If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. By the way, User:Ceoil and User:Karanacs decided to tag-team mentor me (yeah, I'm so wild that I need two! :) ). So, they will most likely watch and/or join in any discussion. - Ottava Rima
In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.
- Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:
Bate - Samuel Johnson
- follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism
Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World
Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson
Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.
I note that the Yale Poems contains the complete text of Irene, which I've never before possessed. I have been looking at it in a worried kind of way, knowing that I'm going to try to read it and start an article about it. Interested? Lexo ( talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If Johnson started writing the play in 1737, couldn't "fully move onto" anything else while he was writing it, and "spent years trying to finish" it, how can he then have put off finishing it in 1737 and "turned from it completely"? Can you post the actual references from Bate on my talk page, so I can redraft these? Thanks. Lexo ( talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)He spent years trying to finish the work, and could not fully move onto another until he finished Irene. However, in 1737 he put off finishing the play and turned from it completely in order to work on other projects.
I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ottava. I assume you have been communicating with User:Ceoil offline, but just in case I wanted to post here. I've offered to help him mentor you, if you are agreeable. I think that you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia and I'm hoping that with a bit of guidance you can contribute a bit more effectively. If you'd prefer to keep this discussion offline, let me know and I'll email you. I'd like to become familiar with any discussions you've had with Ceoil or parameters the two of you have agreed on for how this might work. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unindent - based on what Karanacs proposed: limit myself to 0RR, 1 talk page response to editors that I have a "history" with when there is no third party at the page and notifying others immediately, and any disagreements to stop discussion and contact the above. Sounds rather standard. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, maybe this is a little late now your block has expired, but having been block myseld a few times, here is a good prison song. ( Ceoil sláinte 09:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, it might be an idea to also post the link to your pledge at the top of your talk along with the watch link. Ceoil sláinte 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the redlinks in Candide. I'm especially impressed that you found an article for Great Council of Geneva... I search Google for at least an hour trying to figure that one out! -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There are two points at the Candide FAC that I would like to hear the other reviewers' thoughts on. I have listed them at the bottom of the FAC. Awadewit ( talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think is ready for PR, before you submit to FAC. ( Ceoil sláinte 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope you checked your em-dashes on Johnson before you typed that; cause I'll cut your fecking head off for less. Ceoil sláinte 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Good enough. ( Ceoil sláinte 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Item 22 on your list, but can you give some help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud? DGG ( talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't "think ill of him" for his action, why would I? He just did what he thought was appropriate. I am just suprised and disappointed by his decision, that's all, and I think it was a wrongheaded one. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I may have overspoke a bit. It isn't exactly clear. It is certainly cast in a positive light, including in quotes by him. He seems to bring it up uncoerced here: [3], but maybe it was already known or something. It's possible that he feels he has to talk about it, but it certainly doesn't seem presented that way to me, but something that he feels is an important episode in his life. I haven't personally spoken to him about it, nor do I know that anyone has, but given the CNN example, it certainly seems like something he'll cop to unprovoked. My own thoughts here might be a minority, but I do think if you read BLP properly, it does say "don't impose our morals on subjects, respect theirs". With respect to privacy, it'd probably be outrageous to list an American paleontologist's blood type, but it would be totally appropriate to list a Japanese Pop singer's blood type. Wily D 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the original hook read "... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?" The assessment took place ~1943, so I think you'd have to be daft to think race was irrelevent, though it might've been simple indifference, assigning of incompentent teachers to black schools, racism on the part of the tester or who knows what. Not sure he's said anything explicit, can't find any.
It's probably just a "I was disadvantaged, nobody thought I'd amount to anything, but I worked hard and I did." This generic read could be applied to a lot of young black people from poor backgrounds, so I'm not sure there's an explicit equation here. I don't know his mind well enough to say.
There's also some discussion here: [4] but this first link I gave you is the best, at least the best cited. Wily D 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, about half the links in the article cite the diagnosis. So presumably it's "known". Wily D 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not my hook, I only found out about it after the whole brew-ha-ha over the hook. I think the hook cannot be read without an implicit "The diagnosis was wrong", but it would've been unharmful to be more explicit for poor readers (and English Wikipedia gets a lot of readers with poor command of English). The huge punch-up seems over the top, though, yeah. Wily D 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
By "hook" I meant that particular one mentioning mental retardation. Swapped with another hook linking to the same article. Sorry for the confusion. I've got to get away from the computer now -- someone's waiting for me. My point was if we give a few extra hours of publicity (with two hooks) to that one article is insignificant -- certainly less so than sending the wrong message to editors that mentioning mental retardation is somehow controversial. When I get back I'll look it over and maybe clarify my point. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your suggestion on the AN/I page. Noroton ( talk) 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I no longer look at the 40K articles - Wiki, or should I say, certain editors, have completely ruined the whole series of articles, so there's no point in bothering to even look at them. So, as for whatever you suggested, go for it, I don't care what happens to them. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't got time to look at that now, I'll try to remember to take a look tomorrow. Gatoclass ( talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You comments on my talk about changing your ways are encouraging to read, I hope you can rise to the challenge, best of luck. As to the email, We'll see, I've provided thoughts on the matter at AN/I, and think that's sufficient. I oppose it, but if consensus goes another way, so it goes. ThuranX ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I have noticed that you have heretofore refrained from supporting Candide's FAC nom. Is there a specific reason you have not done so? Do you see any problems with the article? If the article can win your support with my efforts, I'd like to try... Thanks! -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I fear you do not understand the significance of your accusation of my being a sockmaster, and most especially having done so directly to Raul who is obviously already gunning for me. This is unbelievably unfair.
You claim to have evidence, what is it? I prefer to have these things out on the table so that they might be addressed rather than referenced in vague and damaging statements on WP:ANI.
I have never done anything against you and we seem to share a common admiration of User:Abd so I don't know why you would launch such a damaging attack. -- GoRight ( talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember how I was talking about people picking up the polemics of their favorite authors and unknowingly repeating them? Well, dumb old Theobald is a major case in point. His reputation can be divided into three periods: 1730 - 1780: During this time, Theobald was part of the war of the dunces. Whigs supported the dunces, and tories opposed them. This is a repeated cause. Numerous poets who were not very good got praised to the skies because they had the right politics. Lewis Theobald was so much of a nothing that other enemies of Pope thought he was an "ideot." However, Alexander Pope was monumental, and anyone who disliked his politics needed to find someone to put up against him. 1780 - 1870: The rise of bardolatry: Shakespeare's editors had every reason to prefer Theobald. Theobald's edition of Shakespeare was far superior to Pope's. As Shakespeare moves (see Shakespeare's reputation) from great to "greatest," and as he himself moves from "natural genius" to "greatest genius in the language," the battle of the 18th century editors looks laughable. Pope's edition is wrong and from a bad impulse, and Theobald's is the positivist impulse at work. Indeed, some major editors get forgotten in his favor. However, this is with no consideration of his writing. Double Falsehood is an adulteration of Shakespeare every bit worse than Pope's "corrected" meters, and look to see how rarely the play has been staged. 1870 - 1960: Macaulay history: Thomas Babbington Macaulay's "whig history" of England is an overwhelming work. It sets "common knowledge" for a century. We are still shaking off the hangover of Macaulay. Macaulay sets down the common knowledge of Robert Walpole the first prime minister, mercantilism being a work of genius, Jonathan Swift being a crooked misanthrope, and Alexander Pope unfairly picking on virtuous authors because he was short and mean. Macaulay history sees Theobald as a hard working, brilliant editor (who, mysteriously, became an editor by accident, late in life, when he kept trying to be a poet before and after) who was smashed by Pope.
Since the 1960's, we've been digging out from under the pile. I think I formulated current understanding appropriately when I said that Theobald was as much a better editor as Pope was a better poet. As an editor, Theobald is invaluable, but he is also a one shot creature. Most of his life and profession was attempting to be a poet and a playwright, and he failed according to all sources at these.
Therefore, it's easy to find people saying things like that which you quoted. During the 18th c. itself, there is an ongoing political battle, with Welsted, Smythe, and Cooke (less so) writing, the extremely wealthy Colley Cibber (gee, a theatre manager), and the vicious and prolix Edmund Curll pouring money into attacks on Pope. In Victorian and early 20th c. criticism, it's easy to find "poor Theobald; he was virtuous, and mean Pope mugged him in a dark alley." I think we're getting more balanced now.
Samuel Johnson is a special case. He was his own man throughout. He did not very often pick on an author out of political matters, or at least not those alone. Instead, he had his own principles, as I'm sure you know, that he valued above all else. Notably, though, he doesn't seem to like any of the Augustans. He has nasty things to say about Swift, many nasty things to say about Pope, many more to say about Gay. He dismisses them all. Now, it's tempting to see Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence at work, but it's just as easy to see Johnson as having a different notion of what a writer should be than those writers ever had. SJ is the writer as philosopher. This is radically different from his predecessors. They were writers and political actors, and SJ saw that as quite inappropriate.
The po-faced Johnson we get in Boswell is absolutely inappropriate, but it's absolutely true that he held up even his friends to philosophical standards. He ridiculed his good friend Thomas Warton when the latter took up the "churchyard" ballad form. It was too trivial. He ridiculed Percy, his friend, for scrambling for appointment -- too grubby. So, for Pope, whose gifts Johnson admits, to duke it out with bad poets is quite ill, from Johnson's point of view. He constantly criticizes Pope's political work. (Johnson was quite political, of course, and Donald Greene will haunt me if I don't say so, but he tended to be overt. He didn't use his poetry or his Ramblers to do it. He would come straight out with a Letter or a complete essay. I think he didn't like the mixing of "high" art and "low" politics.)
