User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 10

This user has been indef blocked as per consensus found here. I will not be able to finish the Samuel Johnson, Christopher Smart, and Samuel Richardson articles and their subpages. Good luck to whoever decides to take up those important authors.

Its been nice, and thanks for all the fish!

Sincerely, Ottava Rima The Italian Rhyme.

P.S. - Below is the remains of my previous talk page to document my final moments here.

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)

8 days is excessive. I'm really getting tired of admins pretending to be councilors, and having this mindset that longer blocks somehow work better than short blocks. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 4 August 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. 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)

Note - thank you ThuranX for repairing the link even after I failed to AGF earlier. Such a thing is a rare kindness. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef

List of supports:

• User:Bishonen - previous proposed agrressive measures that were rejected by originally block admin, also friend of User:Geogre
• User:S. Dean Jameson - involved user
• User:Ncmvocalist - involved user, brought my challenging his premature closing of a Wikiquette to AN/I, subsequently has been questioned about premature closing of articles on AN/I
• User:Geogre - previously involved in content disputes with me, abused admin privileges by deleting a page over content dispute, this action was later overturned.
• User:Chillum - Kim Bruning seems to have confidence and I trust Kim's opinion.

Unclear but possible:

• User:ThuranX
• User:JzG
• User:SheffieldSteel
• User:Cailil

Opposed: None

Seems like consensus agrees for a indef block. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to end like this

If you are able to admit that perhaps you've had a tendency to argue at length needlessly about certain things (for example, defending WW's l33t speak, and trying to prove to me that rangeblocks aren't damaging to people who might not be able to figure out how to edit) and make an effort not to dismiss other's opinions, telling them to "strike things" when they are presenting their arguments, etc. The community is often willing to forgive, but not when you refuse to admit that you may have had something to do with these problems they've brought up. –xeno (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, I never said range blocks weren't damaging. Did you read my paragraph at the bottom saying basically "we are damned if we do, damned if we don't"? And asking someone to strike a comment to update an argument is common procedure, and I strike my comments or redact all the time (look above, for instance, or where I redacted and struck on other pages recently). It doesn't matter. The consensus is already against me. Bishonen has wanted me gone for quite a while now, and she has the community support. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried. –xeno (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, I understand 100% where you are coming from and I know the difficulty. I don't like any of the options, and yes, it really made me sad that there are sock puppets that act that way. I tried pleading to the one guy to stop. It saddens me when people say that I will become a sock puppet. When the community wants you gone, there is no possible way to come back, hidden or no, that will not damage the encyclopedia, and it is not right for one person to destroy the encyclopedia like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, I am indef blocked by community consensus. If you want to continue discussing this with me, or if you want to vent about your feelings on the issue, please, feel free to use my email. It would be wrong for me to continue to use this talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I was only mentioning those as examples of why people are having an issue with how you interact in certain forums. Don't you think the fact that people are calling for an indefinite block might indicate there may be a problem with how you are interacting with people? At some point you have to look within and consider where your faults lie. I'm writing this because it's clear that you do good article work, and I hope that there is a way that that can continue. You are not at the present time indefinitely blocked per community consensus; your block is still set to expire in less than 8 days. –xeno (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are five supports and four half supports that will probably become supports when clarified. There is no way that I could find 9 people to support me, and chances are there will be more. WP:SNOW has already determined my fate, and the top of my page accepts it. I am sure that my constant responding will just result in this talk page being blocked also, so this will be my last response. If you want to discuss anything with me, you are welcome to my email. If not, good luck with the rest of your time on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. There are admins willing to unblock, meaning it isn't a cert, and consensus on the issue is far from clear. I have received your e-mail, and sent you a lengthy reply urging you against this course of action. Please read it, and reconsider. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c & outdent) Ottava, I think that if you would simply acknowledge and address the concerns that other editors have expressed about your behavior, the consensus could very well change. It appears that you are well-respected in the FAC community and that you have been very productive there. It has been suggested that you could continue to contribute to the project with the assistance of a mentor. I don’t know you and until recently have never, as far as I know, had any interaction with you and whether you stay or go will, ultimately, not make much difference to me. I think, however, that the ability to continue to contribute to the project would mean a great deal to you. Please consider the words of Xeno, myself, and others, before making a final decision. —Travis^talk 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with everything Travis just wrote. S. Dean Jameson 22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Everyone fighting on AN/I, please stop. I already accepted the indef block/community ban. Please just drop it. I wont post anymore. I wont edit anymore. The community wants it.

