Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:12, 31 July 2008

As per this I shall be on a pseudo Wikibreak until August or so. That will give me more time to concentrate on my non-Misplaced Pages article writing. If you need any help, please feel free to leave a comment. I shall respond here and do as much as I can help from here.

Sincerely, Ottava Rima The Italian Rhyme.

Jane Collier

When I read "An Essay" about a year ago I couldn't believe there were no wikipedia articles on Collier, but I only recently realised I could actually make an article myself! Your edits greatly improved the article, and you are much more informed on the subject than I. Havn't read "The Cry" but after reading your article intend to. Thanks for the info. Miczilla (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That is very cool, although a little bit above my head in terms of procedure. Thanks again, though. --Miczilla (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sermons of Dean Swift

Just a quick note to say that I just spotted Sermons of Dean Swift, which seems to be all your work, and thought I'd just drop a quick note to say that it's a great article. Elegantly written and comprehensively referenced, I immediately assessed it as B-class, but I'm sure that it would fly through a good article assessment if you chose to submit it, and it is probably v close to featured article standard. Good work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is misnamed, and it's odd that you keep this congratulations without keeping in mind the cautions about the quality of writing in the article from user:Geogre or the fact that you've lodged the article inappropriately from me. Still, it's your user talk page. If you won't consider the relevant issues, you might want to remove the congratulations. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for letting me know about the updates on the Drapier's letters. I have entered a very busy period at work and will be doing a lot of overtime in the next week and don't know that I will have time to carefully review the additions and changes. You seem to be very knowledgable about the subject and I wish you the best of luck in the nomination! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima/Printers

I've userfied this for now. Friday (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Elegant citation system

Hello Ottava Rima. I just took a look at Drapier's Letters, and noticed that system of the <cite> tags. It seems very neat, though I'm curious how much manual labor is needed. (I'm used to the WP:CITET business). Can you point me to where the new system is explained or documented? I imagine there are some other articles that might be able to use it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Question

Sorry that was a mistake dude. King Rock 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Drapier's Letters should have been a GA years ago)just figure of speech). Hope we can keep in touch :) Cheers(What ever cheers means?) King Rock 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Picard

This is fun. How long can we keep it going? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done both of you... But what is this supposed to mean? Are you a mere mortal; not the mouthpiece of the WikiGods? Disappointed, Merzul (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Expansion of Jubilate Agno

Many thanks for your erudite expansion of the article I began on Smart's poem. Your efforts much improve upon what was, I own, formerly a skeletal discussion of the subject. Seduisant (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hymns and Spiritual Songs

Hi. I was wondering if the book shouldn't go in the namespace for the full name of the book: Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Fasts and Festivals of the Church of England,? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping the disambig page, moving the book to the full name space, and create a redirect from (book) to the full namespace. Having the book in the full namespace would better advance search results I think. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the explanation. And I completely leave it all up to you as far as namespace, I don't deal much in book titles and you are an expert on that. I completely agree with the disambiguation page and have already fixed the album links to reflect that. There are still a few more links on the Hymns and Spiritual Songs but I'm not sure how to disambig those. Thanks again for your help. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson/Cites/Thanks

Thank you for your offer to add cites to Samuel Johnson. It's much appreciated. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A Song to David

1. What Rose states (404): "There is no public record explicitly connecting Christopher Smart with Freemasonry. There does exist a poem attributed to "Brother C. Smart, A.M," published in a volume called A Defence of Freemasonry, in the mid-1760s, but it is of course possible that another C. Smart was the author of that work. The most suggestive evidence is therefore a line from the definitively attributed Jubilate Agno, which was written contemporaneously with the Song: "For I am the Lord's builder and free and accepted MASON in CHRIST JESUS" (B109). At a minimum, this line establishes that Smart had Freemasonry on his mind. A close analysis of the Song to David reveals that he was familiar with symbols from all three of the craft degrees, and undoubtedly the best source for such detailed knowledge would have been personal experience. But there were certainly other potential sources, for example the extremely popular expose Masonry Dissected by Samuel Prichard, published in 1730. This pamphlet ran through three editions in eleven days and remained readily available in London for over a century. It was also reputed to be one of the means by which the still young practice of speculative Freemasonry became standardized in Britain and abroad. In other words, Smart would have read it whether he were a Freemason or not. The most important thing to be said is this: much of the symbolism of Freemasonry derives from the story of the building of Solomon's temple, of which David was the divinely inspired architect. Upon this basis alone one is justified in pursuing the question of Masonic symbolism in the Song to David."

2. What Dearnley states (p. 184-185): "Father Devlin has also attempted a detailed, but in many ways simpler, analysis of the seven pillars in the Song to David. He takes quite a different course, because being a Roman Catholic, he is of course very anxious to prove that none of the sources of the Song to David are to be found in Masonic symbolism. 'The suggestion that the letters are Masonic symbols should be set aside. There is no evidence for it; rather the reverse. A writer in Miscellanea Latomorum (October 1924) states: "I am unable to offer any suggestion as to the reason for selection these particular letters of the Greek alphabet." The Curator of the Grand Lodge Library, London, through whose courtesy I was shown this article, adds: "I, too, am defeated in spite of my familiarity with the ritual of numerous masonic degrees."' Smart was a Freemason, but we are inclined to agree with Devlin that any interpretation of the Song to David that relies solely on Masonic symbolism is in danger of being far-fetched."

