User talk:Ottava Rima

-- billinghurst (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Line
Just saw that you have been adding line numbers to a poem, and though that the use of this template might be helpful. It is used like to give  (see right hand side.

Wrapping it in something like  will allow the page to be more centred and less wide. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The line numbers were temporary only - I'm trying to get the right editions in the correct spot. Apparently, Coleridge rewrote that poem six times, each published on its own and being unique in some way. Unfortunately, very few editions have all six, and some editions have the same work but they edited themselves to make it impossible to tell. Thanks for the code (it may be helpful later). But I hope that explains a little bit about my madness. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I know that for me it was helpful to have useful templates identified for me. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There, I was able to fix the 1796 version - there were so many editions and corrections of the poem, I had to go through the Variorum notations for which editions did what corrections and rebuild the text. Phew. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Swift
Nice one, me too... I read a lot of his work when I was younger, some of it is missing here. We have a couple of versions of Battle of Books that I have been sorting out. Please comment if you have any concerns about what I'm doing. Just fixed the entry in Cousins, I should go and dig up the DNB article too. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments on editions above also noted, I've been doing a bit of that :-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to advertise that feature, it is arcane and confusing. The form in the Page: namespace contains a header and footer, which wraps text in [Insert non-formatted text here]. You should see a button above the edit box - [+] - that opens them up. Your preferences/gadgets can be set to always open these, it should perhaps default to this. BTW: It is not noted on my page, but I don't mind mopping up for users with good taste. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Snark
Thanks again. This is another example of using Help:Match and Split to align a former gutenberg text to a page scan. I may have missed some errors that crept in, but at least anyone can check it now. The formatting is not what I would have done, it uses what is found at The Hunting of the Snark; it is simple and seems to work so I kept it. Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. I'll go through and just make the tiny changes if necessary. It is good to have another thing to alternate through. I swear I would go insane if I just tried to validate one thing straight through. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, did you go insane? :-) ... cheers for finishing that off, I think it is worth improving. Mixing it up does keep it interesting, proofreading a single work can be even more tedious, I do however admire those can focus on these things. Validating stuff is a great way to see other's solutions, and a way of making reading immediately useful to others. You may already know about Category:Index proofread etc., if your looking for something interesting, or how to grab a file to start a new scan Index. Let me know if you don't, or need any clues to something around here, or who is especially talented in some aspect of the site. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