Anyway, I just wanted to say that one needs to be careful in critical assessments of Theobald and read each of them with an eye on the speaker's motivation. Geogre ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, excellent. Thanks, and kudos on all your hard work on these articles! -- Xover ( talk) 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. By the way, User:Ceoil and User:Karanacs decided to tag-team mentor me (yeah, I'm so wild that I need two! :) ). So, they will most likely watch and/or join in any discussion. - Ottava Rima
In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.
- Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for my slowness in thanking you for putting the "Vanity" and "Irene" articles up for DYK notices. I would never have got around to doing it myself, and was very pleased to see them. Many thanks. Lexo ( talk) 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:
Bate - Samuel Johnson
- follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism
Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World
Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson
Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.
I note that the Yale Poems contains the complete text of Irene, which I've never before possessed. I have been looking at it in a worried kind of way, knowing that I'm going to try to read it and start an article about it. Interested? Lexo ( talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If Johnson started writing the play in 1737, couldn't "fully move onto" anything else while he was writing it, and "spent years trying to finish" it, how can he then have put off finishing it in 1737 and "turned from it completely"? Can you post the actual references from Bate on my talk page, so I can redraft these? Thanks. Lexo ( talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)He spent years trying to finish the work, and could not fully move onto another until he finished Irene. However, in 1737 he put off finishing the play and turned from it completely in order to work on other projects.
Thanks for the note about Irene. I admit that I took a line on it, which is that it isn't very good, but I did so because I knew I could find support for the line; I think that it can hardly be disputed that it falls into the category of works by undeniably great writers that aren't their best, other examples (in English) being Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well; much of Robert Southey's poetry as opposed to, say, his Life of Nelson; a lot of Byron's early stuff; Flann O'Brien's The Hard Life; Samuel Beckett's Dream of Fair to Middling Women, etc. I do not find Bate's argument (about how we'd think it better if it weren't by Johnson) convincing, but I've given him the final word because I am basically kind-hearted. There is not a lot else to be said about the play, but again I admit that I have not read every single critical comment on it; just the ones that I've been able to obtain as an independent scholar without access to a university library. For some reason, I couldn't import to the article the image I found of Hannah Pritchard. I do think that the article needs a mention of the fact - did you tell it to me, or did I read it in the Yale edition? - that Johnson briefly considered writing another play about Charles of Sweden, but decided against it. It probably needs a lot of other things too, but I lack the resources to provide them. Lexo ( talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ottava. I assume you have been communicating with User:Ceoil offline, but just in case I wanted to post here. I've offered to help him mentor you, if you are agreeable. I think that you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia and I'm hoping that with a bit of guidance you can contribute a bit more effectively. If you'd prefer to keep this discussion offline, let me know and I'll email you. I'd like to become familiar with any discussions you've had with Ceoil or parameters the two of you have agreed on for how this might work. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unindent - based on what Karanacs proposed: limit myself to 0RR, 1 talk page response to editors that I have a "history" with when there is no third party at the page and notifying others immediately, and any disagreements to stop discussion and contact the above. Sounds rather standard. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, maybe this is a little late now your block has expired, but having been block myseld a few times, here is a good prison song. ( Ceoil sláinte 09:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, it might be an idea to also post the link to your pledge at the top of your talk along with the watch link. Ceoil sláinte 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the redlinks in Candide. I'm especially impressed that you found an article for Great Council of Geneva... I search Google for at least an hour trying to figure that one out! -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There are two points at the Candide FAC that I would like to hear the other reviewers' thoughts on. I have listed them at the bottom of the FAC. Awadewit ( talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think is ready for PR, before you submit to FAC. ( Ceoil sláinte 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope you checked your em-dashes on Johnson before you typed that; cause I'll cut your fecking head off for less. Ceoil sláinte 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Good enough. ( Ceoil sláinte 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Item 22 on your list, but can you give some help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud? DGG ( talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't "think ill of him" for his action, why would I? He just did what he thought was appropriate. I am just suprised and disappointed by his decision, that's all, and I think it was a wrongheaded one. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I may have overspoke a bit. It isn't exactly clear. It is certainly cast in a positive light, including in quotes by him. He seems to bring it up uncoerced here: [7], but maybe it was already known or something. It's possible that he feels he has to talk about it, but it certainly doesn't seem presented that way to me, but something that he feels is an important episode in his life. I haven't personally spoken to him about it, nor do I know that anyone has, but given the CNN example, it certainly seems like something he'll cop to unprovoked. My own thoughts here might be a minority, but I do think if you read BLP properly, it does say "don't impose our morals on subjects, respect theirs". With respect to privacy, it'd probably be outrageous to list an American paleontologist's blood type, but it would be totally appropriate to list a Japanese Pop singer's blood type. Wily D 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the original hook read "... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?" The assessment took place ~1943, so I think you'd have to be daft to think race was irrelevent, though it might've been simple indifference, assigning of incompentent teachers to black schools, racism on the part of the tester or who knows what. Not sure he's said anything explicit, can't find any.
It's probably just a "I was disadvantaged, nobody thought I'd amount to anything, but I worked hard and I did." This generic read could be applied to a lot of young black people from poor backgrounds, so I'm not sure there's an explicit equation here. I don't know his mind well enough to say.
There's also some discussion here: [8] but this first link I gave you is the best, at least the best cited. Wily D 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, about half the links in the article cite the diagnosis. So presumably it's "known". Wily D 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not my hook, I only found out about it after the whole brew-ha-ha over the hook. I think the hook cannot be read without an implicit "The diagnosis was wrong", but it would've been unharmful to be more explicit for poor readers (and English Wikipedia gets a lot of readers with poor command of English). The huge punch-up seems over the top, though, yeah. Wily D 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
By "hook" I meant that particular one mentioning mental retardation. Swapped with another hook linking to the same article. Sorry for the confusion. I've got to get away from the computer now -- someone's waiting for me. My point was if we give a few extra hours of publicity (with two hooks) to that one article is insignificant -- certainly less so than sending the wrong message to editors that mentioning mental retardation is somehow controversial. When I get back I'll look it over and maybe clarify my point. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your suggestion on the AN/I page. Noroton ( talk) 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I no longer look at the 40K articles - Wiki, or should I say, certain editors, have completely ruined the whole series of articles, so there's no point in bothering to even look at them. So, as for whatever you suggested, go for it, I don't care what happens to them. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't got time to look at that now, I'll try to remember to take a look tomorrow. Gatoclass ( talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You comments on my talk about changing your ways are encouraging to read, I hope you can rise to the challenge, best of luck. As to the email, We'll see, I've provided thoughts on the matter at AN/I, and think that's sufficient. I oppose it, but if consensus goes another way, so it goes. ThuranX ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I have noticed that you have heretofore refrained from supporting Candide's FAC nom. Is there a specific reason you have not done so? Do you see any problems with the article? If the article can win your support with my efforts, I'd like to try... Thanks! -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember how I was talking about people picking up the polemics of their favorite authors and unknowingly repeating them? Well, dumb old Theobald is a major case in point. His reputation can be divided into three periods: 1730 - 1780: During this time, Theobald was part of the war of the dunces. Whigs supported the dunces, and tories opposed them. This is a repeated cause. Numerous poets who were not very good got praised to the skies because they had the right politics. Lewis Theobald was so much of a nothing that other enemies of Pope thought he was an "ideot." However, Alexander Pope was monumental, and anyone who disliked his politics needed to find someone to put up against him. 1780 - 1870: The rise of bardolatry: Shakespeare's editors had every reason to prefer Theobald. Theobald's edition of Shakespeare was far superior to Pope's. As Shakespeare moves (see Shakespeare's reputation) from great to "greatest," and as he himself moves from "natural genius" to "greatest genius in the language," the battle of the 18th century editors looks laughable. Pope's edition is wrong and from a bad impulse, and Theobald's is the positivist impulse at work. Indeed, some major editors get forgotten in his favor. However, this is with no consideration of his writing. Double Falsehood is an adulteration of Shakespeare every bit worse than Pope's "corrected" meters, and look to see how rarely the play has been staged. 1870 - 1960: Macaulay history: Thomas Babbington Macaulay's "whig history" of England is an overwhelming work. It sets "common knowledge" for a century. We are still shaking off the hangover of Macaulay. Macaulay sets down the common knowledge of Robert Walpole the first prime minister, mercantilism being a work of genius, Jonathan Swift being a crooked misanthrope, and Alexander Pope unfairly picking on virtuous authors because he was short and mean. Macaulay history sees Theobald as a hard working, brilliant editor (who, mysteriously, became an editor by accident, late in life, when he kept trying to be a poet before and after) who was smashed by Pope.
Since the 1960's, we've been digging out from under the pile. I think I formulated current understanding appropriately when I said that Theobald was as much a better editor as Pope was a better poet. As an editor, Theobald is invaluable, but he is also a one shot creature. Most of his life and profession was attempting to be a poet and a playwright, and he failed according to all sources at these.
Therefore, it's easy to find people saying things like that which you quoted. During the 18th c. itself, there is an ongoing political battle, with Welsted, Smythe, and Cooke (less so) writing, the extremely wealthy Colley Cibber (gee, a theatre manager), and the vicious and prolix Edmund Curll pouring money into attacks on Pope. In Victorian and early 20th c. criticism, it's easy to find "poor Theobald; he was virtuous, and mean Pope mugged him in a dark alley." I think we're getting more balanced now.
