User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 9

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-Wikipedia 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Sorry that was a mistake dude. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Cleo123 (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/wiki/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 [Cleo123 and BusStop] 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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cleo123, cheers Tendancer (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^sláinte 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks. Fame at last! ( Ceoil ^sláinte 10:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^sláinte 13:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I thought you might be able to appreciate this, being all literary-like. I made it with my own two lobes!. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^sláinte 01:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^sláinte 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^sláinte 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [2] 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 ^sláinte 00:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^sláinte 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^sláinte 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted and expanded upon your edit here [3] 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 [4]. Secondo piano nobile is, however, a frequently used term, even in the best circles, as you can see here [5]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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 [don't know the page numbers, of course], 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)[reply]

Pls see [6]. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I've been reading your DYKs on notable poems and oratorios and just wanted to thank you for your hard work in improving Wikipedia'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^Cheese/^Wine 11:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[6]" in the very middle, when this could go at the end. Does this help any? Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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-Wikipedia 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Unfortunately, real life is rearing its ugly head these days and I'm pretty busy; I'm not too interested in the topic either ;). Good luck with your editing though! BuddingJournalist 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

'S my pleasure. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten Kemp to 60.2 KB. He will be under 60 KB within 24 hours. If Kemp were a 21st century pofigure with his same credentials, he would probably have five or ten WP:SPLIT articles just like current Presidential hopefuls. Anyone who is interested could probably make a complete article for any of the five sections in the politics section. In addition a new section could be started to detail his nine congressional races from the Buffalo News. I also think a football article could be created. That would give us seven split articles. Based on the sources I have access to I have exhuasted coverage of Kemp. I admit there is a great source at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library with week by week history of the Buffalo Bills. I think it is the source I used to describe his late career knee injury. That would cover 7.5 years of Kemps 13 year pro career. I do not know if the Los Angeles/San Diego Chargers have the same sort of thing, but imagine you might be able to go to the San Diego Union archives if they don't . Probably there is a way to research Kemp's college career, but I do not have access to the Occidental College library. His name may have been mentioned in some Southern California newspapers for high school athletics. I do not have access to a database for this research. What type of article splitting do you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was a mistake dude. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I think you must have had a mental stutter when you made that one! Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est, which you had previously commented on, has since been restarted. Would you care to carry your !vote/comment forward from the FAC before it was restarted? Cirt (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I moved it back. Danny (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll continue my go-through tomorrow--we obviously cant do this simultaneously!. DGG (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you'd like to fix the formatting and make it look clean, I fully support that. Good luck :). (|-- UlTiMuS 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Cleo123 (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/wiki/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 [Cleo123 and BusStop] 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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cleo123, cheers Tendancer (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^sláinte 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks. Fame at last! ( Ceoil ^sláinte 10:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^sláinte 13:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I thought you might be able to appreciate this, being all literary-like. I made it with my own two lobes!. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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-Wikipedia 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Unfortunately, real life is rearing its ugly head these days and I'm pretty busy; I'm not too interested in the topic either ;). Good luck with your editing though! BuddingJournalist 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

'S my pleasure. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten Kemp to 60.2 KB. He will be under 60 KB within 24 hours. If Kemp were a 21st century pofigure with his same credentials, he would probably have five or ten WP:SPLIT articles just like current Presidential hopefuls. Anyone who is interested could probably make a complete article for any of the five sections in the politics section. In addition a new section could be started to detail his nine congressional races from the Buffalo News. I also think a football article could be created. That would give us seven split articles. Based on the sources I have access to I have exhuasted coverage of Kemp. I admit there is a great source at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library with week by week history of the Buffalo Bills. I think it is the source I used to describe his late career knee injury. That would cover 7.5 years of Kemps 13 year pro career. I do not know if the Los Angeles/San Diego Chargers have the same sort of thing, but imagine you might be able to go to the San Diego Union archives if they don't . Probably there is a way to research Kemp's college career, but I do not have access to the Occidental College library. His name may have been mentioned in some Southern California newspapers for high school athletics. I do not have access to a database for this research. What type of article splitting do you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was a mistake dude. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I think you must have had a mental stutter when you made that one! Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est, which you had previously commented on, has since been restarted. Would you care to carry your !vote/comment forward from the FAC before it was restarted? Cirt (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ottava, and thankyou also for supporting my RFA.

