --EdwardsBot (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

That's a very odd perspective, but thank you for sharing it. I take it you don't feel it's necessary to start an RfC or file another request for arbitration, and you're just going to keep on saying this sort of thing on talk pages and noticeboards? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Who said I wasn't going to file another RfAr? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was asking. Do you intend to do so soon? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you suddenly decide to stop speaking for others in direct violation of WP:CONSENSUS and instead deal with articles appropriately, along with others doing the same, and people stop edit warring the Persian Empire page out of existence without clear consensus to determine it should be edited out of existence, and not follow me to other pages and do the same disruption as appeared with the Oscar Wilde dispute, then no. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I've done none of those things, I am unsure how to interpret your statement. Let's just say I don't plan to change my behavior, because I don't think I'm violating any policies or doing anything wrong. Do you then plan to file a request for arbitration or other WP:DR soon? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Did you not edit the Persian Empire page to remove something without consensus? Did you not respond on the Talk page of Persian Empire? How about to the Oscar Wilde conflict? There are previous ones too. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I understand that you have problems with my editing. You don't need to elaborate on that point, because I don't think we're going to agree about it. I'm just curious whether you plan to pursue this in any official way, or if you just want to grouse about it on talk pages. WP:SPI comes to mind as one place you could pursue it; WP:RFC/U is another, and I bet there are other WP:DR steps that could be pursued. Or you could just stop talking about it! --Akhilleus (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"I understand that you have problems with my editing" And yet you continue with the aggression and problematic behaviors. You do realize that your posts meet the definition of taunting and are incivil, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"You do realize that your posts meet the definition of taunting and are incivil, right?" Once again, I'll disagree, but this conversation is clearly going nowhere, so I'll stop bothering you now. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive2

You were involved in the prior FAC that got timed out. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive2 is now open.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize a full review is time consuming. Would you care to render an opinion on the topic regarding costs that is at issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you previously felt that you owed me a support for getting your sourcing concerns addressed. This FAC2 is getting long in the tooth and could surely use some of that support now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

10 part Leigh Hunt DYK

On October 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juvenilia, Hero and Leander, Bacchus and Ariadne, Literary Pocket-Book, The Calendar of Nature, The Feast of the Poets, The Descent of Liberty, The Nymphs, The Story of Rimini, and The Palace of Pleasure, which you created or substantially expanded.

SoWhy 03:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One last try

I'm going to try one last time. I've reiterated again and again to you that I'm not some old enemy of yours, risen from the wikigrave in March 2009 to torment you. I'm just a person who's let myself get way too drawn in to this vortex. Yet, you are persisting with basically insinuating that I'm a liar. All I'm asking is that you formally retract these spurious accusations. That's all. I truly don't enjoy opening an ANI, and I don't want to do so here. All you have to do is say, "I retract the implications I've made about you" (or something substantially similar), and it'll be water under the bridge for me. I don't like feeling like there are people who don't trust my word, or who think I'm here for nefarious means. Let's put this behind us now. UA 20:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never said that you were an old enemy of mine nor do I have "enemies". I find it interesting that you would use such a phrase. Every day, you keep saying curiouser and curiouser things. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

::No, you just make really nasty insinuations, as you did in this last post. Can I take this to mean that you're not going to withdraw these insinuations? UA 23:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, does it really matter? Surely we've all got better things to do than this. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Malleus here. It's an encyclopedia, you both write in different areas, you don't ever have to come in contact again. Time to move on and regain focus. Risker (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Vauxhall Gardens FP nom

Please comment on the edited version of this nom. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actor rebellion

Dunno why the author left out flu. From my quick search, seems that there are dozens of old (1800s) sources to back up flu, but not so much in newer publications. Maybe somebody with modern medical training decided that the symptoms did not match flu exactly. But that's just speculation. I just thought it was helpful to identify the disease, even if just "possibly/probably".

Agh, yes, Google can be annoying and unpredictable. But it is also an invaluable resource. Just wanted to make it was used to tie up the loose ends. Anyway, great job & I am very impressed with your work on Fielding. I saw you have a FAC on his play - good luck! Renata (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC nom

Hello Ottava. I have recently nominated Makinti Napanangka at FAC. You have a critical reviewing eye and comments at the review page would be welcomed. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXXIV

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round IV, Issue 7 - October 17, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continued for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced. Top 4 Sasata (1332) Durova (1259) Ottava Rima (1242) Theleftorium (1041) Eliminated 3 Candlewicke (534) Mitchazenia (352) Juliancolton (314) Withdrawn Shoemaker's Holiday (1183) All scores are accurate as of 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC). Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ottava Rima (7) Featured lists Nobody Featured topics Nobody Featured pictures Durova (33) Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday (19) (withdrawn) Featured portals Nobody Good topics Theleftorium (1) Ottava Rima (1) Good articles Theleftorium (22) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (52) In the news items Candlewicke (eliminated) (36) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. For Round 3 stats, see Newsletter 27. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 4 final total of: 12 Featured articles 0 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 50 Featured pictures 15 Featured sounds 0 Featured portal 2 Good topics 58 Good articles 152 Did you know? items 37 In the news items This combines with the Round 1, Round 2, and Round 3 totals to make a grand total of: 44 Featured articles 61 Featured lists 5 Featured topics 243 Featured pictures 40 Featured sounds 6 Featured portals 8 Good topics 325 Good articles 696 Did you know? items 166 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Durova 1010 1259 249 2 Sasata 1153 1332 178 3 Ottava Rima 1148 1242 94 4 Theleftorium 1025 1041 16 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores Generated from this diff. From the Judges We have announced the intention to hire another new judge to cover for future judge absences. If you are interested please see the talk page for the WikiCup. That's all the news for this week; not long to go now, and it's still all to play for...  GARDEN , iMatthew , J Milburn, and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. --EdwardsBot (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blake

