User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 14

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. By the way, User:Ceoil and User:Karanacs decided to tag-team mentor me (yeah, I'm so wild that I need two! :) ). So, they will most likely watch and/or join in any discussion. - Ottava Rima

Blood Angels

I no longer look at the 40K articles - Wiki, or should I say, certain editors, have completely ruined the whole series of articles, so there's no point in bothering to even look at them. So, as for whatever you suggested, go for it, I don't care what happens to them. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava II

Of course I would be honoured to work with you if the Wordsworth offer is still open. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm told its not likely I'll live past 2052, so tone town your expectations to avoid dissapointment. But between now and then; fine, sure. I work best in collaboration; partly from the benifit of a second openion, partly competitive reasons, and also its far more interesting than working in a vacuum. First question before you enter this though; should the focus be on "She Dwelt" or the Lucy series overall - only two of the poems have articles to date. Also Jones is the bible here. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Drapier's Letters

I think that I might be able to contribute to Drapier's Letters on the level of style, although I am not the first person to notice that the second sentence of letter 1 contains a classic Irish bull: "Therefore I do most earnestly exhort you as men, as Christians, as parents, and as lovers of your country, to read this paper with the utmost attention, or get it read to you by others [...]" - how they are supposed to get it read to them if they can't read it in the first place, Swift does not explain. Lexo (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly will. Of course, the point of the remark in my above post is that they can't know that they need to have it read to them if they can't read it. In the meantime, I have noticed that the Modest Proposal article isn't very good. I will try to hunt down a complete edition of Drapier (there used to be one in Dublin bookshops) just so I can refer to it. Cheers - Lexo (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cabal

I've heard you're the head of the 18th-century Literature Cabal. Where do I sign up? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

LMAO, sweet. I've been trying to build a cabal wikiproject devoted to 18th century lit for ... forever. Welcome aboard. :) Ottava Rima 02:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I want in. A cabal sounds great, what do I have to do?? Ceoil ^sláinte 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

*cackle* Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'll cut off both of my cackles. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No no, please don't do that! I'm sure you misunderstood. Right, OR? OR...? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Ottava, much appreciated. Afraid I'm not very keen on joining wikiprojects, but I may dip a toe into 18th-century Literature some day. Do you include Darwin? Apparently his poetry was admired by eminent authors, though to be honest I don't think it's great literature as such. Bit naughty, too. . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its an imaginary wikiproject. :) But yes, I appreciate Erasmus Darwin a lot. I made many references to him throughout, as people seem not to realize that he was the reason that his grandson was so deeply connected to the thousands of year old idea that *gasp* things slowly change over time. :D It was also Erasmus's Temple of Nature (and related stuff) that pointed out to the 19th century the fight that was originally stirred up between the schools of Aristotle and of Lucretius over how "descent" works and what role "randomness" has in the development of Form. I should really make a Wikipedia page on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So many connections! You mentioned Adam Smith earlier, did you know that he was a friend of James Hutton, another sage of the Scottish Enlightenment and originator of the ideas of uniformitarianism over deep time with "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" that Charles Lyell passed on to Darwin as the geological framework for his evolutionary ideas? And speaking of Form, I'm just dimly aware of the ideas about metamorphosis of the well known geologist and inspector of mines, Goethe, who also influenced evolutionary thinking. But must stop now! . . .dave souza, talk 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what separates us from those 100 years ago is the fact that all of the important people studied multiple fields and had friends within all of those fields. I can trace the general concept to someone like Samuel Johnson and his The Club. We may be "modern" but they were truly Enlightened. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Really must head for bed now, but one treasure I acquired in my youth is a bound volume of The Scots Magazine for 1762, which has a marvellous mixture of information – technology like "Williamfon's machine for the reaping of corns", poetry, essays and dissertations, the autopsy of the deceased king, reports of the war in the West Indies, instructions on horfe riding, and so on. (f used because I don't have a font for the long s) All the best, dave souza, talk 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sermons