Also, my apologies if I sounded a tad terse in my last comment to you re: Christian doctrine, but at the time I was right in the middle of trying to single-handedly prepare an update that was already two hours late and I just didn't have time for further discussion. I felt we were pretty much just spinning the wheels at that point anyhow. But I think I could have chosen my words a little more carefully all the same. Anyhow, we did get the DYK organized, and that's the main thing :) Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I moved it back. Danny (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ottava :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll continue my go-through tomorrow--we obviously cant do this simultaneously!. DGG (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ottava Rima - there is an issue you may want to examine with this article's DYK, as the hook is not cited/sourced. Please comment on T:TDYK. Thanks, Vishnava _talk 16:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - my mistake, completely missed it. I've confirmed the nom and striken the objection. Vishnava _talk 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to know the background on this... We used to have a category for "Freemasons"... it was deleted per CfD and listified with the full backing of the Freemasonry Wikiproject (see: List of Freemasons). This was due to several factors... a) a lot of people were being tagged with the category who were not Freemasons (on the list we can require sources to back up the claim). b) In some parts of the world the accusation that one is a Freemason is very serious and can acutally result in criminal charges, and even place a persons life in danger. (granted, this really only impacts BLPs, but it was a factor in the CfD). c) The fact that an individual was or is a Mason is essentially trivia... not relevant to their notability (and thus an overcategorization). The few exceptions to this were people who had an impact on the organization.

The Freemasonry Wikiproject defines its scope, and the scope of articles that should be categorized under its banner ... The consensus at that project is that it deals with the organization and not its individual members... if you think that scope should change, you can discuss it at the project's talk page, but I doubt you will get a consensus to change it. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again... if you think the scope should change... discuss the issue at the Project's talk page. As for what other projects do, that is irrelevant... different projects, different scope. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Blueboar is just about the best informed member of the Freemasonry project rgarding Freemasonry, particularly regarding its history, so I think your statement regarding him is probably at best inaccurate. But, like I said, it's probably best to wait for the responses of others on the project talk page first. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And masonic bodies have published works on other masons not covered within the scope of the project as well. Like I said, the best option at this point is to wait for a consensus from the other members of the project regarding this subject. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have already made several rather obvious mistakes regarding this discussion. Personally, I agree with you that biographical articles should be both categorized and tagged for Freemasonry as appropriate. There were previous CfD and similar discussions which indicated consensus was to the contrary. I sincerely urge you to drop the matter. It appears from the existing comments that the members of the project are not interested in the article; I cannot see how attempting to force them to tag the article will produce any beneficial results, and it could conceivably produce negative ones. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again making very serious mistakes. WikiProjects are in no way official. They don't "have" to do anything, either by including or excluding articles, based on any content. Trust me, I probably know the rules of projects better than virtually anyone. You should know that for the future. In all honesty, I cannot see how your continuing to argue with that project over whether they "have" to include an article they clearly aren't that interested in will produce any positive results. The only results I can see, in all honesty, is that you might alienate the active members (and there really only are three or four really active members of that project right now, I think), and possibly ensure that they never deal with that article, on the basis of your rather objectionable conduct to date. On that basis, I very sincerely urge you to drop the matter, as I cannot see how any good will come of it. John Carter (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alienating individual editors is a small editor, as the projects don't own the articles. You could contribute anyway. By the way, the assessments aren't particularly "official" either, as some projects don't use those criteria. And, for what it's worth, you have successfully alienated at least one editor, me, regarding your conduct in this matter. Please feel free to leave more comments on the project talk page if you wish, but, personally, I at this point wash my hands of the matter. John Carter (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it is hard for me to imagine few things more arrogant and offensive than your regular insistence on statements, which are, in fact, completely off-base. I once again very sincerely urge you to familiarize yourself with policy and guidelines, so that you will not so quickly alienate others in the future as you have today. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you'd like to fix the formatting and make it look clean, I fully support that. Good luck :). (|-- UlTiMuS 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just pulled the Rose article from Literature Online, and what you have in there that Rose claims has nothing to do with what Rose actually said in the article. MSJapan (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And no clear consensus as to his membership - Rose says not necessarily. Dearnley is quoting a third party who is a Mason, and in a position to access the proof, yet no one else has ever seen it. Sherbo in all three cases is working from a secondary source, and maybe not a very reliable one at times - no one seriously believes that Freemasons had anything to do with the building of King Solomon's temple. Williamson says nothing about Smart's membership. Anderson's statement, as well as Ainsworth's statement are refuted by what Rose says, because the first two claim there was no way for Smart to know Masonic symbolism without being a Mason, when Rose shows that there was. The statement by the UGLE Librarian would seem to indicate that records do exist; so where are they? Without those records, there is no proof of membership. I also have seen no statements about his admission of writing In Defence, though I have seen statements associating it with others, as I have shown.

