User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 18

Oh, Ottava

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

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

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

WikiCup Newsletter XVIII

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

One-man crusade

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

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

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

ANI discussion on Piratesmack

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

Thanks for comming out

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

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

Disagreements

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

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

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

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

Newington Green Unitarian Church

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

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

Are you still willing?

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

I solicit any feedback you can provide.

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

Your comments about innocent persons and banning, on WP

Your comment that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I'll try it again

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

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

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

Coleridge

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

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

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

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

June 2009

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

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

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

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

Ottava -

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where have I personally attacked anyone? I do not call people stupid, insult their real life actions, or any of that. I deal strictly with actions on the encyclopedia and I don't really care who someone is or what they are. And I am 100% calm. You will know when I am angry or upset when I refuse to even interact with others. I have also provided evidence where Tan has admitted himself in a discussion with Pedro about his manipulating Balloonman and falsifying answers in order to pass his RfA. Such an individual has no right to chase Shoemaker off this project. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mass-moved a bunch of articles

I'm sorry, I am trying to fix all these actions.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I already was waiting for a message from you or someone else about all these actions, I'm really sorry.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppose of my RfA

To start off, I have no issue with your oppose, I just wish for some clarification. You originally said "Personal experience with the individual leads me to have little confidence in his ability to interact with others in a manner that should be expected of an admin." which was challenged by other editors but I deliberately left it be as everyone is entitled to their opinion. You also said "If Rambo has a concern, he can speak for himself." (so here I am). Time has passed and I am looking for ways to improve as an editor so I was wondering if you could enlighten me as to what the personal experience was. (You can do it by email if you don't want to bring it up on-wiki). I honestly don't know and you later added "No. Actually, it deals with IRC, off-site discussions with other users, and other things that I would rather not bring up.". I have never been on an IRC channel in my life (I don't even understand them) so I'm a bit confused. Would it be possible for you to explain please. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IRC conversations were about your interactions with others on Wiki. In those discussions (long before your RfA), I was linked to situations in which you were overly critical of others and your argumentation style caused more emotional harm to users than actual benefits to the encyclopedia. I cannot support someone for adminship if I have seen such effects within the past six months. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I've never used IRC, or any form of messaging service. I once emailed a user about how to reply to a heated oppose at an FLC, but I'm pretty sure that is the only time I have talked off wiki. Can you remember what it was about. The reason I'm asking is that if I can't remember it, then maybe I am oblivious to the problem, which is a concern I would want to rectify if possible. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Ottava was referencing is that people were bitching about you behind your back.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like, someone was in tears because of what was said. There are enough admin that are forceful enough to put someone into tears already. We need admin that can sooth and deal with people in a manner that makes others feel comfortable and secure in the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really need to reevaluate your tendency to argue using non-transparent offsite evidence (IRC conversation, "emails you've received from supporters", etc.), as backing for your arguments. –xeno^talk 18:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments that brought to user to tears were from onsite interaction. Regardless, RfA and adminship in general is about character. Everything is in play. We have enough people that put up a fake persona when running for RfA, so you need to see everything outside in order to guarantee if someone is fit. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Diffs or it didn't happen" =) –xeno^talk 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I don't think I've ever done anything that would drive someone to tears. I am disappointed that people have complained about me behind my back, and if there is something actionable that I can do/not do now or in the future please feel free to bring it to my attention. Please note at no point have I complained about your oppose, and have no issues with you making it. Thank you for explaining yourself. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated at the RfA, it was a personalized oppose and I would not want others to oppose because of my oppose. I also didn't mind if my oppose would be overlooked or neglected. It was just an impression that I saw and that I felt that it would be a problem at the time. I haven't heard anything as of late, so there is no concern right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation Poems

I started a user space section here and I am going to incorporate my sources and expand on the series as a whole at that page and then the individual poems on their own pages. I hope to create about 10k worth of content for the individual poems and create about 25k for the set page. I intend to add a background section about Coleridge's biography and purpose at the time (who he is "conversing" with and what inspired the poems), then have a section on the grouping, then brief summaries of the poems and their content, and then a section on general themes and general response to the series in terms of quality. It would be similar to The Lucy poems page and some others that I have worked on. After I get some of the bulk down, I will definitely want your help and opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Conversation Poems are deserving of an article, and it sounds like you have good ideas for it and for articles on the individual poems. I'll be happy to take a look when you're ready; just let me know. The Abrams conception of the "greater Romantic lyric" does seem cogent to me; now that I know about it, I think I detected its influence in the 1957 poem I posted recently to illustrate Adrien Stoutenburg's article. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 21:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.[reply]

The Lucy poems

Per your suggestion on the talkpage, I've nominated this for for GA. I think it's probably a better step than taking it straight to FAC yet. I hope you are still with us on this one? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer any content questions but let all of the decisions be made by others out of deference. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by your reply. If I understand correctly, you're saying that you don't mind being consulted but would rather not be heavily involved? I'm asking because I know there's been some friction on this, and I'd rather know up front what's going through your mind. You've played a major part in constructing the article, and I don't want to to feel that your input didn't or doesn't count.

