User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/aug

Custodian_feedback
Custodian_feedback has been filed regarding your recent behavior. I hope that we can resolve our current dispute there, because discussion between us obviously is not cutting the mustard. I will ask, meanwhile, as an alternate dispute resolution pathway prior to a Community Review, if there is someone you would trust as a mediator or arbitrator. --Abd 05:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How do your actions support the Wikiversity project?
Ottava Rima, why did you asserted that you are the top organizer of Wikiversity, apparently positioning yourself as being "special" in some way? Ottava Rima, why have you adopted the strange position that you can impose blocks not forbidden by policy, while Wikiversity policy says that blocks are only for preventing repeated vandalism or other purposes explicitly prescribed by policy or defined by consensus? Ottava Rima, why did you impose a bad block and violate the Wikiversity civility policy by calling for an unjustified block? Ottava Rima, why did you fail to provide evidence to support accusations that you made against Moulton (specifically: 1, 2)? Why did you make a wild accusation and alienate a new member of the Wikiversity community? Ottava Rima, why did you use the Wikiversity chat channel inappropriately, for example, to bully another member of the community? Ottava Rima, please explain how your actions (above) support the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 01:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets see - I've been the contact between various university faculty, professors, and the rest, and, for quite a few months, I was the only admin who was anything that could be considered "active". By the way, why would you think you can claim anything about blocks when we have no policy? Only policy can be enforced. That is how things work, remember? Furthermore, JWS, it has been a long time since you bothered to make any content. You stopped contributing here long ago. And you know exactly what my conditions are for unblocking Moulton - he has stated that he does not want to be unblocked so no block made after that can really be bad, as he even agrees to stay blocked. As a question, why did you use the IRC chat channel to repetitively bully others and why do you continue to make only bullying posts? You do realize that the term "bully" is subjective and that your actions meet the same threshold, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, please provide a link to the Wikiversity community discussion where you were designated as the "top organizer of Wikiversity". "we have no policy" <-- There is existing policy on use of the block tool, particularly existing policy that prescribes how the block tool can be used. Ottava Rima, you claimed that, "we have no policy", but there are four existing Wikiversity policies that explain exactly how the block tool can be used, starting with Custodianship and including Civility. Existing policy says that the block tool is used to prevent repeated vandalism or as otherwise prescribed in policy or otherwise determined by consensus. "no block made after that can really be bad" <-- I don't understand the distinction that you seem to be making between "bad" and "really bad". The block you imposed on Moulton violates Wikiversity policy and disrupts the Wikiversity Mission. "why did you use the IRC chat channel to repetitively bully others and why do you continue to make only bullying posts?" <-- Ottava Rima, please list the people who you think were bullied. "You do realize that the term "bully" is subjective and that your actions meet the same threshold, right?" <-- I don't agree, which is why chat channel logs should be made public, so that the Wikiversity community can decide about misbehavior in the community chat channel. Objective observers can recognize bullying and threats. Ottava Rima, how do your actions such as violations of policy, bullying, alienation of Wikiversity community members and preventing Wikiversity community members from collaborating with Moulton support the Wikiversity project? --JWSchmidt 05:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't an objective observer and a subjective victim a the same time. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

List of custodian mentors
Would you please add yourself to List of custodian mentors? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I only mentor on a special basis - Pmlineditor was someone I knew for a long time and could help out when it was needed. Abd because I told him if no one else bothered to offer then I would as a last resort. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you list yourself (since you have been mentoring), along with conditions under which you mentor? I'm trying to get the page more up to date and reflective of the mentoring options. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

dealing with things