As for people not being able to gleam Masonic symbolism without being members, you might want to look at Freemasonry and the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Some of the symbols overlap, and there were many exposures in New York State at the time Smith claimed to find the Book of Mormon. The absence of concrete proof of membership, along with plausible other methods to get the symbolic information in use in Smart's poetry do not build a strong enough case to unequivocally state that Smart was a Freemason. You can't take earlier research on a person when it suits your purpose and ignore later refutations of that research.

Furthermore, while I hate to use the "you're not a Mason, so you don't know" argument, it's valid here. You may be familiar with 18th century poetry, but you are making too many uninformed statements and incorrect assumptions about Freemasonry both at that time and now, based on so-called "Masonic" sources you are not qualified to assess the reliability of at all. MSJapan (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread what Dearnley wrote. You have mistaken Dearnley's quoting of Father Devlin and then attacking what Father Devlin claims (i.e. that there isn't Masonic imagery). Furthermore, by stating that "Freemasonry" has nothing to do with the Temple of Solomon, you are going against compendiums quoted by Freemasons that describe and discuss the symbolic nature and representation of the Temple of Solomon in Freemasonry. The sources are against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Dearnley is quoting a third-party, who in turn quotes a fourth party. That doesn't improve it much. I also stated that there was no connection between the building of the Temple (meaning the actual Temple, the one David was supposedly "chief architect" of) and the Freemasons. Symbolic connection and actual construction are two different things. The source predicates itself on the latter, not the former. MSJapan (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me break it down for you. Father Devlin is the only Smart scholar to suggest that the Seven Pillars is not Masonic. Every other essay allows for the interpretation. Rose is pointing to his article when he says that some do not agree with it. Dearnley quotes Devlin's justification (i.e. "I talked to a Mason, and he said he couldn't tell what this means, therefore, its meaningless") and then proves that it is wrong and shows a bias based on Devlin's adamant Catholicism and known anti-Masonic bigotry. The point of quoting her above is to show how her, as with Rose, destroy the argument by analyzing A Song to David based on Masonic imagery. They both show why people say he was a Mason. The scholars I have quoted above are not all that is out there. I have been going through all of the Smart research for the past 80 years (I have it here because I worked on an updated bibliography of the research) to show you what the argument is. Now, for saying that the Temple of Solomon and David are not Masonic, you are going against one of the most widely known Masonic Encyclopedias. I am not sure you would want to claim your background knowledge against such a source as that, especially when most of the scholars above use it to base their analysis of the Masonic imagery in A Song to David. Now, I must tell you that Christopher Smart: Poet and Mason (from Pheonix Lodge 30, not 9, mind you), and British Poets and Secret Societies by Marie Roberts (devotes a complete chapter to Smart's involvement with Masonry and Masons). Also, I would reevaluate your comments about Karina Williams. What she cites is evidence verifying Smart's writing of the poem credited as "Brother" in the Masonic poem section of A Defence of Freemasonry. It would seem odd that such a widely known person, editor of three magazines, publisher of quite a few works, actor of the three year run of the "Old Woman's Oratory", would be allowed such a privileged otherwise. I am slowly putting more