Misplaced Pages

Shakespeare draft

Hi Tom I noticed you reverted my changes to the draft. These are made because the "day" field in citations is deprecated. Rich Farmbrough, 11:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

citations

Hi Tom, for some reason when using the template {{citation}} and using it for a journal, the code does not include the p. or the pp. for the page(s) parameter. When citing a journal you need to include either p. or pp. This does not appear to be a problem with books, only when the "journal" parameter is used. Cheers, nableezy - 22:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing/Votestacking

You may be engaged in inappropriate behavior involving canvassing/votestacking. Please review this ]. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please use caution regarding reverting, 3RR is not a "right". I'd advise avoiding further reverts on fringe theory. Continued edit warring is disruptive. Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fringe

I'm curious why you picked me as one of the editors you invited to comment at Talk:Fringe theory.—Finell 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit

Here You wrote that "a network of online pro-Israel activists committed to spreading Zionism online, were organizing people at a workshop"

But it wasn't the "online pro-Israel activists" that were organizing the people it was the Yesha council and My Israel. The "online pro-Israel activists" were the people Yesha council/My Isarel were organizing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I went by this article, which I referenced. The very last graf says, "My Israel is a network of online pro-Israel activists committed to spreading Zionism online and to counter the spread of lies and misinformation against Israel which frequently appears on the Internet." Tom Reedy (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

SAQ Incident

Looking over the Shakespeare authorship talk page you seem to be someone who has had trouble with unfair opposition to your edits. You might like to pass a comment here. RewlandUmmer (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting volte face, sir. You're obviously in major dispute with this Smatprt, you're writing competing articles. So what's the strategy here? Avoid the main point of the dispute - his unjustified deletions against a newcomer - and instead support him on it to convince him you have honorable intent and more easily gain concessions from him in your edit war? I saw through it immediately. RewlandUmmer (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mail Call

Mail call.Smatprt (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Shakespeare authorship question, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Template restoration rationale

Hi Tom. On Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, I withdrew the merge tag because (1) there was no agreement and (2) the discussion closed in March and nothing has been done. Which "policy" were you referring to in your delete comment please? It seems this isn't going anywhere. Note that I've had no past role in any of the discussions. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. See here, especially the statement from the admin: "Discussion templates should not be removed unless there is documented consensus on the talkpage for such", which gives a link to the policy. The two discussions below that are relevant to the issue, too (although trying to follow them may explode your brain, so be careful). New versions of the Shakespeare authorship question are being drafted here and here. You're welcome to participate on either page. It's not a rush project, but editing for the long haul is the Misplaced Pages way. Cheers. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info Tom. I see what you mean about exploding brains - I may have to lie down in a darkened room to recover for a bit after reading some of it. I'm agnostic on the Oxfordian/Statford Man debate, but I do think there's scope in WP to cover it all well. I am a little confused to say the least about the various proposals on all this and may come back to you with one or two questions in due course, if you don't mind. Thanks for your time! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Malone

Incidentally, as alluded to on Guillaume's talk page, I'm doing some work on Edmond Malone and would much appreciate a collaborator if the topic should be of interest to you. I'm finding myself having trouble progressing the article due to the paucity of good sources: Peter Martin's biography is a bit poorly structured and has the oddest gaps, which is giving me trouble, and the previous bio by Sir James Prior is even worse. Right now I'm stuck trying to say something interesting about his years in Ireland as a lawyer, and trying to figure out a sensible overall structure for the article (e.g. whether to keep it a strict chronology of his life, or to break out into topics like his Shakespeare editions, the Ireland Shakespeare forgeries, his relationship with James Boswell and Samuel Johnson, etc.).
Anyways, it would really help to have someone to collaborate with, so if you have the time and inclination, anything you might be able to contribute would help immensely. --Xover (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like nothing better, and I also have a list of other articles to work on, but right now I'm trying to get the SAQ draft finished. Until then, I'm only kamikazing a few random articles as it strikes me, usually when I look something up and notice grammar errors and such. I'm also hoping this mediation will be successful; that would free up some time for other projects, too.

tl;dr: yes, but later.

