User talk:Smatprt/Archive 7

Non Free Files in your User Space
Hey there Smatprt, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-freefiles are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removedsome files that I found on User talk:Smatprt/Archive 6. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to youruser-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"theses are RS. if you want to challenge them, go to RS noticeboard" --no problem
Please see this query at the WP:RSN.Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Biographical criticism
At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard you mentioned "Biological Criticism" yet cited a quite brief discussion of "biographical criticism" at The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. As the issue was somewhat tangential from whether "class notes" were reliable sources, I chose not to discuss it there. I have rewritten the lead to Biographical criticism and provided a couple of citations that I hope will be useful. I removed the connection of biographical criticism to critical practice, as critical practice is a term of art within critical theory. I have replaced that link with a piped link toLiterary criticism. I hope that this helps with some of your issues. --Bejnar (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I had just found another reference and was about to post it when I saw your edit. That helps a lot. Since I went to the trouble, I went ahead and posted my other reference. Between yours and mine I think the ref tag can probably go. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've put two more citations in, but the section Connections to Other Modes of Criticism still needs work. --Bejnar (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On another point, it seems to me that the biographical fallacy does not really apply to genre theory, although that methodology was also challenged by the New Critics. Would you be comfortable with dropping that part of the sentence as being outside the scope of the topic?--Bejnar (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. And yes you are right, the second section still needs work. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, you have mistaken critical biographical theory for biographical criticism. The sources I have deleted do not support the statements the article makes. In the case where the source doesn't support the statement, there's nothing that says it stands until another source is found. It's wrong; it's deleted. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be going to the university library tomorrow and I'll pick up some sources for the bio crit article. I think it's going to have to be expanded into two sections, similar to the way the SAQ article was when it was first created.
 * And check this out: http://www.cla.purdue.edu/blackmon/102cs2001/critical.html#bio Tom Reedy (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Read this: http://books.google.com/books?id=1CzdJjzMP9sC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA303&dq#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 * Biographical criticism is the literary theory of biography. I've also found material on it as per the definition given at Biographical criticism, but it seems to be a minority view among academic critics. I've got a long list of books to peruse at the library tomorrow.Tom Reedy (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom Reedy suggested that I didn't read my sources, but I did. He (Tom) seems to be fixstated on a narrow definition of "Biographical criticism".  The references that I provided, and he deleted, did discuss how the lives of authors influenced their work. They just didn't do so in the way that he believes is the manifestly correct way.  I will try to get my thoughts together with some direct quotes to put on the talk page to help clarify. --Bejnar (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY violations
Smatprt, my edits are not "attempt to delete all mentions of minority view," they are attempts to delete unwarranted mentions of a fringe theory in violation of WP:ONEWAY. I have notified three editors to take a look at the diffs, so I imagine we'll be going back to the noticeboards soon. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, since Ed suggested to follow the steps of dispute resolution, I suppose we should discuss the problem before asking for a third opinion. And since the dispute covers several entries, we should discuss it on your talk page, since I was the first to contact you about it.
 * So tell me, can you not see how inserting a mention of the Shakespeare authorship question into other mainstream articles is a violation ofWP:ONEWAY? If you disagree, please explain why you do. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I happened across this dispute in passing. I would think that policy - NPOV - tells us that fringe theories on the authorship of Shakespeare's plays belong only in the articles on those theories. Asking for third fourth opinion won't hurt though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, here is the related guideline: "Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." The full guideline is here:[] Smatprt (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Twaddle", as the reviewer of Shapiro's Contested Will in yesterday's Scotsman (Books, page 2) calls "Oxfordian" theories, almost always belongs only in articles about the said twaddle. The problem with fringe theories is made clear by the end of the review: "Shapiro does [Oxfordians] all too much honour in even writing about them." Few will waste their time refuting arrant nonsense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page for my responses to the message you left there. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So I take it you have no answer to my request above that you explain why you disagree with my interpretation of WP:ONEWAY? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for my response to the message you left there. I am preparing a dispute resolution request. Unless you agree to revert back your edits I will file it this afternoon and we can get this thing settled. Frankly, with your history of tendentious editing, I think it would be better for you to concede on these points, but I can also see the advantage of getting a clear-cut decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I filed it in the right place, but I posted a request for comment from uninvolved editorshere. Hopefully we can quit wasting our time. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! Looks like we filed within seconds of each other! Tom Reedy (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even better, right down to the second! Momentous powers must be using us as pawns. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

