User talk:Smatprt/Archive 5

Reliable sources noticeboard

The debate at the noticeboard is not yet terminated. Jayjg has asked you a question at the bottom ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Shakespeare_authorship_question_source. Tom Reedy(talk) 16:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare authorship question peer review

You opened this review and then attempted to close it a few minutes later. Is it your wish to withdraw the article from peer review? If so, I will complete the closure. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I thought I made a mistake when setting it up and wasn't clear that it "tooK". I think I ended up closing "aRchive 1" and then opening "Archive 2". Sorry about that. So to be clear - I think "Archive 2" is the active one and if that is the case, then "archive 1" can be closed. thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the peer review, assuming that this is what you wish. If/when you want to close it, just follow the instructions on theWP:PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:SirHughHamersley.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SirHughHamersley.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image iscopyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I think I made an error on the original upload. It should have been fair use of historic person/event. I think I corrected it. Let me know if I did not do it correctly. Thanks Smatprt (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox play

Hello there Smatprt, it appears I just wasted a few hours finding and putting up the infobox play! I am curious what the exact reasoning was of the project group, could you indicate exactly where it was decided that this wikipedia template is not to be used? I think infoboxes summarize a lot of important info. However, in the case of the play template I found that is has insufficient interest for the author and place where it was written, published. In the meanwhile I'll won't put up any more boxes and just work on the references.Magafuzula (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually my mistake: I should have applied the template on 1 play instead of 7, that would have been the smart way. Looking at the link you sent me I have to agree, list of characters is completely out of place, and no added info about the author/ circumstances of writing. Infobox play should be rewritten, and I would suggest using Shakespeare as a source, since he is the most important play writer. So, yes, I do believe an infobox is necessary (why do the encyclopedias have them on main articles?!), but it must be redone. At your disposal if you need input for a new infobox, since I have been working a lot with infoboxes.Magafuzula (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Found the chaos I brought to your edits? That's for repeatedly deleting my posts. You delete one more post and I'll make sure it's impossible for you to operate here without disruption. NiceOneCyril (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm his buddy ... check out what I just did? Now, you still wanna delete people's posts cos we can make it impossible for you to function here ... you choose ... NiceOneCyril (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna have to squeal to your Oxfordian admin friends cos you're powerless on your own ... and I'll be back under differeny IP addresses ... you bullied the wrong guy ... NiceOneCyril (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're finished on these forums ... every day at a random time I'm coming back and deleting every single contribution you make ... let's see how YOU like it NiceOneCyril (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary pause at Shakespeare authorship question?

Please see my suggestion to you and Smatprt at User talk:EdJohnston#Voluntary pause. I would be interested to hear your response. Smatprt would be willing to do this. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Chronicles

Smatprt! Thanks for your help getting the BC page approved. Forward and onward we go! --BenJonson (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare authorship question page split

Smatprt, what are you doing? Unilaterally removing material from theShakespeare authorship question page without a word to anyone is disruptive and not conducive to healing the rift between the two factions of editors. In fact, it only makes things worse. You've remonstrated with other editors many times about deleting material, as well as for other offenses, but looking at your history of edits it is clear that you are more guilty of such behavior than anyone else.

I'm not averse to splitting the article once we get it stable and comprehensive, but I'm not at all in favor of doing it this way. The article needs major structural changes to comply with Wikipedia standards before you run off and divert attention by creating another page that will probably diverge quite significantly from the material in this one if you try to take ownership of it the way you have this one. We don't need the distraction; we need to learn how to cooperate to get this page stable and accurate.

While I'm at it let me clear up another issue. You, BenJonson, and Schoenbaum continually complain about the tone that Nishidani and I sometimes use on the discussion page. What you don't and won't acknowledge is that it is your stubborn insistence on including non-scholarly, outdated or obviously slanted material in the article while never losing an opportunity to delete or modify text that isn't sympathetic to the Oxfordian cause that is the origin of such sharp (but not abusive, IMO) language. The Cairncross incident is classic (and it goes all the way back to July 2009, when you tried to insert the extreme minority viewpoint of Cairncross at the William Shakespeare page), and so is your continual never-ending assault on the first sentence of the "Early doubts" subsection. When your edits are corrected you merely revert them back with a few added touches or reword it. You waste everybody's time and efforts that could better be spent improving the article and exhaust our patience.

There is nothing personal about it. We don't want you to go away (unless that is the only way we can get this page in shape); we want you to learn how to edit in a neutral and scholarly way. I admit you know a lot about Wikipedia guidelines and policies, much more than I do, but it seems the only reason you've studied them is to gain an advantage, not to produce a good article.

I'm also not sympathetic to running to an administrator every time you do something I don't like, as my actions (or lack of them) make clear. Since it seems like I don't make much progress with you on the talk page, I'm leaving this message on your talk page. We're not going to go away, so please start trying to cooperate on the article instead of constantly being disruptive. You might start by responding to my questions about the second lead paragraph. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, while I always appreciate an honest discussion, when you come to my talk page and simply missrepresent the situation, I have to question your purpose here. Let me briefly address your points:

• Splitting an article is not deletion. To make such an inaccurate accusation shows bad faith.
• The splitting was discussed on the talk page, where a majority of editors have tried to explain that splitting is necessary due to the size of the article. Both you and Nishidani have now leveled this accusation of "not a word to anyone" - which could not be further from the truth.
• In spite of your record of deleting material, both you and Nishidani have responded by simply making similar accusations of me deleting material. I have asked you to provide examples and you have not.
• Running to administrators? It's clear that intervention is needed. That is what administrators are for.
• Outdated material? The previous Cairncross discussion was not about the dating of Hamlet, it was about his wholesale reworking of the chronology. The Hamlet issue is hardly outdated, being raised by Bloom and Sams (among others) quite recently.
• "Tone" - If that is what you call your and Nishidani's constant personal attacks, namecalling, vulgarity and insults, then you really have no idea what WP:NPA is all about.Smatprt (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write, “Splitting an article is not deletion. To make such an inaccurate accusation shows bad faith.”