Also, I have a question about the Johnson ref. I don't have this book and don't see it in the bibliography. Is there also a biography by Kenneth Johnson, or is it a typo for Johnston? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil doesn't accept many of my views or opinions, and I would rather not actively pursue things that would create a conflict. If it is necessary for my involvement, then I will help. However, let sleeping does lie (lay?). And Johnson should be a misspelling of Johnston. I have a copy if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I can't argue with your not wanting further involvement with editors you have conflict with. I've walked away from a couple of things like that myself. I'm sorry, though, that things have come to this. I appreciate your... hm, willingness to act as a consultant seems the best term at this point. Perhaps things will be different if we have another go at FAC.

Back to Lucy proper: I'll fix the Johnson/Johnston thing, but we have a question at GA about "the sterility of the imagery reflects the futility of his longing". I think Awadewit and I have captured the sense, but neither of us has the source on hand, so any comments from you would be appreciated. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong - I don't have a problem with Ceoil. Ceoil has made it clear over the past 5 months that he wants no connection to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi there. I just happened across your comments at Theleftorium's RfA. Before I go on, I agree with you 100% that the, er, scope of some of those sources seems to have been maximised. But the reason I'm here is to talk about Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes and About.com, all of which you cited as unreliable sources. About.com I have very little experience with, but per this discussion—which featured a lot of input from Sandy and is cited regularly by Ealdgyth—the site can be deemed reliable in some circumstances (such as when the author of a particular article meets WP:SPS). Box Office Mojo is deemed reliable enough that it's mentioned by name in the film article guidelines, and has been used explicitly in many recent film FAs without opposition. Owned by Amazon, the site has a proven track record of reliability when used correctly. Rotten Tomatoes, operated by IGN, has proven its reliability enough to be mentioned in the guideline—though caveats apply—and has also made it through several FACs without comment. Like all sources, it can be used badly, but for an example of what's generally considered acceptable, this usage is pretty representative. No way am I having a go here—this is nothing more than an FYI—it's just that as you're active at GA/FA, I wanted to make clear what seems to be the general consensus on the use of these sources (each of which would of course be trumped by more scholarly sources as they become available). All the best, Steve ^T • C 10:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information is user cited and I have seen Amazon unreliable quite often. Your above is far from convincing, and if I saw those at FAC I would demand their removal. Sloppy work to use such sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got to disagree with that; like many—more "obviously reliable"—sites, Rotten Tomatoes has its own community of "user reviews" and whatnot, but their compilation of notable critic reviews, from which it determines the consensus percentage that we cite, is carried out by a paid editorial staff. With Box Office, the mention of Amazon was intended only to show that the site isn't run by some guy out of his parents' basement—that it had a corporate entity, with consequent oversight, to report to. It's cited as a reliable source regularly by the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Bloomberg, Forbes and many others. Steve ^T • C 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their "compilation" has "freelance" and non-notable critics without credentials. This has come up in many movies and mob rule declaring otherwise does not hide the truth of Rotten Tomatoes lack of anything worth while. Find real critics from real papers or not use it. And LAT and other newspapers cite random citizens as witnesses and the rest. They don't have standards for having only reliable testimony. We are not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia with encyclopedic standards requiring highly reliable sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly an argument for limiting cites to Rotten Tomatoes to its "cream of the crop" pages (essentially, selected notable critics only—see here for an example), but the site does exercise judgement when selecting those it uses. Here is the site's submission guide. In short: accredited (via membership of a listed organisation or publication in a major media source) critics only. Of course, when a more scholarly publication surfaces, that should be take precedence, but many films simply don't get that kind of treatment. Steve ^T • C 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first pages I edited was to the Cloverfield movie. Someone put forth something listed by a critic of Rotten Tomatoes. The guy was "approved" as a critic. He wrote in to a few local papers less than 7 times total and had no job. Consensus was definitely against RT being reliable as they lump them all together. Any notable critic would be crosslisted in their hometown paper or website. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Some of my first major edits to Wikipedia centred on keeping that article sane before the film's release. Indeed, I even wrote the original reception section, the bare bones of which still exists today somehow. Afterwards, the fanboy crush became too great and I had to abandon it lest I breach the civility policy. The point is, I agree with you that we shouldn't bother including the review comments of Mike Nobody from the Dagenham and Redbridge Courier—we'd go for ones that write for major publications—but in determining the critical consensus at least, Mr Nobody is a very small, but valid, part of the calculation. The site's submission guide ensures he has some kind of credentials for his "thumbs up" to count. And as I say, when better sources surface, RT would likely be replaced or downgraded to a less prominent place. Another editor and I are in the slow process of making American Beauty (film) the best it can be; when we finish overhauling the reception section, RT won't feature at all because there are plenty of better sources that we can cite for the consensus—the most important part of the section. We aren't as lucky with other films, for which usually don't get the same level of scholarly coverage, and we have to work with what we get: reliable sources still, just not as high quality. And I'm sorry for the way in which I suddenly jumped on you with this conversation; I was just very interested to get the thoughts of a respected editor who lives outside the Film Wikiproject, and your comments at the RfA gave me the "in" I needed. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the individual is credible by RT standards because they are published elsewhere, then why not substitute the original publication place? I think that would show that there is an alternative to RT. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, because we're not as interested in the individual's comments as we are in the overall perception ("The film was released to critical acclaim; 93% of US critics gave the film a positive review, based on a sample of 202.") Citing the individual doesn't give us that, and citing a bunch of individuals to come to our own conclusion is original research (and one of the most egregious mistakes I see in film articles). Many films don't get the retrospective coverage we need to properly describe how the film was perceived. For American Beauty, I can happily cite Hentzi, Gary (2000). "American Beauty". Film Quarterly. 54 (2): 46–50., which says, "If one were to go by journalistic and media chatter alone, there would be little doubt that American Beauty was the best film of 1999" and then goes on to examine exactly why. For others, simple calculations from Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic are the best we're going to get—even for some "prestige" releases. Steve ^T • C 08:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you just proved that RT is unreliable. If they are "reliable" because they have reliable individuals, but we are not using the reliable individuals but taking their word, then they cannot be used. We cannot use "overall perception" as they are not critics themselves. They also blend notable and non-notable critics. And if a film doesn't get coverage, there is a little thing as "it doesn't matter". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The staff collate 200-odd reviews for a film, divide them into two piles (positive/negative) and calculate a percentage. Simple enough, and actually verifiable by Wikipedia editors (if it wouldn't be classed as original research). The site isn't just reliable because it's citing reliable people; it's reliable because it has a paid editorial staff, answerable to a large media corporation, who have a proven track record that has been cited as reliable by other major publications. But then we're back to square one. :) Steve ^T • C 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, it was determined that at least one was shaddy and wouldn't be "reliable" on his own, so the collation isn't enough to verify any sort of credibility. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, right, now I see your point. That's more to do with quality, not reliability. What I meant was that we'd cite, say Todd McCarthy of Variety instead of Mike Nobody, not because the latter isn't reliable, but because the Variety cite is the more high-quality of the two (WP:FACR makes the distinction between quality and reliability too). It's the same argument I'm making for Rotten Tomatoes. Many of us consider it reliable, but we recognise that Film Quarterly citation as being the better choice. If this hypothetical Mike Nobody of the D&R Courier had written the only ever review of a film, as a published film critic we'd be happy enough to use him. Steve ^T • C 18:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RFA

Yes, that's what I'm planning on doing. :) Cheers, TheLeft orium 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Samuel Coleridge's early life

On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Samuel Coleridge's early life, Easter Holidays, Dura Navis, Songs of the Pixies, Pain: Composed in Sickness, Monody on the Death of Chatterton, On Receiving an Account, Lines Written at Shurton Bars, The Destruction of the Bastile, Lines on an Autumnal Evening, Religious Musings, To the River Otter, To Fortune, Ode on the Departing Year, On Quitting School, To a Young Ass, and The Destiny of Nations, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For having seventeen hooks in one DYK, a new record, I award you this Barnstar. Great Job. I'll never be able to top that.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And I am sure that you could, or, at least, meet it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someday perhaps, however right now I have nothing in mind. Perhaps next year.....--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just glad to have literature up there. Sure, it might not be as exciting as bacon, but it is nice that, for the English wiki, English literature has a place. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXI

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.[reply]

Re: Halo: Uprising

By all means, I am happy to make any changes necessary and would rather have a good good article than a rubber-stamped one :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'll try and get back to you asap. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry I haven't really gotten to it before now, but I've started work on it. I'll ping you when I've addressed the first batch of issues/have questions. Thanks for your patience, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm not a picky guy, I just got distracted with my FAC and such. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed your concerns (and left a note or two on the GA page, where I needed clarification or was offering another idea.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of uprisings...