You need a page structured in the summary style to bind together the individual daughter articles imo. Very ambitious job you are taking on there by the way. In other news, would you mind casting a cold eye on the Henry Moore FARc; work is on-going but input and direction as to what remains to be done would be helpful indeed. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to produce the sermons as one page, without need of "daughter" pages. The sermons aren't notable besides as connecting to other works of Johnson and giving general philosophy. However, I could get away with putting together a page on Taylor's 24 publications, but that would take 24 (of 28) sermons out, and still have one page with a lot of sermons. I'm leaning towards having a large page and staying beneath 80k. How does that sound? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds good, if you can do it, and I have no doubt that you can. To go back to Moore; long captions - no man, in visual art articles the img catptons should be self contained; see The Garden of Earthly Delights were we pushed out the boad on lenght, and I'm glad we did. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It still burns my eyes. When images drop between different sections and causes the headings to scrunch together, or to sandwich text, it makes reading almost impossible for me. I am sensitive to the glare of a screen, and it doesn't help me. This is just me, and I am sure others have an easier time. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. We were talking about two different things; I'll fix. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you move "West Wind" to the top of the section, you could move "Family Group" up a paragraph. Then you could move "Henry Moore" up a paragraph. I would move the long gallery photo into "Style" and the photo in Style into the gallery. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Byron

So great to see you have taken this on. But make peace and work with Wrad, qp and Awadewit. I'd be fairly sure they would be delighted to be involved, and anyway dont suppose you are overburded and fustrtated by all your friends and collaborators. Ask them. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• How exciting you are working on Byron! Another very important literary figure! Do you have a bibliography somewhere of the biographies and the literary criticism you have decided to read? Perhaps we could share the reading load? I will read the articles you linked to on my talk page next weekend, as this week I am busy catching up on my grading. Awadewit (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I will post one this evening on the talk page of my userfied version. Also, I will put up a user page with a list of books and quotations for you (of harder to find sources) in regards to The Last Man either tonight or sometime soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• I posted on the talk page a bibliography. I will be adding more details this afternoon. And if you read over the books or find any of your own that are interesting (or details that I didn't mention), feel free to point them out. I only have the taste of one individual, so its always good to have multiple. Plus, this is connected to your field, so you could read a work like The Making of the Poets about Byron and Shelley and gain some knowledge that may help you later. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! I also saw your note about Prometheus Unbound. I only have a few biographical references to MS and PBS which I'm sure you already have, so I'm afraid I can't help much there. I've started pecking away at the Modern Prometheus, which will take me awhile. While you were lecturing on poetry, I was lecturing on prose. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not all poesy. I gave a wonderful presentation on Richardson's background in letter writing and his biography before. Everyone talks about Pamela or Clarrisa, but I'm one of those silly people that think that prose and poetry are written by those things called "authors" and that we should put some thought into their lives. Hehe. By the way, I added what I had on Mary Shelley's involvement in both the background and a "technical" section to discuss the editions. Mary did a lot for promoting and publishing a "cleaner" version of the play, and her notes were very important, so I didn't want her to be slighted. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mary Shelley apparently made the reputation of Percy Shelley the poet through her notes and editions of his works - she shaped the reception and attitude people took towards PBS's poetry (it is quite fascinating, really). It is worth reading through her editions just for the notes. :) By the way, do you want me to read Marchand's three-volume biography of Byron? It is from 1957, but I think it is still held in some esteem. (I've already read the more popular Eisler.) Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I relied on Mayne for the bulk because that biography was written before the controversy, so none of the text would have to be analyzed and carefully stated. Marchand is a great Byron scholar, and her biography would be very important to add. If you can put some quotes into the page, that would be great. I've been focusing on the popular biographies that give the more controversial claims about his sex life (i.e. him having slept with everyone. No friends, no platonic relationships, just pure sex sex sex everywhere he goes, supposedly) so we can deal with the constant adding of the material by random viewers of the Byron page. It would be necessary to add, but it should be phrased corrected and blatantly attributed as the opinion of the popular biographers. Longford and Drinkwater's biographies are the two other current critical biographies (along with Marchard) that supply a more neutral foundation for Byron's life. Its all somewhat complicated, but feel free to add whenever. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is hard to stave that sort of thing off, yes. I will get the biography, then, and see what I can do. I work slowly, though. Awadewit (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Slow and steady makes a worth while page, as they say. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a copy of Mary Shelley's notes to Prometheus Unbound, we could create a section called "Interpretation". There are a few famous interpretations and readings that would be good to include, and Mary's would be important. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is available online here. Awadewit (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomb info

