User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 2

Welcome to my user talk page. Past material until May 2010 is located at User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 1.

Lost a template

When I was looking for map templates, I came to one that had an image: A portrait with a lot of gentlemen where one can point a person with mouse and mouseclick moves to the wikipage of that person. Now i cannot find that page again.RicHard-59 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it:<imagemap> Image:PolierMartinWombwellZoffany.jpg|thumb|200px|Colonel Antoine Polier rect 269 140 344 305 [[Claude Martin]] rect 124 147 181 298 [[Antoine Polier|Antoine-Louis Polier]] desc none </imagemap> RicHard-59 03:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your msg before 2 months.I am hard for living in China ,I am a richer in spirit,but be a poor in living.So I am very sorry to so later reply your line.I hope I can have more time to wikipedia in future.--Loadpage 11:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Ottava, thank you very much for the congratulation. It is a new adventure for me, and I cannot fulfill it with the support of my member trustees and with the community. Let's keep our mission and our vision in the mind and move forward.--Wing 02:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#Ottava_Rima TheDJ 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing Comment

Hey, sorry if you were bothered by editing the comment. I was doing it to make sure your argument wasn't distracted by a simple spelling error. It certainly wasn't a back-handed insult. Though policy is clear that editing others' comments is touchy and not advisable, particularly during contentious issues, it is also nominally permitted for small typos. I don't think I'll heed your broad warning, but I'll leave your comments alone if you prefer. Thanks, Ocaasi 02:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

...This is the Wikipedia policy I had in mind. (W:TALKO)

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request. Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say.

Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

So, while the policy makes it clear that it can be objectionable, I didn't think you would mind, since the discussion had been civil, and perhaps because you would appreciate the clearer grammar. Though I don't think you are that off-base in your response, approaching even a policy misstep as such in the talkpage message you left might take into consideration that there wasn't anything against good faith involved. thanks, Ocaasi 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ocassi, your actions like the above and attempt to rationalize it are part of why I have no confidence in your understanding of WMF policy or how things should operate here. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You think my views are disposable because I fixed your typos and then told you why I thought you would think it wasn't done in bad faith... I'm not sure I see that logic, except to say that you have a view of how things should operate and it seems that anyone who disagrees with it for any reason is inherently: inexperienced, a fringe POV promoter, a pedophile-supporter, a policy ignoramus, or just generally wrong by default. Your level of explanation or willingness to discuss issues is not at the same level of your conviction, which makes your arguments difficult to engage with. You are probably turning off more people to your perspective, which is not ideal, since the emphasis on creating a Wikipedia which is accessible to many is indeed a goal of most supporters, even those who are highly skeptical of compromising on the encyclopedia's inclusion of controversial content. Ocaasi 10:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your long term editing while logged out verifies what I said about your editing of other's statements - you have no understanding of our standards. This is seriously problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

en:WP:TALKO, forgot the namespace, Ottava. :)

Ocaasi: not to insert myself into your conversation, but editing the comments of others is a "minefield" situation, unfortunately: It's not something that's obvious to the average passer-by, but will engender inflamed response from those whose edits you edit. Best to simply leave the comments of others alone, including any factual, spelling, or grammar mistakes. If a factual mistake needs to be corrected, please do so with a new comment to that point.

Both of you have an absolutely wonderful day, hey? Kylu 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Kylu. I'm not quite the average passer-by, I really just thought that Ottava wouldn't mind since it was an obvious typo and we were having a more substantial discussion.

Ottava, editing while logged out is innocuous. I link all of my i.p. talk pages to my main account, sign accordingly, and speak with the same voice regardless. I think that looking to condemn others based on technicalities is the mark of a stifled bureaucracy not necessarily high standards. Anyway, this project is built on the contributions of anonymous editors, and both for convenience and also to keep an eye on what the world looks like for someone without an account, I don't always log in. The wonderful thing about arguments based on good reasons is that they don't require knowing all of the insider secrets or mores. Anyway, how about not impugning others credibility and getting back to the actual discussion. Ocaasi 16:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ocassi, we have set standards and conventions. My point is that how can you speak about what Wikimedia standards should be when your basic actions go against long set interaction standards? The people who push for a lack of standards for images are all exhibiting a long term pattern of not following our norms. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Our norms". No one else seemed to have a problem with it. Other long-term editors have reassured me that it is no problem at all. Wikipedia policy is clear that using alternate accounts with full disclosure in a non sock/meat way is fine. You're prosecuting again, using superficialities to dismiss views and their proponents that you don't care for. It doesn't stand up and makes your arguments look weaker. It's a tautology that anyone who disagrees with you is a fringe-pov pusher. This doesn't engage any facts, policies, reasons, anecdotes, theories... You've said almost nothing concrete except: what about the 4 million people! and this is how we do things here! Well, that's not sufficient. Discourse requires more explanation and more nuanced ways of dealing with opposing views. The entire notion of consensus apparently eludes your conception of standards, because all you do when encountering opposing views is reject them. I'd rather disregard login-decorum and seek consensus then dot all of the i's and throw out anyone else who gets in the way of my pov. Holding different standards does not mean holding no standards, and having some standards--which you certainly do--does not mean having all standards. Ocaasi 11:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Kylu, a Steward, told you that it isn't proper. You then said no one else has a problem with it. How can you make such claims over and over when the reality completely contradicts what you claim? Are you here just to disrupt? Because your statements above like that are disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Charm and civility

Dear Ottava, you are currently the most aggressive voice in the controversial content discussions, which have otherwise remained rather civil. If you could find it in you to tone down the accusations in your writing, and to be more charitable in your assumptions about others, many people would be grateful for it, and we might more easily move towards a reflective consensus. –SJ · talk | translate 12:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility is more than just phrasing. It includes purpose and attitude. A recent en.wiki ArbCom statement said one of the greatest threats was "civil" POV pushing. POV pushing is deceptive, which is incivil. There is no consensus when there are POV pushers manipulating others. Craigslist and Yahoo suffered greatly when they failed to ensure that illegal activities did not take place on their sites. As connected to academia, we cannot allow or troublemakers to push extreme agendas in order to justify illegal activities. It is against US law for pornography that didn't have the consent the owner to exist. Those arguing against any such system said that pedophiles have the right to use our services and other outright unethical things on IRC and here. Such actions cannot be tolerated, and pointing out their histories is not "aggressive". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Behavior on-wiki

Guillom inappropriately used delrev. Del rev is only to be used when personal information is provided or the rest. I stated only that I had logs verifying that FT2 is a POV warrior who holds fringe views and made it clear that his purpose here is to push fringe issues for the fun of arguing. He also edit warred by putting forth something that was clearly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)