User talk:Smatprt/Archive 3

Recent Additions
Thanks. Rick 2.0 (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

wikEd problem: Ctrl-click
Hi Smatprt,

there seems to be a problem with the gadget wikEd that caused the insertion of "Ctrl-click" inyour recent edit to Much Ado About Nothing. Please could you help me locate this problem by reporting your browser name and version and possible other gadgets that you might have checked (under My Preferences - Gadgets) on User talk:Cacycle/wikEd.

Thanks in advance, Cacycle (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lear
If you think it best, go ahead. But it's not the fact that he had three daughters, it's the fact that he was alive when they got control. How many people get an inheritance prior to someone deceasing? —Precedingunsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk •contribs) 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all want stronger proof, but how strong a piece of evidence is may well be in the eye of the beholder. Say, for example, it was discovered that Will Shakespeare of Stratford had only three daughters who obtained control of his estate well before he deceased. I'd beat dollars to donuts all we would be hearing from Stratfordians is how their theory is now rock-solid and if Will wrote King Lear, as seems certain, he must also have written Hamlet. Rick 2.0 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC) If Lear were an original story, then yes, maybe, it would be more impressive. What I apparently have not been clear about is my feeling that since Lear is an old story, whose "3 daughter inheritance" plot is ancient history - not new material - that is why it makes such a small impact on the argument. No one can say that the plot is based on Oxford's life because the main plot/characters already existed. This is unlike Hamlet, (old story that it is) but Hamlet's whole cast of characters, make-up of Polonius family, and numerous original plot devises, mirror Oxford's life. Same with Hal and Bertram. But with Lear, there isn't a lot of original material to make a unique case around. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As primary evidence of the author’s identity it might not make the grade, but after a possible author has been highlighted a whole other type of evidence comes into play. It is axiomatic that authors write about themselves, their life, their experiences and their friends. After all they might start off with a couple of paragraphs in a chroncile and have to end up with enough stuff for a 3-hour story. That’s why Stratfordians are forever looking for echoes of Warwickshire, in the plays. If they could find one on the level of “3 daughters inheriting their father’s estate prior to his decease,” they’d be more than satisfied of its importance no matter who first mentioned it. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA
On another note. Now that the grammar and spelling have been improved and the references and Stratfordian arguments expanded, what do you think are the chances of the Oxfordian Theory making GA status? Rick 2.0 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Caliban's humanity
Hi, quick drive-by comment. :-)

Regarding the revert you just did on The Tempest; without checking I would guess that the included SparkNotes URL covers that, and if it doesn't then I'm pretty sure the Arden Third Series edition of the play does. In other words, we can add a section like that (and source it) if we decide we want to.

That's not necessarily an argument that we should add it, of course. :-)

Anyways, just wanted to mention it in case it was helpfull. --Xover (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Approaches...
Hi, sorry for the late reply; real life has rudely interrupted yet again.

Yes, not only is the assumption of good faith a policy on Wikipedia, but as best I can tell you've never done anything to suggest otherwise (quite the contrary, I'd say). The fact that someone sometimes disagrees on one point or another, has their own set of biases, are stubborn, or can even get a little hot headed in the midst of a debate… well, they're characteristics shared by pretty much every single human being to lesser or greater degrees. And being more than a little susceptible to those flaws myself, I could hardly criticise anyone else for possessing those qualities. I'll grant I disagree vehemently with you on several key points, but if one can be damned by arguing too vociferously or stubbornly on any given point it would certainly be a fallacy to do so on the basis of any lack of good faith!