Don't know if you've got this in hand, but The Shame of Jesus' Burial is an interesting example of higher criticism. Noticed it at exploring our matrix. . dave souza, talk 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've heard similar, but its helpful. :) I'll finish up some of Byron and put together a makeshift version of the tomb page, and then move on to other stuff and double back. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wordsworth

Long time no talk Ottava; yeah I'm still planning on this, and have been slowly acquiring sources and researching. For the moment I'm planning on working through the Law FAR, which will likely take 2-3 weeks, but after that I should have enough to begin. I'd prefer if you didn't start without me, and I do agree that it should spend a fair amount of time in user space (your place or mine....) so we can sketch and create place holders without worring too much about being wiki correct. I was trying to find that sub-page on your user space where you posted a list of possible sources we could use; but didn't; can you pass on the link again. Anyway, talk to you later. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is my list? Ceoil ^sláinte 01:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap I forgot. The RCC page was getting read to FAC and I got caught up helping someone else and I totally forgot. Here I was minding my own business and reading instead of doing that. Tomorrow morning I'll get right on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's Dictionary

I don't know when in your busy schedule you intend to attack the entry for Johnson's Dictionary - or indeed if you intend to! In the meanwhile I've collected a lot of info on the Dictionary's posthumous reputation and influence from the Hitchings book. As far as possible I've left it in the original quotations; of course it will need to be re-written, but I thought it would be more useful to leave the sources intact for the time being, so that they don't get garbled before work on the page has progressed. almost-instinct 13:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you would like the work on the page? :) If so, I can help out, fix any things, add more sources, etc. I've just been distracted with five other pages at the moment, but I enjoy helping out anywhere I can. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All I know on this subject is what I've got from the Hitchings book; I get the impression that whoever did most the work on the page so far was using that as their source, too. Maybe someone with a better overview of the subject should be at the centre of the action, but I'll be very glad to help out if I can. I get the impression that its the kind of page that's going to stay fairly stable in the meanwhile almost-instinct 14:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add some content this weekend. I think I can pull together 15 or so sources for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,0000

Hi Ottava. I'm not that knowledgeable about Warhammer 40k - I do have access to some early White Dwarf (magazine) (most issues pre-100) and Dragon (magazine)s from the Dragon Magazine Archive, so up to issue 250 and have the first edition 40k rules in a box somewhere. If you know where to look (the indexes at: [1] and [2] may help) and need anything from those sources, then I'd be happy to help. The outline of the structure you propose sounds ideal. --Davémon (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Blake

Ottava; when you are done arguing against people who are basically on your side / wiki friends, you might care to lend a hand at "The Four and Twenty Elders Casting their Crowns before the Divine Throne". I cobbeled it together from a few books that were around, but its only descriptive for the momement; there is no real insight or depth; yet. Any ideas or sources, or so forth or even such and such?