I've added some info to America a Prophecy, and a complete copy of The Song of Los is now up on commons. This is really all I can do tonight, but I might be able to do some more tomorrow. Go ahead and add me to the nom if you like, I'll get around to these pages sooner or later. Lithoderm 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't have time to get to these soon enough. Good luck on you exams; I'm glad that you can integrate your interests here with your academic interests.... Lithoderm 17:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There will be another 9 part set afterward that you should be able to fit into your schedule. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

Hey Ottava, if you're not too busy, could you take a look at this FAC? There appear to be some disputed objections, and I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter, as I know you've been known to be critical of shorter nominations. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  13:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To you and to the others - I wont be able to take a serious look at anything until Sunday. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday will be taken with exams I need to pass for my doctorate. So, yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your exams. They are certainly more important than Misplaced Pages! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd think that, but thankfully I was able to cater Wiki to my exam prep. I have to finish the Blake stuff so I can have a stronger grasp of that crazy bugger. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blake has always been my favorite poet, I am just not suited to writing about literature, so I've left it to others. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem; good luck! –Juliancolton |  14:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Literary Barnstar
		Awarded to Ottava Rima for their excellent contribution to the coverage of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, specifically the conversation poems. Such Toil is Commendatory. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

A quick question, if you don't mind Ottava.

I've noticed that some articles on novels include a Characters section, whereas others don't. Is there some rule of thumb, or is it just down to personal preference? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. Good luck with the exams. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find good reference books that discuss the characters then I would add a character section. If not, then don't. A plot should be able to cover most of the basic stuff, and a character section would only be worth while if it offers some kind of literary theory/critical based view. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That makes sense. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI for Rjanag

User Draeco has reported admin Rjanag at the ANI here based on what he believes was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. You should know that in my comments I cited some of your comments with regard to the closing admin in the instant matter: Backslash Forwardslash. Regards.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 9 part Blake hook

On October 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Los (Blake), The Book of Urizen, The Book of Los, The Book of Ahania, Orc (Blake), Continental prophecies, America a Prophecy, Europe a Prophecy, and The Song of Los, which you created or substantially expanded.

Thanks! Did you know its one week to Halloween, will you be there? Victuallers (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXXV

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round IV, Issue 8 - October 25, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continued for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced. Top 4 Durova (1546) Sasata (1477) Ottava Rima (1254) Theleftorium (1092) Eliminated 3 Candlewicke (534) Mitchazenia (352) Juliancolton (314) Withdrawn Shoemaker's Holiday (1183) All scores are accurate as of 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC). Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ottava Rima (7) Featured lists Nobody Featured topics Nobody Featured pictures Durova (41) Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday (15) (withdrawn) Featured portals Nobody Good topics Theleftorium (1) Ottava Rima (1) Good articles Theleftorium (23) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (52) In the news items Candlewicke (eliminated) (36) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. For Round 3 stats, see Newsletter 27. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 4 final total of: 12 Featured articles 0 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 59 Featured pictures 15 Featured sounds 0 Featured portal 2 Good topics 63 Good articles 155 Did you know? items 37 In the news items This combines with the Round 1, Round 2, and Round 3 totals to make a grand total of: 44 Featured articles 61 Featured lists 5 Featured topics 252 Featured pictures 40 Featured sounds 6 Featured portals 8 Good topics 330 Good articles 699 Did you know? items 166 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Durova 1259 1546 287 2 Sasata 1332 1477 145 3 Theleftorium 1041 1092 51 4 Ottava Rima 1242 1254 12 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores Generated from this diff. From the Judges It just came to me that multiple users have worked together on a bunch of content items, which means the newsletter counts are likely off. I'll try to put that all together and figure it out by the end of the round. The end of the round, and the end of the 2009 WikiCup is this coming Saturday, October 31! To our top four: don't give up yet. Make sure that anything you have left to nominate is nominated today or tomorrow, for the slighted chance of it passing in time. The last day items will be accepted is Saturday, at 23:59 (UTC). It ain't over till the fat lady sings, of course!  GARDEN , iMatthew , J Milburn, and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. --EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