3. What Sherbo states (p. 221): "Smart's name is linked with a curious work of this same year entitled A Defence of Freemasonry, a refutation of another Free-masonic work, Ahiman Rezon, published earlier in 1765. The actual 'defence' covers about forty pages and has appended to it "A Collection of Masons Odes and Songs. Most of them entirely new;" the pamphlet was printed for the author and sold by W. Flexney and by E. Hood. While the 'defence' has been claimed for Smart, there is no solid evidence for the attribution. (ref 36 to Transactions, the American Lodge of Research, Free and Accepted Masons, V, No. 3 (April, 1951-January, 1952), p. 366-367) Last int he collection osongs is a "A Song by Brother C. Smart, A. M., Tune, "Ye frolicksome Sparks of the Game'," which confirms Smart's participation in Masonic affairs, but does nothing for his reputation as a poet. (ref 37 to the original song)"

4. What Williamson states (p. 478): "Song ('A MASON is great and respected')

Headed 'Song by Brother C. Smart, A. M. in A Defence of Free-Masonry (1765). Smart declares himself a Freemason in JA, B109. Although an unidentified 'Mason's Song' was in the programme of Mrs Midnight's Concert and Oratory on 14 Apr. 1853 (possibly a type for 1753) (London Stage, Pt. 4, p. 365), affinities between the present poem and Smart's later religious poetry suggest that it was written in 1764-1765. His concern seems to be to vindicate freemasonry against contemporary charges that it was irreconcilable with Christianity (see JA, B 109 n).

B 109 note: "Free and Accepted Masons was the title adopted by the constituted society of freemasons in 1717. Smart's claim to be a 'Mason in Christ' is asserted in defiance of the non-doctrinal creed of the 18th-c. freemasonry, and of papal condemnation: freemasonry was proscribed by the Roman church in 1751. William Hutchinson, in The Spirit of Masonry (1775) was at pains to defend the Christian faith of freemasons."

5. What Anderson states (p. 80-81):

"A last source is the Masonic observance. Smart was a Mason, as he demonstrated in Jubilate Agno and the Song, which contain Masonic symbols obscure to the uninitiated. Thus Smart was able to evoke more than one meaning from a particular image or section, lending special richness to the Song. An example can be seen in the passage of the Song concerning the pillars of knowledge. The immediate source of the reference to the pillars is a text of Proverbs IX supposed to have been written by David. Other references occur in Near Eastern mystery religions, in cabalistic and neo-Platonic works which interested Smart, and in legends of freemasonry. A Masonic lodge is reputed to stand on the three pillars of wisdom, strength, and beauty. (ref 8 to Broadbent, J.B. "Commentary" in Smart, Christopher. A Song to David, ed. J.B. Broadbent Cambridge, 1960. p. 36)"

Now, something important - Devlin, the original denier that all of the symbols could be matched up to freemasonry, was proven wrong by John Rose's analysis of each of the symbols and how they match up to freemasonry. And this is not including Christopher Smart: Poet and Mason or British Poets and Secret Societies which devotes an entire chapter to Smart as a Freemason. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Added: What Ainsworth states (p. 121-122):

"Move obvious, however, is that the whole passage is a piece of Masonic symbolism (ref 25 to "For evidence that Smart was a Mason, see Mr. Stead's Rejoice in the Lamb p. 25 and the Jubilate Agno itself.) - its exact meaning necessarily unintelligible to the uninitiated.

Grave legend in Smart's day put the origin of Freemasonry coeval with the creation of the world, which was itself created according to Masonic principles. Not inconsistent then is Masonic symbolism in a poem addressed to David, himself a Mason and planner of the Temple at Jerusalem. A recent critic comments, 'The seven pillars are themselves a Masonic emblem, Alpha and Gamme, taken together, suggest the Compasses and Square; Eta may stand for Jacob's ladder, Theta for the Eye, and Iota for the Plumbline. Obviously, the creator is imagined as the architect or mason of the universe.' (ref 26 to Odell Shepard and Paul Spencer Wood, English Prose and Poetry, 1660-1800. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1934. p. 1020. The notes for A Song to David in this volume are perhaps the best yet printed.) Other symbols must be meaningful to the enlightened - the trowel, spade, and loom of Stanza XXXIII; the 'foot, and chapitre, and niche' of Stanza XXXV; and, of course, the 'infernal draught' (with the sense of 'plan') of Stanza XXXVII. The next stanza, concluding the passage, carries out the same idea of David, the Mason."