To be honest, I ask this carefully, as you seem to have thrown your hand up at Nebuchadnezzar, which is a great shame. I had high hopes for where you were capable of taking it. Blake to the masses! ha ha.. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it extremely hard to work when people are constantly moving things around. I edited conflicted multiple times, which was the reason why I originally gave up on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats as maybe, but is a few days old now. You shouldn't let percieved hard fellings get in the way of projects and things you are interested in. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Pong Ceoil ^sláinte 00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my computer died and I've been busy trying to put together an paper on the necessity of verifying Samuel Richardson as part of the literary canon, so I've been occupied. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to come up with a common structure for these pages. They are organized sloppily and need to be unified. Pick a standard and try working from that. I would help, but every time I go to organize it seems to be undone, even by you. I'm going to stick with literature pages. I lost quite a lot of my old articles and other important research in my computer crash, and now I've gone deaf in one ear, so I'm not having a great time right now to be devoting my energies to areas that will just have conflict. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ottava, stop feeling sorry for yourself. Take a look at this for instance and count yourself lucky. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not feeling sorry for myself. I'm just going a lot slower than what I would have been doing. I heard about that earlier. I'm going to try and pull some stuff together and possibly update a few pages or finish working on the Keats page in my subsection. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good pick up Malleus; I heard about this on friday night driving through the usual half horse and one horse villages I drive through on a friday night with the usual distorted, distant and vague reception of bbc4 radio. And I was amazed, frankly, by the story. Its so perfect and brave, to the point that it sounded like something Macain's handelors might have dreamed up. Whatever; Ottava, I'm on your side, but I do like to keep structure flat early on. It looser, and easier to play around with. I dont see any benifit to formula. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I was delighted to see the page move; I hadn't realsied you had added quite so much content; it looks great...Ceoil ^sláinte 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that. I'm going to spend a few hours formatting, rewording etc, and then get down the more fun business off adding. I just ec'd you, but I think I caught most of your changes. I can understand how after SJ would would be fairly wary of FAC, but a co-nom would be acceptable I suppose ;). Thanks for everything; I was really stuck on this one. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to move to "The Lucy Poems". ? Ceoil ^sláinte 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have Jones on my table staring up at me, is why I was promted. By the way, any ideas for a hook for Catherine; if the old dear is to get a moment in the sun. Created on the fifth, so maybe a bit late. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no hurry. There is a good few weeks left in this yet. I appreciate we have to be consisting in our naming conventions. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Them's the breaks. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A man of your sensitive pallet shold stick to thoes representations of Ada Lovelace you keep in the garden shed. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm very fond of long image cations. Less fond of "should". But yeah, too much words. I'll trim later, when have a better idea. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For all your help, especially the excellent peer review you gave Roman Catholic Church. Your opinions and editing suggestions are more important than you think. I hope you will come back to help after we all have a couple of weeks, maybe three weeks of rest. I have very much enjoyed working with you on this project. NancyHeise talk 00:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

Are you quitting in disgust? --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I left the whole FAC process during a hissy fit, of course. I couldn't stand the opposes over POV concerns after there were many, many peer reviews, other FACs, and a talk page to bring it up on. I ended up insulting Marksell, and so it was best if I just didn't involve myself over there. When two sides disagree and can't come to a mutually acceptable approach, it is best for Wikipedia that it wont become a battleground. Here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lucy Gray

I agree. When I first saw your move I was inclined to respond with something like "Well it's your opinion that the poem is more notable than the album, but we should really have a dab page to make them both equal," but after taking a look at Lucy Gray (album) I noticed there's pretty much nothing there. I think the dablink should work fine. Also, good work with the new hook. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Greene

Hello! You found that fast. I was going to ask if you'd be interested in filling out the part of the article that makes it interesting: his scholarship - given that you've worked on a number of articles where he is cited. –Outriggr § 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

William Wordsworth

Hi. I think you have completely misunderstood my intentions. I think your new article is very good independently. Rather I am more concerned about the main article and that it is of a much lower stabdard and also there was nothing in the main article which linked it to the main for his early life. I'd fully support the article being seperate if the main article was of a high quality and over 30 KB. A lot of important details given in your article are missing from the parent article which ideally shoul dhave all of the "bones" summarised, this is why I have proposed merging it, Please assume WP:GOODFAITH on my part. Your reaction was unnecesarily inflamed towards me. People propose merging great articles all the time. Anybody would think I'd put it up for AFD or plastered tons of tags over it. Count Blofeld 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Recommending dramatic changes to a page while it is in the middle of being expanded on and worked on is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK but if it is "your" field, why not develop the main article which most people care about most beyond a C-class? Count Blofeld 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Who says I haven't been working on it? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well an article on William Wordsworth should really be GA standard or higher. As it stands, your early life article has nearly 3 times as many references as the entire parent article. Perhaps you could use your fantastic writing skills and ensure it passes GA. Perhaps take it to FA if this your interest. Writers of your calibre should be aiming for FA. Count Blofeld 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

DYKs!