Very funny. Troublemaker! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gesh, what did I do now? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions

To the debate. Can we summarise it as 'apathetic'? For someone so apathetic you do seem incredibly animated. Can I help in any way? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can be apathetic about the topic but unwilling to accept those who are using the topic to attack others, including yourself, Peter Damien, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who have I been attacking - I don't recall attacking anyone. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need diffs? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - I can be a gentleman about it, just say. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I put the kettle on while you're away? Now where are the tea bags.........--Joopercoopers (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, with all of the moving of edits I can't really tell what I saw earlier. Peter's is the only series of comments that still stick out. But yes, there is also the generalized attack on Jimbo's position as founder. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. one lump? so can I ask if your more accepting of me now then? milk? I am a little anxious for Jimbo's feelings to be honest, but it is difficult to have a community discussion about his future without mentioning him. I hope I've been as respectful as I can be. Is there anything I said which might lead you to think I owe him an apology? I've never disputed he's the (co)/founder (and never really cared about the 'co' bit either). I'm just unclear what that role entails, how it works and how it might evolve in the future. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I was making the tea I rather wondered to myself "will he find me attacking people?" "how far back will he have to go?" "maybe he won't?" "surely he will" "maybe canonisation is closer than I thought". In fact, the only time I've been annoyed recently is with......Peter Damian. Perhaps I was a little brusque do you think?--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting of you? What does that mean? I don't really care about you nor do I know you. My only personal beef is with Peter and Lar. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Lar moved below. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means accepting as in "unwilling to accept those....." (above) and here where I'm characterised as attacking, not Jimbo, but you, "up and down the page." Not my style really. Biscuit? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a garibaldi man myself. I suspect your a Nice man? Anyway must be off. Thanks for the tea. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you violate talk page guidelines with moves such as this, your actions aren't really neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am not nice. But there is no "nice" rule. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's happy hour

Moved from above -

Accepting of you? What does that mean? I don't really care about you nor do I know you. My only personal beef is with Peter and Lar. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now it's a "personal beef", is it? No pretense of assuming good faith any more, then? Do grow up, Ottava. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First time you side with Somey and think that he is telling the truth at my RfA, I could AGF. Second time you defend a Wikipedia Review member, then sure, a little. When you did it the last time and even Durova said you were acting inappropriately, I could be neutral. Fourth time, and there is no AGF. There is you with a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same old distortion I guess, because that's a load of nonsense. I think your beef really is that I call you on your inappropriate and disruptive behaviour, while failing to give you a free pass for your actual good contributions, and you don't like it. Give it a rest. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Lar, while you were busy doing all of this, I produced 9 new pages for DYK and am working on two articles for GA while another passed. What exactly have you been doing except throwing your weight around? Such actions may have been okay in the old day, but the community has made it clear that they believe that content, and real content, editing is necessary. Look at the ArbCom mix and you can see how many new Arbs are major content editors. The only thing here is one bad apple that only got in during a time that the community didn't care, and he really cant stand decent content editors that actually put good work around here. Of course, you trust people like Somey who think that the encyclopedia fell apart and that there isn't any great content. Such absurdity and insanity is really inappropriate, as the standards in content are definitely higher because people like Durova, Awadewit and I were able to push even higher standards forth (like our lovely new Plagiarism guideline to really put teeth in the effort over the past year). You really should go back to Wikipedia Review and leave my talk page alone. I would prefer it, as you are already starting to attract flies with all of this you are attempting to shovel. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation Poems

Nominated for DYK. If you want, you could go through and add some more, fix some things, add some more wikilinks, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done an amazing amount of good work here. I'll try to look carefully at your main, DYK-nominated article over the weekend; it's a busy time for me right now in real life. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about making my comeback this weekend. I will take a look at the conversation poems and early life works tomorrow. I think I am going to try to ease back into things slowly. Mrathel (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If either of you two Wikilink, add cats, clean up, etc, just feel free to add your names to the nomination. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cough