7. What Curry states (p. 57):

"Mention of the Temple introduces another thread: that of Smart's Freemasonry. In Jubilate Agno he had asserted

For I am the Lord's builder and free and accepted MASON in CHRIST JESUS. (B109)

In his Lexicon of Freemasonry A.G. Mackey devotes several pages to a consideration of Solomon's Temple, explaining that, although Solomon built it, it was David who planned it, and David was not only therefore to be regarded as a Mason, but as possibly having been the first Grand Master.

We also read in Mackey that 'There are in Freemasonry twelve original points which form the basis of the system, and comprehend the whole ceremony of initiation. These twelve points refer the twelve parts of the ceremony of initiation to the twelve tribes of Israel.' (ref 16 to Mackey) The appearances of both these concepts within the opening lines of Smart's A Song to David cannot be without significance, and it is a thread that will be taken up later."

An old source and a recent source. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed a lot of text, but left this in case anyone wanted to refer to these quotes in a rewrite of the pertinent sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hop-Garden

Moved DYK template for The Hop-Garden. (- Ottava Rima)

-BorgQueen (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool article. Thank you!! jengod (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - somehow, my new section didn't open as one ... sorry if I set of any DefCon 2 watchlists ... Audemus Defendere (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished - or at least without further imposition ...

Your comments at Incidents#Dem1970:_Legal_Threat Incidents#Dem1970:_Legal_Threat indicate at least a little insight. And for a brief moment of flattery, the depth of your English Lit evidenced on your user page makes me envious and insecure in equal parts. And that, from a former next door neighbor of Walter Jackson Bate.

The situation has gotten out of hand. If you have a minute, check out the latest Talk entries and the current edit at Steve Windom. This all got started because I asked for help with a legal threat by Dem1970 (and cf., 71.198.183.184, and his history). I was, perhaps naively, waiting on talk to work, and cooler heads to help collaberatively craft compromise language. Now someone has picked the ball up from WP:BLP and (from my perspective) engaged in some shrill, unmerited attacks on me and unilaterally bypassed talk, consensus, &c. and edited the main article even more in the subject's favor than Dem1970 did. And Luna seems to be on a 72 hour pass.

I just feel like the mugging victim in the Keystone Kops who calls the cops, only to have the cop start beating me when he gets to the crime scene. Am I close to being as far out of line on the original article as - well, a person who is not Dem, says? I'm not recruiting folks to jump in the mayhem. (Neither would I discourage it, if anyone were so inclined.) Far from it, I am on the verge of leaving the Bedlam of Misplaced Pages to its residents. I suppose I am just looking for some calm feedback on the original article, and on the Wiki machinations here, and maybe a valid reason for staying in the mess. Any thoughts? And thanks in advance, and again. Audemus Defendere (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Email

Hi Ottava, Thanks for your email. I think I did what you asked yesterday...clarifying that I was not making a legal threat and stopping my participation in an "edit war."

Other editors have now jumped in to this and side with me. Cleo123 is right on, in my opinion! If you're interested in determining how biased Audemus is against the subject, read his/her historical edits and comments on the talk page. I think it's funny that Audemus feels like a mugging victim when he is publically beating on the victim.

Best,

Dem1970 (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've responded. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"If a statement is sourced, then it should be entered." That is not correct. Appropriate weight should be given to events. Also, fringe theories should certainly not be given equal play...or mentioned at all, depending on the circumstance. Just because you can source something doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Dem1970 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Smart followup