"your way of describing the community here" <-- What do you mean? If someone objects to policy violations and other practices that disrupt Wikiversity then you feel the need to block them? "you have an alternative site that allows you to be with Moulton" <-- I don't understand what you are trying to say. Every Wikiversity participant can use other websites, does that mean you are motivated to try to block them from editing? "What would you contribute if you stayed?" <-- My main interests are described on my user page. I want nothing more than to return to the way I participated at Wikiversity from 2006 to 2008 when Wikiversity was a fun and exciting experiment in online collaborative learning. "Is it really that horrible to bury things in the past and to just deal with things as they are now?" <-- You seem to be postulating a stark dichotomy between the past and the present. I'm not comfortable with overly-simplistic dualistic thought processes. My friends and collaborators have been brutally harassed and driven away from Wikiversity. Each day more Wikiversity participants are treated rudely rather than being welcomed to participate here. I am excluded from participating in the community chat channel by misguided sysops who abuse their positions of trust and responsibility. "just deal with things as they are now" <-- I am doing so, mostly using the deck that you handed to me. --JWSchmidt 04:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Civility and transparency
I invite you to adopt a more civil tone than was evident in several of your edits (particularly towards SB_Johnny and Abd) leading up to Abd's warning to you and blocking of you for incivility on 29 July 2010. Whilst I would have preferred dialogue over blocking, I do nevertheless agree with Abd that there was a level of incivility that warranted being addressed. I also invite you to let edits such as incivility warnings and block notifications on your talk page to stand in the interests of transparency. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you are in a minority, as many other people have disagreed. Furthermore, the warnings against Abd for being outright nasty to JWS, to other people and the rest, make it obvious that he is a hypocrit. Your latest stances, especially with your approach to claiming that an outright factually wrong statement about dinosaurs is some how a "learning page", your abuse of crat authority, and the rest, makes it seem like you are not in a proper role to judge anything. Jtneill, you stomped over Juan and Geoff. You stomped over Darkcode. You are abusing your authority. Take a week off. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel stomped on. Many other people have disagreed with what? That you need to adopt a more civil tone? Many people perhaps need to take some time off as was suggested in the Colloquium. -- dark lama  17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your putting Abd up for a vote and the calls for you to be punished for it. You were following clear community precedence found in the only other instance of a mentor not approving of the mentee after the temporary custodianship time ended. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did Jtneill call for me to be punished and what did Jtneill say? -- dark lama  17:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Others called for punishment. Jtneill said you were acting inappropriately even though Terra's Candidacy showed clear community acceptance of such actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone called for "punishment," it would only be JWS, who actually is just claiming that a series of actions are "rogue," with no discrimination as to what would be sysop actions or editorial actions. To my knowledge, there are no "others," plural, and it's not true even for JWS, for the only "punishment" possible would be a block, and JWS would surely oppose that, or desysop, and desysopping for a simple attempt to simplify community process and not waste time, even if incorrect, would never result in a loss of bit. However, Ottava, you almost certainly will lose your bit, and rapidly, if you don't wake up and realize that you are violating civility policy, and that's very serious for a sysop. This isn't a threat, it's a warning, and I have no personal enforcement power. Just the power to warn of a coming danger. --Abd 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you crossed the threshold for harassment a few days ago, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I do not. I presume that if I am crossing a threshold for harassment, I will be warned on my Talk page, specifically. Is this a threat to block me for harassment if I disregard this comment, Ottava? --Abd 18:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This shows how to deal with perceived incivility. Making hundreds of kb of statements accusing people of being incivil and the rest is not on that list. Now, there are many things that would be attributable to your comments: "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another", "Calling for unjustified bans or blocks", "Using straw men", etc. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially new people without any history of quality contribution or commitment to the project who could be seen as a disruption only account. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd assume that I'd be warned by someone other than you, if I was crossing the line as seriously as you claim. To repeat, is this a threat to block me for harassment? It is a simple question, Ottava, the answer should be pretty simple. Should I be concerned that you, personally, will block me? --Abd 19:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't bothered to pay attention, but I don't block users. I don't believe in user blocks. It is just putting a mirror up to you to see that your own calls for something would, if go into effect, cause you far more problems. You want to set up a world of harsh justice without any real evidence or discussion, then you would be first to be removed. JWS has pointed out how your language and actions are far too harsh, far too rough, and that you go at things in a way too heavy handed manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a simple answer to a simple question. I seek no "harsh justice," I seek protection of the wiki from, among other things, incivility, which is poisonous. And let me ask something specific of you. Your mention above of hypocrit [sic] crossed the line. That's a personal attack, and was completely unnecessary in the context above, and represented direct defiance of Jtneill's quite gentle warning. Will you strike it? I'll mention that, in Islam, this is a far more offensive charge than "liar." My custodial actions are under review, which will probably continue for a time. The warning above, from the timing, very likely proceeded from a careful and detailed and neutral review of my actions, which included evidence of the basis for them, see . And yours? --Abd 19:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want me to remove incivility, then I would have to wipe just about every single post made by you on Wikiversity dating to the beginning of JWS's community review. You are a hypocrite, there is no insult there. You impose one standard and pretend you don't need to follow it. If you don't like it, stop promoting double standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You just repeated the incivility, that's noted. You seem unclear on the concept of incivility. I could indeed be a hypocrite, but it would still be uncivil to call me one unless two conditions are established, the first of which is necessity. The second is secondary, and it is the provision of proof. The standard would probably be high. You also seem unclear on the concept of asking a user to retract an uncivil statement. I have asked you to strike a specific uncivil comment of yours, not one of mine. You are perfectly free to do the same for me. If I don't do it, it means I'm willing to lean on the statement not being uncivil, but being a reasonably necessary statement. If I have been violating incivility policy, where are the warnings and blocks for disregarded warnings? Your statement above will not stand up to review. Period. As to liking it or not, I don't care. I will follow policy and consensus regardless of what I like, and if I don't like them, I'll change the policy -- with consensus -- or I'll leave. If I'm warned for incivility, you can be sure I will not delete the warning, nor will I disregard it. I will respect it, which usually means I will follow what it suggests. But a vague charge like yours, there is nothing to follow. Anyway, this is becoming repetitive and is apparently just tempting you to repeat the incivility, so, good luck, and I'll leave behind one piece of advice, you may take it or leave it. Get some independent advice from someone you trust. If there is no such person, I suggest you are in an untenable situation. --Abd 20:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to follow the suggestions on how to deal with civility by ignoring you now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with Jtneill.--Juan de Vojníkov 11:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, now be fine with staying around for more than a month. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ottava. I took your advice to have a bit of a break, thankyou, for that, I appreciate it. Thanks for your other talk page, email, and community review feedback about my editing etc. I'll take a look and respond in due course. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ottava. May I respectfully encourage you to let edits such as this civility warning stand in the interests of transparency? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. He should be blocked for blatant trolling. I have the right to state someone's accusations about my -feelings- is a lie. That is no incivil. He has been blatantly abusing every single standard we have, hounds people constantly, and not put up anything worth while in terms of learning content. He is lucky that I didn't just block him for such ridiculous nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

108.1.128.128
Hi. I've unblocked 108.1.128.128 since the IP is already blocked via the range block of 108.1.128.0/22. Adambro 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked through the log and I couldn't find that specific one. Thanks for getting that range. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Copyright
Evidence can be found at here and at several other websites and newsgroups. I placed portions of the text into Google to locate the website, then used Ctrl+F to perform a standard text to text direct comparison and confirm. Geoff Plourde 19:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Contributing to the main Wikiversity namespace
Dear Ottava,

You make excellent contributions here in welcoming new users, and to the main namespace when you take time to do so. You also make 10x as many contributions to the talk and project namespaces... I think that if you were to try to consciously edit course materials for every few edits you make related to policy, the project and local community would both benefit. I am making an effort to do this myself.