3R warning
Do you really want to keep this up? Several times now you've reverted the same page 3 times within 24 hours. You need to make your case on the Hamlet talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom - I have reverted to the consensus FA version a total of 5 times over an 8 day period. Jeez. Smatprt (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your reverts for the last time, with the edit summary of "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. WP:3R" I suggest you wait until the results are in on my NPOV noticeboard request before you revert again. You have never offered any explanation of why you believe WP:ONEWAY does not apply, and until you do I suggest you cool your beans and think about any possible unintended consequences. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom - I have answered you several times in several places. Please don't misrepresent me like that. As to your new (and very clever) approach to deny that you and Nishidani are edit-warring with me, with SSilvers, with Bertaut - you are abusing the policy, which says "certain" overriding policies. They cite the example of BLP for a reason - because those kinds of edits can actually HURT someone. To try to apply it to ONE-WAY, which you merely interpret to support your personal agenda of deleting all minority views, well, it just does not fly. No living person is at risk over the SAQ, for goodness sake. And can you please be more specific about "possible unintended consequences"? It sounds like some kind of threat. Is that what you intend? Smatprt (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "clever" about it. It's a straight-up application of Wikipedia policy, which I support. And my comment was made to jog your memory about the results you got the last time you tried to get Nishidani and I censured. It didn't turn out quite the way you had planned, did it? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare Chronology
Hi there. Now that all the excitement has died down about the Chronology page (what a ridiculous argument it all developed into), I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on my proposed template for each play. I put a sample on the Talk page. Now, I wouldn't be able to overhaul the entire article with that template or anything similiar. I'm not familiar enough with the later work. I could do Two Gentlemen, Shrew, the three Henrys and Titus, and maybe a few more, but certinly nothing after Richard II (I'm going by the Oxford Complete Workschronology) But what I was thinking, if I were to use the template on each play, but simply leave some of the entreis blank, it might prompt other people to contribute to the page. Any thoughts? Bertaut (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - now the "excitement" has moved to the Hamlet page (sigh). Equally ridiculous. Your prediction that Nishidani and Tom are simply going to continue deleting similar material has proved to be accurate. But they seem content to edit war in each case until they get their way.


 * I like your template a lot. Nice work. And I think your suggested approach is spot on - leave blanks and others will fill in the details.Smatprt (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:BeautyAndTheBeast3shot.pdf listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BeautyAndTheBeast3shot.pdf, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. - Mobius Clock  22:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Finding cite pages
Smatprt, go to Amazon and search for "Arden Shakespeare Hamlet 1982". It has the "search inside this book" feature and you can bring up every page that has the search term on it. I've read entire books that way. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had done that, but both Google Books and Amazon only preview the 2006 edition, which is quite different. That is why I asked for a doublecheck and the appropriate quote (which Nishidani usually supplies). Unless you can supply it?Smatprt (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the 1982 edition is previewed also: http://www.amazon.com/Hamlet-Arden-Shakespeare-Second-William/dp/1903436672
 * Hold your cursor over the illustration and put "Corambis" in the search box.
 * The page number was incorrect; it's 142 instead of 421. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, I know this is a personal preference of mine and is probably shared by no one else, but would you please try to make your verbs as concise as possible? No. 1 is your use of the words "believe" and "call". Scholars and researchers don't "believe"; the word has religious connotations (come to think of it . . . never mind), neither do they "call," unless they're using the telephone or moonlighting as a bartender. They declare, state, assert, support, theorise, argue, allege, defend, profess, posit, criticise, demonstrate, suggest, maintain, exhibit, think, and best of all, they say and write, but they don't "believe" or "call." Just my 2 groats. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
Thanks - WP:HEAD says in part "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated." I realize this is something of judgment call, but I would avoid using "Shakespeare" in headers if possible. So"Shake-Speare" as a possible pseudonym" seems OK as a header, but "Shakespeare as possible front-man or play broker" is a bit much, why not just "Possible front-man or play broker" or even just "Front-man or play broker" (and is the hyphen needed in front-man?).