That's good to know, actually, because I didn't know that the records were separated from the outset. I can get the poem out of the pamphlet if you want/need it for anything, and I just need to go get that AQC copy for the early article. MSJapan (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Hi there. Could you please read this. If you help provide information, I will broker a version of the page that significantly expands on the topic and ensures that everyone will be comfortable. However, I ask that you refrain from talking about previous edits to the page during this process, so that we can all work together as a team. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the good spirit in which your remarks have been left. I also appreciate your willingness to assist in resolving the current dispute. I see from your editorial history that you have only really been actively editing Misplaced Pages for a few months, do not appear to be a member of the biography project and have unfortunately been blocked multiple times during that short time frame. I'm sure that you are a fine editor, but you are still a relative novice to this forum, comparatively speaking. I have read your remarks on various talk pages related to this subject matter and am somewhat concerned by statements you've made that seem to fly in the face of policies relating to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL, WP:STALK, WP:NOT and WP:HARASS. I'm sure you mean well, but I'm not sure that you are an appropriate person to be taking charge of this discussion. This is the biography of a living person, and because there is a history of litigation related to defamation, it needs to be handled with the utmost sensitivity and respect. Clearly, one user is harassing the other. You should not be feeding trolls and encouraging the creation of stand alone articles on non-notable events that serve no useful purpose other than harassment. Nor should you be chastising people for objecting to the further dissemination of court proven libel! There is no compromise, nor is there any amicable negotiation or compromise on Misplaced Pages when it comes to libel or defamation printed about living people - NONE WHAT-SO-EVER. I know you are new to the discussion, and perhaps you haven't had the time to thoroughly review the contribution histories, I suggest you do. You may find me harsh - and that's fine. I AM harsh when it comes to libel, defamation of character and harassment issues - because somebody has to be! Our policies are clear cut and we need to enforce them in order to protect Misplaced Pages. Cleo123 (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you've researched a lot, but obviously not enough; I have quite a lot of admin support behind this mediation. Also, if you note, we suggested creating a page for that "court proven libel". Ottava Rima (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What mediation? What are you talking about? Are you saying that some admin asked you to mediate something here? Please, provide me with some links to substantiate your claim. And if you do start any article of that sort, I am confident that it will be deleted in very short order. Please, do not attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages simply to prove a WP:POINT, as you could possibly find yourself facing disciplinary action. Oh, and BTW - "mediators" are suppose to be neutral. Cleo123 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Statements made on a users page hardly qualify as violation of WP:POINT. In fact, accusations of such, are much more likely to be seen as problematic. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, you're dealing with a user whose history indicates he/she is more interested in having his/her way than any sort of mediation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity/Archive_6 for an example of a mediator's conclusions regarding Cleo and another (since-indefinitely banned) user that Cleo was tag-team editing with: "Cleo and Bus stop, you two are indeed very loud, but talking a lot does not mean that there are any more of you... Everyone has been rude, but have shirked all attempts at coming to a compromise, twisted other users' words in very obvious ways, and been outwardly rude to everyone else involved." That almost sums up my experience dealing with Cleo, minus the intermittent false accusations of sockpuppetry and very troublesome (and very frequent) mis-application of WP:BLP. I was in the middle of submitting an RFC against this user before he/she abruptly took a wiki break, guess it's time to re-dig up my draft. Misplaced Pages is better without folks who intentionally wield WP:BLP as a sophistic excuse to be rude to others and cause conflict. Tendancer (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendancer, still stalking my edits after all this time? That's really pretty sad. Must be more than a year now that you have been following me from page to page interjecting flaming commentary full of personal attacks into discussions that have nothing to do with you. I can only guess that you are still angry that your POV did not prevail on the Michael Richards' article. It's probably high time you got over that. I didn't "beat you" there, WP:BLP did. Surely, there must be other productive, useful things you could do with your time on Misplaced Pages, aren't there? I have no problem with anyone reviewing those archival discussions. I did nothing wrong. Anyone who is really interested in what happened can read all the archives - particularly archive #5, where I cited the mediator for a lack of neutrality, forcing her into a position where she had to resign. Was she mad? Sure! I suspect that's why she tried to bundle me in the same package with user Bustop. If you read farther down the page, you see that after resigning as mediator, she passionately returned to the discussion to cast a vote - thereby proving me right! LOL! Regardless, I was there on that discussion page for the final compromise - she wasn't - and neither were you. You only popped in on that discussion to flame, just as you are doing now. Want to file an RFC against me - go right ahead. I keep records, too - particularly when it comes to editors like yourself who seem to invest an inordinate amount of time into following people about trying to create conflict. Go right ahead, I doubt it will turn out the way you think it will. Cleo123 (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(unlurk) Sounds like you folks need a neutral mediator? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(trying to hush own demonic giggles) Are you volunteering to take this one on? There would be certain difficulties in doing so, and certain parties might benefit from having other policies and guidelines pointed out to them, like WP:AGF. We can't guarantee you'll enjoy the experience, heh heh heh, given some of the behavior displayed, but I do think it might be useful. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

At least Audemus and Dem seem willing to work together in a reasonable manner. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to Let Ottava Rima give it a try, if Cleo123 can be convinced. (Perhaps an experienced medcab member could act as "backstop" here, and that would be sufficiently ok?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Amelia

The word "mainstream" was the key one (check the prices on those links). No Penguin, No OUP, no Vintage, no Norton... Why show me the sales figures from ten years ago? Here and now, today, Penguin do not publish an edition of Amelia. But whatever. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meaning of "out of print" (and I think you also mis-read "the 1987 edition is out of print" as "the book has not been in print since 1987"). Penguin no longer publish Amelia. Yes, there are copies floating around and you can still get it through third-party sellers via the Amazon marketplace, but Penguin no longer actively produce new copies. If you walk into Waterstone's and order it, it will not arrive. If you try to order it directly from Penguin, it will not arrive. I'm not saying that it's not reasonably easily available in any edition. Clearly it's one click away. There are many editions available through small publishers of classics, several of whom only publish very basic or print-on-demand editions, but none of the big-hitters, in the USA or the UK, currently publish Amelia. I did think that was a point worth making. Clearly you disagree, so let that be an end of it. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's 2008. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh go away - you're either very ignorant or you're being deliberately obtuse because you don't want to lose face. Either way, Misplaced Pages's full of people like you. It's a problem. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So says the individual without an understanding of publishing or rates of publishing. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed a RFC re: Cleo123. As one of the parties involved in the current dispute, you're invited to participate http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cleo123, cheers Tendancer (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