Shakespeare verbatim :the reproduction of authenticity and the 1790 apparatus (1991) by Margreta de Grazia contains some Malone material. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Shakespeare Verbatim keeps popping up; in fact, I suspect Martin wrote his Malone in part to answer perceived criticism of Malone from de Grazia. Is it any good? My local library doesn't have it and it's hideously expensive on Amazon, so I've been putting off getting it.

Glad to hear you have an interest in this and might lend a hand. There's no hurry, obviously; as mentioned my forward progress is slow, and I think I'll need to do some hunting for sources here too. Thanks or the tip. --Xover (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question mediation

Dear user,

This is a quick message to inform you that I have taken the Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation. I will be spending a day or so trying to get an understanding of the dispute and create a framework to take the discussion forward.

Please understand that mediation is not a quick process and that a fair amount of patience is required. If any of you have any question feel free to contact me by email through the wiki interface.

Many Thanks

Your Mediator - Seddon | 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tom Reedy, I have copied my response to User:Smrtprt as I hope it gives a little insight into the process.

Just following up on the message you left on my talkpage. A lot of cases that come through MEDCOM involve some element of either NPOV, or UNDUE. These issues are often the cause of many disputes. It is important to remember that there is no one size fits all solution to these problems. The key to success is a willingness to cooperate with parties, the ability of all to agree on a suitable middle ground, and the individual acceptance that the final solution is quite often not the perfectly ideal one but one that can be beared. In addition medation is a fluid process. With no set rules of engagement and lies down to the individual preferences of the parties and mediator.

Seddon | 01:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the upcoming mediation has nothing to do with the afd of another article. I am disappointed that you are raising "good faith" as you have continued your deletion of content ] and ] - deletions which are exactly what this mediation is about! Regarding your comment about the new article, please see my entry on the article talk page.Smatprt (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

shakespeare: sorry, dude.

its backViniTheHat (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Page_move <-- look here. ViniTheHat (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

where do you want to move it?ViniTheHat (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

renaming a page is called "moving" it, since it's in a new place. but, it's done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Shakespeare_authorship_question_%28attribution_studies%29

ViniTheHat (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Medation

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Shakespeare_authorship_question. I have archived the rest of the page and this page will be the main page for this mediation Seddon | 11:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about this

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

um...Nishidani raised this, so I had to respond. By mentioning you, I need to advise you of this. It was not my intention and I am in no way coming after you. I actually thought we were making (some) progress. In any case, I want you to be informed. Smatprt (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Derby

Tom, I see you added the date 1562 for the ballad on the Earl of Derby's adventures around the world. While I can certainly imagine some local Peter Quince composing a glorifying ballad for the Earl's return from some foreign trip (in hope of his sixpence a day reward perhaps), I can't imagine even the most enthusiastic flatterer having him kill tigers at the tender age of one. Where does this date come from? Paul B (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I misread this book excerpt. I'll check to see if you reverted; if not, I will. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the book that source refers to. It might be useful. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon perusing that book, Paul, it appears that the Garland writer plagiarised material from the 1562 poem that was written about the 5th earl not the 6th, and in fact it states that very thing on p. 3. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