warn
You are warned for the last time, you will be taking an involuntary wikibreak if this continues. cygnis insignis 06:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For doing what? Hesperian clearly acted to intimidate. Intimidation is a blockable offense, nothing I have done is. This is a serious problem when abuse happens and people throw out blatantly false and misleading statements, especially about the privacy policy that in no way apply then make grossly negative and inappropriate comments about another person's mental state. Why would you think such would be acceptable?
 * I have been more than polite, and John and Birgitte know that. I am not the only one who sees there having been a gross abuse of status here and a major problem, and I am someone who has worked with John across the WMF for 3 years and had a long positive history with him. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. I am aware that you consider me involved. I am also aware of your long history of rendering "involved" anyone who challenges your behaviour. Ultimately, the collegial tone of this place is of such importance to me that I am willing to put my bit on the line to protect it. For as long as I remain an administrator, I will not permit you or anyone to conduct themselves here in the manner that you have conducted yourself in the last few hours. Hesperian 06:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You stopped being collegial when you made false claims about the privacy policy to argue that anyone revealing Poetlister's new account was violating WMF policy. That is the breach of policy, not anything I have done. You have mischaracterized my statements, made up things about my state that are not true, and the rest for what reason? You haven't done anything but poisoned the atmosphere while John Vandenberg and BirgitteSB were able to hold civil discussion. There is nothing in the blocking policy that allows you to make such arbitrary blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have submitted my block for community review at Administrators' noticeboard. Hesperian 06:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet you leave out that you started with hostility with your derisive characterizations: "It's easy to sit here after the fact and fire cheap shots," and "you're going off the deep end". The second was in response to me saying that John Vandenberg had emails from Poetlister sent to people on multiple accounts, which he even admitted to. How do you not see the problem in that? Accusing me of impropriety because I said "Please do not speak when you clearly do not know what you are talking about." is way off base. That is extremely polite and is no where near a blockable offense, yet you jump the gun anyway when you were already being hostile and derisive before. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way - "It goes without saying that administrators themselves should remain civil and respectful (and keep a cool head) during conflicts with other users." From the blocking policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, it is almost laughable that Cyngnis admits to not reading what I say but warning anyway, even though the blocking policy does not apply to any of this. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been reading everything up to that point, you had already crossed the line and had been formally advised of that. This is not the first message I have written here, each edit conflict made them redundant. If you want a positive outcome to discussion, please be more patient and less confrontational. Alienating others for giving a view or opinion is unacceptable, as you would know, it is only likely to suppress reasonable discussion. cygnis insignis 08:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. You mentioned no part of the blocking policy because no part applies. 2. Blocking policy does warn against administrator incivility and use of warnings to intimidate others. 3. Saying that you didn't read something yet warned for that is inexcusable and I am severely disappointed in you. You do not deserve administrator status because your actions like Hesperian only creates a poisonous atmosphere. You are the alienating force, not I. From the very beginning, Hesperian attacked those with legitimate concerns. Our policies do not uphold your interpretation or these actions at all and it is highly inappropriate and unbecoming to act in this manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mate! Stop the umbrage and the name calling and the hand-biting. Please.  I want to hear your points of view, though I would prefer not to have to extract the information from between the bile and invective.  You have a right to be heard, however, there is our community standard to maintain, and at WS we put the community up at the top, and that is what is being said to you. We are not out there on code red, we all do have to talk about the issue, we have time to discuss and get to a decision.  I want to arrive at better solutions, in a sensible, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely manner. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Billinghurst, I haven't put any bile. My whole statement is that such negative characterizations towards seeing there being a problem taints the whole discussion and that such negative characterizations happen in spite of the reality of the language. The blocking policy clearly does not allow such blocks or such hostility from admin like the above for a very clear reason and it is saddening to see such. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) sections 1.3 and 1.5 of the policy are directly applicable. 2) I know,: if it happens I make a noise, it is not applicable, the block honored the intent and the letter of the policy. 3) I stated I had read everything up to the post I didn't read, but it clearly an attack on yet another user's integrity. I am very familiar with the user's contributions and actions, the accusation was certain to be completely unfounded. Stating that Hesperian began by attacking anyone is utter nonsense. Your opinions on my contributions is of no value to me, do you want me to copy your comments to the AN section? cygnis insignis 16:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. No they are not. There was not one personal attack. I did not call someone stupid. I did not call someone ugly. I didn't negatively characterize anyone's person. I did say they were acting out of line, which is not a personal attack and I did so in a highly polite manner. And disruption is clearly not happening as I have altered no one's text. It is sad that you would misconstrue our policy in such a manner and ignore that users are only to be blocked extremely rarely and in doing so would cause disruption and controversy.
 * Now Hesperian -did- start attacking people. I quoted it. No matter how much you would want to disbelieve it, his initial statement was clearly inappropriate. Admin do not have the right to characterize honest grievances as "cheap shots". The blocking policy clearly says that admin need to act appropriately and not stoop to such actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Found my way here due to unrelated issues and I'm reminded of the messages I remember seeing on your Wikiversity talk page. Maybe you could consider my approach to things when things get hot. If you find something you consider to be a slight against you, simply ignore it and proceed as if it never happened. Or act friendly and innocuous and "kill 'em with kindness". Undoubtedly if someone is breaking the rules or being offensive, someone else will call them out on it and you can legitimately be seen as a victim. Adrignola (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a slight against me, it was an admin dismissing dozens of users who had very legitimate concerns then using blocks directly against policy. When people think there is abuse then that happens, it shows a systematic corruption that exists when small, isolated groups are able to take power. These are people who I spent a year working with without issue then they act in such a way is very disturbing to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure if this is the right place to be holding what is really a meta-discussion, but since it’s taking place here (and feel free to move it)…
 * Ottava’s point about insularity is a sound one. Community and friendship are great, but one doesn't need to presume corruption per se to explain people backing up their friends - it’s what good people naturally do, unless special checks are instituted to prevent it from happening. It’s odd that so many people involved here come from one smallish corner of the world and have met one another in real life - my guess is that you encouraged one another to head over here, which is fine. It’s also normal for people to come to the aid of those in authority, who can do more to help them in return - again, unless special checks are instituted, and even so, both these things will still happen, often unconsciously.


 * Is anyone familiar with another Register story, in which an en.wp user was banned for opposing a candidate during ArbCom elections? There is no “outing” here, so I hope this link is alright. That oppose was far sharper than anything seen here, yet the contributor was ultimately vindicated and the arbitrator resigned. A lot of bad feeling could have been avoided, and a whole lot of time saved, had the problems been addressed when they were raised (I presume the candidate would have lost.)