No problem, Ottava. but ec meant edit conflict unless i missed something? Anyway, I'm happy to work away at the page; Its very fine.....( Ceoil 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it does now. <hangs head>. ( Ceoil 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about wood and tress. ( Ceoil 00:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fame at last! ( Ceoil 10:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottva, after reading the Arthur FAC, I though you might engoy this Welsh song. I don't speak the language, but it so pleasant to listen to. ( Ceoil 13:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

That's the first time I've ever been thanked for an edit. This certainly is awkward! :) Gary King (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you thought of making the O.S. date smaller, kind of like Adam Smith? I think it looks better because then it clearly shows that that date is different from the one before it. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with before and after and whatnot, but I've made the change; feel free to revert it. Gary King (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the " References" section, how are the books without authors sorted? Gary King (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Humor

I thought you might be able to appreciate this, being all literary-like. I made it with my own two lobes!. - Arcayne () 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

cquote's little cousin

I like rquote as well, but during the recent Peterloo Massacre FAC there were some objections to it, so we were forced to put the quotes into tables, to more readily separated them from the body of the article, as you had originally done. Personally I think that defeats the object of pullout quotes, but ours is not to reason why ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Hey no problem at all. When I see a triple DYK nom, I kind of gravitate toward it. Great job with the articles btw. Thingg 17:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham Journal

Thanks for the additions to the Birmingham Journal (eighteenth century) article - they definitely add a bit more flesh to it. I've moved one sentence back up to the lead to make it a bit less cursory.

And I'm in awe of your work on Samuel Johnson :).

JimmyGuano (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got a lot more information on the Birmingham Journal I'm afraid. I do have a copy of an article from here though, suggesting that Johnson might have been quite closely involved while he was in Birmingham with Lewis Paul and John Wyatt's invention of roller spinning, and their subsequent opening of the world's first cotton mill. As this is one of the pivotal moments of the Industrial Revolution it might be worth a mention in the Samuel Johnson article. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

William Molyneux

Thank you for your kind offer. I note that you intend to expand the article; no doubt using the depth, polish and breadth evident from your work. At the moment I intend simply to add a little content inorder to acquaint myself with the development of weather recording in Ireland. Should I require assistance, I will gladly ask; but please feel free to edit/expand the article as you see fit. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: David Garrick

Hi Ottava,

The rating of “low” importance for the David Garrick article isn't intended to imply anything about the man himself or his importance; it simply tries to assess how important it is for WP:BARD to have a good article on him, which in turn reflects his importance to the outside world within the context of Shakespeare.

After this metric the William Shakespeare article will of course have the absolute highest priority; Romeo and Juliet will also have a high priority since it's one his most popular and adapted plays and will be looked up often; Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) has high priority because it's like many will be interested in Shakespeare's wife. On the other hand, a particular actor that just happened to be fond of or good at Shakespeare would get a low importance rating; as well would a director; but Laurence Olivier who's famous as a Shakespearean actor would get a high importance rating. And so forth…

Where does David Garrick fit in? Well, from skimming the article I would say he was an all round great actor which happened to have a fondness and aptitude for Shakespeare; which does him credit but doesn't in itself make it likely that people seeking information on Shakespeare would look up his article: thus the low importance rating.

But that having been said, right now I'm trying to go through all the articles within the scope of WP:BARD and give them a rudimentary assessment, so I haven't really looked at any great depth on the article. If you disagree with my assessment, change it! :-)

BTW, the same line of reasoning holds for Baconian theory; the main Shakespeare authorship question article is important as the question is quite well known, but so long as the consensus view among Shakespeare scholars is, uhm, “Stratfordian”, each individual alternate author theory is less important (still speaking within the context of WP:BARD; if there's a “WikiProject Francis Bacon” they may consider it more important). --Xover (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Poetry

After all the NIMH-related fun we had the other day, I got curious and figured I'd have a look at your user page. And, I must say, the poetry you have on there is fantastic. Good work. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson and Shakespeare...

As regards Samuel Johnson and WP:BARD I'm ambivalent. An article on Johnson's Shakespeare would certainly be within the project's scope, but for the main article I'm uncertain. So since you seem far more familiar with Samuel Johnson than I am: do you think it falls within the scope of WP:BARD? --Xover (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Ottava: re your post. For a long time now ive been looking for a collaborator to help bring She Dwelt among the Untrodden Ways to FAC. Its about half written, but I think it has potential to be an interesting and worthwhile article. If you have interest, well, that would be just great. I have to apologise that I did not spend more time on Samuel Johnson‎, but I got bogged down in other areas. Happens. ( Ceoil 01:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It'll be a few weeks now before i resume, as I just committed to "The Cantos"! Ha, may just have signed my death warrent there....Anyway; with Wordsworth, the first question I would ask you is should I aim for that verse on its own, or would an article on the whole Lucy series be more worthwile. I focused on 'She Dwelt' as it is by some distance my favourite of anyting Wordsworth wrote, and has huge -well- sentimental value to me. ( Ceoil 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a break, eh Ottiva. I was at my friends stag last night, so I'm a bit tender just now and capable of not a whole lot today. I know all these things, but am going to sleep for a few days...and then, sure I'll fix. Best. ( Ceoil 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I take you point, yeah remove for now. ( Ceoil 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, can we keep discussion of the Cantos to our respc. talk pages, so as to avoid a punch up on the FAR page!. FAR does allow a major rewrite; look at or any of Yannis' saves. Marskell is very patient about these things, and if he sees that there is work, he will keep open. But I cant do it on my own; I have a few coyeditors as I say, buy I'll need you help too. ( Ceoil 00:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be mainly citing from JSTOR and Questia for the next week; I've ordered books from amazon and it will be next Saturday before I am able get to the library. This project could take two months easily, but I think if we flag the size of the task at the FAR, the time will be granted. ( Ceoil 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