images

• I haven't looked in firefox or msexploder yet, but in google chrome your images are very, very, very seriously hosed. It's also bed time here; dunno if I can work long tonight. • Ling.Nut 14:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. In Firefox and Explorer they look fine. Is there a fix so they all look good in all browsers, or is that a Wiki glitch? (Thanks for the edits, BTW. Your reputation is quite renowned.) Tom Reedy (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. They all look good until the Ashbourne portrait in the annals section. I'm wondering if it's because it splits into two columns and then goes back to default. I'll do some experimenting. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Splitting the text of the article is a very novel approach, and I personally would not recommend it. I believe many people would agree with me...
• The images look much better now! Most people think they should alternate between left- and right-aligned, but I don't know if it's a rule. There are still a couple places where the abundance of images make the article look a little busy... have you triple-checked the licensing of every image? I am currently in FAR hell because an article was nommed by a clueless n00b, but it then got caught in an image-licensing hell...
• At least two sections, "Authorship question annals" and "Full list of candidates" are too list-like, and should almost certainly be split off into separate List articles (unless you can make the former more text-like, but I think that would be a large project with a minimal return for your investment in time and trouble – still suggest peeling it off into a separate list).
• I will spend some time soon going over things carefully... There are some problems with your references, forex, but so far they look minor... • Ling.Nut 00:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The annals aren't lists; I thought it would be the most economical and logical way to cover a dense history in the least amount of space. Few of the individual events are notable enough for their own articles, and what is notable is covered in other articles, such as the J. Thomas Looney and Delia Bacon articles. The authorship candidate list is . . . well, a list. If you think it needs to be in a separate article, leave a note on the talk page and see what others think about it.

Most of the images are 400 years old or better, so I don't foresee any trouble there, but I'll double check. Unfortunately I'm going to be in all-day classes both Saturday and Sunday, so I'll be out of pocket for most of the weekend.

I really appreciate you taking your time to look at this.

All best, Tom Reedy (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

SAQ

Hey, Tom, did I mess up your edit? I didn't get an edit conflict, but look at the History! Scary. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

What the...it looks different now. A minute ago, it claimed our edits were simultaneous. Never mind, sorry, as you were. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

That's "sis", not "bro". Bishonen | talk 19:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

There is actually a way to edit the lead separately... but I don't remember it. :-) As for H5, snort. Just wait till I write one about a brave band of sisters. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

Oops, not again! I'll just leave you to it. Back later. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

Not necessarily. Sometimes the message system is buggy, and large swathes are silently deleted by the conflict. That's quite common on ANI, for some reason. But in a History like this, it's never a big deal to fix, I guess. OK, I'll just put in a small grammar thing in the lead, two minutes from now, and then I'll leave you to it. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

RfC

I don't want to get involved but I see there is an RfC here. I may make a comment, but would like to see some other input. Will you be commenting? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's Smatprt's second or third RfC on that page, and he can't seem to attract much interest. My opinion is that he's trying to draw attention away from his pending topic ban. Since I wrote a good part of Draft 2 along with Nishidani, which was moved into the main pages by an uninvolved editor as a result of the AN/I discussion, I won't be commenting on his version, which is essentially a cut down version of the same page that started all this way back in March. I would go into detail about the history of all this but you'd shoot yourself before I was half done. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Baconian theory has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary topic ban while the RfC is ongoing

I have volunteered you as agreeable to being topic banned per my comments here. Upon thinking about it further, you are of course able to work on the draft noted in the RfC if you think any of the comments there should be incorporated. However, in the meantime, could you just try and not get into any edit wars or stuff. The other named two parties are also getting this message. Stay cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Could you point me toward the RfC that was ongoing? I would review it, and the related drafts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK submission

If you think you can sufficiently expand the prose in the article, please leave a note to that effect under your entry. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Another minor issue. To quote the rules: "The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim..." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The fact in the hook must be explicitly mentioned in the article, which is currently not the case. Either the fact must be added to the article, or the hook must be changed to something which is mentioned in the article. (If you change the hook, it would probably be best to strike the original and add an ALT.)
• You added a cite to the DYK nomination page, but there must be an inline citation immediately after the hook fact in the article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship

Done. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK

I'm confused. Is that written by Smatprt or not? BTW, shouldn't there be a link in the list to Anne_Hathaway_(Shakespeare)#Wedding for Whately. I created a redirect some months ago: Anne Whatley. Paul B (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm referring above to my latest comment re the DYK template discussion. I'm not sure which comment you are referring to re user:warshy. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. We are talking at cross purposes. You mean my reply to warshy on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt. Well, I had just assumed that warshy himself had posted that as it's signed by him. Paul B (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

re DYK: Smatprt does not want the DYK nomination to go ahead, presumably as he interprets the long list as an attempt to ridicule the "authorship debate" by displaying what looks like a plethora of preposterous speculations. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well he needs to take it up with hamiltonstone then, because I moved it at his direction. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