Regards, –SJ + > 02:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done that. However, I don't necessarily do it under this name so that I can release material under GFDL as I mentioned to you. In two weeks, I will have two others to come over to help me. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wales reporting
May I ask why you are reporting Wales about what is going on in here?--Juan de Vojníkov 06:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple Stewards told me to because of his relationship with both SB Johnny's custodian status and Thekohser's account status. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with Jimbo knowing about anything going on here. Jimbo has resigned his intrusive Founder tools, but he is completely welcome to comment here and to make requests, and, as far as I'm concerned, his requests will receive careful respect and consideration and, if called for, rapid response. I generally advise against secrecy, and especially decisions made secretly, however, for it can create a poor appearance and damage WMF reputation, and I'm concerned about "multiple stewards told me to," because those obviously were rapid communications, apparently off-wiki, with hasty questions or requests, as if we were dealing with an emergency situation, and we have no information other than speculation about the content of what Ottava told these stewards in order to obtain that advice. It is bad process to ping a high-level functionary about minor stuff than can be handled locally. There is a member of the WMF Board who is active here and who is fully aware of the situation, and, I'm sure, would not hesitate to involve stewards if needed. (He has properly recused from acting himself, though he could certainly do so in an emergency.) Stewards would then make a decision whether or not to ask Jimbo. We have no idea what steward advised Ottava to ping Jimbo, but ... that was bad advice, on the face. Perhaps it has not been accurately represented. --Abd 15:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo gave up the ability to block. He did not give up his other abilities nor did the Foundation itself give up the ability to lock and globally ban users. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo gave up a whole series of tools, and with one exception, gave up all "control" tools, including the right to add and remove user rights (such as custodian or 'crat). The exception was oversight, and that was only kept for technical reasons, the software does not allow separation from the ability to read oversighted edits from the ability to oversight them. (This means the ability to delete stuff so that even ordinary sysops cannot read them.) Jimbo clearly wanted to retain tools that would allow him to see everything going on, and he quite wisely realized that the time had come for him to back off from actually being the one to act outside of the wikis that specifically allow him this. (And his actions, even there, have become rare as hen's teeth.) This is, in fact, quite in line with the role of God-King, absent the sovereignty part. (Jimbo has no authority except by influence through prestige and by the permission of the Board.) Ottava is correct, the Foundation has the right to globally lock users and to make certain other global decisions, the Board has the right to, through Staff bits, do anything it decides, within the constraints of law, and nothing we do here can do anything to resist that, aside from walking. But they won't do that unless it's absolutely needed, because they do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. In the future, watch, if they have a problem with decisions a local wiki makes, they will only act (directly or through stewards) with intrusive tools, in an emergency, and they will then consult the community, or they will simply ask a community to handle a problem. Satisfy their critical concerns, they will go away.


 * So what does the "global lock" have to do with this? I think that Ottava is referring to the probability that this community is going to decide to unblock Thekohser, whom Jimbo, in the past, declared "globally banned." However, at most points subsequently, the actions of stewards have been consistent with allowing local wikis to make a local decision on this. At first, the global lock was lifted, and then stewards went around and replaced it with local blocks, thus allowing local sysops to reverse it. That was the stated reason! Then the global lock was replaced, without explanation, but the obvious one is that the 'crat delinking workaround had been found, thus even if there is a global lock, it can be locally defeated by a 'crat. They would prefer this solution, I suspect, because it requires a higher-level decision locally, not so erratic, or it requires going to a steward. It sets a default ("global ban") which can be locally reversed (Thus it remains in accord with the consensus to allow local control.)
 * If I'm correct in this analysis, it will be very difficult to get the global lock lifted, because it represents a high-level compromise. I wouldn't even try at this point, it would be way too disruptive. --Abd 19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [Fell off my chair.] ... taking a half a day to recover from the shock :-) ... On the other hand, there is a huge mess on Wikibooks now over this issue.. My speculation above about "high-level compromise" might be incorrect. Mike.lifeguard, who set the global lock as a steward, might just be running a renegade operation. His comments on Wikibooks would seem to indicate that he did not know about the workaround, and his intention in replacing the lock was to enforce it as a block, everywhere. Not to allow local decisions. He is acting there, strongly, against apparent consensus, wheel-warring against another 'crat, as if he owns Wikibooks, effectively calling a set of long-time users, including a 'crat, "trolls." He effectively just yanked checkuser from the 'crat by resigning it himself and requesting the withdrawal, in the middle of the dispute. Of course, he's a steward, so he has checkuser anyway, from that flag, so what he just did was remove from the community its only independent checkuser. But he's damn sure he's right, and firmly in charge. --Abd 13:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr
but I did ;) I decided a while ago to not post to WR, but I still get links to it, from time to time. Battleground mode, still, I see. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should stop your trolling, edit warring, and cross wiki destroying of pages. As you can see, you trolled the wrong person and just lost half of your supporters. One more screw up and you'll be gone and wont be getting such a cushy second chance as you got. Seeing your history of not producing anything worth while but making a lot of cross wiki disturbances, it would be good to have you banned again. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the one banned, am I? Jeers, Jack Merridew 20:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You were, and for very nasty stuff - sock puppetry, stalking, disrupting dozens of pages, etc. I only do what is best for encyclopedic articles. You only do what is best for your own personal agenda. That is the difference between us. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and my ban appeal was accepted ;) Is there an WV:AGF page around here somewhere? Ah, good; the usual shortcut. Jack Merridew 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read what my ban "appeal" stated? And I believe you honestly think you have good intentions while screwing up everything. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall that it was said that you posted it somewhere off-wiki, but don't believe I ever even saw a link to it. Here? WR? If I honestly think I have good intentions, then I do have good intentions. I don't think that I'm screwing up anything. I've not really been following your travails post-en:wp. I do see some of the flare-ups, though. They seem regular and across the board. I hear you're in trouble here, too. I've seen the broad outline, but it's a matter for those with long-term commitments to this project.