About the 200k thing; do you have Dr pada's page size script? (look at my mono book to get it)

The stats are:

• File size: 151 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 108 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 2662 B
• Wiki text: 88 KB (14559 words)
• Prose size (text only): 76 kB (13181 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1054 B ( Ceoil 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Palazzo Barbarigo

I have reverted and expanded upon your edit here The bed and breakfast/tourist site to which you refer confirms that there is only one Piano nobile in a building. In Italy, and elsewhere, if there is a second grand floor (more often than not there is not) it is sometimes referred to as the "secondo piano nobile." Your reference site is merely a poor translation of this. However, even in Italy the term is technically incorrect (as you will apreciate the "best" is the best, therefore cannot be improved upon.) The correct term is secondo piano as seen here . Secondo piano nobile is, however, a frequently used term, even in the best circles, as you can see here . It's especially prevalent among those studying the architecture of Venice, where the palazzi, for obvious reasons, tended to occupy a smaller ground area, forcing some of the principal rooms up onto a floor above. However even in Venice the piano nobile always contained finer rooms than the secondo piano nobile. My point is piano nobile is always singular. I hope this clarrifies things. Giano (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted, replied - only wished to make sure that users saw that there were two floors falling under the architectural style, and the correction adequately provides that. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks repleid on my page. Giano (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re "Cantos"

Hi Ottava. I've replied to your post on my talk page there. Regards, Paul August ☎ 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And again. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Depersonalization disorder

HELP

Hi, you offered some very good advice on depersonalization disorder article, whom of which i have spent many hours, many hours in paticular trying to place text neatly below the picture, but have failed due to the automatic deletion of the very important disorders classifiction. Plaese may youb reply to this message and help me. Many Thanks. Ecrone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrone (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

My concerns are about "how do i place text neatly under the picture of article Depersonalization disorder please. I have spent ample amount of times trying but with little sucssess.Everytime i do place text below the picture it deleates important data. Please help. ...Ecrone...

Thank You

Thank you so much for the inserting of text in Depersonalization disorder, (below picture). Your help is much appriciated. --Ecrone (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bumping to the top

Good for you for noticing and bring it to the Psychology project's attention. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: grrr ...

(copied over from my talk page:) Just on the "Introduction." What I mean is that you need an entry in the References along the lines of: "Hibbert, Christopher (1986), 'Introduction.' The Life of Samuel Johnson, by James Boswell, ed. Christopher Hibbert, New York: Penguin, pp. i-xxv , ISBN 0140431160." Then when you are citing the introduction, rather than Boswell himself, you would put Hibbert 1986, p. ii harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHibbert1986 (help), or whatever. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Pls see . — Rlevse • Talk • 10:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Privacy of the name of an article subject's spouse

Thanks for offering some common sense analysis on WT:BLP. patsw (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch

Just to draw your attention to my replies to your oppose vote on the FAC page. In view of the huge amount of research I did, I'm very concerned about the "comprehensiveness" challenge, but it's difficult to address that unless you can tell me what is missing (and obviously available somewhere - things like diseases, parasites, flight and evolution there is nothing I can find that applies to the family as a whole) or what sources I've overlooked. Thanks in advance for your help jimfbleak (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved species list as suggested, makes sense. On comprehensiveness, I think you miss the point. The article is about the genus as a whole, not individual nuthatch species, which have their own articles. I could easily write an article this length for Eurasian Nuthatch or any of the four American nuthatch species (it's the Asian ones which lack information - I note that of your links, only one was for an Asian species, one European, rest all American). The intention isn't to write every fact about every one of 24 nuthatch species - for what it's worth, I found 65 articles/books on just Eurasian Nuthatch in my research. Looking at the refs you gave, I've actually dealt with, for example, cooperative breeding in Brown-headed, and locomotion for the group as a whole, and I can't see why I need multiple refs for the same info (not required by MoS). In fairness, it's not enough to say there are lots of sources I haven't used - there are probably several hundred given the size of this genus. I repeat, if there are specific aspects of the genus Sitta that I haven't covered and for which the information exists you should specify what is missing, otherwise you give me no way of actioning your concern. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oratorio

Is Smart's definition of oratorio different from the usual definition? If no, then we don't need it. If yes, we put it in one article only, probably the Christopher Smart one. We do not repeat it in two articles. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility, Blechnic and S. Dean Jameson

Hi Ottava,

I have the feeling that the issue surround Wilhelmina Will and personal attacks is getting a little out of hand. I think we all agree that the recent actions of WW has been unacceptable, and that the discussion on Blechnic's talk page has escalated beyond anything any of us wants (as have some of the recent wikquette page posts). Maybe it would be best for all concerned to stop contributing to this discussion? Personally I cannot see how it could be benefial for any of us.