Or why have both "Debate points" and right below it "Doubts about Shakespeare of Stratford"? WHy not just the latter, and in any case having named "Shakespeare of Stratford" as a header, the subheaders do not need to repeat that, so why not just "Will" or "Funerary monument"?Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:PacRep's HSM2.gif
Thank you for uploading File:PacRep's HSM2.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takescopyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks you. I added the appropriate tag. Smatprt (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mary Sidney
I have reverted your addition of fringe material to Mary Sidney. Will you please stop wasting everybody's time? The only thing you are accomplishing is proving that you're determined to insert the SAQ in every possible article. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have a suggestion. Why don't you write a subsection for the academic program sections of the Brunell University page and the Concordia University page describing the SAQ programs? I think those would be valid and interesting additions. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sidney candidacy was written up by Newsweek (RS). She appears on Nishidani's list of candidates, and is on the SAQ template as a candidate. Given this, a short section in her article is hardly inappropriate. I did not add it initially, btw - but will certainly defend it's placement.Smatprt (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The proper place for it is in the SAQ article, not in the main page article, and it is mentioned in the list. Tom Reedy(talk) 18:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you are just being silly. This is the article about Mary Sidney. Mary Sidney has been named as a candidate by Newsweek, among others. A brief mention in her article is more than appropriate.Smatprt (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See the appropriate section at the Talk:Mary Sidney page. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

SAQ in Shakespeare's plays
I'm sorry that more skirmishing has broken out, but please take note of WP:3RR: I won't hesitate if you put it back again. Is there scope, perhaps, for agreement with Tom on just a bare WP:SS link, without text, to the SAQ article? --Old Moonraker(talk) 08:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After User:Nishidani has given a needful pep talk on my talk page I am persuaded that my compromise suggestion was inappropriate. Strikethrough.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SAQ lede image
Smatprt, how did you construct the collage image? I'm working on some other ideas. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a lot of trial and error using a graphic program called ReadySetGo. I imagine any good graphics program would work - simply (or not!) copy the pictures you want to use into a blank page, arrange them the way you envision, then "save as" a pdf. Like I said, it was a lot of trial and error and, not being a graphic artist, I can't say if there is an easier way. When in doubt, ask a 12-year old (mine seems to know all this stuff)! Good luck. Smatprt (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My problem is keeping the proportions right. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When adjusting the size of photos, usually the proportions will stay the same if you resize from the corner of the image... sometimes.Smatprt (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Goal?
After the dust-ups on fringe theory and pseudohistory, can I ask you what your goal is with regards to these subjects and SAQ? I encourage you to be as brutally honest as possible, and I promise not to hold anything against you. If you want to e-mail me in private, that's okay too. I just really am having a hard time understanding where you are coming from and why you object so much to Tom and Nish's activities with regards to SAQ.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you doing, Smatprt? Do you think reverting changes that have been in place for months is going to go unnoticed and that you'll somehow sneak the SAQ back into articles without any trouble or consequences? I'm asking you to revert your edits unless you want to go to the noticeboards again. None of your campaigns have worked out and I doubt seriously this one will. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to think that just because you and Nishidani have agreed on something, that makes it so. Sneak? On Wikipedia? How on earth would that be done? You want to go back to the noticeboards? Fine. Smatprt (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want to go to the noticeboards with a subject that has been beat to death. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why did you ask above to go to the noticeboards if, two comments later you say you don't want to go to the noticeboards? Jeez.Smatprt (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I wouldn't; I said I didn't want to. I would much rather you read the writing on the wall and conform yourself to Wikipedia policy. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