hook fact

I'm not too familiar with this, but I guess that the 'hook fact' is that 'these people have been proposed as Shakespeare candidates'. I don't know how to cite that, as it's a conflation of sources. Clearly Elliot/ Valenza is the main source, but it is not exclusive. A further problem is the fact that some candidates do not actually seem to exist outside of the imagination of their proponents. Anne Whateley, about whom I have now created an article, is clearly notable even without the authorship claims. "William Pierce" (1561-1674) appears to be a completely imaginary Nietzschean superman who lived to the age of 113, his name, I suspect, being derived from white supremacist William Luther Pierce, who spoke about Shakespeare in his lectures. "William Hastings" also appears to be wholly imaginary. Other 'claimants' are actually legitimate candidates as co-authors: Peele, Fletcher etc. Perhaps this should be made clear in the intro. Paul B (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The hook fact is "more than 50 different people have been nominated as the true author of the William Shakespeare plays." They want that verbiage in the article and cited. I thought they wanted a cite for the hook line and added it to the DYK nom, but he messaged back that it had to go in the article somewhere.

I used Shapiro's statement and I suppose something along these lines would work for the lede:

This is a List of people who have been nominated as the true author of the William Shakespeare canon. More than 50 different people have been proposed as the author, and new names are put forth frequently.

Man, this is kind of ridiculous that I can't edit my own article, but I'm trying to play Caesar's wife here! Tom Reedy (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How about changing the hook fact to something like the following? It's mentioned in the article, with an inline citation. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• ALT1:... that Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe are among the people who have been nominated as the true author of William Shakespeare plays (pictured)?

Never mind Paul. I changed it to Queen Elizabeth and King James. That should get some attention! Tom Reedy (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So does that mran that the 'hook fact' is now cited? Paul B (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed the hook(s). Now it's in the hands of a higher power. They're tired of messing with it and so am I, as I'm sure you are! Thanks a lot. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess we can now look forward to various school kids adding "George Washington" and "my brother Pete" to the list, plus the True Believers adding aguments to the intro about the evidence for Oxford. Or maybe not; I don't know whether you noticed, but the utterly bizarre article on William Nugent was on DYK in December last. Despite its weirdness - or even because of it - it seems to have remained unharmed. Paul B (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That article has serious WP:WEIGHT issues. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of James Rosier for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Rosier until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TalkToMe_c 20:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you were talking about correct word choice : D

I think it is typically "pour moi," not "a moi". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant "to" me, not "for" me. But it's been decades since university, and more than a few years since I've been in France. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You should come and stay with us in Brittany. Paul B (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Expect us next week; we'll only stay a couple of months or so, six at the most. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention it for next time you're there. (Words like "for" and "to" are very idiomatic and rarely translate consistently even between European languages.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I just wanted to interject some faux sophistication into the proceedings. You should follow us around and see what it's like to have to take weeks and months to deal with an SPA editor over one word. It's a regular event. I'm contemplating suicide; either that or quitting Misplaced Pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think our stoical Tom didn't want to to be heard whispering before a wiki audience: Poor moi, like Miss Piggy. I was more upset, quite bilious, actually at the error of putting a circumflex over meme. I emailed Richard Dawkins, and he went ape as well.Jerry17:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I chose to place that little hat there. Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk *bop* Owww! Tom Reedy (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say hold off on the suicide for now. I was interested in this discussion and impressed with how civilized it was. Misplaced Pages does have worse fields I suspect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly delaying it until I get back from Brittany. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Shakespeare authorship candidates

Bard

Hi Tom, Thanks for the message. Certainly, I'll have a look at it tomorrow. Just about to eat right now ... Ericoides (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, ta for the message. Just had the quickest of glances but I'm afraid I'm v busy at the moment. Will keep looking at it as and when I've the time. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your imposed voluntary topic ban re SAQ is lifted