 * Abd asked that I not 'poke' you, so I'm ready to call this thread non-productive. If you post a link to your appeal, I'll take a look. Jack Merridew 02:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In trouble here? You mean Abd said that, the guy who came here, disrupted a lot, and is closer to a ban each day? Maybe you should recheck your sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No link to your appeal? Ya, I'm sure you saw the post on my talk. I don't know him, really. I know SBJ rather better. Jack Merridew 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings and Salutations
Ottava, I believe we have only crossed paths once before, so I understand your suspicion. I explain my opinion, offered in opposition to yours, by saying this: Critical voices should be heard, and even the disgruntled deserve a place at the table. &rarr;StaniStani  20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, that vote there was one of the reasons why I feel you might be a person from WR or a friend of Kohs. It is hard to account for some of your opposition without an adequate background to establish such. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't you a 'person from WR?' On Wikipedia, I have backed up those who were buffeted by the majority: Giano, Malleus, yourself, Everyking - without an 'equal protection' clause minority views have a tendency to be obliterated by the majority, or even by a small group of entitled members. My view is consistent and accountable thereby. &rarr;StaniStani  21:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No one from WR would claim me as one of theirs, I can tell you that. And I don't want to be included with others. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I supported, too, however, that was then. Jack Merridew 02:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pastor Theo supported also. Many sock puppets of banned users supported. You shouldn't be happy that you are in their company. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw that. Any of the others still unblocked? Methinks that sort prolly supported you for the same reason as Lara in the straw poll. I had not figured you out, back then. Rectified. Jack Merridew 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You basically stole credit for over 100k worth of my work in order to justify getting adminship at Wikisource and then used that to get a ban appeal. Unlike you, I don't claim the work of others. Now please go wander elsewhere, you aren't welcome here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. John hooked us up, we discussed this on email and all was fine. I formatted the text, added a lot of the footnotes by hand. Sheesh. Jack Merridew 06:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See hundreds of links to your text here:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Jack+Merridew&offset=20080901
 * You got credit. Jack Merridew 06:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I was en:unbanned 6 months before John nom'd me for adminship at wikisource. He did offer to, earlier, though. 07:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:SB_Johnny
 * Jack Merridew 07:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, this is an absurd claim Ottava. Jack did a ton of work because you didn't want to do it, understandably because this type of wikisource work is mind-numbing work.  You were mentioned often, inc. in the sysop nom at s:Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Jack_Merridew.  He put a lot of work into those Horace pages, and you should be wary about discounting his efforts until you have an appreciation for how much effort is involved; that said, his sysop nom. was due to many other factors, esp. varied technical and language skills, and putting his shoulder to the plow on less than glamorous projects which help develop our vision, and solving some niggling technical issues along the way.  Around that time I was nominating anyone who had crossed the 1000 wikisource edit threshold; Jack had 2.5 that. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn' want to do it? That is a lie. I didn't even know what Wikisource was. I already demonstrated that once someone took me through it I was highly capable of working there and helping. And he did a ton of work? Do you know how many weeks it took to transcribe that document? He put in crap. He only got through any of that stuff because of my effort and if I ever would have known that he was taking credit for it I would have gone there, opposed, and demanded sanctions. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My effort to discuss my opinion with Ottava has taken a nasty turn. Jack, I don't appreciate your interruption. Ottava, I am a mere dabbler at Wikipedia, I have a completely undistinguished (and nearly extinguished) writing career which I am working on expanding and enriching here and some other online fora. I intend to research and discuss (not rigorously, but I hope in an interesting way) the relationship between author and reader. I participate in community affairs if I feel the community would benefit from my opinion. If you don't feel I would make a valuable member of the community, I hope you could come to a different conclusion at a later time. I am not a shark, I am but a minnow in the Wiki* pool. &rarr;StaniStani  15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)