200 dyk

		The 200 DYK Medal
		Awarded to Ottava Rima, as a "bicentennial" recognition of sustained high-quality content creation. Numerous Wikiprojects – not to mention citizens of the earth – benefit from your interesting contributions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I came so close to beating you to the mark. Foiled! :D Thanks, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Race you to 300 then :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, I almost beat you to 200 and you had a long head start. I'm about to pass you, and by the end of this time next year I should be over 500. You might as well give up now. :P If not, I shall taunt you a second time. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

First off wow, congrats on the 200 DYK medal. I'm still working on 25. :) But the actual reason I'm here is a copy edit request for 30 Rock (season 3). I worked up this article to save the Seasons of 30 Rock featured topic, and it has been at FLC for quite a while. Two voters are considering/weakly supporting the article, but numerous problems with copy-editing issues arose during the FLC and they requested a proper review by some third party. I can't think of anyone better than you, if you have the time. Thanks either way! Staxringold _talk 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have time tomorrow. I have a list of articles to go through and I will add it onto my list. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks so much! Staxringold _talk 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

I just read through that diff and was unable to locate the personal attack; can you please specify where it is, SarekOfVulcan? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor was I. Could it possibly have been the word bastardization? In the context of linguistics (which was how he was using it), this is a polite term. Durova 04:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph before lists 16 uncivil comments, and his response was "Those comments are not incivil and it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL...to make a claim to the contrary.." He showed no indication that he thought even _one_ of those comments might have been a bit over the top. (And yes, I know what "bastardization" means. And "niggardly", for that matter...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to condescend. It's just hard to parse incivility from that particular diff. Durova 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you blocked someone for disagreeing with your or discussing their interpretation of CIVIL, even though there was no violation of civil? I really don't understand that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude in trying to work with the Byron article over the past day. Ottava hasn't been stellar in handling the situation. I have no opinion on the block, but I can see the reason behind it. Keegan (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And bear in mind that I agree with Ottava that Byron and Lord Byron should only be redirects. This is not an attempt to win a content argument.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think "This isn't some children's game so your actions are inappropriate" is civil, then more power to you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see those words in the diff provided; perhaps it's my eyesight, which is often an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They aren't. They're in the paragraph immediately before that, pasted from an earlier edit of Ottava's. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well that's a more clear answer to my original query, since I could see no lack of civility in the diff you provided. At any rate, I'd guess we'd all best take care not to disagree with interpretations of policy in discussions, lest we be blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if you go around saying "Do you even do anything around here worth while" is perfectly civil, odds are indeed that you will be blocked after a while. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had my disagreements with Ottava, but I don't see an instance here that warrants a block. Not one. I urge you to rescind the block, Sarek. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, as an involved user, has no ability to make such a block. He has shown that he does not understand what WP:CIVIL means nor what WP:AGF means. If Sarek does not rescind the block and apologize, this is a really strong case for ArbCom. Sarek has a history of this and it would probably be best that he is not allowed such access again, especially since blocks are preventative and I was clearly asleep. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you were planning to sleep for a week, "preventative" clearly applies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, the very fact that you are involved and think that you are some how able to make a block or have some kind of judgment in the matter is almost scary. I would request that you voluntarily relinquish your ops because you have done a lot to verify an ArbCom case and that you do not deserve them. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hi Ottava. However it is that this block transpired is one matter (although it seems your position is meritorious about the article name and the reliability of the Library of Congress), but in the spirit of good sportsmanship let's not let it get in the way of the last days of the Cup. The grapevine has been saying you have about two dozen good articles in the pipeline. Not all of them have been nominated for GAC yet. If you need any nominations put up, or points recorded, or simple copyedits per reviewer notes, please post the request here at your user talk during your block. If no one objects I'll be glad to relay the uncontroversial wikignoming, just as long as it's completely unrelated to whatever sticky situation caused the block. May the best editor win, Durova 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Ottava Rima (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin is an involved user in the discussion. Comment is not a personal attack nor have I made any statements about personality. Admin has made claims about my -psychology- and has been incivil to me and personally attacked me during the matter.

Decline reason:

I see a whole page of you being accusatory and failing to assume good faith. I see plenty of opportunity for you to stop and plenty of people pointing out the problem to you. I also see you denying that there is a problem all through it and indeed now. The fact that you don't recognize the problem demonstrates the preventative need for this block. Chillum 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I made claims about your psychology? Guess that shows how seriously this particular request should be taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Claiming that I am not calm when I state that I am calm is a breach of AGF and NPA. You have no right to claim what -my- emotional state is, nor do you have the right to pursue it at a WQA. If I state how I feel, you cannot claim otherwise. You are not here. You cannot claim to know me. You violated multiple policies, and blocked me for what was clearly within policy. Your tendentious responses in there and your personal attacks deserve to be blocked over, and yet you, involved, block me. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, when did I say you weren't calm? Diff, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And a diff for the personal attack would be nice as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Ottava regarding your claims that Sarek is too involved to make this block. Admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or requests by users regarding their own userspace. Calm discussion and explanation of the warning likewise does not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest with regards to future blocking actions taken against the warned user.

Based on the above criteria for involvement I don't see how Sarek is involved in such a manner as to preclude himself. Chillum 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)