As I mentioned on the WS talk page, I think in the end the article is, to borrow your term, too simplistic to support covering the material from the notes. I wouldn't want to be credited with claiming the negative connotations implicit in that choice of words, but if one were to accept “general”, “overview”, or “high-level” as reasonable synonyms then I would certainly subscribe to that assessment without implying any criticism. However, and forgive me for repeating myself, writing at such a level of generalization does run the risk of over-generalization; and with that as context I do share your concern regarding the “periods” of Shakespeare's work. Every time I read that I keep thinking to myself “Oh my god, they've ascribed Shakespeare a ‘Blue Period’!”. :-) --Xover (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter
Hello. You commented at the recent peer review of this article. Since then, we have been revising the article and would value your input, either directly in the article or on the talk page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Carmel Photo
The photo is taken just about a quater mile north from the Cypress tree on the cliff. Let me see if I can be more specific.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. This photo was taken at Bird rock, Pebble Beach California along a small stretch of Road labled Starboard Trial. The nearly exact coordinates are 36° 35′ 30.97″ N, 121° 57′ 52.10″ W.


 * I will replace the image and drop the othe at the Pebble Beach Article that is using a bad version of the Lone Cypress Tree. I will replace the other image n the Carmel page with a better image later as time permits. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This is a differrent location. Very close, which is why I got confused, but still a few miles from the actual city of Carmel-by-the-sea.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Forest Theater
This is my formal notice to you that you will be reported for edit warring at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you continue with simple reversions of the images at Forest Theater. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carmel-by-the-Sea. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --

This applies to you as well sir. You are the one reverting legitimate edits and replacing illustartive images with images for decorative purposes only. Please be more encyclopedic and use less boosterism to specific organizations. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actualy....you violtated the three revert rule today.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance withWikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful todiscuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolutionrather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you maycontest the block by adding the text below, but you should read ourguide to appealing blocks first.

I think you should be unblocked too. Your argument is well-made. JohnELocke (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The block has now expired.--chaser (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Stephen Moorer in 2001.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stephen Moorer in 2001.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails ourfirst non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs)

Re: Collaboration
I quickly scanned the edits right after you made them and they looked fine. I've since had a closer look, and the reason I've not commented is the same problem that've kept me from commenting further on this topic generally: I keep waffling back and forth on whether the collaborations should have their own section in William Shakespeare. What has finally decided me, for now, on this is the deplorable state of the Shakespeare's collaborationsarticle. While it's so weak the current paragraph in William Shakespeare is pretty much all that's warranted; but I think, longer term, we should try to improve the Shakespeare collaborations article to a decent standard, and then possibly take a short form of its lede as a separate section in William Shakespeare. What do you think about this reasoning? --Xover (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of performances
Hmm. Quite apart from the (quite ridiculous) to-do above, I think I've seen you indicate that you have some kind of affiliation with a theatre company?

One of the problems we run across in trying to write articles or entries on the various characters of Shakespeare's plays is that, apart from the main characters, there are very few or no free photographs of some characters. For instance, for Rosaline we're forced to use the non-free/fair-use picture from Zefirrelli's movie. And in one particularly ridiculous instance we had to use an editor's hand-drawn image of Puck as illustration.

If you have some sort of affiliation with a theatre that occasionally puts on Shakespeare's plays, would you be willing to look into the possibility of getting photographs of as many individual characters (to illustrate entries on that character), scenes (to illustrate references to famous scenes), and overall performances (to illustrate references to the relevant play in performance), licensed under Creative Commons license? If they either have an archive of such pictures they might be willing to license under such terms, or could be persuaded to make such for us, that would be a tremendous help.

There would of course be limitations to attribution (only on the image page, not usually in the article itself, and only a brief encyklopedic-ish mention of the source)—so the obvious incentive of publicity for the theatre company would fail, I fear—and some conflict of interest challenges (i.e. if you're affiliated with the source you'd mostly be unable to add the pictures to the articles yourself), but at least this latter issue is a practicality I'm sure we can figure out somehow.