Per my comments at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question#Re the imposed voluntary topic ban is lifted you are no longer under any such undertaking. I strongly suggest that you do not start or participate in any edit wars, arguments, or any other unwise actions. I regret that neither my proposals or your participation lead to a breakthrough to the impasse in this matter. The RfC has yet to conclude, of course, and I suggest that that remains the only avenue by which these issues may yet be addressed. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Banknotes

I don't know if there are special rules regarding banknotes. Most of the images used in articles appear to be specimen notes. There are exceptions, which appear to be uploaded with fair use rationale as in this case. However that is usually to justify use on articles directly related to notes. I'd suggest you upload it with a rationale. If there's a problem we can deal with it as it arises. Perhaps it would be best to upload just the relevant detail. Paul B (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

re Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt

Following my review of the discussion, my decision is that consensus was for the topic banning of Smatprt and, in the absence of a consensus for any time period, I have made it for 1 year, per my comments here. I have also noted that there were complaints regarding your interactions with some editors which, although recognising that all might be considered involved in the disputes in that area, I suggest you might bear in mind in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The limits of the topic ban

Hi Tom,

Without getting into details of the recent brouhaha, I'm somewhat saddened by the eventual outcome; we've such a huge amount of work to do, and so few editors to do it, that to lose any of them is felt dearly. Regardless of my differences of opinion on the subject matter, I've always felt Smatprt has been, and could continue to be, a valuable contributor—and, not least, can bring a unique perspective to the table, given his apparent involvement with the performing theatre, that the rest of us lack—if only the endless merry-go-round on Authorship didn't keep getting in the way and suck up the time of all involved.

I'm also considering the ultimate goal of the topic ban—what it is intended to achieve—and how best to reach that goal. As I see it, the purpose of the topic ban—although certainly partially to provide a breathing space for other editors—must be to reform for future common benefit, rather than to punish for past misdeeds. In that light, I see the topic ban having one of two possible effects: 1) Smatprt spends his time editing non-Shakespeare articles, gets a chance to gain some perspective, and returns after the ban is lifted in a way that resolves or at least alleviates the issues that led to the ban; or 2) he's frustrated and discouraged by the ban, loses interest in Misplaced Pages altogether, and does not return (or, worse, returns with a fresh chip on his shoulder). If one considers, as one must, that Smatprt participates on the premise of good faith and that he genuinely believes that his point of view is objectively correct (though you need not, of course, agree with that point of view); then, by examining my own likely response to such a topic ban, I fear the latter is all too likely to be the only realistic outcome to expect. In short, I would feel deeply wronged and would be very much inclined to “take my toys and go home” as the saying goes.

In view of that, and with an eye towards teasing out the most optimal outcome, I'm considering offering up my user talk page as a conduit for him to leave comments on articles and proposed edits. While I'm sure that would be tedious and frustrating for him—not least because, as I have no illusion, I'm nowhere near objective enough to be an objective advocate for an argument I do not subjectively subscribe to—it would offer him a means of continued input and participation. It would also, not insignificantly, leave the door open enough for us to gain the benefit of his input; while at the same time maintaining the letter of the topic ban and its intended effect.

I broached the issue with LessHeard vanU (here), and he indicated that such an approach might be permissible within the limits of the topic ban, but, for obvious reasons, deferred the question to you and Nishidani. Since Nishidani is off among the cannibals (no Internet access? Barbaric!), and to avoid fragmenting the conversation, I'm bringing it up here and will merely post a note linking him here (and, obviously, I'm watchlisting your page so please do respond here).

What's your opinion on this? Do you think this could be a workable approach?

I would, of course, understand if you had reservations; but since I myself have hope the potential benefits outweigh the potential downside, I felt I should at least make the suggestion. --Xover (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't completely understand your proposal. Do you mean that he would comment on authorship issues on your talk page? If so, I don't think that would be in line with the spirit of the topic ban nor would it be healthy for him, if he's truly interested in rehabilitating his editorial style. More likely that would just keep the fondue flame going until he could get back on the stove to turn the heat up to high.