whatever it is you are trying to do, you will need to understand that it is necessary to convince people that you are trying to do something in good faith, which means you need to expound your rationale so that it can be understood by people even if they do not agree with you. Then you need to be prepared to compromise. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pseudohistory. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You in fact, are in multiple edit wars. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Verbal chat  19:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be advised that 3RR is not an entitlement. Your recent revert on Fringe theory was pushing the limits. You asked for discussion on the talk page there, now hold off and wait for comments from others about your concerns. Any further reverting by you there will be viewed as disruptive editing. Vsmith (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing/Votestacking?
No, I didn't select the editors. I started with the editors who have weighed in on that page and the pseudohistory page and then I went to the edit history and talk page history and invited every editor who ever edited or commented on the page. Just back off and see who shows up and what they say. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep doing this?
I'm tired of this constant battle with you over content. You know what sources are WP:RS and what sources are not. Let's not start this all over again. I did not remove the content; all I ask is that you supply an acceptable ref for the statement. It shouldn't be that hard since it's a matter of fact. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it is a matter of fact (by your own admission), then it is not contentious and does not require a source. Adding a fact tag when you know something is factual is another form of harassment. Won't you please stop?Smatprt (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not a well-known fact, and I personally don't know if it's factual or not. See WP:V and WP:NOCITE. While you're at it, seeWP:BURDEN. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Civil behaviour warning
I would remind you about WP:CIVIL. Satirical joshing is one thing; calling people liars (which you have done twice) is quite another. I suggest you remove the offending comments. I also suggest you reviewthis page and acquaint yourself with proper procedure, because that is what is going to be strictly followed from now on if we get into any more disputes. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Spam site?
Hey, Smatprt, I've been taking a bit of a semi-break (only on Wikipedia is half a day or so considered a break!), and I noticed you deleted a "spam site" from the MWW page. Is Bartleby a spam page? I've never heard anyone refer to it as such. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The amount of adverts, links and pop-up windows on the Bartleby page seemed like a red flag to me. If you want to reinstate it, I don't really have a problem, but how many links to the play scripts are really needed? Smatprt (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have similar concerns with the site, and these links really are being spammed by one editor (albeit, in his defense, he seems to be doing so manually and probably in good faith) and an IP-editor at that. I've several times considered whether and what to do about it, but so far have been ambivalent: the links are topical and relevant, useful even, but somewhat marginal and the mass addition of links that carry banner advertising tends to set off serious red flags with me. --Xover (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! I use Adblocker; that's why I didn't see it. No, I don't care if it's included or not; there're plenty of other sites with the plays. I know Bartleby is a treasure trove of old criticism if no other sources are at hand, but for the most part it's long been superseded by more current scholarship. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: SAQ
Hi Smatprt,

To keep the number of talk pages the discussion is spread over down a little, I've replied on my own talk page. I hope that's ok?--Xover (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!!
We clearly need your help on SAQ. Thanks. . Artaxerxes (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I tried to clean up the Anonymous (film) article but everything was reverted. Sigh. Smatprt (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A topic of interest to you is covered by discretionary sanctions under an Arbcom case
The Arbitration Committee has permittedadministrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or anynormal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read atArbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume you include this finding, though you and other editors seem to constantly ignore it:


