User talk:Ottava Rima

Welcome to my user talk page. Past material until May 2010 is located at here, after here.

I decided to re-prioritize and I will be gone for at least the duration of finishing my real life work.

Greetings

It's much easier and faster for me to communicate via wiki. I'm moving away from private communication except where absolutely necessary. Could you initiate the discussion here on Meta? –SJ talk | translate   21:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really, as it doesn't have much to do with the Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Idea

I think you have the wrong idea. The proposal would not create a new wiki, just rename the existing one per previous creation of other dialect wiki(s). The dialects of the language are considered distinct enough to be given ISO codes as they are mutually unintelligible with different writing styles and etc. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 22:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ISO code is meaningless. Why do people think otherwise? ISO is a company that copyrights acronyms, abbreviations and phrases and then sells them as "standards" to other companies, even though these should not be something that can be copyrighted. They make millions off of getting there first and they are not linguists or anything with an academic connection to language. Cockney has an ISO code but it is merely rhyming and other things. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

block log ipblocklist crossblock luxo's unblock remove gblock contribs: +/- You have been blocked from editing Meta for 3 days due to intimidating behaviour / harassment. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, and privacy violations are considered vandalism, and will not be tolerated. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. If you believe the block was placed in error, you may place an unblock request on your talk page using {{unblock|reason}}. Béria Lima msg 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Request reason: The user was trying to say that providing children access to pornography was completely appropriate and that prohibiting them access to pornographic material was wrong. The user then went on to say things like "But apparently you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this" and "Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world: ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world." Study after study have proven that pornography is the first step of grooming a child, and this user is trying to justify that giving pornography to a child is legally and morally acceptable, which it is not in any country, including Germany. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Decline reason: Per consensus on WM:RFH this block is now indefinite. I won't bother repeating the discussion there, but given your long history, you know the things you said were not appropriate, and a en:WP:NOTTHEM defence is not going to fly. Courcelles 20:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC) বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-

• Comment - Pending discussion on WM:RFH. -Barras 20:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Charm and civility, take 2

Dear Ottava, you are once more the most aggressive voice in the controversial content discussions, which are otherwise rather civil. This behavior is harmful to constructive discussion. Please tone down the accusations in your writing, and be more charitable in your assumptions about others. –SJ talk | translate   20:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise civil? The guy I responded to said: "But apparently you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this." and "Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world: ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world. " Where have I said anything like that? Look at how many times the word "stupid" comes up and it is said by dozens of IPs. Sj, if you are going to try and make a point at least make one grounded in what is said. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

An apology

I am sorry if I crossed the line. The protection of children is a very serious issue to me it is really troubling to see someone not only say that it was good to give children access to porn but that refusing to do so would cause them harm, especially when that person is constantly calling others stupid. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)