If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate it if you could do a little tentative looking into this. If they are at all interested in this I would be happy to explore this further. For instance, if the theatre does not wish to take on the burden of actual photography, but is otherwise positive, we could attempt to find a Wikipedian in the area with photography skills. If allowed access to take pictures during a performance or even a dress rehearsal, that should serve our needs well, without too great a burden on the theatre (or distraction to the actors and audience). And I'm sureWP:BARD can come up with a comprehensive wishlist/checklist for which subjects are most critically in need of pictures. --Xover(talk) 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, great news! There's obviously no hurry (and I had gathered that you were rather busy right now), so whenever it would be suitable for you… I'm not sure whether there is anything I might be able to do to help, but do please let me know if you can think of something. --Xover (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for a wishlist you could in essence just use Category:Shakespearean characters; any article without an image probably means we don't have one. For some it's possible to find a picture on Commons, but a few spot checks indicate that any relevant images from Commons have already been added to the articles. A quick scan through yielded me: Toby Belch, Benvolio, Lord Capulet, Michael Cassio, Donalbain (Macbeth), Edmund (King Lear), Emilia (Othello), and Prince Escalus. The project todo list has also long had a picture request for Sycorax,Mechanical (character) (but seems to have added a pic from Riverside now), and Stephano (The Tempest). The ones that are often difficult are the characters that are either unseen or very small roles—so are rarely the subject of paintings etc.—but sufficiently pivotal that we need to have an article on that character, or we need to talk about him/her in other articles. Rosaline is an example: she's unseen and so hard to find pics of, but important enough that we discuss here several places that would benefit from illustration. On the main article about the character we can probably get away with using the non-free film screenshot, but not on, say, her entry in List of Shakespearean characters: L-Z. Or the Lords and Ladies Capulet and Montague; mentioned every other sentence in some articles, but apparently the roles are not worth a stretch of canvas and splash of oil. And that's not even to mention all the ones listed up under “Others” in the Characters section. OnCharacters in Romeo and Juliet I tried very hard to find an image to decorate each section, you can see what level of success I (failed to) achieved.Tybalt, for instance, was hell to find a picture for, to my great surprise. --Xover (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. Notability will be a concern for the play articles and other more famous roles and scenes. And, of course, where we have a Millais or Füseli or something, that'll be much preferable to most performance photos. Where your photos might really save us is for the smaller characters and to illustrate scenes that no painter has bothered with. For instance, the Balcony Scene is depicted a million times in various art forms, but the recently brought up Closet Scene probably isn't (I'm guessing, haven't checked). In any case, the editor on the Shrew talk page isn't objecting to your image as such, the way I read him, he's just asking if we don't have a Millais, Füseli, or performance by Olivier or Gielgud, to use in the lede. No offence to Black, but he's not quite as famous as Olivier yet. :-) --Xover (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice edit
Howdy. this edit just flew past my watchlist. One of my biggest peeves with the Authorship related articles is just what you point out in your edit summary: “sounds too like the building of a case instead of a neutral assessment of the theory”. Anyways, just wanted to let you know I thought that (and the following edit too, for that matter) was a marked improvement. Good job!

I'm a little concerned, though, that the accumulation of material on that article that led to the necessity of splitting out a sub-article—especially on the topic of allusions in the plays, which is a really… wooly? …topic, ripe for trivia-itis and accretion of half-baked theories—is starting to push the limits of undue weight (the sub-article) and not properly using summary style (the main article). I haven't really looked at the sub-article so that may well be entirely fine for all I know, but when the main Authorship article is getting so large that it needs splitting that does tend to set off some warning bells for me. I don't really want to wade in there as I'm fairly sure that's just a recipe for WikiDrama; so instead I'd like to encourage you, in light of that edit referenced above, to take a good hard look at the Authorship article and consider the level of detail there in view of the question “Should this point be here, or was it put in to persuade the reader (build a case) of this theory or point?”.