Regardless of what kind of editor he was in the past (and I don't see much evidence he was an important contributor), he ended up being so disruptive that other editors quit in disgust and refused to work with him, so the shortage of Shakespeare editors is mainly due to him, hardly an argument for giving him a forum to air his opinions. The majority of his edits (besides those on his theatre pages and his biography page) were vandalism reversions. He did furnish some good performance images for the play articles (the one on the Shrew page is inspired), but his editing was a net negative for the Shakespeare pages and Misplaced Pages as a whole. The fact that he has apparently taken his toys and gone home merely demonstrates that his main purpose was to promote Oxfordism, and that his interest in Misplaced Pages really didn't go beyond that.

Smatprt's good faith was belied by the way he tried to negotiate Misplaced Pages's principles and the manner in which he did it, i.e. by trying to cloak his "interpretations" into a Misplaced Pages policy without context on an ad hoc basis, which led to so many inconsistencies one would have to be quite naïve to believe he was acting on good faith. And if he honestly believed his own rationales, then that's not good faith; that's a cognitive disorder. It appeared to me that his premise was that the best, most sophistical argument carried the day, hence his ingenuity in fitting his arguments into specious misreadings of policy. It finally caught up with him, and I daresay his absence from the noticeboards has given the servers (not to mention the editors) a much-needed rest. It's also given me time to edit other articles.

In short, if you want to offer him your talk page and if that's all right with LH, that's fine with me, but not if he would use that forum to try to extend the authorship argument by other means. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the idea is that since he's topic-banned from all Shakespeare-related articles and talk pages, I'd offer my talk page as a place where he could suggest edits, sources, rephrasing, etc. where the suggestions would by their nature reflect his Authorship-slanted point of view to the degree that whatever comment or suggestion he made was susceptible to being colored by such a point of view (far from all potential such are amenable to that). In such a setup he would be entirely dependent on me, or anyone lurking on my talk page, to bring his suggestions and comments to whatever article or project talk page was relevant (and hence likely to be a bloody nuisance and immensely frustrating for him, I'll admit). Since he couldn't himself bring the issues to the actual discussion, the potential that his participation would be significantly disruptive is hardly present; but then at least the possibility exists that he'd make worthwhile contributions—both on non-Authorship articles and by providing an alternate view on, say, SAQ and Oxfordian theory articles, that may be useful—rather than the current guarantee that he won't (as he's not allowed to even comment at all).
That said, I'm certainly not going to implement such a thing without a positive view of it by you and Nishidani; quite apart from the other reasons, my lack of time for Misplaced Pages right now means it would be entirely unfair to everyone involved (Smatprt included) for me to set something like that up and then being unable to follow through sufficiently, effectively saddling the other editors with managing my hare-brained scheme.
I just find it sad that we were unable to work this out productively. It's possible that this outcome was inevitable, since the positions are fundamentally irreconcilable, which puts an almost inhuman burden on Smatprt to be able to edit and contribute against his own conviction (I know I'd have real trouble editing from an Oxfordian point of view). But perhaps that's because I've not yet exhausted my ability to assume good faith on his part; even when I, subjectively, find his argument and persistence boneheaded. Incidentally, and for the record, I also see why you have, perhaps, exhausted your ability to assume his good faith; so the preceding should not be construed as an accusation, but perhaps rather an expression that we happen to draw what is of necessity a subjective line in different places. I really do believe that had we enough editors involved in the project that a clear and obvious consensus could be reached (i.e. it would pass the snowball test), he would have found it possible to contribute within that consensus; the endless and circular debates were to me an expression of stubbornness rather than any kind of deliberate effort at winning by attrition or filibuster, and every other problem essentially, in my view, sprang from there.
Anyways… I just wanted to make the suggestion as the thinnest reed of an olive branch, or, you may prefer, a strawman proposal. I'm not convinced it would work, and I'm not convinced it would have the desired result (some times a clean break is, as you say, better), so I won't further belabour the point. --Xover (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina Green