On 15 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Lucy (poems), Matthew (poems), We are Seven, Lucy Gray, and William Wordsworth's early life, 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.

Four of them! Well done! Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, five. Lucy poems was a co nom. But close enough. Thanks! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Please do not continue discussion on my talk page. Further discussion will be counter-productive and removed. You might want to note, however that the user was warned by somebody else, a week ago. It is not necessary to continue warning when they already were clearly told to stop edit warring. Anyhow, there is nothing else to be done here. I've unblocked the users because the community felt the blocks inappropriate. I clearly stated this in the users block log. If you are concerned with my ability to keep my admin tools, then visit RFAR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please prove how a warning from a week ago is some how equivalent to you blocking someone on one revert or could ever justify such an action? Especially when considering we have fancy policies such as "Assume Good Faith" or "Ignore All Rules"? You aren't new, so I can assume you should know them. Please apply them instead of blocking people without cause. Such an action is a violation of most of our core policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I felt that RFAR was a fair and unbiased process then I would indeed take you, Rjd0060, there. As it is not, I realise that would be a waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It couldn't possibly be a more wasteful way to spend your time than this, could it? Let me just try to explain this. I've been an admin since the end of January. And, because of one single action of mine, that I've since undone because I realize the community disagreed with it, people are calling for desysop. I could understand it if I was completely opposed to listening to the community, but as evident, I am not. I've commented in several spots in reference to this issue, and it isn't like I've run away. The only reason I closed the thread on my talk page is because, I honestly feel that the calls for resignation are excessive for one, seemingly resolved, conflict. I realize that I am not the most unbaised person to decide that, but that is what I believe. If people honestly feel that I've done done something so horrible that I should no longer be an admin, I strongly encourage them to take the necessary steps to have my adminship removed. Otherwise, I'd encourage everybody to get back to working on the things they enjoy and things that improve Wikipedia (which is why we are all here, believe it or not) - because I don't think there is a single person that is enjoying all of this nor a single person who believes that this is doing the project any good. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you really think that the project would be better off if I didn't ensure that some of the best content contributors and editors are not blocked wrecklessly, then I don't really know how to respond to you. This isn't about "listening" to the community in your way. This is about you not listening to the community until the crap hits the fan. An admin is not supposed to destroy everything and get away with it by simply saying "oops, my mistake" later. That is a very bad precedent. An admin is supposed to prevent disruption and ensure that the encyclopedia is improved. You did neither. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So I have to ask again; how is all of the discussion like this going to solve anything? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion wont. You putting yourself up for recall will. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not up for recall simply because the community has too much of a tendency to overreact, proven today. I made one action in the whole time I've been an admin and a couple of people are calling for desysop and are completely opposed to any sort of productive discussion. People insist they are right, everybody who disagrees with them are wrong, and nothing can be said to change that. So it seems we're at an impasse. Given that, I guess it is time to end discussion. I will say, for the final time, if you are so concerned with my ability to continue on as an administrator, you have this as an option. Otherwise, we really should move on. I plan to now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your insistence that this is overreacting is just more proof as to why you should be desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, we've never met. You have a funny name that caught my eye. Chergles (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you didn't ask if I was Canadian. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucy

I'm fairly decided on moving this to "The Lucy poems" (with the "The"). What are you thinking? Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the capitalization. I've seen it capitalized every which way. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No hurry. I think about blake more and more these days; but it seems like such a monster of a project. And it would be a beast of an FAC. The talk page is heated enough, but at FAC? I shudder to think. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I wont touch Blake. It bothers me when things like that happen. I try to work on isolated pages that no one cares about. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. I've worked on a few where everybody and their uncle had an opeion, and it was no fun. At all. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but I've had the same experience. One begins to think that Blake is like the elephant in the famous parable; the visual arts scholars have his nose, the lit scholars his ears, and every fan of every band that ever drew inspiration from him, his legs... Lithoderm (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Each thinks they have the real Blake. Lithoderm (talk)

Good to hear you think like that. If we do tackel this, it would involve a long time span, not just writing and polishing, but building a concencus before we throw it open to FAC. Thats a lot of pain, sweat and tears, but I think would be worth it. Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will work on Blake pages because most of his illuminated works have incredibly little on them. If you have any areas that you don't feel like filling in, please tell me so I can carve them up. I have 17 books on Blake's work, plus articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a GA review of William Blake. Ah! Awadewit (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I pity you. PITY. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, if its ok with you I'm going to page move to "The Lucy poems" with 'poems' in lowercase (as Wordsworth himself did not acknowledge the grouping). Obviously this implies on the Matthew poems, so you might consider one way or the other, and let me know. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave you free reign to do what you will a while ago. Don't chicken out. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling me chicken will get you into all sorts of problems. Dont go there! Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Update your brag sheet accordingly ;) Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't keep a brag sheet. However, I will update the list of too many pages than what I can keep up with section on my user page. >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[3] Cool. I've asked for Lucy to be copy-edited. No offence to either of us but the prose isn't great in places. Otherwise, its a fine article. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't attempt to do anything except to put in long lists of excerpts and quotes so that you could have all of the main scholarship out there. I'm just the research slave. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Light relief

This is the funniest Blackadder episode - on Johnson..(in 4 parts) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that was linked in the Johnson article until people thought it wasn't legitimate legacy. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Really?? Sorry I completely missed that FAC. I always love the modern legacy/pop culture bits.. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, it had to go. I also had to drop the listing of all of the Samuel Johnson clubs, even though they have thousands of members each. lol. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Message

I've left a message for you on Sandy's talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder FAC restarted

Note to all !voters on the original Major depressive disorder FAC: The FAC for that article has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Milton

File:Milton by Blake.jpg

Frontispiece to Milton. He looks pretty young for 400!

December 9 is Milton's 400th birthday - are we doing anything special? Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I wish I would have known a few months ago, then I would have added some citations. LOL. Did you have any ideas or anything? Information on Milton is easy to find, there is a lot of it out there. We could create a page on Miltonic epic style, I have at least 5 books on it and over 3 dozen that heavily refer to it. Whatever whatever. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about expanding Il Penseroso and L'Allegro for DYK? They are, um, actually stubs. Awadewit (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's rather sad that they are in that state. A DYK might actually not be as great for Milton (at least, for his birthday). Perhaps Milton should be submitted to "On This Day" instead? They only allow for one or the other at a time. However, those pages do deserve to be transformed into actual pages, so I will see what I have time to work on over the holiday. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't WP:IAR? :) Let's try the "On this day" bit, then. Awadewit (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want, we can beg a lot to see if people will do something special. Next to Shakespeare, Milton is the most important English Literary figure. Maybe Village Pump Miscellaneous would be a good place to start to see what people will be willing to IAR (a DYK and In the News, a full set of DYK devoted to Milton, etc) Or, we could try to rush it to FAC by December 1st and beg its way in lol. I know of at least 20 editors that would help in the process. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I could do something on William Blake's Illustrations to Milton, perhaps. Lithoderm 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

I've placed myself on editor review at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte, and I'm reaching out for feedback to editors who seem to be reasonably familiar with my work. If you have a moment to comment there, your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Brilliant. Twenty five articles plus.... nearly fifty. All given to wikipedia and the world. Brilliant (were they ALL about Samuel Johnson :-) Thanks again from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ode on a Grecian Urn