All the best, Mark t young (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I agree negative characterisation against her will only cause future problems, however at this stage some puniative action is required, most appropriately a DYK ban. Nevertheless, there is an underlying issue regarding her articles. They are highly inaccurate, with generally poor citations. I don't believe we can skirt around this issue, as it will only continue the current problems with other editors. I really hoped she would take up mentoring after her last AN/I encounter. In fact, I think it really should be a condition for coming back onto DYK. Ideally the mentoring will address the issue regarding academic information assimilation and ellivate any further problems.

But your comments on treating her with respect are completely correct. Thats why I'd favour some small punishment, but lots of "rehabilitation" to go along with it. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Due respect, Mark, but keeping WW off DYK is not punishment. It is protection. She will continue to be derided for the quality of her contributions there should she persist, and the encyclopedia will be harmed as well. Let us not confuse protection of the encyclopedia and proactive harm reduction with punishment please. Risker (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems that the problems with WW are escalating to the point of upsetting others into inappropriate responses. For everyone's sake, there needs to be a separation. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant punitive purely from her point-of-view (as I'm sure she will see it as so), not that of the encyclopedia as a whole. Sorry, I should have been more clear on that. Mark t young (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats why I said the things I said. If we explain to her about the interactions between others, and the treatment (i.e. back and forth) between the users in result of her actions, then it will help mediate said problems. We need to explain to her clearly that her actions result in tension and conflict with other users, and that such problems are not for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you just voluntered yourself :) I think your approach will be the most benefical in the long-term. I've added a note to the AN/I thread that I think mentoring should be a condition for her getting back on DYK. Once she has the confidence to tackle academic refs, I'm sure her accuracy will increase and potential, skirmishes, with other editors will diminsh. Mark t young (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, but now I need to wait for a response to see where it goes. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note

I've been reading your DYKs on notable poems and oratorios and just wanted to thank you for your hard work in improving Misplaced Pages's coverage in these areas. These are some great articles that really enhance the project. Keep up the good work and thanks for submitting these to DYK! Agne/ 11:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC

Hi. When you get a chance, would you please take another look at the lede of Candide? I've reworked it in accordance with your and others' suggestions... Should it be still longer? What information is missing? Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For literary articles, I tend to approach the lead as first having the bibliographical and publication detail in one paragraph. Then having a short summary of plot. Then a summary of themes. This way you have before, during, after, in a sense. You are currently missing some plot summary (two lines more, maybe three - you have almost one now). Also, your lead doesn't build - you have lines like "is often listed as part of the Western canon and taught more than any other work of French literature." in the very middle, when this could go at the end. Does this help any? Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have re-written the lede, again. Would you re-read it? Thanks. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all of your objections, no? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Richardson Article

Thanks for the extensive update to Sir Charles Grandison! I should mention, though, that the publication history as I left it was correct -- I just needed to go back and add citations. Would you mind if I put it back up? I've also gotten my hands on some useful sources that clarify a few of the details. Solemnavalanche (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 8 days

I have blocked you for 8 days for disruption, due to your recent interactions on WP:WQA and various talk pages. I've noticed in a lot of your interactions on policy pages, you tend to use legalistic language. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. However, it does remind me of an old aphorism: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." With all due respect, you have a serious problem interacting with other editors on talk and policy pages. That you don't appear to understand this, even in the face of many editors telling you so, is part of the problem. If you will take my advice, I suggest you explicitly seek a mentor, someone who will help serve as a buffer between you and the community. When you feel you have been slighted and feel the urge to accuse someone of misbehavior, you should go to your mentor and - in non-inflammatory language - ask her or him about it. That person may be able to provide you with valuable perspective on whether the issue you are concerned with is worth bringing up in a public forum, and may be able to help you do it in a collegial, non-tendentious way.

If you don't find some solution, be it this or something else, you are headed for an indefinite block, which would be a loss to both you and the project. I sincerely urge you to reconsider your behavior in light of the overwhelming criticism it has garnered. Nandesuka (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I object to your use of "overwhelming", as I think it would be almost impossible for you to say the same thing without relying on people who are upset merely because I oppose them in philosophy dispute and I can provide many others that oppose them. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

unblock|There was no opinion here to suggest that the above admin was operating in a manner that matches anything that the community has stated. Anyone else find it ironic that I was blocked for "disruptive editing" even though I asked someone to revert themselves and reopen a Wikiquette so that I could have an unbiased third party mediation (sans insults, sans edit warring, etc). And yeah, I know people don't unblock, so just auto decline and join in a conversation on the talk page. They should change "unblock" to "I need attention".