of my information up. However, you can only quote three hundred words per source under fair use, so keep that in mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to drive me off the point here. First of all, you've got no basis to claim what's a reliable Masonic encyclopedia and what isn't, and you're misconstruing what I'm saying on purpose, so I'm not going to pursue that line of inquiry at all. However, thanks for clarifying in your own words that "people say he is a Freemason," not that "he is a Freemason". That's an important distinction, and my entire point here. MSJapan (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence to support your claim that A.G. Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry is incorrect or wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lexicon is not an encyclopedia; Mackey states in the Preface that it provides definitions for terms. As for evidence to Mackey's contrary, just about any modern book that touches on Masonic history discounts the "Freemasons built King Solomon's Temple" theory, such as S. Brent Morris' Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry wherein he states "Masonic traditions about King Solomon's Temple are elaborations based on the Bible, and are not intended to be historically accurate" (224). In a more scholarly vein, this article has a blockquote from Oliver which should date from context to the early 1800s, well before Mackey that says "The Society adopted the Temple of Solomon for its symbol, because it was the most stable and the most magnificent structure that ever existed, whether we consider its foundation or superstructure; so that of all the societies men have invented, no one was ever more firmly united, or better planned, than the Masons . . . The edifices which Freemasons build are nothing more than virtues or vices to be erected or destroyed; and in this case heaven only occupies their minds, which soar above the corrupted world. The Temple of Solomon denotes reason and intelligence." Other noted and reliable Masonic historians, like Gould (who wrote six volumes worth of material and reprinted early Grand Lodge records), do not even attempt to look at anything prior to medieval stonemason's guilds, which should also serve to buttress the evidence contradicting Mackey. So yes, Mackey is wrong - a lot of his writing is infused with the fanciful and uncritical, as was the custom of the time. MSJapan (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read A Song to David before you make claims about what they are talking about in regard to the Temple of Solomon. In it you would realize that it is a symbolic temple and that the seven pillars are the seven pillars of creation based on Masonic symbols. Unless you can provide evidence that contradicts that there were those in the 18th century that believed David was the planner to the Temple, and then someone disprove your own quote above that verifies that the Temple of Solomon was important to the Masons, then I do not understand how you think you have a leg to stand on here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the source provided by MSJapan providing evidence of David's relationship with Masonry and the Temple of Solomon found here: "When Saul died in about 1010 BCE, David became the King of Judah and seven or eight years later he was anointed King over all Israel. After David had consolidated his power and built a permanent residence for himself, the lack of a shrine of Yahweh seemed invidious to him. He said: “I dwell in a house of cedar, but the Ark of God dwelleth within curtains”. Because his hands were stained with the blood of his enemies, David was precluded from building a temple to the Lord, but he collected materials, gathered treasure and purchased a site for the construction. The site chosen was the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, within the area now called Haram esh-Sherif on Mount Moriah on the east side of the “Old City” of Jerusalem."