Thank you for your message. I realize I was a bit sharp, but I am almost as inexperienced as she is in this regard. I was very reluctant to contact her, but unhappily came across several guidelines which said that one should not discuss such problems on article talkpages... I can't however see that she is a "first offender" in any way. Btw, I very recently read the SAQ page. Really great work, thank you! I was very agreeably surprised about how much is known about Shakespeare and his colleagues or people who remembered him later. Buchraeumer (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina Green

Hi Tom, I appreciate your invitation to get involved in the Edward de Vere discussion. In order to do so I'd need to study what has been said so far, and there seems to be quite a lot of it. Once started, discussions of this sort risk being very time-consuming. I may contribute, but please don't hold your breath. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

SAQ PR

I'll have a look, no problem. Next days will be alright, I hope (I've never participated in PR before, so I can't probably say much). Edward de Vere is at 19 pages in print at the moment, with only two pictures; that's longer than any Tudor/Elizabethan/Jacobean FA or GA biography I have seen. I guess February is going to be an interesting month ... Cheers! Buchraeumer (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My condolences for your SAQ timetable ... (Non) Lasciate ogni speranza ... Buchraeumer (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

reply

My latest email to you has been bounced back to me. There seems to be a server problem of some sort:

Well, yes, it’s immensely frustrating when these red-named editors just appear and add barely intelligible screeds and screeds of stuff about Maoists and feminists and god knows what to a perfectly sensible attempt to get independent feedback. It's the repetitiousness that so dispiriting. It’s pretty obvious that there is discussion on some online chat forum, or else these mysterious emotive missives would not so regularly materialize at crucial moments. This used to happen in Smatprt’s day too, but I suppose there are several in which Oxfordian theory is refined. By the way, Oxfordian scholarship has proven that the Anne Lee who was caught up in the contretemps between Langley and Gardiner was none other than Anne Vavasour:

Paul Paul B (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually laughing out loud

Funny man! Bishonen | talk 14:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

I am moved to tears of joy. A winged one too! Happy New Year. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How bombed is your carpet?

Hi,

I came across the following here

Moving towards the present day, Shapiro finds it 'not entirely clear' why Oxfordians have proved to be both more numerous and more pugnacious than the 'champions of other aristocrats'. Alan H Nelson surely hoped to bring their activities to a close with his substantial scholarly biography, Monstrous Adversary, published in 2003. But if the already well-known fact that Oxford died in 1604, disappearing from the scene well before the composition of King Lear and The Tempest, hasn't deterred his followers, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that Nelson's far fuller documentation has likewise failed to thin their ranks, currently carpet-bombing Misplaced Pages.

Happy New Year.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A Sandbox sandcastle

Just for reference, while looking at the article I made a sandbox version here which has the section under debate removed (and a few other such changes, like removing the quotes from the cites). I wonder if the case is not that if you take a look at it and still feel the article requires an Evidence section for balance and context, then I am very unlikely to be able to persuade you otherwise and I might more productively spend my time teaching the proverbial pig the merits of auto-propelled air travel. There's no need to contribute yet more weight to that talk page with this issue if there is no plausible probability of achieving agreement; especially as the section is a small masterpiece and in no way a detriment to the article (apart from the more abstract assertion and argument I've spelled out on the talk page). --Xover (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't see how the article can be comprehensive without the academic response, and you're left with the third graf in the lede—about 20 percent—that relates to absolutely nothing in the article. I really think this is the optimal interpretation of WP:FRINGE. I do like losing the extended quotes in the refs, though, and if there was any way I thought we could delete them without new editors demanding that some text in the article be justified I'd cut them in a New York minute. I don't want to have to spend my life monitoring the page and arguing with POV SPA clones as we have been doing for the past few years. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's allright. As I've alluded to, I am to a degree taking the advocatus diaboli position on this issue. And, after all, if it should become an issue at FAC, the section is easily removed at any point. Let's rather focus our energies on more immediate concerns.
The quotes in the references are actually a suggested way (in a footnote in WP:V or WP:CITE I believe) to approach this problem as a courtesy to other editors—and as you may have noticed on other articles, I'm quite apt to introduce copious quotes myself—so they are mainly an aesthetic problem. --Xover (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, i believe the history section can be edited down if length is a problem. I think our immediate concern is the disruption, which tends to halt production and chase away good editors. I think the main reason for it is the cooperative editing that was going on and the rapid improvement of the article toward FA status. I have no solution for it, as logic and common sense hasn't and won't work. It looks like another ANI case to me, which is yet another time-waster, although I doubt this one will take anywhere near as long as the last one did. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI? What for? Try RfC/U. Also a timewaster, but good to have to point to under certain circumstances. And at least RfC's aren't promptly archived the way ANI threads are. In both cases, it's going to be a problem to get outsiders to give any input (which is the purpose of RfC), because there's such a daunting amount of repetitious reading involved; but one can but invite them. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