Samuel Johnson is a special case. He was his own man throughout. He did not very often pick on an author out of political matters, or at least not those alone. Instead, he had his own principles, as I'm sure you know, that he valued above all else. Notably, though, he doesn't seem to like any of the Augustans. He has nasty things to say about Swift, many nasty things to say about Pope, many more to say about Gay. He dismisses them all. Now, it's tempting to see Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence at work, but it's just as easy to see Johnson as having a different notion of what a writer should be than those writers ever had. SJ is the writer as philosopher. This is radically different from his predecessors. They were writers and political actors, and SJ saw that as quite inappropriate.
The po-faced Johnson we get in Boswell is absolutely inappropriate, but it's absolutely true that he held up even his friends to philosophical standards. He ridiculed his good friend Thomas Warton when the latter took up the "churchyard" ballad form. It was too trivial. He ridiculed Percy, his friend, for scrambling for appointment -- too grubby. So, for Pope, whose gifts Johnson admits, to duke it out with bad poets is quite ill, from Johnson's point of view. He constantly criticizes Pope's political work. (Johnson was quite political, of course, and Donald Greene will haunt me if I don't say so, but he tended to be overt. He didn't use his poetry or his Ramblers to do it. He would come straight out with a Letter or a complete essay. I think he didn't like the mixing of "high" art and "low" politics.)
Anyway, I just wanted to say that one needs to be careful in critical assessments of Theobald and read each of them with an eye on the speaker's motivation. Geogre ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, excellent. Thanks, and kudos on all your hard work on these articles! -- Xover ( talk) 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi OR, sorry for the delay on revisiting images; I'll check them over again today. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! — Dan1980 ( talk ♦ stalk) 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Penis. That's all. seicer | talk | contribs 01:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
We've never spoken directly, but I've seen your name around, so please take this in the tongue-in-cheek manner in which I intend it... you asked at Moni's RfA, for a better explanation as to what she needed the tools for. My immediate (joking) thought was, "well, to block you of course" Of course, I might not have thought that, if I hadn't JUST read your comments over on MF's talk page about blocks ;-) --- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course I would be honoured to work with you if the Wordsworth offer is still open. Ceoil sláinte 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I put a comment exactly where it belonged. It was something you needed to WATCH, so I put it there. If you cannot learn from your massive errors, how will you learn from minor ones. I fear your tutelage is not going as well as it should. I admire passion, but I admire admitting when you are out of your league/wrong even moreso. Your tutors need to know exactly how badly you're doing so that they can either help, or bail. Based on your commentary in AN/I (as polite as I could have been) you're not doing so well. You had many chances to save face, but you've succeeded in doing something extremely difficult: entering my "bad editor" books. Your snotty comment served to confirm it. Good luck. BMW (drive) 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. -- Abd ( talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Johnson004.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:James Boswell.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:James Boswell.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I and many other editors create lists of "issues" after our initial comments and it is these lists that are being marked as "interrupted". See, for example:
I hope this helps! Awadewit ( talk) 15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing you might do, Ottava, is to look at these FACs through my eyes. Ask yourself if you can sort the issues: is the resolution clear, is it clear that items were struck by the person who wrote them, can I tell if the concerns are resolved or what is outstanding. For example, a long correctly threaded exchange between Awadewit and Ealdgyth is easy for me follow and will typically be quickly resolved, so the template might add unnecessary bulk to the FAC. I need the templates in cases where discussion gets really long, is unresolved, there are unstricken concerns, threading is a mess, and it's hard to determine where things stand. It also has to do with how long the comments get: if I have to scroll down many pages to see who started the original comment, that's harder than a case that is quickly resolved, and I can still figure out whose signature is attached to the original. And, insider tip: the editor who most frequently forgets to sign and strike/append correctly is Tony1 :-) I can usually recognize his comments, but I still have to go back to the diffs to make sure it's him and attach an {{ unsigned}} template. While I appreciate this help, remember I'm not the only person at FAC, and we want to keep FACs as tidy as possible; nominators are proud of their FACs when they close :-) Thanks so much for the help! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that I might be able to contribute to Drapier's Letters on the level of style, although I am not the first person to notice that the second sentence of letter 1 contains a classic Irish bull: "Therefore I do most earnestly exhort you as men, as Christians, as parents, and as lovers of your country, to read this paper with the utmost attention, or get it read to you by others [...]" - how they are supposed to get it read to them if they can't read it in the first place, Swift does not explain. Lexo ( talk) 01:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have imported your page as " s:Thoughts on Falkland's Islands" and gnomed it a little. There will be no problem with you dumping text directly into Wikisource; provided it is old and was published, we are very forgiving and will happily accept text at any level of completeness so that you can get on with using it. If it is unpublished, copyright becomes a bit more of an issue, and our inclusion criteria start to kick in, but from what I have seen of your topical area's, I doubt you will have much problem in this regard, as you are mostly working on topics where even unpublished works would be acceptable on Wikisource if they are not protected by copyright.
We do prefer to have pagescans for all works, so if you can scan in a text, we will help you set up a transcription project and help you transcribe it and verify it. For examples that are close to your topical area, see s:Index:John Masefield.djvu, s:Index:Edgar Allan Poe - a centenary tribute.djvu and s:Index:Pierre and Jean - Clara Bell - 1902.djvu and s:Index:Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu. For examples of other types of documents, see s:Index:GeorgeTCoker.djvu and s:Index:A Welsh Grammar, Historical and Comparative, s:Index:German Instrument of Surrender (May 7, 1945) and more.. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
For most works by major authors, there are many sets of pagescans online already; e.g. archive.org. Usually one only needs to look for them, or work on the ones that are available and pray for the others to arrive in good time. A good digital camera's will be fine to use for verification, however the OCR result will probably not be very usable. (Wikisource has bots that do OCR on images) This is something to play by ear. Let me know if there is any work that you would like to see on Wikisource accompanied with pagescans, and we'll do our best to set it up and get it started. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
(sorry about the delay; this is one work I did last night) I have imported s:Index:The works of Horace - Christopher Smart.djvu, and uploaded the OCR for pagescans 1-13,344-348. page 13 will give you an idea of the level of quality you can expect from the OCR. Now the question is do we copy the text from User:Ottava Rima/Wikisource over to Wikisource, or I can upload the raw OCR into each page to be cleaned up. We have yet to determine which of those two methods is easiest. John Vandenberg ( chat) 09:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I did some samples; [9] let me know if I should continue. As long as it's not a direct quote, and several sentences come from the same place, they can be combined, unless there's a reason in your field not to: makes it much more readable. Revert if you hate it, but Whiskey is a good editor, and that's what I'd do. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that starts, DYKs and improvements are flowing out of the Samuel Johnson spring clean and reupholstery. Last time I looked I saw that the image map of Sam and his mates at "The Club" was still there. I'm guessing that if it asn't already been deleted then someone may want to delete it or improve it. If its the latter then if you need any expertise then I'd be pleased to help. Victuallers ( talk) 13:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just spotted your note on my talk page (got another message afterwards, so didn't see both). I hope to get a chance to re-review the article later. Colin° Talk 09:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Your assessment in your response that his anti-Scottishness was trivial is not accurate, but his reputation in Scotland as the anti-Scot par excellance is probably unfair too. I looked on google books to see if I could find anything for your interest. This might be of use to you. It is common to read in Scottish historians go on tirades against him, but William Ferguson's discussion of him and MacPherson in The Identity of the Scottish Nation: An Historic Quest, pp. 227-49, is perhaps "fairer". EDIT: Here is also a bunch of quotes. I presume you have access to a large proportion of the works from which they are drawn. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have responded on the FAC thread. The anti-Scottishness needs to be no more than mentioned, my main problem is its eulogistic tone and the coverage concerns. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ottava,
Sorry I'm so late in responding. I've been busy IRL and I wanted to read the relevant pages (SJ, the FAC page, etc.) thoroughly before commenting.
I've looked it over (
this version) and I think the reviewers at FAC have a point: the article is a little light on information about his actual writing. However, I don't think the imbalance is sufficient to be actionable. The trouble seems to me to stem from their expectation that Johnson is comparable, in this sense, to a Shakespeare or Ben Jonson; primarily known for their creative output (plays, poems, literature). It also seems to me—if I can put it thus without giving offense—that this problem is exacerbated by the somewhat curt manner in which you've chosen to respond to their concerns on the FAC page. I think had you opted for a more diplomatic tone the issue would not have become as entrenched and confrontational as it currently appears to be.
As for actual changes to the article that might remedy this, I am somewhat reluctant to give too specific suggestions. I am not sufficiently versed in Johnson. However, it might be useful to look for ways in the article—probably by way of phrasing, or possibly an extra sentence or two somewhere (the earlier the better)—to further emphasise and make explicit that his notability stems not primarily from what he wrote, but who he was. It might also be a good idea to try to talk more about his writings—what they are, why they are notable, and what influence they had—in the proper places to mention them (e.g. in the section on the period of his life when he worked on them); as it already does, but with the balance altered slightly away from the man and to his works. I think there are still biographical details that can be cut, and a very few that probably should be cut. At one point in reading the article there was a date given for an event that even I, who is primarily interested in biography even in the context of Shakespeare, felt was excessive detail (for Wikipedia, mark!). In other words, the core of the problem seems to be human factors rather then textual ones.
But overall I don't think more text needs be added. Rather, some sentences might be altered to focus on the work instead of the man, and some might be deleted and replaced with something ditto. A subtle change of balance, rather than a significant rewrite or addition of material.