The sources above connect David as the planner and having that influence over the Temple. I don't understand how there can be a continual denial of this fact with this evidence provided by MSJapan. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're supposed to be discussing the relationship of Freemasonry and King Solomon's Temple, and David's "association with the Freemasons" (who didn't exist at the time), not the historical fact of David wanting to build the real Temple. I'm not going to waste any more time on this, because you'd rather completely misunderstand things to attack me than realize your own errors. MSJapan (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so are you claiming that the above source is wrong to give a history of David and the Temple of Solomon, as if such a thing would not be important to them? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima. I understand you're waiting for new source material to arrive from diverse libraries? Let's postpone this discussion until then, ok? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's not what I'm saying. Since you won't stop changing the parameters of what we're talking about every other sentence, I am withdrawing from this "conversation" as a monumental waste of time. MSJapan (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "parameters". There is you making claims that I am wrong. And there is you making other claims. As anyone can see, I have proven you wrong on both sides of this issue. You keep throwing in new things, I keep proving them wrong. You can make whatever claims you want, but that is the truth for everyone to look and actually read. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still awaiting the apology from you. For what it's worth, I have regularly read both pages. One is a guideline, which several projects actually don't follow. Also, several projects have their own rating systems, and a few even specifically rule out articles anyone else would think were relevant. I know the Avatar project has chosen not to tag the articles on the creators for instance, despite the direct and obvious relevance of those articles. And you were the one who said that projects "had" to do things, which they do not. Your recent conduct, and your demands for apologies and retractions of statements of others, when you have to date been unwilling to do the same yourself, very much calls into question the motivations for your actions. And, yes, I do think it would be appropriate for you to withdraw your own false and misleading statements from the Freemasonry project talk page, as a show of good faith on your part, before making demands for others to do the same thing. John Carter (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His justification is an essay, not a policy, and follows no protocol! Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of ruleslawyering can help you here. So far you're only demonstrating that the block is well justified. If you want to continue participating here, you need to make substantial changes to your approach. Unless you're willing to do that, I don't see that anything can be done. Friday (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia consensus clearly states that users are not obliged to follow that essay. Therefore, you are quite wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop ruleslawyering. Your actions are detrimental to the encyclopedia as a whole, and the essay describes behavior similar to yours. Maxim_(talk) 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only one rules lawyering is you, Friday, and Moreschi for blatantly defying community consensus by acting like something clearly marked as not obligated to be followed as something that needs to be followed. This is a severe abuse of powers, and admin have been desysopped for such things. You cannot block someone for them to "cool down", nor can you block them until they say what you want them to say. That is clearly a violating of protocol. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(That's not what "ruleslawyering" means. Not even close.) Anyway. I've reviewed your block, and posted a suggestion here, in case you want to take a look. Bishonen | talk 14:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I think some others had the same view as you. I'm not above apologizing. But I am a strong believer in a content dispute not falling into one person being blocked until they admit that they were "wrong", especially when the content dispute itself was ignored. Why hasn't anyone responded to my critique of MSJapan's alterations to the A Song to David page at the very beginning of the AN/I thread where I quote the whole text and show how my original summation follows the nuances where his distorts what Rose states? MSJapan is going on and on and editing further to follow his point of view during this whole thing. He only wanted me blocked so he could do just that. Look over at Christopher Smart for further examples. WP:V has been tossed out of the window for sure. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the ANI thread for details. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your justification is an essay, not a policy, and you lack all community consent. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." WP:TE Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is a lie. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn those leprechauns and their misleading tags! If only I knew before hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are obliged to observe certain standards of reasonable behavior. It doesn't much matter whether this rule is explicitly spelled out or not. Friday (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to explain that now :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leprechauns. They be everywhere. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava hasn't directly done anything wrong, but because Moreschi dislikes his approach he has indef blocked him until he says "sorry"? WTF? After I'm done with dinner here in a moment, I'll help you get this ridiculous block lifted, Ottava. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stick your neck out for me. Apparently the leprechauns have been hording their gold. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say they're completely wrong in the advice they're trying to give you, but this "method" is a pretty clear violation of the blocking policy. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And even lacking that, I don't think it's a good method of helping to resolve the issue. -- Ned Scott 07:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does seem to have helped a little bit, at least I'm being listened to now ^^;; . Hmmm, Do you think I should start wearing green? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, I've always listened to you. However, I was always afraid of you developing an ego problem, so I never bothered to let you know. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<falls over laughing> --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby take offense to the following statement: Or, "as soon as you promise not to write bad poetry on ANI" (found here).