I have this theory that the editors best suited to limit and remove things from the Authorship related articles are those who actually are convinced by those theories, and those best suited to add and formulate (neutrally) on them are the mainstream editors. With that in mind I suspect one of the reasons there's so much drama over these issues here is that we keep doing it the other way around: the Authorship buffs keep trying to add stuff related to their theories—and (mostly) try their best to be neutral (which is really hard, as I've mentioned previously)—and then the more… uhm. … “enthusiastic”… mainstream editors get all in a huff about it and start deleting. And the damnable thing is that I really think that at least the main Authorship article has the potential to be one that both the Authorship enthusiasts and the mainstream editors are satisfied with (if somewhat grudgingly on both sides), and, if done right, could easily reach the quality of a Featured Article.

Anyways, I'm editing on insufficient coffee and rambling… :-) I was just happy to see the linked edit above, as it nicely addressed one of my pet peeves, and wanted to say thanks. --Xover (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, excellent. I had a quick look at your edits and that's exactly the sort of thing i had in mind. Great work! On the level of detail / weight, and the merits of sub-articles, there is plenty of room for reasonable men to disagree. As I mentioned, I haven't looked very closely at any of theAuthorship articles, and no more than scanned the allusions article, so it's quite possible that they're entirely within the spirit of the guidelines here. I just personally had a brief moment of “Uh-oh!” when I saw it, and brought it up here just as a reminder to keep this aspect in mind. It's much more productive if you and the other editors try to keep this in mind while you're working on it (differences of opinion aside, the interested editors are usually the ones in the best position to make these judgements), than someone else coming in later and going all apoplectic over it and nominating for AfD willy-nilly. In any case, based on my own cursory and superficial study of the Authorship issues and their current standing in academia (mainstream and otherwise), the number of points (and thus, amount of material) that merit inclusion is not that great (relatively speaking): which is what gives me the iffy feeling that some of the more speculative and tenuous arguments made should probably be excised to make room before taking the step of creating sub-articles. But note again that I'm speaking very generally and superficially here (not addressing the allusionsarticle specifically), and based to a large degree on the sum total of the Authorship related articles here. We have articles on, and categories for, nearly every candidate ever seriously proposed; which is in stark contrast with the—quite valid and reasonable, even if representing one (mathematical) extreme of a scale—position that the topic would be appropriately and adequately covered in a mere paragraph on the main William Shakespeare article. In any case, I'm not seriously making an argument in favour of any radical changes; rather, I'm providing some alternate points of view that may be useful in informing your judgements while you work on this. Finally, in reference to my points in the last paragraph, and your invitation to make specific suggestions for improvements, I'm am more or less deliberately avoiding getting too directly involved in any of the Authorship related articles. Apart from being an obviously controversial area, all prior experience shows that it's an area where conflict and drama will inevitably blossom at the most minute provocation (cf. experiences at “that other candidate”), and thus requires quite a bit of tact and humility to deal with properly. In view of that I consider my own superficial familiarity with the topic area insufficient to tackling that challenge (above the mere technical matters of spelling or copyediting and such). I have considered attempting a review of the main article, done in such a way that the interested editors can pick and choose a bit what comments they find constructive and pertinent, but with insufficient familiarity with the core material on the topic and a general lack of free time, I've elected to abstain. The Authorship Question isn't a particular interest of mine, except as a sub-topic of Shakespeare in general, so I'm generally going to tend to give priority to getting the core articles (the historical/biographical articles, as well as the main articles on the plays and poems) up to a decent level. In any case, good work! --Xover (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts and frustrations
Hi Smatprt. Since I mentioned you over on Wrad's talk page, I feel it would be unethical of me to not let you know I'd done so. But please allow me to suggest that I don't think it would be constructive for you to comment there right now: while the two of you are butting heads and frustrated with each other, I think it's probably better to keep a little distance.