If you belive this articleontains information that should be here, please dont just remove it. Take it up on the talk page for that article and if nessercery with an admin. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• My Apologys, I had not realised that you were part of the wiki source project. Either way it should have at least been mentioned on the talk page. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I appologize if I continuously added things you had removed; I was running my work through word to make sure the spelling wasn't horrible, and I thought that since this article had not been touched in weeks, I could get away with a bit of revising without looking at the history page to see what was going on. On the whole, I have been able to add descent sources and give a bit of structure to the page, which was my intention for the day. Next time I will work more slowly to make sure that I am working with a current version of the page each time I make my changes. Mrathel (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Over the Edge (1999)/archive2

Is it possible for you to review Over the Edge (1999), and leave comments on its peer review? Thanks you.--TRU_CO 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Milton/Blake

You are being discussed here, and Lithoderm has sandboxed a DYK for Blake's Illustrations of Milton <--there. Interested? Yeah, thought so! Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Milton article itself is in poor health, we should probably put in some work there too. Ceoil (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

0.7 and Samuel Johnson

I've been slow in my responses lately, so I thought I'd better reply on your talk page. Samuel Johnson was already selected in September, if you see this list. We've been so busy selecting versions etc, we haven't had time to tag the actual articles yet, but you'll be pleased to know that even as B-Class Johnson was more than 200 points over the threshold for inclusion in the release. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Calling someone the "worse [sic] possible candidate listed" is an attack on the person, notwithstanding the definition put forth at WP:NPA. "Improperly inflammatory"? Such overblown and exaggerated rhetoric does not deserve my respect. —kurykh 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I was in no way criticizing the "extremely troubling conduct" part, however I may disagree with it. —kurykh 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected and apologize. However, I still believe that such rhetoric is unnecessarily negative. —kurykh 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton

I personally don't see any problem. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you might want to fit On the Morning of Christ's Nativity into the grand scheme, if you're so inclined or have time. From the amount of material I have to work with, I am considering splitting off a List of William Blake's Illustrations to Milton, which would be something like List of works by Caspar David Friedrich-- in that case the list and the main article could both be mentioned in one hook. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Deal. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, if you feel anyway pissed off over the next while, have a click of his and have a good laugh unwarrented self importance / shameless vanity award 2008. 2:04 is particularly ridiculous. I hate to be meanspirited, but O.I.nearly.wept. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Goldsmith

Not often my Featured article writing touches on literature but some help would be fun. Not sure who out of the mob on Johnson may know about this but if someone has a book of Citizen of the World by Johnson's chum Oliver Goldsmith, I would be keen for someone to have a squiz and see the link to Amanita muscaria - the book makes light of the practice of people drinking the urine of those intoxicated by the fungus to get high...

The next bit is that several authors then wrote noting it caused hallucinations of size distortion, and this is linked to the caterpillar and mushroom in Alice in Wonderland. I have one ref from mushroom POV, but may be good if any owrk on Carroll covers it too. I figure out of you, Awadewit and Ceoil and others, someone may have something interesting on their bookshelves :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I could look through some of the Goldsmith biographies and see if anything pops up. There is, not surprising, little information on it from what I can see so far. :) Here is a non-literature perspective: Fabing, Howard. "On Going Bersekr: A Neurochemical Inquiry". The Scientific Monthly. Vol. 83, No. 5 (Nov., 1956): 232-237 "An early satirical comment on this practice was made by Oliver Goldsmith in 1762 (13). It is reported that such urine can be drunk successively by as many as five people, passing in and out of one into the next, so that all of them can gain the hallucinogenic effect from one dose of mushrooms. It would be revealing to know the chemical composition of the hallucinogen which is passed around the urine of these tribesmen, but this fact is not known. Studies looking toward the solution of this problem have been undertaken by Evan Horning and his associates at the NAtional Institutes of Health...." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Roux