In terms of the FAC overall, I don't think any of the issues brought up so far are "actionable" in terms of being valid reasons to not promote it to FA status. If there is anything in this sense "actionable" then it would be that the article isn't really "stable" (which would be a slightly comical objection since it's changing in order to comply with FAC reviews) and that the writing is at times not quite perfect (probably as a result of the cuts, insertions, and rewrites occasioned by the peer and FAC reviews). I don't think these are grounds for not promoting it unless one wants to increase the stringency of the requirements for FA (which might be a good idea, but hasn't been done yet). If I were to review the article there are a bunch of such minor stylistic and copy-editing issues I would point out (the single words in quotes, some sentences that seem malapropos in their paragraph, little stuff like that), but nothing that I wouldn't happily consider minor.
In short, they have a point but it's a minor one and one that, in my opinion, shouldn't determine whether the article is promoted to FA.
I'll have a quick scan over the FAC page to see if there is anywhere it would be appropriate for me to comment to that effect, without further fanning the flames. --
Xover (
talk)
13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The text I removed was cited to Murray, who describes two job applications in the same year:
The removed text mentions two schools and repeats verbatim the rejection given at Solihull. I don't think those are "an additional two schools with a different complaint". I accept the loss of one school (Staffordshire) and this could be reinserted if required. I don't know the precise chronology but I suspect both are prior to his creation of his own school and the Staffordshire one comes first. Certain that is the order Murray discusses them (Murray is available online so you have the source). Colin° Talk 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind comments and copy edits. Much appreciated Taprobanus ( talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You have to appreciate that Synge is a mojor figure here, and "The Playboy of the Western World" is known to all and sundry. I'm only just going through it properly now. Ceoil sláinte 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Samuel Johnson's early life, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I really have to say that I admire your patience and persistence with the Dr's FAC; to be honest, I'd have given up with it some time ago. There's an entrenched body of opinion that views Johnson as primarily an author, and wants to see an author-like article. And of course there's an entrenched body of opinion that will oppose just because they can. Stick with, I think the tide might be starting to turn. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SandyG. This article deserves to be an FA, but it's in an area where some have strong views. I think some have confused their own opinions with the FA criteria. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been on-wiki much in the last few days to a mandatory visit by family. I just reviewed the Samuel Johnson FAC to see what was going on. Ottava, I know that it is very difficult to see people pull your work apart, especially when you believe that the article is ready, and I am impressed with the amount of work you have continued to put in to meeting some of the objections. I have not read the Johnson article in quite some time, but I suspect (hope!) that it has been improved. You work in a time period and topic that several FAC reviewers feel very strongly about. It is probable that some of their concerns are valid and some are not. As the nominator, you have to walk the tightrope of figuring out which concerns go in which bucket, explain why you don't agree with some, and do it in a polite way (it's a hard job). I know very little about Johnson, so I can't judge the validity of any of the FAC comments, but some of them look reasonable to me, and are issues that I have opposed other articles on (not giving proper context for facts, etc). But again, I'm not saying that those are valid in this case - I haven't read the article lately - so let's not argue those points here.
From the messages left on my talk page, I was expecting to see huge blow-ups all over the FAC page, and I was glad to see that it was nothing that serious. I have seen other nominators react as you have, and, as a reviewer, it makes for an unpleasant experience and sometimes prompts me to look more closely for issues, just because now I'm mad too. I see a few areas for improvement for you, and these are things that you've recognized before as potential problem points for you.
My suggestion: Take a deep breath, strike some of your comments, and think about how you would react if you were in the reviewer's shoes reading your comments. And overall, it looks as if the FAC is really not going that badly. Karanacs ( talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've raised a concern on the DYK hook over at Template talk:Did you know.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratrulations and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
References for road articles are not easy. I cannot help them, maps help detail the road more than anything else. If I had extra sources, I'd use them, but every FA for USRD has gotten away with it (using maps). Also, per your question on the FAC, VT 74 does not significant history to permit an article, so we put the details for the ferry and the VT side in the article. If its better explained, we do that in several articles.Mitch32( UP) 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, I've worked with Mitchazenia for a while, and I'm trying to help him with the New York State Route 74 article. To address the issues that you've raised, I was wondering if youy have access to any newspaper archives. If you do and you could do a little digging for me, I'd be very appreciateive. Cheers, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am readying to leave for India, so I'm not paying much attention to Wikipedia right now. Shocking, I know! Please drop a note on my talk page when you would like me to reread the Johnson article and reassess my "oppose" at the FAC. I will be more than happy to do so. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. A photo has arrived for your viewing. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15489 Raul654 ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You had a concern about the presence of a "see also" section in my FAC. However, I see nothing wrong with having such a section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I happen to agree with them, if you look through the talk page archives the consensus at DYK has been built up over a long period of time, and the talkpages reflect historical discussions of a similar nature with the same conclusion. JayHenry ( talk · contribs) is right that the DYK pages do already have a wide prominence - not that pointing a notice on other pages back there is a bad thing, quite the contrary (though I think ANI wouldn't be the best community watering hole for this sort of a notice, Village Pump is much better and I am glad you posted there). You are making some valid points, but IMO - at this point the dialogue is no longer constructive due to the constant "back and forth" going on. I have suggested at WT:DYK that people involved in the discussion take a breather and a step back, it might hopefully have a calming influence in the dialogue. Cirt ( talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Dropping by to say how good it was to see your words to SlimVirgin. You're not one of the names I expected to see there, and it was thoroughly decent of you.
When I heard that you were working on the Ada Lovelace bio I looked through some online archives for relevant images. The best that's turned up so far is probably too remote to use at that page: a scan of a letter between Anne Isabella Byron, Baroness Byron and Mary Edwards Walker. If it's possible to lend assistance in the way I did for Learned Hand, please let me know. Best, Durova Charge! 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Well done! --Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I made an edit here (see the lower one) in which the page in the named ref didn't match the page in the ref template. It's the foot-stomping thing, I think. You may wanna double-check the page. Later! Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've left some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état. If you have time, I wonder if you would revisit it? Thanks, Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 00:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've heard you're the head of the 18th-century Literature Cabal. Where do I sign up? KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
No no, please don't do that! I'm sure you misunderstood. Right, OR? OR...? KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
For articles like Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services what is worth checking is the web link, for if the article is a copy vio of their "about page," as was the case here and is very often the case, it's a cleaner ground for deletion. In contrast, G11 is rather vague, being worded : "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion" Thus pages which have some encyclopedic information or which can be rewritten by removing the promotional language are not speedy candidates. So for an article like this, generally I stubbify, which deals with both, and leave a note for the editor explaining about our Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations).
![]() |
The Monarch of the Glen Appreciation | |
Thanks for your assistance in helping
Fauna of Scotland to become a
Featured Article.
It's much appreciated by Cervus elaphus and myself, Ben Mac Dui 18:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
I don't see what the problem is... David doesn't play a large roll in Freemasonry (in fact, he is mentioned only once, in passing, in a lecture that forms part of the third degree). That is factual and is backed by citation to the ritual itself. Freemasonry focuses on Solomon, not David. Blueboar ( talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You need a page structured in the summary style to bind together the individual daughter articles imo. Very ambitious job you are taking on there by the way. In other news, would you mind casting a cold eye on the Henry Moore FARc; work is on-going but input and direction as to what remains to be done would be helpful indeed. Ceoil sláinte 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ottava Rima, I didn't realize that you had already nominated Scrutiny (journal) for the "Did you know". I'm quite new, and new users do make mistakes. Sorry about that. I hope you don't mind. :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 02:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 03:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hi OR, sorry for the delay on revisiting images; I'll check them over again today. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I will look further at the related edit history shortly. With respect to the article itself, it does need to be expanded, and I have no issue with it remaining in a true encyclopedic form. Thanks for your comments! BMW (drive) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you expand on what the issue is with the CC license? Thanks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm missing something here. It was by the description of the uploader made by them by cropping an image they had made. Since they control all rights isn't a CC 2.5 license that doesn't mention their previous version made by that same individual fine? From a hypertalmudic perspective, they released it to themselves and then made a new CC work with that. What am I missing? JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Cleaned up - getting back to work.
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 08:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You're such a friendly chap; your inclusion of Stratford490 is commended. -- CB ( ö) 04:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.
- Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:
Bate - Samuel Johnson
- follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism
Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World
Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson
Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.
I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ottava. I assume you have been communicating with User:Ceoil offline, but just in case I wanted to post here. I've offered to help him mentor you, if you are agreeable. I think that you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia and I'm hoping that with a bit of guidance you can contribute a bit more effectively. If you'd prefer to keep this discussion offline, let me know and I'll email you. I'd like to become familiar with any discussions you've had with Ceoil or parameters the two of you have agreed on for how this might work. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unindent - based on what Karanacs proposed: limit myself to 0RR, 1 talk page response to editors that I have a "history" with when there is no third party at the page and notifying others immediately, and any disagreements to stop discussion and contact the above. Sounds rather standard. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. By the way, User:Ceoil and User:Karanacs decided to tag-team mentor me (yeah, I'm so wild that I need two! :) ). So, they will most likely watch and/or join in any discussion. - Ottava Rima
In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.
- Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:
Bate - Samuel Johnson
- follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism
Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World
Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson
Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.
I note that the Yale Poems contains the complete text of Irene, which I've never before possessed. I have been looking at it in a worried kind of way, knowing that I'm going to try to read it and start an article about it. Interested? Lexo ( talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If Johnson started writing the play in 1737, couldn't "fully move onto" anything else while he was writing it, and "spent years trying to finish" it, how can he then have put off finishing it in 1737 and "turned from it completely"? Can you post the actual references from Bate on my talk page, so I can redraft these? Thanks. Lexo ( talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)He spent years trying to finish the work, and could not fully move onto another until he finished Irene. However, in 1737 he put off finishing the play and turned from it completely in order to work on other projects.