Anyways, as I mentioned there and on the Hamlet talk page, from where I'm standing the crux of the matter here is actually that all your interactions are being colored by past conflicts. For instance, the phrasing in your comments on the Hamlet synopsis came across (even to me) as slightly condescending; which I'm quite certain they were not intended to be. Given your and Wrad's history of conflicts, try to imagine how a phrasing like that, that in another contexts would be just fine, would come across to him. I'm sticking my nose in where it doesn't strictly speaking belong here, and I hope you won't think me presumptuous for trying to mediate where I haven't been invited to, but I am getting frustrated because I perceive, potentially, a lot of conflict where there is no real cause for it. I think the whole problem here is that you and Wrad have butted heads so much you both just automatically take a confrontational attitude towards each other—mountains of molehills and all that—and end up fighting, to the detriment of you both and the project as a whole, where some simple effort could have led to a solution everyone was happy with. As I think I've said before, I appreciate how difficult a position you're in here. Being the voice for a minority viewpoint—that, to make matters worse, tends to be not only dismissed out of hand regardless of the merit of the individual point, but even actively ridiculed by the mainstream—is extremely hard. It's almost impossible to be in that role and not develop a habit of fighting tooth and nail for every inch of ground: if one does not, experience has taught one that the mainstream will ignore even the valid points. But my point here is that that reaction—formed by experience and entirely understandable though it may be—is contributing to these periodical conflicts. The reason I think that is that in your and my discussions I've been very conscious to not make that same mistake of being dismissive of your point of view, even if I personally disagree vehemently, and I've never found you to be other than courteous, constructive, and humble. That makes me think the fault they say they see in you—arguing too hard and too long on minor points—is actually caused by the other editors (me included) not really giving you any other choice but to adopt that approach. If your arguments were not constantly dismissed out of hand, I suspect it'd be much easier for you to not fight so hard for your point of view and to agree to disagree where you fail to persuade the majority. I'm trying really hard to not give the impression that I'm pointing fingers or assigning “fault” anywhere here; I'm butting in because I think the differences aren't irreconcilable, and with a little effort on all parts can be avoided to the benefit of all involved. In that vein, please permit me to make some suggestion to you about how you can contribute to head off these kinds of conflicts in the future. That doesn't imply either party is at fault, but rather that there is possibility for everyone to contribute to avoiding it. As I've said, I have great sympathy for the difficult position you're in on this project. But I am still going to suggest that you back off a little bit. I absolutely understand why you fight so hard for your point of view on any given issue, but I think you need to try to look at this problem from a different perspective. That there is a tendency to dismiss your points of view—due to guilt by association with Authorship—is a systemic overall problem for Wikipedia and the Shakespeare project: to fight that battle on each minor issue and interaction is not only unlikely to correct the problem, it's apt to actively make it worse. I think if you let it go and instead adopted an approach along the lines of “I'm sorry, I must disagree with your position/arguments, but I won't belabour the point.” and accept that more often than not you'll end up on the losing side (sometimes correctly, other times not so; we are none of us rightall the time). This is somewhat the flip side to the coin that other editors should evaluate your arguments on their merits: to respectfully disagree and leave it at that gives others a chance to find their own humility, rather than feel they need to dig a defensive trench against the “barbarians” trying to knock down their door. In any case, Wrad is definitely right about one thing: these constant conflicts, no matter whose “fault” they are, are driving away editors from the project. We need to, all of us, make an effort to avoid them and work constructively together to preserve what few active participants we have and hopefully over time attract more. Our three collaboratively made FAs aside, the state of the play articles overall is pretty deplorable; and without an environment where editors feel comfortable and happy contributing, we'll never get them up to a decent standard. The task is just too big. PS. I know it's presumptuous of me to but in like this, so please do let me know if you feel I've overstepped anywhere. My only motivation here is the overall benefit of the project and pointing out that there's a potential for a win–win situation (as opposed to a right vs. wrong situation) if everyone keeps their eyes on the price and makes an effort. Thanks for putting up with my rambling. --Xover (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for your cool head
Ah, good to hear you found it helpful. Wading into situations like that is a bit risky; some times one just further aggravates people and make worse a situation I strictly had no business sticking my nose in. --Xover (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Stratford Bust in 1709.gif)
 Thanks for uploading File:Stratford Bust in 1709.gif. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)