And I have it on my list of pages that I have put major work into, but that still doesn't make me a primary on the page. The Lucy poems, like William Butler Yeats and some others, are Ceoil's pages that I added content in order to ensure that his pages could get to/stay at FA level. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respect the hard work you've put into it. Your help is appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. I have no issue with Ottava's work, and Lucy is a credit to him, of sorts. Its all the other bullshit that bothers me. AFD on a household name in IRL which was motivated by a grudge and informed by both ignorance and an unwillingness to listen to reason; trolling; more trolling when he is called on his unsubstanciated attack on Jooperscooper and after much wriggling and poncing, defends with the laughable responce 'well I never said I was nice'; Tries to cover up ignorance with an obtuse and irrelevant attack - claims "I know all about Ireland", and this after talking about, ahem, the 4 counties! What neck! What Balls! These examples from today and yeasterday only. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that a "house hold name" would have more than 2 articles that aren't part of blogs or by the company he works for on him. There are plenty of disk jockies and talk show radio hosts in the US in local networks with far more coverage. BLP is BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"far more coverage". This has been explained. United states is BIG, Ireland is small. Hands out wide (BIG), fingers almost touching (small). Within this country he is widely known and respected; he has held the bloody morning drive time shown on our national station for years now. Maybe some common sence and less rigid application of the google test, which is obviously more orientated towards more pop cult figures. I dunno Ottava, you would be such a great editor if you stopped nonesence like this. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore is smaller than Ireland. However, I can provide hundreds of articles on the major radio station hosts. Only the small college level radio program hosts don't have such articles. Notability is based on how many reliable sources are out there, especially when it comes to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Ireland "Population 5,981,448 (as of 2006)". From Baltimore "Metro 2,668,056". As you can see, Baltimore is less than half the size of Ireland. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half the size? And ye still managed to come up with the greatest TV show yet known to mankind! Fair play. But what are you saying now; he isn't a national personality, we are making this up? Likely its because he's a boring dry sod, bereft of the type of personality that might attract column inches and google juice. Possible to be fair, personally I give him a miss and listen to Ian Dempsey (do not delete Ian) Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, there should probably be a page devoted to the morning show members with all of those pages condensed. They are notable as a whole as being part of the number one morning show of something (I don't remember how they phrased it), but on some of those pages there was just no individual notability except that they interviewed many people. Anyway, some of the statements on the article were just plain wrong, such as a date saying 1975 when the source said 1976. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very much a deletionist (mostly driven by the scourge of in pop culture articles / sections), but I like little articles on Irish journalists. Not tonight, but I give a look, there has to be sources out there, though print media here is tied up (or was until recently) by Tony O'Reilly so coverage of other journalists tends towards navel gazing, O'Reilly approved contraveralists of the ilk of Mary Ellen Synon and Eoghan Harris (whom, to my horror I saw bath naked in a local stream about 6 years ago; not a pretty sight, believe me - I realise thats origional research, I wont add to the page dont worry). Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So as I have a point of refernce, can you show me the hundreds of articles you fond on local Baltimore DJs. I presume they are all RS. You can format this money shot as you wish; either 10 google search results of 10 results each, or pdf scans from your private scrapbook. Whatever suites. Ceoil (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to look. Take Shari Elliker. Just the other day she received a big article in the Baltimore Sun (images with the article which was also covered in the latimes, myfox8, and newsday) and received another this month in the Baltimore Magazine. I don't know what else. However, most of our local hosts tend to make the news regularly so there are tons of reliable sources. Her article sucks, but she has also won awards such as the "Chesapeake Associated Press Broadcasters Association" (I am sure Ireland has equivalent awards). I chose her because she is relatively new and one of the few that hasn't won a Murrow award (which is the highest honor in radio journalism). Regardless, if you sift through some of the junk you can find stuff online - a news feed discussing her going to a new job (there is an original story, but I can't find the archives). [Another news spread. There are four more articles in the Baltimore Sun archives (but they charge for full articles, so watch out). Alumni page from her college. Another article from a local paper. I stopped at page 6 but you can see the amount of hits. This is one host from one radio program in Baltimore. Perhaps we just have more news media. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not check the 100s of RS above yet, but sent you a mail on a seperate matter. Ceoil (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded before. Anyway, I think I only included 5 sources above with the Alumni page being iffy (it is a college page put together to promote any notable alumni). However, the pages above can easily provide a nice, detailed biography for about 15k-20k. The "explorehoward.com", which is a local small paper just outside of DC has a huge detailed biography on her. If you can find equivalent things from a third party source on Cathal, then I would easily support the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to the mail. I didn't really need your approval, but I though it best to ask in case you decided to throw one of your famous bitch fits. That stuff is so embarrasing. Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please link where I have ever bitched about giving credit to people who work on pages I am involved in. I'm the guy with User:Ottava Rima/Johnson contributors and have received comments that I give too much credit to people involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are doing, cherry picking to prove a genarisated point. I can do that too. George Hook, Eamon Dunphy. Ceoil (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one of the links that shows up there, I highly recommend you watch [2]. Good from 4.10 on. Dunphy is a bollix; you'd like him. Ceoil (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I was doing was trying to put forth enough reliable sources to meet the requirement to have a BLP and prove notability. They are examples of the kinds of things that you can find for a notable radio personality. The sources on Cathal were depressingly skimpy. If you can find some better sources to add to the page, then there is no problem. However, notability seems to be bolstered by simple mentions of him interviewing another individual instead of articles about his own life. As you can see about Shari Elliker, she has multiple articles discussing her life and career. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont suppose you are as thick to not realise that you are evading the point. C-h-e-r-r-y picking. I suppose if the eventual article on "A slumber did my spirit seal" was unable to pass the google test, it should be slapped with a banner before its deleted. The obvious fact of its notability ignored by thoes who prefer to twist and game to suit a personal agenda/grudge, rather than sit back and think freely. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have over 20 books that talk about that poem, so your point is moot. And cherry picking? How? I took a comparable radio station in a smaller market and proved that there was a lot of reliable sources that were quite easy to find without even getting past page ten. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm hoping this is over at this point, but can I convince both of you to not respond further for the time being and take a small break from this issue? I'm not sure this is currently going anywhere productive. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Autumn