I was first blocked for making a lot of changes at once and then getting into a revert dispute over them. I was then blocked for getting involved with a revert war (unintentionally, but I should have known better) on Treaty of Tripoli. Another was a dispute with a user in which we reverted back and forth on a few pages. Yes, I deserved them. Yes, I am probably a bad influence on the encyclopedia. The fact that so many people are fighting right now about my edits is enough to prove that.

Please just stop. Just block me forever, block this page, and end it. Just stop fighting over me. Just let me go quietly. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You say, "The community wants it", but I see no evidence of that. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You can add Durova, Awadewit, Giano II, and about 20 other names that I can't think of off the top of my head who would support the move and who have not a chance to respond. There is a long line of bridges that I have burned during my time here, and there has been calls for my being removed for over three months now. You can look at Bishonen and Geogre, who have been here forever and have contributed a lot to this encyclopedia for evidence as why I do not belong. I am a problem, and it is best if it just ends without a fight. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, people are alot more willing to forgive than you might think, if there is evidence of good faith and a willingness to admit error every so often. Holding gruges is a tough way to go through life. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Often a community process will start out with a lot of !votes in one direction, and it is a mistake to assume that this indicates where it will terminate. There were, at one point, 5 Support !votes for the proposal for an "infinite block," which was a preposterous proposal I was surprised to see from Bishonen. (Admins only block for a definite period, i.e., there is an expiration, or they block "indef," which simply means that it doesn't automatically expire.) There is no "infinite" or even "permanent" block, as such, all there is, is indef block. However, there are two kinds of bans, a "community ban," which simply means that no admin is willing to unblock, and this can be formalized by a discussion, but it isn't really permanent, as such -- i.e., an admin could decide to overturn it, though the admin might want to discuss it first. And there are ArbComm sanctions, which can, in theory, permanently ban. You really have to try hard to get banned by ArbComm.

But after the 5 Support !votes for the humungous, really serious, beyond-time, infinite block, there were then 5 Oppose !votes, as of my last glance. There definitely was not a consensus for blocking.

Ottava Rima, there were legitimate concerns behind the sentiment that you should be blocked. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and being able to work with others is essential. It's not just Wikipedia, by the way. It's human society. Being "right" can be a terrible trap. Believe me, I know. My IQ was off the charts when it was measured in 1960, and I didn't stop learning. I can see stuff that most people won't see for ... a long time. But, if I want to accomplish much, I have to deal with people as they are, not as I think they "should" be. Human society is extremely complex, and it evolved over a long time to deal with certain problems, and even those who are very smart do not understand more than a little of this. And, all too often, we understand almost nothing, and what we think we understand is wrong. People won't listen to us for good reason. And it isn't necessarily that we are wrong. It is that society and individuals have filters that protect them from what might be called meme abuse. If you care about communicating effectively with people, learn about how these filters operate, and how to bypass them. Hint: it usually takes time, and a lot of patience, compassion, and that great Wikipedia principle: assume good faith. Getting angry with people for not accepting your brilliant ideas isn't part of it, calling them hypocrites or people trying to wreck the project, likewise, isn't likely to win friends and influence people. Slow down, back up, take a deep breath, and learn to let go. A lot. Let people be what they are, let the community be what it is. It's a lot easier to work with what it is, than with what it isn't! --Abd (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to respond to Mattisse: I said the above because I recognize the problems with my actions, and I recognize that I am a disruption to the encyclopedia. I accept how the community feels about my actions 100%. I've asked many of the people opposing to let it drop, because I do not like the bitterness that has resulted. When people were upset with me editing many pages at once (my first block), I stopped. When people felt that I was 3RRing (next), I stopped. When I was in a content war with MSJapan and edited warred on multiple pages, I stopped. I tried taking this problem to Wikiquette, and I was criticized, claimed that I was violating Wikipedia rules by doing so, and the thread was closed by the user who reported me here, and has since come under fire for closing AN/I threads. My mistake was returning to the Wikiquette page after leaving it, and stopping from concentrating on the Samuel Richardson articles that I was editing and expanded over 50k. My mistake was continuing to justify my thoughts to a user who did not want to hear them. The problem would have ended if I would have simply retracted my original complaint and just left. It would have been better for the whole encyclopedia and would not have resulted in the later disputes and the AN/I thread that is a distracting to over a dozen editors. I am one person, and my selfish actions have kept many other talented editors from acting.