I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ottava. I assume you have been communicating with User:Ceoil offline, but just in case I wanted to post here. I've offered to help him mentor you, if you are agreeable. I think that you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia and I'm hoping that with a bit of guidance you can contribute a bit more effectively. If you'd prefer to keep this discussion offline, let me know and I'll email you. I'd like to become familiar with any discussions you've had with Ceoil or parameters the two of you have agreed on for how this might work. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unindent - based on what Karanacs proposed: limit myself to 0RR, 1 talk page response to editors that I have a "history" with when there is no third party at the page and notifying others immediately, and any disagreements to stop discussion and contact the above. Sounds rather standard. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, maybe this is a little late now your block has expired, but having been block myseld a few times, here is a good prison song. ( Ceoil sláinte 09:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, it might be an idea to also post the link to your pledge at the top of your talk along with the watch link. Ceoil sláinte 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the redlinks in Candide. I'm especially impressed that you found an article for Great Council of Geneva... I search Google for at least an hour trying to figure that one out! -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There are two points at the Candide FAC that I would like to hear the other reviewers' thoughts on. I have listed them at the bottom of the FAC. Awadewit ( talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think is ready for PR, before you submit to FAC. ( Ceoil sláinte 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope you checked your em-dashes on Johnson before you typed that; cause I'll cut your fecking head off for less. Ceoil sláinte 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Good enough. ( Ceoil sláinte 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Item 22 on your list, but can you give some help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud? DGG ( talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't "think ill of him" for his action, why would I? He just did what he thought was appropriate. I am just suprised and disappointed by his decision, that's all, and I think it was a wrongheaded one. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I may have overspoke a bit. It isn't exactly clear. It is certainly cast in a positive light, including in quotes by him. He seems to bring it up uncoerced here: [3], but maybe it was already known or something. It's possible that he feels he has to talk about it, but it certainly doesn't seem presented that way to me, but something that he feels is an important episode in his life. I haven't personally spoken to him about it, nor do I know that anyone has, but given the CNN example, it certainly seems like something he'll cop to unprovoked. My own thoughts here might be a minority, but I do think if you read BLP properly, it does say "don't impose our morals on subjects, respect theirs". With respect to privacy, it'd probably be outrageous to list an American paleontologist's blood type, but it would be totally appropriate to list a Japanese Pop singer's blood type. Wily D 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the original hook read "... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?" The assessment took place ~1943, so I think you'd have to be daft to think race was irrelevent, though it might've been simple indifference, assigning of incompentent teachers to black schools, racism on the part of the tester or who knows what. Not sure he's said anything explicit, can't find any.
It's probably just a "I was disadvantaged, nobody thought I'd amount to anything, but I worked hard and I did." This generic read could be applied to a lot of young black people from poor backgrounds, so I'm not sure there's an explicit equation here. I don't know his mind well enough to say.
There's also some discussion here: [4] but this first link I gave you is the best, at least the best cited. Wily D 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, about half the links in the article cite the diagnosis. So presumably it's "known". Wily D 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not my hook, I only found out about it after the whole brew-ha-ha over the hook. I think the hook cannot be read without an implicit "The diagnosis was wrong", but it would've been unharmful to be more explicit for poor readers (and English Wikipedia gets a lot of readers with poor command of English). The huge punch-up seems over the top, though, yeah. Wily D 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
By "hook" I meant that particular one mentioning mental retardation. Swapped with another hook linking to the same article. Sorry for the confusion. I've got to get away from the computer now -- someone's waiting for me. My point was if we give a few extra hours of publicity (with two hooks) to that one article is insignificant -- certainly less so than sending the wrong message to editors that mentioning mental retardation is somehow controversial. When I get back I'll look it over and maybe clarify my point. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your suggestion on the AN/I page. Noroton ( talk) 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I no longer look at the 40K articles - Wiki, or should I say, certain editors, have completely ruined the whole series of articles, so there's no point in bothering to even look at them. So, as for whatever you suggested, go for it, I don't care what happens to them. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't got time to look at that now, I'll try to remember to take a look tomorrow. Gatoclass ( talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You comments on my talk about changing your ways are encouraging to read, I hope you can rise to the challenge, best of luck. As to the email, We'll see, I've provided thoughts on the matter at AN/I, and think that's sufficient. I oppose it, but if consensus goes another way, so it goes. ThuranX ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I have noticed that you have heretofore refrained from supporting Candide's FAC nom. Is there a specific reason you have not done so? Do you see any problems with the article? If the article can win your support with my efforts, I'd like to try... Thanks! -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I fear you do not understand the significance of your accusation of my being a sockmaster, and most especially having done so directly to Raul who is obviously already gunning for me. This is unbelievably unfair.
You claim to have evidence, what is it? I prefer to have these things out on the table so that they might be addressed rather than referenced in vague and damaging statements on WP:ANI.
I have never done anything against you and we seem to share a common admiration of User:Abd so I don't know why you would launch such a damaging attack. -- GoRight ( talk) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember how I was talking about people picking up the polemics of their favorite authors and unknowingly repeating them? Well, dumb old Theobald is a major case in point. His reputation can be divided into three periods: 1730 - 1780: During this time, Theobald was part of the war of the dunces. Whigs supported the dunces, and tories opposed them. This is a repeated cause. Numerous poets who were not very good got praised to the skies because they had the right politics. Lewis Theobald was so much of a nothing that other enemies of Pope thought he was an "ideot." However, Alexander Pope was monumental, and anyone who disliked his politics needed to find someone to put up against him. 1780 - 1870: The rise of bardolatry: Shakespeare's editors had every reason to prefer Theobald. Theobald's edition of Shakespeare was far superior to Pope's. As Shakespeare moves (see Shakespeare's reputation) from great to "greatest," and as he himself moves from "natural genius" to "greatest genius in the language," the battle of the 18th century editors looks laughable. Pope's edition is wrong and from a bad impulse, and Theobald's is the positivist impulse at work. Indeed, some major editors get forgotten in his favor. However, this is with no consideration of his writing. Double Falsehood is an adulteration of Shakespeare every bit worse than Pope's "corrected" meters, and look to see how rarely the play has been staged. 1870 - 1960: Macaulay history: Thomas Babbington Macaulay's "whig history" of England is an overwhelming work. It sets "common knowledge" for a century. We are still shaking off the hangover of Macaulay. Macaulay sets down the common knowledge of Robert Walpole the first prime minister, mercantilism being a work of genius, Jonathan Swift being a crooked misanthrope, and Alexander Pope unfairly picking on virtuous authors because he was short and mean. Macaulay history sees Theobald as a hard working, brilliant editor (who, mysteriously, became an editor by accident, late in life, when he kept trying to be a poet before and after) who was smashed by Pope.
Since the 1960's, we've been digging out from under the pile. I think I formulated current understanding appropriately when I said that Theobald was as much a better editor as Pope was a better poet. As an editor, Theobald is invaluable, but he is also a one shot creature. Most of his life and profession was attempting to be a poet and a playwright, and he failed according to all sources at these.
Therefore, it's easy to find people saying things like that which you quoted. During the 18th c. itself, there is an ongoing political battle, with Welsted, Smythe, and Cooke (less so) writing, the extremely wealthy Colley Cibber (gee, a theatre manager), and the vicious and prolix Edmund Curll pouring money into attacks on Pope. In Victorian and early 20th c. criticism, it's easy to find "poor Theobald; he was virtuous, and mean Pope mugged him in a dark alley." I think we're getting more balanced now.
Samuel Johnson is a special case. He was his own man throughout. He did not very often pick on an author out of political matters, or at least not those alone. Instead, he had his own principles, as I'm sure you know, that he valued above all else. Notably, though, he doesn't seem to like any of the Augustans. He has nasty things to say about Swift, many nasty things to say about Pope, many more to say about Gay. He dismisses them all. Now, it's tempting to see Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence at work, but it's just as easy to see Johnson as having a different notion of what a writer should be than those writers ever had. SJ is the writer as philosopher. This is radically different from his predecessors. They were writers and political actors, and SJ saw that as quite inappropriate.
The po-faced Johnson we get in Boswell is absolutely inappropriate, but it's absolutely true that he held up even his friends to philosophical standards. He ridiculed his good friend Thomas Warton when the latter took up the "churchyard" ballad form. It was too trivial. He ridiculed Percy, his friend, for scrambling for appointment -- too grubby. So, for Pope, whose gifts Johnson admits, to duke it out with bad poets is quite ill, from Johnson's point of view. He constantly criticizes Pope's political work. (Johnson was quite political, of course, and Donald Greene will haunt me if I don't say so, but he tended to be overt. He didn't use his poetry or his Ramblers to do it. He would come straight out with a Letter or a complete essay. I think he didn't like the mixing of "high" art and "low" politics.)
Anyway, I just wanted to say that one needs to be careful in critical assessments of Theobald and read each of them with an eye on the speaker's motivation. Geogre ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, excellent. Thanks, and kudos on all your hard work on these articles! -- Xover ( talk) 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have any problems, concerns, or just want to comment on my actions and behavior in general, please leave a message here, or if you would like to discuss things, my talk page and email is available for use. A watch page has been created that will list areas that I might have problems with and may need help with. By the way, User:Ceoil and User:Karanacs decided to tag-team mentor me (yeah, I'm so wild that I need two! :) ). So, they will most likely watch and/or join in any discussion. - Ottava Rima
In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.
- Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for my slowness in thanking you for putting the "Vanity" and "Irene" articles up for DYK notices. I would never have got around to doing it myself, and was very pleased to see them. Many thanks. Lexo ( talk) 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:
Bate - Samuel Johnson
- follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism
Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World
Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson
Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.
I note that the Yale Poems contains the complete text of Irene, which I've never before possessed. I have been looking at it in a worried kind of way, knowing that I'm going to try to read it and start an article about it. Interested? Lexo ( talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If Johnson started writing the play in 1737, couldn't "fully move onto" anything else while he was writing it, and "spent years trying to finish" it, how can he then have put off finishing it in 1737 and "turned from it completely"? Can you post the actual references from Bate on my talk page, so I can redraft these? Thanks. Lexo ( talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)He spent years trying to finish the work, and could not fully move onto another until he finished Irene. However, in 1737 he put off finishing the play and turned from it completely in order to work on other projects.
Thanks for the note about Irene. I admit that I took a line on it, which is that it isn't very good, but I did so because I knew I could find support for the line; I think that it can hardly be disputed that it falls into the category of works by undeniably great writers that aren't their best, other examples (in English) being Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well; much of Robert Southey's poetry as opposed to, say, his Life of Nelson; a lot of Byron's early stuff; Flann O'Brien's The Hard Life; Samuel Beckett's Dream of Fair to Middling Women, etc. I do not find Bate's argument (about how we'd think it better if it weren't by Johnson) convincing, but I've given him the final word because I am basically kind-hearted. There is not a lot else to be said about the play, but again I admit that I have not read every single critical comment on it; just the ones that I've been able to obtain as an independent scholar without access to a university library. For some reason, I couldn't import to the article the image I found of Hannah Pritchard. I do think that the article needs a mention of the fact - did you tell it to me, or did I read it in the Yale edition? - that Johnson briefly considered writing another play about Charles of Sweden, but decided against it. It probably needs a lot of other things too, but I lack the resources to provide them. Lexo ( talk) 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ottava. I assume you have been communicating with User:Ceoil offline, but just in case I wanted to post here. I've offered to help him mentor you, if you are agreeable. I think that you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia and I'm hoping that with a bit of guidance you can contribute a bit more effectively. If you'd prefer to keep this discussion offline, let me know and I'll email you. I'd like to become familiar with any discussions you've had with Ceoil or parameters the two of you have agreed on for how this might work. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unindent - based on what Karanacs proposed: limit myself to 0RR, 1 talk page response to editors that I have a "history" with when there is no third party at the page and notifying others immediately, and any disagreements to stop discussion and contact the above. Sounds rather standard. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, maybe this is a little late now your block has expired, but having been block myseld a few times, here is a good prison song. ( Ceoil sláinte 09:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, it might be an idea to also post the link to your pledge at the top of your talk along with the watch link. Ceoil sláinte 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the redlinks in Candide. I'm especially impressed that you found an article for Great Council of Geneva... I search Google for at least an hour trying to figure that one out! -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There are two points at the Candide FAC that I would like to hear the other reviewers' thoughts on. I have listed them at the bottom of the FAC. Awadewit ( talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think is ready for PR, before you submit to FAC. ( Ceoil sláinte 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope you checked your em-dashes on Johnson before you typed that; cause I'll cut your fecking head off for less. Ceoil sláinte 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Good enough. ( Ceoil sláinte 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Item 22 on your list, but can you give some help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud? DGG ( talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't "think ill of him" for his action, why would I? He just did what he thought was appropriate. I am just suprised and disappointed by his decision, that's all, and I think it was a wrongheaded one. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I may have overspoke a bit. It isn't exactly clear. It is certainly cast in a positive light, including in quotes by him. He seems to bring it up uncoerced here: [7], but maybe it was already known or something. It's possible that he feels he has to talk about it, but it certainly doesn't seem presented that way to me, but something that he feels is an important episode in his life. I haven't personally spoken to him about it, nor do I know that anyone has, but given the CNN example, it certainly seems like something he'll cop to unprovoked. My own thoughts here might be a minority, but I do think if you read BLP properly, it does say "don't impose our morals on subjects, respect theirs". With respect to privacy, it'd probably be outrageous to list an American paleontologist's blood type, but it would be totally appropriate to list a Japanese Pop singer's blood type. Wily D 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the original hook read "... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?" The assessment took place ~1943, so I think you'd have to be daft to think race was irrelevent, though it might've been simple indifference, assigning of incompentent teachers to black schools, racism on the part of the tester or who knows what. Not sure he's said anything explicit, can't find any.
It's probably just a "I was disadvantaged, nobody thought I'd amount to anything, but I worked hard and I did." This generic read could be applied to a lot of young black people from poor backgrounds, so I'm not sure there's an explicit equation here. I don't know his mind well enough to say.
There's also some discussion here: [8] but this first link I gave you is the best, at least the best cited. Wily D 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, about half the links in the article cite the diagnosis. So presumably it's "known". Wily D 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not my hook, I only found out about it after the whole brew-ha-ha over the hook. I think the hook cannot be read without an implicit "The diagnosis was wrong", but it would've been unharmful to be more explicit for poor readers (and English Wikipedia gets a lot of readers with poor command of English). The huge punch-up seems over the top, though, yeah. Wily D 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
By "hook" I meant that particular one mentioning mental retardation. Swapped with another hook linking to the same article. Sorry for the confusion. I've got to get away from the computer now -- someone's waiting for me. My point was if we give a few extra hours of publicity (with two hooks) to that one article is insignificant -- certainly less so than sending the wrong message to editors that mentioning mental retardation is somehow controversial. When I get back I'll look it over and maybe clarify my point. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your suggestion on the AN/I page. Noroton ( talk) 21:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I no longer look at the 40K articles - Wiki, or should I say, certain editors, have completely ruined the whole series of articles, so there's no point in bothering to even look at them. So, as for whatever you suggested, go for it, I don't care what happens to them. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't got time to look at that now, I'll try to remember to take a look tomorrow. Gatoclass ( talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You comments on my talk about changing your ways are encouraging to read, I hope you can rise to the challenge, best of luck. As to the email, We'll see, I've provided thoughts on the matter at AN/I, and think that's sufficient. I oppose it, but if consensus goes another way, so it goes. ThuranX ( talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I have noticed that you have heretofore refrained from supporting Candide's FAC nom. Is there a specific reason you have not done so? Do you see any problems with the article? If the article can win your support with my efforts, I'd like to try... Thanks! -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember how I was talking about people picking up the polemics of their favorite authors and unknowingly repeating them? Well, dumb old Theobald is a major case in point. His reputation can be divided into three periods: 1730 - 1780: During this time, Theobald was part of the war of the dunces. Whigs supported the dunces, and tories opposed them. This is a repeated cause. Numerous poets who were not very good got praised to the skies because they had the right politics. Lewis Theobald was so much of a nothing that other enemies of Pope thought he was an "ideot." However, Alexander Pope was monumental, and anyone who disliked his politics needed to find someone to put up against him. 1780 - 1870: The rise of bardolatry: Shakespeare's editors had every reason to prefer Theobald. Theobald's edition of Shakespeare was far superior to Pope's. As Shakespeare moves (see Shakespeare's reputation) from great to "greatest," and as he himself moves from "natural genius" to "greatest genius in the language," the battle of the 18th century editors looks laughable. Pope's edition is wrong and from a bad impulse, and Theobald's is the positivist impulse at work. Indeed, some major editors get forgotten in his favor. However, this is with no consideration of his writing. Double Falsehood is an adulteration of Shakespeare every bit worse than Pope's "corrected" meters, and look to see how rarely the play has been staged. 1870 - 1960: Macaulay history: Thomas Babbington Macaulay's "whig history" of England is an overwhelming work. It sets "common knowledge" for a century. We are still shaking off the hangover of Macaulay. Macaulay sets down the common knowledge of Robert Walpole the first prime minister, mercantilism being a work of genius, Jonathan Swift being a crooked misanthrope, and Alexander Pope unfairly picking on virtuous authors because he was short and mean. Macaulay history sees Theobald as a hard working, brilliant editor (who, mysteriously, became an editor by accident, late in life, when he kept trying to be a poet before and after) who was smashed by Pope.
Since the 1960's, we've been digging out from under the pile. I think I formulated current understanding appropriately when I said that Theobald was as much a better editor as Pope was a better poet. As an editor, Theobald is invaluable, but he is also a one shot creature. Most of his life and profession was attempting to be a poet and a playwright, and he failed according to all sources at these.
Therefore, it's easy to find people saying things like that which you quoted. During the 18th c. itself, there is an ongoing political battle, with Welsted, Smythe, and Cooke (less so) writing, the extremely wealthy Colley Cibber (gee, a theatre manager), and the vicious and prolix Edmund Curll pouring money into attacks on Pope. In Victorian and early 20th c. criticism, it's easy to find "poor Theobald; he was virtuous, and mean Pope mugged him in a dark alley." I think we're getting more balanced now.
Samuel Johnson is a special case. He was his own man throughout. He did not very often pick on an author out of political matters, or at least not those alone. Instead, he had his own principles, as I'm sure you know, that he valued above all else. Notably, though, he doesn't seem to like any of the Augustans. He has nasty things to say about Swift, many nasty things to say about Pope, many more to say about Gay. He dismisses them all. Now, it's tempting to see Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence at work, but it's just as easy to see Johnson as having a different notion of what a writer should be than those writers ever had. SJ is the writer as philosopher. This is radically different from his predecessors. They were writers and political actors, and SJ saw that as quite inappropriate.