The review has been posted to the article's discussion page. Best, Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Covered the cursory stuff, but will deal with the source/content stuff tomorrow. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		You won't know me from Adam, but one of the things I like about skulking about WP's talk pages and discussions is finding engaging personalities and intellects with principled, cut-the-crap, good humoured (well, mostly) contributions. For making this place fun without detracting from its serious and lofty goals, I'm popping one of these thingys on your page (and Malleus's too). Thanks for being around. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding you and warnings

It is probably best that you do not issue warnings until you better understand Wikipedia policy. Your recent warnings at WT:RfA are baseless. The fact that it is so incredibly unlikely that anyone with a block button would interpret things the way you have leaves your warnings fairly hollow. It is standard for admins to warn users not to act disruptively and to let them know they will be blocked if they continue, an administrator doing this is not violating any Wikipedia policies rather they are enforcing them. It is not appropriate to warn people not to do things when these things are not against policy. Unless you have some sort of better explanation for your warning I simply must dismiss it as being baseless. Chillum 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are being completely incivil. It is right there in WP:CIVIL that you do not issue warnings without just cause, which you lacked. Furthermore, you are being disruptive on multiple pages, which goes against multiple wiki policies. If you continue, I will take this up at ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to take it to ANI, I think that scrutiny will only show I have acted appropriately and that you are mistaken. I am not sure why you think my warning lacked cause, we don't let people destroy Wikipedia. I am not sure what you mean about me being uncivil, or about me being disruptive on multiple pages. Do you have examples? Chillum 20:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you. Are you saying that you don't care about my warning and that you are fully intended to continue to disrupt RfA? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the examples are rather obvious - Peter's talk page and the WT:RFA page. You accused him of violating rules. False accusations are a breach of Civil. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to bear in mind though Ottava that administrators are excused from the requirement to be civil, that's a policy only applied to the plebs. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He may have the bits, but he lacks the title "administrator". He has shown himself unworthy of such a name even if it has not been made official. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for examples of anything I did wrong. I also welcome you to ask for further input at ANI. I really don't get why you think I have accused Peter of anything false, everything I said was directly back up by his own statements. Chillum 21:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? I just told you that your warnings against Peter Damian were what you did wrong. This has been blatant in just about every single post that I've made. Are you unable to read? If so, why do you keep posting on my talk page? Isn't that just a tad rude to not even bother to read something before responding? Will you even bother to read this message before posting? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He linked to a post where he announced his intention to destroy Wikipedia and was asking for advice on how to best do it. Do you really think that is not disruptive? The fact is that your interpretation of policy and when the block button should and should not be used is so far off base I am glad that you will never wield it.