 * It strikes me that you really need some kind of rule preventing people from being blocked for participating in political processes or scrutinizing the actions of those in authority. I grant that there is a point at which a block would be warranted - e.g. racist or foul language - but most anything someone says while seeking to remove you or your friend from office is bound to sound hostile and "uncivil." Just imagine how such rules would apply to real world elections - if opposition leaders were jailed for “incivility,” you’d say the system was rigged.


 * I’m not saying that comity isn’t important; only that you have to weigh that against the legitimate role that harsh words and charges play in ensuring proper management, and that there are times that the downsides of enforced harmony are greater than the downside of a few people being upset (even justifiably so) at what’s being said.24.18.132.13 03:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that things seem more settled . ..
Perhaps it would be better to look for certifiers (is that a word?) to the vote of confidence on the Scriptorium rather than the Administrators Noticeboard. If it does get certified the discussion moves to Administrators and is setup as a Support/Oppose deal, but there isn't really a set rule of where to search for three people to certify. The only precedent is Poetlister and there were three people immediately ready to certify in that case.--Birgitte SB  15:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been discussing the matter with Billinghurst and he has my permission to send anything we discussed on IRC to any of the CUs or Crats. As you can tell, I care more about the situation being dealt with and Poetlister stopped from being able to use WS to harass others than having people I worked with and thought of as friends removed from their positions. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know Hesparian plans on opening a ban discussion on Longfellow/Poetlister once the other discussions run their course. I am pretty sure he has said so somewhere on-wiki.  I also think it is a good idea to delay the ban discussion this way.  I want people to be able to give their full attention to that discussion and not have what is going on there confused with any other issues.--Birgitte SB  16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will initiate a ban discussion on Poetlister once we have closure on (a) Longfellow's admin nom, and (b) any discussions towards a vote of confidence on those who withheld knowledge of Longfellow's identity. Hesperian 06:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottava, can you give some examples of how Mr. Lister harassed and manipulate people behind the scenes, or is this also forbidden to discuss on Wikisource? I'm particularly concerned about the alleged use of that poor girl's name, which goes beyond mere wikideceptive to arguably criminal. I suspect John Vandenberg et al. have the same goal as I would here, that this learned and accomplished man can contribute legitimately to Wikisource, but we need to know that he is even capable of quitting the patterns that brought us here to begin with. That he would still be running around using other people's names is just warped.24.18.132.13 04:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is evidence of criminal behaviour, that would seem to belong with the General Counsel of Wikimedia Foundation, not at the level of Wikisource. This is not a kangaroo court, and evidence brought to such a forum will taint any investigation by law authorities. Also, such information if incorrect would be seem to libellous, so please talk all such matters to the WMF. None, absolutely none, of that should be appearing at Wikisource and I would think that people knowingly doing so would be dealt with in accordance with the Blocking policy. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

When you invite people to your house...
Gday Ottava Rima. You understand the culture and the purpose of Wikisource, and you know that we encourage all-comers to bring their friends and acquaintances to build our library. At the same time, we have an expectation that you (the bringer) will encourage your newcomers to come and to build, not to come and stir the pot, and to look to follow the established culture, not just the blackletter law. I would encourage you to have a truthful and reflective discussion with your colleague about what you are both bringing to Wikisource, as if it is just wikidrama, then thanks, but no thanks. Wikidramas are left at the door, not brought in. Also to discuss with your colleague that rather than stalking people's edits, the idea about adding public domain content of value as per What Wikisource includes would be advisable. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at my contribs, all I can see is working on various works. This includes the 458k manually transcribed piece that I put together for Wikisource and was used John. I'm not sure where your accusation is coming from. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making any accusation. If it was the wording, I have edited my grammar above as it may have been less than clear. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't bring anyone here. I left here because of Poetlister and no longer feeling comfortable using Wikisource when I had time outside of my academic career because he was here. Many people on the CU and Steward global lists knew this and I was notified by them that Poetlister was editing here again on a new name and I was asked to testify as both a user who left over him and someone once targetted by him. I have no connection to anyone here but a former 3 year long relationship with John and a shorter relationship with you, Cygnis, and Hesperian when I use to validate your works before I left over my concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Truly? What an amazing amazing coincidence. Who'da thunked it! Thanks for the reply, I find it very informative. You will of course excuse me while I go and do something else. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You do know that the Poetlister matter was brought up on WikipediaReview and on multiple mailing lists, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Global ban for Ottava Rima
Per the Global bans global policy, you are informed of the discussion above. Please comment there and feel free to appropriately distribute more widely in prominent community venues in order to «Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited». Nemo 10:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)