However, my continual presence here, as been made clear by quite a few people, is a disturbance, as they have called for my removal for a while now. There is no way to satisfy these voices except through my remove. Yes, my major mistake right now is currently being me, and the only way to fix that is to remove me. As pointed out above, I don't have the right to do that, so all I can ask is for others to. The pages I "contribute" to happen to be in an area that many of the editors opposed to me are concentrated in and are opposed to me editing there. I will continue to be a problem. I have nothing to offer to any of the other areas of Wikipedia, so I am worthless to the encyclopedia.

I've made many mistakes during my time here. I have struck through many of my comments during my existence here, and redacted more after.Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. The above is argumentative. User:Mattisse is experienced enough to know what they are talking about. I accept their understanding of the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava was off to a bad start, but his behavior has been improving with leaps and bounds, (I saw he got a barn-star recently, so I'm not just making this up). It doesn't mean he doesn't still make the occasional mistake. But he's willing and able to learn, and he's a good editor-of-articles, afaict. Probably if he had joined a couple of years earlier he'd have a lot less trouble than he's having now. I also understand that he does correct his behavior in time, so there's lots of potential. Hang in there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can certainly be frustrating, but, then again, so can this entire planet. It's possible to learn how to survive here, and, even, to live well. It's just not necessarily what we might have naively expected. Wikipedia theory is fantastic; the reality of human beings running the place can be quite different. It's even possible to work in highly contentious areas without going insane. It takes, though, detachment, being willing to lose some battles, maybe even many battles, at first. (Actually, with the right attitude, they aren't even battles, do what you think is right, and leave the outcome to the "community" (i.e., don't edit war and don't argue till the cows come home, just enough to make your point for anyone who cares, then leave it.) And don't touch that high-tension wire there. Until and unless you have the right gloves on and know what you are doing. I didn't follow the situation with you, Ottava Rima, just saw the fuss. Any time someone is calling for an "infinite block" for someone who didn't murder anyone, I'm beginning to suspect that something is off. Right now, you are blocked for 8 days. I'd suggest that you come back, finish up the work on the articles that mattered to you, using this account, then you have some choices. You can continue with this same account, recognizing that once the bulldogs have your scent, you'll have to walk very carefully. (This is probably what I'd do: I'm already watched closely and I'm fairly sure that if I made a major slip, I'd be blocked in a flash.... so far, though, every time I've come close, I was warned and hit the Stop button. Unless I was prepared to face ArbComm with an argument that my actions were correct, in which case I politely suggested to the warning admin that there are excellent articles on how to fly kites. So far, .... no blocks. I've said, though, that if you are never blocked, you are not trying to improve the project sufficiently. This does not mean that I favor disruption. Disruption damages the project; but some disruption is necessary. If you do it all right, someone is going to be pissed about it. It's actually a fascinating place, still learning about it three years after registration and almost a year since becoming reasonably active, diving head-first into a nest of sock puppets and COI editors.... and seeing my best wiki friend indef blocked, basically because he actually read my suggestions and took one of them up and promoted it.... (but, of course, he did more than that, some things I wouldn't have recommended; still, these things wouldn't have gotten him blocked, ordinarily, and he was never blocked for ignoring a warning. No short blocks, three indef. After three years as an editor with no blocks.) See User:Abd/Rule 0 --Abd (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write the above. It means a lot to have such responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Hannah (oratorio), and Abimelech (oratorio), 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP Issues

First I'm accused of white washing. Now I'm accused of not respecting people.

I guess having both lodged against me only proves that I walked that fine line down the middle. Funny how demanding verifiable evidence, respecting the law, and trying to find actual content about people's lives to remove any possible of undue weight given to scandal gets all of the extremists riled up. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested to know....

Apparently because I commented here, User:S. Dean Jameson proceeded to attack you on my Talk page. It seems I'm the new Tar baby. Since he suggested that I look deeper, I did. And he didn't like what I found. As part of my response to that, I wrote some consoling words on User:Wilhelmina Will's Talk, and, when she thanked me, I started to discuss with her how she might continue to seek her goals, legitimately, with the assistance of other editors. And so User:Blechnic popped up with threats that she would be blocked, took the matter to AN/I, etc., when she hadn't done a thing. I'm now realizing that this editor is a serious problem, and I'll be doing something about it. It's very serious when good editors are driven away by encountering a tenacious incivility that, too often, provokes them into uncivil or other problematic response; and Wikipedia sometimes responds dysfunctionally, in the short term especially, to complaints, your block may be an example of that. You were, I found, essentially correct, Blechnic had been uncivil to WW, and had personally attacked her. What I just found out, don't know why I'd missed it before, is that Blechnic is a fairly new editor who was blocked by two different administrators on May 4 for personal attacks and harassment continued after warning. In June, the block log was annotated to show an alleged AN/I conclusion that the May 4 blocks were "bitey," essentially giving Blechnic a pass because he was a newcomer not because the offenses had not taken place. Now, only two months later, Blechnic is once again at it, and is clearly being quite disruptive, with repeated reports to AN/I over matters that could be handled, if they need handling at all, with simple cooperative communication. I conclude that Blechnic is harassing Wilhelmina Will. As part of the process of cleaning up after the mess that has been created, there may be some review of your activities, if you want that. I know that you were correct in your original complaint about Blechnic, and consider that taking the matter to WP:WQA, which is an informal and nonbinding forum, was reasonable on your part, and thus your block for doing that could be considered highly improper and chilling. But, of course, a re-examination of the affair will make every defect in your conduct visible, every incivility will be brought out, quite likely, by some with axes to grind. My own opinion is that truth comes out, when we are patient, and, because we aren't perfect, the truth will display our imperfections -- as well as those of others. If we can face this, and simply acknowledge our mistakes, not only is this harmless to us, it allows us to grow.