I certainly have been reading your posts but they have been confusing and unclear. It is as though you have some sort of basis for your beliefs that others cannot see. If you really were correct in your interpretation of my actions you would seek further scrutiny and I would be admonished by the community, I assume you have not sought further scrutiny because you know that your interpretation will not be the predominant one. Now either seek scrutiny towards my actions, or let it go. Chillum 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did Peter Damian's posting disrupt? Which policy was it in breach of? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly obvious from the length of the thread at WT:RfA that several people found it disruptive, even those who say we should ignore it admit it is disruptive. How is plotting the destruction of our project not disruptive to our project? Chillum 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So because a few claim it to be disruptive then it's disruptive, even though nothing is actually disrupted. Remind me again, which policy was being breached here? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If I am to be talking to you instead of Ottava we should perhaps go to your talk page or my talk page so as not to bother him. Chillum 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing further to add, other than that I completely agree with the point that Ottava has made and that I completely disagree with you. I note that you have now twice refused to answer my very straightforward question about which policy Peter Damien is accused of having breached, but no matter, as I already know the answer. None. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is it's not disruptive until people start saying, "hey, we can't let him say that!" At that point it gains greater exposure and creates a time sink. Peter Damian has not breached any policy but because people don't like his opinion (however invalid or poorly based it may be) they want him banned or blocked. It's only a violation of WP:POINT if Peter Damian's actions are disruptive. If they feel so strongly about the matter, editors such as Chillum who kick up a fuss and are far more disruptive should stop enabling Peter Damian. If everyone ignored it, it would have no effect. Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. It's those bleating "disruption" who are being disruptive. And WP:POINT is only a guideline anyway, not a policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I did answer your question, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is the answer. Chillum 23:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate Wikipedia Review. I loathe them with my whole being. Yet, here I am pointing out that you are the one who took the bait and is causing a disruption. So, you can realize what you are doing and see that Peter isn't even bothering to respond (as that was his plan to destroy Wikipedia), or you can just go because you found something better to do. You, however, are currently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point that someone else is supposedly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again if you think I am acting disruptively then I disagree and encourage you to seek greater scrutiny of my actions so we can sort this out. If you wish further response from me please talk to me on my talk page, I am starting to feel unwelcome here. Chillum 23:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be just a little too complicated for some to understand Ottava. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to be insulting Malleus, it is not needed. It is entirely possible that I disagree due to a different point of view and not out of lack of cognitive abilities. Chillum 23:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a possibility, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXII

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 21:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Lucy redux

Hi, Ottava. Do you happen to have a .pdf of this reference?
Woolford, John. "Robert Browning, Christina Rossetti and the Wordsworthian Scene of Writing", Wordsworth Circle 34.1, 2003.
I'm trying to work on some sentences citing it, and I find I need the exact reference to rewrite the text accurately. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognize it. Was it one of mine? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was in a poetry section. Those were the few that I didn't work on. :) Now, I couldn't find it at google books, but I did find this. Does that help any? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be one of Ceoil's, then; I'm pretty certain it's not mine. I'll ask him then. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC) (Good find with the questia link, but it doesn't cover the material I need. Thanks, though.)[reply]

Two times now...

I think we've agreed twice now.[3] Has hell frozen over? :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I support you for something? What was it? Steward? I thought we agreed then, too. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ottava

Sorry Ottava. Why did you blank my post on your talk page? This should not have been blanked I was trying to help by giving you the references. I just don't see how a statement by the president of an international criminal tribunal to the United Nations. A statement that does not name a single individual can be a BLP violation. Would the following be a BLP violation?

"It should also not be forgotten that the persons remaining at liberty who have been indicted by the Tribunal have been charged with extremely serious crimes - genocide, "ethnic cleansing", mass rape, murder of defenceless civilians."

18 September 1997 GENERAL ASSEMBLY SECURITY COUNCIL Fifty-second session Fifty-second year Agenda item 49 REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE PROSECUTION OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW COMMITTED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA SINCE 1991 [4]

If it is then I should probably be blocked. But I'm trying to avoid this by learning why this may be a BLP violation.

And surely you cannot have had a problem of BLP violation with this

"Tragically, mass rape has been a feature common to recent conflicts in Bosnia,..."