There is no question that you deleted material from this article, whether to split off another article or not. Creating another article does not demand that you delete the material from this article.You yourself argued that “there is duplication of material all over Wikipedia, and there should be. There is plenty of information in the Shakespeare article, for example, that is repeated verbatim in countless other articles.” And you gave no indication to anyone—at least publicly—that you were going to delete the material on this page. As I said, I am not averse to splitting off another article, but I am averse to your deleting material from this page.

Wow - you really do not understand that splitting an article for length concerns, means creating a summary of that section to be left in the main article/ Seriously? Smatprt (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t recall you asking for examples of you removing material, but examples abound. Here are just two recent ones; I have other things to do with my time than troll through the edits.

Here you change the well-supported scholarly consensus to make it appear to be the opinions of two persons; misconstrue orthodox source (McMichael and Glenn) and leave off context; cut the reference to another candidate, Neville; and construe Oxfordian material as generically anti-Stratfordian.

Seriously, if this is the kind of example you cite, then you really don't understand basic editing. And you keep calling stratfordian opinions "scholarly consensus". This has been raised numerous times and you simply ignore the issue. Same with your constant deleting of scholars names from the article - even when phrased "Stratfordians such as John Bate" - note the "such as" does NOT imply that it is only his opinion.Smatprt (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here you cut a phrase rather than tagging it, as you insist others do.

Tom - you remove tags without addressing the issue. And you NEVER leave a fact tag, instead you just delete citing "no reference provided". Why are you making these arguments? Smatprt (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as administrator intervention, I have agreed to step away from the article for 90 days,as was suggested by Ed Johnston, but for reasons unclear you seem to think your presence is required to support Schoenbaum, who has made a total of three edits to the page, all of them reverts. And IIRC, Nishidani has suggested more than once to ask a neutral third party to look the article over and give advice, but nobody seems to be interested in having that done.

Schoenbaum responded to Ed that he would not be interested in continuing work if I left the page. And who can blame him? That would leave Paul and Nishidani to gang up on him.Smatprt (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cairncross is outdated and is an extreme minority view no matter what aspects of him you are talking about. Trying to use him is just an example of how anti-Strats troll the Shakespearean scholarship to find someone who agrees with them on one point or another (which isn’t hard to do, given the voluminous and lengthy history of Shakespeare scholarship). It’s the very type of tactic that leads to charges of cherry-picking and dishonesty from your opponents, but you seem to think it’s a fair method to edit.

You fail to recognize my response - that the Hamlet dating issue was raised by Bloom and Sams, among others, so can not be classified as "outdated scholarship". Why you insist on cherry picking your own scholars, but refuse to acknowledge the existence of certain others is just amazing.Smatprt (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You constantly harp on “personal attacks, name-calling, vulgarity and insults,” yet the true incidents of such are few and far between. I don’t recall making any personal attacks or name-calling. I think you need to reviewWhat is considered to be a personal attack?, which states that “pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack.” You seem to think that pointing out your deficiencies as an editor amount to personal attacks. If so, I doubt they’ll cease any time soon unless you learn to edit neutrally.

Your name-calling, insults and vulgarity are well known to all the editors here. The same applies to Nishidani. You are now actually denying it? Tom - you are just gaming the system now. Smatprt (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted you on your page in an effort to work out our differences. Your accusations of bad faith and misrepresentation are not unexpected, but for some reason I thought you might be amenable to reason. Good to know where things stand. Tom Reedy(talk) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could believe that, but your continued baseless accusations show otherwise. Again - you and Nishidani are simply trying to game the system by appearing reasonable one second and resorting to past behavior the next. Smatprt (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titles and credentials

Smatprt, your insistence on appending credentials to Dan Wright is wrong-headed and impractical, and your attempt to get it under the bar of Wikipedia rules by rewriting smacks of WP:GAME. There's no reason for it, and I have reverted your edit. Do you think we should append the credentials of each person we cite? Professors don't even use their titles when they publish their work; there's no reason to do so here, so please don't try to get your way; it's only distracting and disruptive, and I don't think you'll win, anyway. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, please stop reverting. It's clear you just want to hide the fact that there is a multi-million dollar Shakespeare Authorship research center at Concord University. It's embarrassing to your POV that the center even exists, especially at a university, so you want to keep it out. I rewrote the line to conform to policy, as correctly pointed out by user:Verbal. That should be that. You don't think it's relevant that the director of the Shakespeare Authorship Research Center has weighed in on the forgery accusation?" We are supposed to be reporting the facts here. You should self-revert. Smatprt (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading my mind, but I have no clue what the "multi-million dollar Shakespeare Authorship research center at Concord University" is all about and I didn't even know of its existence until today.

Apparently the source didn't think it was relevant, so I doubt that it's all that relevant to this article, either. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Shakespeare's Stratdord Bust.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploadingFile:Shakespeare's Stratdord Bust.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ShakespeareControversy.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploadingFile:ShakespeareControversy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, clickhere to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ShakespeareCandidates.pdf

A tag has been placed on File:ShakespeareCandidates.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rockfang (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom Reedy

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom Reedy, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom Reedy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom Reedy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, fordeletion. The nominated article is Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]