The po-faced Johnson we get in Boswell is absolutely inappropriate, but it's absolutely true that he held up even his friends to philosophical standards. He ridiculed his good friend Thomas Warton when the latter took up the "churchyard" ballad form. It was too trivial. He ridiculed Percy, his friend, for scrambling for appointment -- too grubby. So, for Pope, whose gifts Johnson admits, to duke it out with bad poets is quite ill, from Johnson's point of view. He constantly criticizes Pope's political work. (Johnson was quite political, of course, and Donald Greene will haunt me if I don't say so, but he tended to be overt. He didn't use his poetry or his Ramblers to do it. He would come straight out with a Letter or a complete essay. I think he didn't like the mixing of "high" art and "low" politics.)
Anyway, I just wanted to say that one needs to be careful in critical assessments of Theobald and read each of them with an eye on the speaker's motivation. Geogre ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, excellent. Thanks, and kudos on all your hard work on these articles! -- Xover ( talk) 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi OR, sorry for the delay on revisiting images; I'll check them over again today. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! — Dan1980 ( talk ♦ stalk) 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Penis. That's all. seicer | talk | contribs 01:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
We've never spoken directly, but I've seen your name around, so please take this in the tongue-in-cheek manner in which I intend it... you asked at Moni's RfA, for a better explanation as to what she needed the tools for. My immediate (joking) thought was, "well, to block you of course" Of course, I might not have thought that, if I hadn't JUST read your comments over on MF's talk page about blocks ;-) --- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course I would be honoured to work with you if the Wordsworth offer is still open. Ceoil sláinte 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I put a comment exactly where it belonged. It was something you needed to WATCH, so I put it there. If you cannot learn from your massive errors, how will you learn from minor ones. I fear your tutelage is not going as well as it should. I admire passion, but I admire admitting when you are out of your league/wrong even moreso. Your tutors need to know exactly how badly you're doing so that they can either help, or bail. Based on your commentary in AN/I (as polite as I could have been) you're not doing so well. You had many chances to save face, but you've succeeded in doing something extremely difficult: entering my "bad editor" books. Your snotty comment served to confirm it. Good luck. BMW (drive) 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. -- Abd ( talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Johnson004.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:James Boswell.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:James Boswell.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I and many other editors create lists of "issues" after our initial comments and it is these lists that are being marked as "interrupted". See, for example:
I hope this helps! Awadewit ( talk) 15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing you might do, Ottava, is to look at these FACs through my eyes. Ask yourself if you can sort the issues: is the resolution clear, is it clear that items were struck by the person who wrote them, can I tell if the concerns are resolved or what is outstanding. For example, a long correctly threaded exchange between Awadewit and Ealdgyth is easy for me follow and will typically be quickly resolved, so the template might add unnecessary bulk to the FAC. I need the templates in cases where discussion gets really long, is unresolved, there are unstricken concerns, threading is a mess, and it's hard to determine where things stand. It also has to do with how long the comments get: if I have to scroll down many pages to see who started the original comment, that's harder than a case that is quickly resolved, and I can still figure out whose signature is attached to the original. And, insider tip: the editor who most frequently forgets to sign and strike/append correctly is Tony1 :-) I can usually recognize his comments, but I still have to go back to the diffs to make sure it's him and attach an {{ unsigned}} template. While I appreciate this help, remember I'm not the only person at FAC, and we want to keep FACs as tidy as possible; nominators are proud of their FACs when they close :-) Thanks so much for the help! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that I might be able to contribute to Drapier's Letters on the level of style, although I am not the first person to notice that the second sentence of letter 1 contains a classic Irish bull: "Therefore I do most earnestly exhort you as men, as Christians, as parents, and as lovers of your country, to read this paper with the utmost attention, or get it read to you by others [...]" - how they are supposed to get it read to them if they can't read it in the first place, Swift does not explain. Lexo ( talk) 01:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have imported your page as " s:Thoughts on Falkland's Islands" and gnomed it a little. There will be no problem with you dumping text directly into Wikisource; provided it is old and was published, we are very forgiving and will happily accept text at any level of completeness so that you can get on with using it. If it is unpublished, copyright becomes a bit more of an issue, and our inclusion criteria start to kick in, but from what I have seen of your topical area's, I doubt you will have much problem in this regard, as you are mostly working on topics where even unpublished works would be acceptable on Wikisource if they are not protected by copyright.
We do prefer to have pagescans for all works, so if you can scan in a text, we will help you set up a transcription project and help you transcribe it and verify it. For examples that are close to your topical area, see s:Index:John Masefield.djvu, s:Index:Edgar Allan Poe - a centenary tribute.djvu and s:Index:Pierre and Jean - Clara Bell - 1902.djvu and s:Index:Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu. For examples of other types of documents, see s:Index:GeorgeTCoker.djvu and s:Index:A Welsh Grammar, Historical and Comparative, s:Index:German Instrument of Surrender (May 7, 1945) and more.. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
For most works by major authors, there are many sets of pagescans online already; e.g. archive.org. Usually one only needs to look for them, or work on the ones that are available and pray for the others to arrive in good time. A good digital camera's will be fine to use for verification, however the OCR result will probably not be very usable. (Wikisource has bots that do OCR on images) This is something to play by ear. Let me know if there is any work that you would like to see on Wikisource accompanied with pagescans, and we'll do our best to set it up and get it started. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
(sorry about the delay; this is one work I did last night) I have imported s:Index:The works of Horace - Christopher Smart.djvu, and uploaded the OCR for pagescans 1-13,344-348. page 13 will give you an idea of the level of quality you can expect from the OCR. Now the question is do we copy the text from User:Ottava Rima/Wikisource over to Wikisource, or I can upload the raw OCR into each page to be cleaned up. We have yet to determine which of those two methods is easiest. John Vandenberg ( chat) 09:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I did some samples; [9] let me know if I should continue. As long as it's not a direct quote, and several sentences come from the same place, they can be combined, unless there's a reason in your field not to: makes it much more readable. Revert if you hate it, but Whiskey is a good editor, and that's what I'd do. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that starts, DYKs and improvements are flowing out of the Samuel Johnson spring clean and reupholstery. Last time I looked I saw that the image map of Sam and his mates at "The Club" was still there. I'm guessing that if it asn't already been deleted then someone may want to delete it or improve it. If its the latter then if you need any expertise then I'd be pleased to help. Victuallers ( talk) 13:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just spotted your note on my talk page (got another message afterwards, so didn't see both). I hope to get a chance to re-review the article later. Colin° Talk 09:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Your assessment in your response that his anti-Scottishness was trivial is not accurate, but his reputation in Scotland as the anti-Scot par excellance is probably unfair too. I looked on google books to see if I could find anything for your interest. This might be of use to you. It is common to read in Scottish historians go on tirades against him, but William Ferguson's discussion of him and MacPherson in The Identity of the Scottish Nation: An Historic Quest, pp. 227-49, is perhaps "fairer". EDIT: Here is also a bunch of quotes. I presume you have access to a large proportion of the works from which they are drawn. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I have responded on the FAC thread. The anti-Scottishness needs to be no more than mentioned, my main problem is its eulogistic tone and the coverage concerns. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ottava,
Sorry I'm so late in responding. I've been busy IRL and I wanted to read the relevant pages (SJ, the FAC page, etc.) thoroughly before commenting.
I've looked it over (
this version) and I think the reviewers at FAC have a point: the article is a little light on information about his actual writing. However, I don't think the imbalance is sufficient to be actionable. The trouble seems to me to stem from their expectation that Johnson is comparable, in this sense, to a Shakespeare or Ben Jonson; primarily known for their creative output (plays, poems, literature). It also seems to me—if I can put it thus without giving offense—that this problem is exacerbated by the somewhat curt manner in which you've chosen to respond to their concerns on the FAC page. I think had you opted for a more diplomatic tone the issue would not have become as entrenched and confrontational as it currently appears to be.
As for actual changes to the article that might remedy this, I am somewhat reluctant to give too specific suggestions. I am not sufficiently versed in Johnson. However, it might be useful to look for ways in the article—probably by way of phrasing, or possibly an extra sentence or two somewhere (the earlier the better)—to further emphasise and make explicit that his notability stems not primarily from what he wrote, but who he was. It might also be a good idea to try to talk more about his writings—what they are, why they are notable, and what influence they had—in the proper places to mention them (e.g. in the section on the period of his life when he worked on them); as it already does, but with the balance altered slightly away from the man and to his works. I think there are still biographical details that can be cut, and a very few that probably should be cut. At one point in reading the article there was a date given for an event that even I, who is primarily interested in biography even in the context of Shakespeare, felt was excessive detail (for Wikipedia, mark!). In other words, the core of the problem seems to be human factors rather then textual ones.
But overall I don't think more text needs be added. Rather, some sentences might be altered to focus on the work instead of the man, and some might be deleted and replaced with something ditto. A subtle change of balance, rather than a significant rewrite or addition of material.
In terms of the FAC overall, I don't think any of the issues brought up so far are "actionable" in terms of being valid reasons to not promote it to FA status. If there is anything in this sense "actionable" then it would be that the article isn't really "stable" (which would be a slightly comical objection since it's changing in order to comply with FAC reviews) and that the writing is at times not quite perfect (probably as a result of the cuts, insertions, and rewrites occasioned by the peer and FAC reviews). I don't think these are grounds for not promoting it unless one wants to increase the stringency of the requirements for FA (which might be a good idea, but hasn't been done yet). If I were to review the article there are a bunch of such minor stylistic and copy-editing issues I would point out (the single words in quotes, some sentences that seem malapropos in their paragraph, little stuff like that), but nothing that I wouldn't happily consider minor.