Opening Statement of Senator Dick Durbin Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law Hearing on "Rape as a Weapon of War: Accountability for Sexual Violence in Conflict" April 1, 2008 [5]

Sorry if I have unwittingly made a BLP violation. But if I haven't please don't blank my efforts to assist. Polargeo (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can explain this more clearly. I originally tried to remove the list of names of individuals because they were not convicted as "mass rape" according to the actual sources spelling out specifically what their conviction was. Let me see if you can understand why there is a major BLP violation by taking one person: Radomir Kovač (20 years in prison)[24][22][23]. Source 24 is Radomir Kovac - ICTY: Facts. "Tortue and rape", "enslavement", "outrages upon personal dignity" are what he was convicted of. The term "mass" or "mass rape" does not appear. Source 22 is The American Society of International Law. The term "mass" or "mass rape" does not appear at all. The ICTY source alone means that any sources claiming that there is "mass rape" are invalid per BLP. Source 23 is from Feminist Legal Studies, which claims that there was a prosecuting of "mass rape", and yet the convictions do not use that term, thus making it invalid per BLP. WP:NEO also points out that the term "mass rape" is a neologism as the courts did not use it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it doesn't say Radomir Kovac was convicted of 'mass rape' does it. The article is about mass rape. It doesn't say any individual was specifically convicted of the exact phrase 'mass rape'. What it says he was part of actions that are internationally considered to have been 'mass rape' which he was Polargeo (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen - the ICTY source -must- say that he was convicted specifically of "mass rape". If it does not, then you cannot list these individuals of being convicted of mass rape. Unless any court specifically spells out that someone was convicted of "mass rape" specifically, you cannot have any claim that there was anyone committing it. That is how BLP works. A feminist journal is not a court. A legal journal is not a court. Some academic text book is not a court. Only a court can convict someone of a crime, and it must be of that specific crime to be acceptable on Wikipedia. That is how WP:BLP works. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elucidate without judging the answer, the question is whether The article on Atrocities in Wherever can mention the names of those convicted of particular atrocities that clearly fall under that description--it is understood that no one person will have participated in every individual outrage. The alternative view iss that the names should be limited to those who orchestrated the entire series of events. I think either position can be justified. DGG (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you are mistaken. The article claims that they committed "mass rape". The court had no such ruling, used no such term, and never acknowledged that there was such a thing as "mass rape" in convictions. Therefore, BLP makes it clear that you cannot accuse them of something that the courts did not convict them of. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava. You are wrong. I know you will never admit it. But there you go. You are. BLP says "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Well not one unverifiable or incorrect statement or bit of OR in the article about any individual, the crimes they were tried of have been cited time, after time, after time as part of a mass rape campaign. You show an inability to read most of the sources I mention and tend to cherry pick one of the many sources; one that you think you may be able to attack and you quote it out of context so I won't bother anymore with pointing you to sources. Suffice it to say that for every source I have linked which says mass rape and names those individuals in the same article there are 100 more. They are going to have to spend the rest of their lives taking legal action against every goverment and major media organisation in the world. You have a strange tendancy to think you are a brilliant lawyer of some sort and everyone else is somehow substandard in their reasoning, including governments, the BBC, CNN, several newspapers, a dozen acaedmic journals, several books, films etc. etc. etc. etc.. I think this actually shows that it is you who is unable to get beyond the narrow viewpoint that you have entrenched yourself inside. But I know you will not admit this so why do I bother, maybe I hope, where hundreds of others have failled, to get you to change your mind. Well when they opened Pandora's box at least hope was left. Polargeo (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ICTY is the only reliable source on convictions. Only a judiciary can declare that someone committed a crime or not. The ICTY does not use the term mass rape. Therefore, any source that claims that there was "mass rape" falls the BLP standard for "high quality references". There is no ways around this. Your sources contradict the reality of the situation. Therefore, they are not reliable and they fail BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I said there has been a gang war in LA, as part of this gang war (and there are reliable sources to show that these individual acts are part of this gang war) X murdered Y and Q cut up P (ref ref ref etc.). Would either X or Q have committed the crime of 'gang warfare' according to the court? I didn't know there was such a crime. Could we have an article on it with reliable sources, of course we could. Polargeo (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are laws dealing with gang violence. So, your example doesn't apply. Now, using the term "gang war" would be inappropriate in any regard, because it is not technical, it is vague, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not canvassing

Packaging is everything, so I decided to call this bit of canvassing "not canvassing". Ottava, you and a couple of others are the ones most likely to disagree with my 5 points at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Comment by Damian ... so this is an invitation to come do your worst. Or shock me by supporting, either way :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]