Loaded terms

Yes, it is. Both you and Nina need to temper your remarks when referring to other editors. It is unproductive and does you no credit. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Complete double standard. Your own obsessive use of personal attacks does you no credit. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have provided some information at User talk:Moonraker2#Loaded terms. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My SAQ Edit

No worries, Tom. I'm still around. Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that no one ripped out my edit shrieking "This is pure garbage", or something like that. I can accept that it could still use improvement. I don't know if you've read anything on my user page (not that I would expect you to, necessarily), but as I say there, I used to make a living doing this kind of thing. I know from hard experience is that no one is perfect, to put it mildly. Editors need their own editors.

I do find this an, er, interesting experience. I am amused by your analogy of working next to a toxic dump, though I don't envy your position, as I see you've devoted yourself to this topic and to Shakespeare generally, and you have a lot invested. Though as I said I've tended to work quietly in Misplaced Pages's backwaters, I did get involved recently in improving a disputed FA. That was somewhat stressful at times, but this SAQ takes the idea of stress and conflict to a whole other level.

"Brawl"—that's putting it mildly. I'd say the Middle East is a haven of peace by comparison. But I'm not walking away in disgust or any such thing. I think I will now go back to the SAQ talk page to read the rest of what has been added since yesterday. I will do my best to defer judgment as to whether I should laugh or cry. (Not that I'm laughing at all at the dedication or learning of you or your colleagues, but I think you know what I mean.) Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No Groatsworth?

Hi Tom, Can I ask you a couple of things here rather than pour oil on the fire of the SAQ talk? You have probably discussed this before but why does it not mention Groatsworth in the 'evidence for'? This clearly says that an actor is trying to be a playwright and refers to Shakescene and Henry VI. I know that some of the anti's have tried to twist it upside down to make it say what they what it to say, but as you said elsewhere, all that is needed is to state what they say. Poujeaux (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we were trying to stick to explicit and unequivocal evidence that is used commonly by scholars to attribute authorship and on which they all agree. Groatsworth requires multiple layers of interpretation, and it is controversial even within academe. Several very influential Shakespeareans argue that it was not even written by Greene; others argue that it doesn't allude to Shakespeare, but another actor. If you go back any time before October 2010 you can see that it was included, but the arguments are so obscure and complex that we didn't think it suitable to include in an overview article. It was taken out early in our sandbox version, and when that was moved to the mainspace it of course was not added back. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please list them etc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Shapiro 2010, p. 2-3 (4) harvnb error: no target: CITEREFShapiro2010 (help): "It's not easy keeping track of all the candidates promoted as the true author of Shakespeare's plays and poems. The leading contenders nowadays are Edward de Vere (the Earl of Oxford) and Sir Francis Bacon. Christopher Marlowe, Mary Sidney, the Earl of Derby and the Earl of Rutland have attracted fewer though no less ardent supporters. And over fifty others have been proposed as well--working alone or collaboratively--including Sir Walter Ralegh, John Doone, Robert Cecil, John Florio, Sir Philip Sidney, the Earl of Southampton, Queen Elizabeth and King James. A complete list is pointless, for it would soon be outdated. during the time I've been working on this book, four more names have been put forward . . . . New candidates will almost surely be proposed in years to come."