I'm not bothering. The above editor will just claim its more of my being "tendentious", which is a catch all term. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems that he wont need to: this already shows the willingness for people to purposely mislead, manipulate, and disrupt the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> What happened this time? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked a user to remove a line from an AN/I in which he stated someone else was unable to read. User:S. Dean Jameson started harassing me and posting everywhere he could to attack me. I asked him to stop or I would take it to Wikiquette to have a third party sort it out. He refused, I took it to Wikiquette. I was attacked by his friends, then User:Ncmvocalist, who interacts with Jameson's friends, closes the thread, missatributes what people say and my own feelings, and refused to reopen it. I am blocked because I asked him to reopen it. Did I edit war? No. Did I personally attack people? No. I asked for people to change their minds and I sought mediation help. So, I'm blocked for following the rules. Funny how that works. Oh, and I got a barnstar for defending people from personally attacking, so it sure shows that my actions weren't as bad as the people calling for my block claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Poem on the Occasion

Words Upon False Witness

Do people care, do people think,

About their words and comments made?

Instead, from Lethe they drink

And propriety they will trade

For Chaos; the actions they link

Are false and baseless claims are laid

Of disruption that exists not -.

By wolves, with sheep no peace is sought.

No fun and games, no happy rhyme

Can come from these dry lips today;

An Oroondates of this time,

Accused falsely, and forced to pay

For an imaginary crime.

But even Truth, if I to lay

Her before you, made justly bare,

My reader would not feign to care

I am no Baptist, but this dance

Demanding my head lacks the charm

And allure of Salome’s stance.

All their words and actions bring harm,

And, like a doctor who would lance

A fest’ring blister on an arm,

They should be stopped before they complete

Their desired corrupting feat.

No martyr am I; victim true

Of circumstance and jealous rage.

Hungry wolves, they wish to pursue

Anyone that would add to the page

(A line of opinion or two

That contradicts they way they feel)

With such bitter and angry zeal.

What shall happen now? I know not,

But it is not that hard to see

That none will care, that none have sought

To look close or to defend me.

No "truth will out", falsity was bought,

Although its was plain as can be.

All that’s left is my lonely word;

It shall go without being heard.

- Ottava Rima

I lack the energy or emotional coherency to have continued further. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison

21:16, 28 July 2008, Fritzpol asks for everyone to calm down.

• What are my actions after this time?

1) Contact Wilhelmina Will‎ trying to mediate. 2) Discuss with Mark t young about my contacting Wilhelmina. 3) Offering solutions and notifying that I attempted communication with Wilhelmina. 4) Respond about an FAC. 5) Explaining why I think the use of "liar" in any context is inappropriate. 6) Celebrating a hard won FAC. 7) Defending Raul's blocks. 8) Continue to work on the Samuel Johnson page. 9. Continue to work on a Christopher Smart poem page. 10. Working on an FAC. 11. Trying to comfort a user in distress. 12. Thanking for praise. 13. Asking a previous participant on the Johnson page to join in with the current push. 14. Asking an interested admin to work on DYK contributions. 15. Major expansion of The History of Sir Charles Grandison. 16. Asking a constant user of socks to calm down. 17. 30k expansion of the Samuel Richardson page. 18. Responding to Blechnic.

• On 02:16, 31 July 2008, I finally respond to criticism lodged against me on the Wikiquette report. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• What are User:S._Dean_Jameson's contributions after 21:16, 28 July 2008, Fritzpol asks for everyone to calm down and when I finally return on 2:16 31 July 2008 to Wikiquette, assuming that the matter would be done?

1. Responding to Fritzpol claiming "But I'll just ignore it," 2. Criticizing me on AN/I. 3. Telling Fritzpol that he wont respond after the last AN/I comment. 4. Minor work on Royal George. 5. Minor work on George Washington Carver. 6. Arguing with a user at a deletion review. 7. [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mark_t_young&diff=prev&oldid=228532173 Criticizing Mark t young for giving me a barnstar over my asking people to remove potentially harmful criticisms. 8. Immediately removing his own barnstars. 9. Minor work on John McGraw. 10. Minor work on Pores Knob. 11. Further responding to Wikiquette after claiming that he would let the matter drop. 12. Minor work on Moravian Falls. 13. Arguing with users over deletion. 14. Talk to editors about previous discussions. 15. Attacking me on AN/I after claiming he would stop.

• His response following my response on Wikiquette stating "You can not be allowed to continue to make claims that aren't true."

It seems clear from the above that I actually walked away, that I attempted to ignore the above user, and I edited heavily in other sections. However, Jameson has proved his persistence in the manner, especially with his canvasing of his associates to respond on Wikiquette et al. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)