I see that you attempted to restrain User:Kim Bruning in defending you. If I know him, he wasn't really defending you, personally, as much as defending the wiki and the community, from some very serious dangers, you were simply one victim. And when we allow one person to be damaged, and don't address the causes, we allow the damage to continue and we become, to a degree, complicit in it. Incivility is one of the most serious problems the project faces, and the solution involves, as a start, identifying it and preventing it. You did what you could, to that end. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, my friend, I don't see the point of using this page to make negative comments on yet other users. Things are complicated enough--to considerable extent as a result of overlapping problems being discussed together. Personally, I am prepared to urge an unblock upon any reasonable assurance of cooperative and good faith editing,and I think there would be a consensus to that effect. At the moment the block is until the 7th. The question that needs to be discussed is OR's editing and not what other people may have been saying. I will support an unblock for any problem editor who is willing to accept that the editing goes by consensus, and that solutions to disagreements must be found in a peaceful manner, that compromised must be made and accepted. OR, it's up to you what happens now. DGG (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My biggest concern at this point is over the possible loss of Ottava Rima as an editor (from the point of view of value to the project) and over the personal damage that a "defeat" like this can cause. I made a pretty mild comment above -- my first on this page and my first that was involved in any way with this situation -- and it caused fireworks to go off elsewhere, letting me know that something much more was going on than met the eye. OR was blocked as part of an incident where there was other misbehavior that, in hindsight, was apparently worse than his. To some extent, he may have been blocked because he insisted on pointing out this other behavior. I have become most concerned because he was blocked as a result of having taken his concerns about incivility to WP:WQA for, even if a user is drastically wrong, WQA should be a place where civility is negotiated with community support, and blocking someone for going to WQA could have a chilling effect. It isn't AN/I, and users seeing civility problems should have that as a very good option, and should not fear it. I have not, please note, researched this matter as yet in sufficient depth to understand precisely where OR went wrong, or, indeed, to be sure that he erred at all, though it was my original impression that he did err in certain important ways and I'm not prepared to reverse that opinion. But I have every reason to expect that he'll be able to see this and respond appropriately, with the assistance of supportive editors. I've raised the behavior of other editors, as I see it, to let OR know that what he saw and originally reported, I could also see, and I think that this might help in establishing the necessary rapport for me to be able to help resolve this situation more satisfactorily. I'm not at all suggesting that OR, based on my comments here, proceed to pursue other editors; he should stay far away from that, at least in the near future. In any case, DGG, thanks for your attention to this situation, it's appreciated. Further, OR, perhaps it would help if I state that I have great confidence in DGG, we do not always agree, but where we disagree, I might have to toss a coin to decide who is more likely to be right. Depends. However, we don't disagree here. An understanding that editing involves accepting consensus, even when we disagree with it, is crucial; "accepting consensus" doesn't mean laying down and playing dead, but that we respect it and understand that the manner in which we might challenge it is crucial. There is an old saying, "If you are going to shoot the King, don't miss." Challenging a functioning consensus is a tricky thing, few can pull it off, so knowing when and how to act and when and how to wait and learn is crucial. And, remember: the consensus is more likely to be better than our individual opinions. Even, sometimes, when it seems to be "wrong." --Abd (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG - I do not want to be unblocked until my time is up. If the original blocking admin wants to change, he can feel free. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Double hook DYK? nom

On 4 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Richardson, 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.

On 4 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The History of Sir Charles Grandison, 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.

You're such a friendly chap; your inclusion of Stratford490 is commended. -- CB (ö) 04:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)