I find my poetry absolutely charming and delightful, and I believe the implication besmirches such quality! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to Sources from masonic lodge number 9 Phoenix lodge 30, and/or to Masonic Records 1716-1886 at the moment? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbo was the one who quoted from the Masonic Records (if you look, there was a duel reference tag). I would need to ask the librarian to ship that one also. However, I do have a physical copy of the Pheonix Lodge 30 document being shipped to my person currently, as before I was only sent excerpts from the publication. Once that arrives from France, I shall be able to put together a more accurate quote. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the discussion at AN/I, I have reduced the length of the block to 96 hours total, ending at 15:53, June 24. It's my expectation that efforts will be made to engage in friendly cooperative discussions of all issues, present and future, without descending to personalities or disparaging editors, or trying to prove the truth in an absolute academic sense, rather than just attaining a verifiable encyclopedia article. Needless to say, this is what is expected of all editors at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Ottava Rima, I disagree that DGG's reduction of Moreschi's block was done in accordance with any discussion; he didn't give people a realistic chance to opine on his proposal before he implemented it. I have made a counterproposal of a week's block (including time already served) here, as being an appropriate escalation for persistently disruptive behaviour. I intend to put that into action unless there are cogent objections. Bishonen | talk 11:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

For your information, Bishonen, (I have already made this clear to you, but you seem not to have noticed) I asked DGG not to unblock me, and that if he were to, to at least give more time than this to discuss with Moreschi first. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"For your information" gives offense now? I said that because it seemed otherwise a little inconsiderate to be (seemingly) addressing DGG on your page. I give up. Bishonen | talk 12:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

OR, Bish, stop looking for reasons to fight. The reason I didnt pause is because I had already proposed time served, and several people had supported that. It is true OR had asked me not to be unblocked--but I dont see why that would affect what we do. I interpreted as that OR preferred to be blocked than to be unblocked with conditions, and I dont see that he has the right to choose. (Or perhaps not unblocked until he was fully vindicated, which is not going to happen). DGG (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I am willing to apologize. As I stated to you via email, I wanted to talk to Moreschi first. Once you made it clear that you had respect for Moreschi and that this may tarnish your relationship, then it is not allowable for you to proceed in this manner. It is my obligation to settle this without such resorts. The original conditions were that I admit that I was wrong. While everyone was going about politics and philosophy, MSJapan and myself have been trying to work out compromise language and get to the bottom of many of these sources. Kim has been helping with such a thing. I would ask that my decreased time be reverted back to what Moreschi had and he would be given the full authority to decide when such a compromise has been met and when MSJapan and I have come together in a collaborative manner. I have only wanted people to speak on my behalf about my contributions. I did not want anyone to speak on my behalf about being unblocked. I am quite capable of apologizing myself, and I am quite capable of showing that I am able to work on collaborative editing. Other people have stated this before. I would ask that all admin besides Moreschi please step away from this and allow Moreschi to determine if/when his conditions have been met. I do not believe that Moreschi was wrong, and it is obvious that this was the only way that discussion would have been pushed forth, and a compromise would have been made between MSJapan and I.

Thank you - Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I almost feel like laughing here. That post completely kills off the need for you to be blocked at all. So long as you understand that while what you say is important (and indeed primary), how you say it matters as well, we're fine. My rationale for blocking in the first place was that you weren't editing in a truly collegial manner. Now that you have committed yourself to doing so - a commitment that yes, I will hold you to - any block is redundant. I'll unblock ASAP - just in the future please stick to collegiality, compromise, and civility, OK? Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, its a common miscommunication problem over Wikipedia (talking past each other about content) that turns into a political snowball. I didn't expect it when it first when to AN/I, but I probably should have. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Hop-Garden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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