Hi, I saw your discussion with Roux on his talk page (I tend to stalk him a bit for fun when I'm bored) and noticed that you two were having a bit of a misunderstanding. I believe Roux's view is thus: he isn't against opposing, but is against candidates opposing other candidates. His disagreement with your candidate (or who I am assuming to be "your" candidate) is that he/she opposed most or all of the other candidates. While this won't have much of an overall impact on the system, he (rightfully) believes this to be shortsighted and selfish. Hopefully this clears things up. Thanks! DARTH PANDA^duel 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't possibly claim that what you say is wrong. All Wikipedians certainly have the right to oppose anyone. However, that's not the issue at head here, which is what several of us have been trying to tell you. Roux's issue is not that your candidate opposed, but is because your candidate opposed WHILE HE WAS A CANDIDATE. Please try to step back from the situation for a moment and realize the difference between those two statements, as they are not the same. Thanks. DARTH PANDA^duel 01:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your belief that candidates should be able to vote against their opponents, but what your candidate has done in Roux's opinion (I have absolutely no clue who your candidate is, so I cannot verify or deny this claim) is more than just that. He believes that your candidate has gone and purposefully opposed all of his or her opponents in an effort to swing the vote towards himself or herself, which can be considered unethical. DARTH PANDA^duel 01:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that's absolutely fine and dandy that you believe that to be true, but just as you believe what you believe, Roux is entitled to his own opinion as well. Roux thinks such activity is unethical, and you believe Roux's choices are hypocritical. There's no need for either of you two to attack each other because of this and there is certainly no reason for cussing or harassment. DARTH PANDA^duel 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt here. If I received a message like "I really hope that you don't ever run for any other position," I would certainly cite you as being uncivil on the spot. That, in effect, is a threat. Discussion is fine. Incivility is not. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are there plain as day for anyone to see. WilyD 02:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, no, you're getting me wrong here. Past action is essential. If you can't be judged on your past, what would you be judged on? The problem here is that statement that I've repeatedly quoted. It's fine for you to bring it up at the later date, but it is not acceptable to threaten them that you will bring it up. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, your demand in this particular case would be that Roux has to change his vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was your original intention, no? Would you prefer that Roux change his reason for opposing? Actually, would this problem exist if Roux had simply opposed and not listed a reason? DARTH PANDA^duel 02:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, what is this whole mess about, anyways? He's clearly not going to change his view, and you don't want him to, so neither of you gain anything from discussing this anyways. Shouldn't this be moot then? Is the sole purpose of your comment to make Roux aware that he is being hypocritical? If so, his viewpoint is certainly being hypocritical (though you can easily disagree it). DARTH PANDA^duel 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I worded that horribly. What I meant to say is that his viewpoint is certainly NOT hypocritical, as several users have attempted to prove to you, though it can be disagreed with. Sorry about that. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate to keep disagreeing with you, because you do have some good points. You need to assume good faith and not instantly go to the worst possibility. It would have been better if you had simply asked him why he voted as he did instead of pointing out his faults, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Your original comment on Roux's page just has that hint of disdain, and Roux, being who he is, obviously was not pleased. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Courtesy Notice

You are being discussed on AN/I, here. //roux   editor review 00:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see no good reason for you to post anything more on Wikipedia regarding your opinion of Roux, his voting in the arbCom election, or any related subject. If you stop now, this can end peacefully. Consider this a dont-template-the-regulars block warning. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Question: Poem titles

I was just scanning over the article on "Ode on a Grecian Urn" and came across a question I thought you might be better equipped to answer: each time you mention the ode's title, you use italics. When I mention it, I use quotation marks. The WP:Style says,

italics are used for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, paintings and musical albums. The titles of articles, chapters, songs and other short works are not italicized, but are enclosed in double quotation marks. Italics are not used for major revered religious works (for example the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Talmud).

which would suggest that they be in quotation marks, but I assume that if someone with your experience does something different, there must be a reason. I thought that perhaps the subject of the article gets italics when used again, but instead of speculating, I decided just to ask you:) Mrathel (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That does make sense. To keep the article uniform, I will go through and make all references italicized.Mrathel (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

[4] Tiptoety ^talk 22:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)