In short, they have a point but it's a minor one and one that, in my opinion, shouldn't determine whether the article is promoted to FA.
I'll have a quick scan over the FAC page to see if there is anywhere it would be appropriate for me to comment to that effect, without further fanning the flames. --
Xover (
talk)
13:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The text I removed was cited to Murray, who describes two job applications in the same year:
The removed text mentions two schools and repeats verbatim the rejection given at Solihull. I don't think those are "an additional two schools with a different complaint". I accept the loss of one school (Staffordshire) and this could be reinserted if required. I don't know the precise chronology but I suspect both are prior to his creation of his own school and the Staffordshire one comes first. Certain that is the order Murray discusses them (Murray is available online so you have the source). Colin° Talk 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind comments and copy edits. Much appreciated Taprobanus ( talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You have to appreciate that Synge is a mojor figure here, and "The Playboy of the Western World" is known to all and sundry. I'm only just going through it properly now. Ceoil sláinte 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Samuel Johnson's early life, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I really have to say that I admire your patience and persistence with the Dr's FAC; to be honest, I'd have given up with it some time ago. There's an entrenched body of opinion that views Johnson as primarily an author, and wants to see an author-like article. And of course there's an entrenched body of opinion that will oppose just because they can. Stick with, I think the tide might be starting to turn. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SandyG. This article deserves to be an FA, but it's in an area where some have strong views. I think some have confused their own opinions with the FA criteria. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been on-wiki much in the last few days to a mandatory visit by family. I just reviewed the Samuel Johnson FAC to see what was going on. Ottava, I know that it is very difficult to see people pull your work apart, especially when you believe that the article is ready, and I am impressed with the amount of work you have continued to put in to meeting some of the objections. I have not read the Johnson article in quite some time, but I suspect (hope!) that it has been improved. You work in a time period and topic that several FAC reviewers feel very strongly about. It is probable that some of their concerns are valid and some are not. As the nominator, you have to walk the tightrope of figuring out which concerns go in which bucket, explain why you don't agree with some, and do it in a polite way (it's a hard job). I know very little about Johnson, so I can't judge the validity of any of the FAC comments, but some of them look reasonable to me, and are issues that I have opposed other articles on (not giving proper context for facts, etc). But again, I'm not saying that those are valid in this case - I haven't read the article lately - so let's not argue those points here.
From the messages left on my talk page, I was expecting to see huge blow-ups all over the FAC page, and I was glad to see that it was nothing that serious. I have seen other nominators react as you have, and, as a reviewer, it makes for an unpleasant experience and sometimes prompts me to look more closely for issues, just because now I'm mad too. I see a few areas for improvement for you, and these are things that you've recognized before as potential problem points for you.
My suggestion: Take a deep breath, strike some of your comments, and think about how you would react if you were in the reviewer's shoes reading your comments. And overall, it looks as if the FAC is really not going that badly. Karanacs ( talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've raised a concern on the DYK hook over at Template talk:Did you know.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratrulations and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
References for road articles are not easy. I cannot help them, maps help detail the road more than anything else. If I had extra sources, I'd use them, but every FA for USRD has gotten away with it (using maps). Also, per your question on the FAC, VT 74 does not significant history to permit an article, so we put the details for the ferry and the VT side in the article. If its better explained, we do that in several articles.Mitch32( UP) 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, I've worked with Mitchazenia for a while, and I'm trying to help him with the New York State Route 74 article. To address the issues that you've raised, I was wondering if youy have access to any newspaper archives. If you do and you could do a little digging for me, I'd be very appreciateive. Cheers, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am readying to leave for India, so I'm not paying much attention to Wikipedia right now. Shocking, I know! Please drop a note on my talk page when you would like me to reread the Johnson article and reassess my "oppose" at the FAC. I will be more than happy to do so. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. A photo has arrived for your viewing. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15489 Raul654 ( talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You had a concern about the presence of a "see also" section in my FAC. However, I see nothing wrong with having such a section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I happen to agree with them, if you look through the talk page archives the consensus at DYK has been built up over a long period of time, and the talkpages reflect historical discussions of a similar nature with the same conclusion. JayHenry ( talk · contribs) is right that the DYK pages do already have a wide prominence - not that pointing a notice on other pages back there is a bad thing, quite the contrary (though I think ANI wouldn't be the best community watering hole for this sort of a notice, Village Pump is much better and I am glad you posted there). You are making some valid points, but IMO - at this point the dialogue is no longer constructive due to the constant "back and forth" going on. I have suggested at WT:DYK that people involved in the discussion take a breather and a step back, it might hopefully have a calming influence in the dialogue. Cirt ( talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Dropping by to say how good it was to see your words to SlimVirgin. You're not one of the names I expected to see there, and it was thoroughly decent of you.
When I heard that you were working on the Ada Lovelace bio I looked through some online archives for relevant images. The best that's turned up so far is probably too remote to use at that page: a scan of a letter between Anne Isabella Byron, Baroness Byron and Mary Edwards Walker. If it's possible to lend assistance in the way I did for Learned Hand, please let me know. Best, Durova Charge! 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Well done! --Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I made an edit here (see the lower one) in which the page in the named ref didn't match the page in the ref template. It's the foot-stomping thing, I think. You may wanna double-check the page. Later! Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've left some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état. If you have time, I wonder if you would revisit it? Thanks, Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 00:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've heard you're the head of the 18th-century Literature Cabal. Where do I sign up? KillerChihuahua ?!? 02:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
No no, please don't do that! I'm sure you misunderstood. Right, OR? OR...? KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
For articles like Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services what is worth checking is the web link, for if the article is a copy vio of their "about page," as was the case here and is very often the case, it's a cleaner ground for deletion. In contrast, G11 is rather vague, being worded : "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion" Thus pages which have some encyclopedic information or which can be rewritten by removing the promotional language are not speedy candidates. So for an article like this, generally I stubbify, which deals with both, and leave a note for the editor explaining about our Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations).
![]() |
The Monarch of the Glen Appreciation | |
Thanks for your assistance in helping
Fauna of Scotland to become a
Featured Article.
It's much appreciated by Cervus elaphus and myself, Ben Mac Dui 18:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC) |
I don't see what the problem is... David doesn't play a large roll in Freemasonry (in fact, he is mentioned only once, in passing, in a lecture that forms part of the third degree). That is factual and is backed by citation to the ritual itself. Freemasonry focuses on Solomon, not David. Blueboar ( talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You need a page structured in the summary style to bind together the individual daughter articles imo. Very ambitious job you are taking on there by the way. In other news, would you mind casting a cold eye on the Henry Moore FARc; work is on-going but input and direction as to what remains to be done would be helpful indeed. Ceoil sláinte 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ottava Rima, I didn't realize that you had already nominated Scrutiny (journal) for the "Did you know". I'm quite new, and new users do make mistakes. Sorry about that. I hope you don't mind. :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 02:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 03:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hi OR, sorry for the delay on revisiting images; I'll check them over again today. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I will look further at the related edit history shortly. With respect to the article itself, it does need to be expanded, and I have no issue with it remaining in a true encyclopedic form. Thanks for your comments! BMW (drive) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you expand on what the issue is with the CC license? Thanks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm missing something here. It was by the description of the uploader made by them by cropping an image they had made. Since they control all rights isn't a CC 2.5 license that doesn't mention their previous version made by that same individual fine? From a hypertalmudic perspective, they released it to themselves and then made a new CC work with that. What am I missing? JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Cleaned up - getting back to work.
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 08:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You're such a friendly chap; your inclusion of Stratford490 is commended. -- CB ( ö) 04:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to this - I would like to thank Lexo for the work on the lead. Yes, it was unwieldy.
- Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Notes for the Vanity of Human Wishes. All citations not provided in full can be found on the Samuel Johnson page:
Bate - Samuel Johnson
- follows 10th satire of Juvenal, associated with stoicism
Lane -Samuel Johnson and His World
Howard D Weinbrot "Johnson's poetry" in Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson
Robert Demaria, Jr The Life of Samuel Johnson: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell. 1993.
I don't mean to bug you, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd take another look at Candide. I believe I have addressed all of your objections to its being made an FA. Thanks in advance. -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for where that thread went. It was not my intention at all, I hope you realize. You may want to archive this note immediately as well, but I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry where that thread went. It does seem that several users (probably half or so) were interested in seeing you unblocked early, if that's any encouragement at all. S. Dean Jameson 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Jameson - a question: Are you preparing yourself to apply for rollback or admin status? I am curious because your editing habits, i.e. use of admin boards, communications on wiki philosophical matters, and other such work seems to fit in with those who are seeking such positions. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ottava. I assume you have been communicating with User:Ceoil offline, but just in case I wanted to post here. I've offered to help him mentor you, if you are agreeable. I think that you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia and I'm hoping that with a bit of guidance you can contribute a bit more effectively. If you'd prefer to keep this discussion offline, let me know and I'll email you. I'd like to become familiar with any discussions you've had with Ceoil or parameters the two of you have agreed on for how this might work. Karanacs ( talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unindent - based on what Karanacs proposed: limit myself to 0RR, 1 talk page response to editors that I have a "history" with when there is no third party at the page and notifying others immediately, and any disagreements to stop discussion and contact the above. Sounds rather standard. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)