 * Conduct and decorum
 * "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited."
 * Unfortunately, in spite of this directive, personal attacks, attempted blacklisting, and assumptions of bad faith continue to come from the current batch of editors, especially user:Tom_Reedy|ad hominem attack, , user:Paul Barlow  anduser:Nishidani  and . The current atmosphere, created by you and the other current editors, was commented on by Mr Wales here  and here . Smatprt (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You would be hard-pressed to make a case based on any of those diffs, but feel free to try if you think such a move won't be looked at as unnecessary disruption. My only purpose was to remind you of the possible consequences of continued POV editing and reversion to try to get around the editorial consensus as determined by Wikipedia processes. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
With your most recent edits to Shakespeare authorship question, you have resumed a pattern of disruptive tendentious editing. In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=466478766 this] edit, it must have been clear to you that the passages in question are claimed by anti-Stratfordians to represent early doubts about authorship, but it is not generally accepted as a fact that they represent such doubts. Presenting this edit as if it was "matching" the contents of the article to those of the History of the Shakespeare authorship question article is disingenious. Also, calling the other person's subsequent edit "vandalism" [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=466482891] was clearly disruptive.

I have blocked you for 72 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Its too bad you have not read the full article in question. See this section:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Shakespeare_authorship_question#Alleged_early_doubts. Honestly, and AGF, do you not find it disingenuous that all this has been left out of the main article? Smatprt (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Proving Shakespeare
Cudos on your persistence in confronting the frozen mind-sets of editors at Shakespeare Authorship Question who deploy WP:RS and WP:Fringe against any serious scholarship (usually amateur and/or independent) that refutes their idee fixe, such as the bookProving Shakespeare: Verifying Ben Jonson's Vow that Edward de Vere was William Shakespeare (2008/2011) by British mathematician David Roper. My attempts to introduce this book three years ago were thwarted and in early spring 2010 I did not possess the in-depth knowledge needed to prevail in a behind-the-scenes dialogue with Nishidani. Basically, Roper has discovered that Ben Jonson's inscription on the Stratford monument contains a tandem cipher comprised of (a) a word-play puzzle similar to many crossword puzzle clues and (b) a 34 column equidistant letter sequence cryptogram known as a Cardano grille whose plain text reads: (a) "I am de Vere by Birth" and (b) "So Test Him. I Vow He Is DeVere As He Shakspeare. Me B.I." Seehttp://www.dlropershakespearians.com/index.htm for explanations. The Cardano grille cipher is not any bible code exercise, as many critics in private proclaim in dismissal and the solution is unique, as has been shown by Prof. of Chemistry Emeritus Albert Burgstahler at University of Kansas. This solution also fulfills the criteria for a successful Shakespearian cipher set forth by the Friedmans in 1957, a condition rejected out-of-hand in email by Terry Ross. Unfortunately, Oxfordians in general have not embraced Roper's discovery, perhaps due to an unfamiliarity with the methodology, while professional cryptographers and Shakespeare professors avoid examining it on the erroneous presumption that the Friedmans had disproved all Shakespearian ciphers when they never even mentioned the Cardano grille modality. When James Shapiro spoke recently at Univ. Kansas, he vehemently rejected Burgstahler's invitation to read Roper's book. The only review of Proving Shakespeare known to me was a brief one in Journal of Scientific Exploration. I invite you to examine Roper's discovery and perhaps attempt to introduce its message on the Shakespeare Authorship Question page at Wikipedia while also finding a way to overcome the expected RS and Fringe objections. Phaedrus7 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Shakespeare authorship question, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Elizabeth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read theFAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement of the arb com sanctions has been requested
I've been trying to refrain from doing this, but I've had enough of your tendentious editing. I have asked for enforcement of the arb com sanctions against you here.Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic-ban reinstated
I have reviewed some of your recent editing on the SAQ page. I find that you have again been edit-warring extensively (multiple reverts in the last few days alone about the same bit of text in the "Anonymous" movie plot), and that your talk page conduct appears to be back to the same problematic patterns found last year, resulting in a constant barrage of petty argument disrupting the development of the article.

I therefore consider it necessary to reinstate the full topic ban under the terms of the WP:ARBSAQ arbitration ruling.Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Weston (merchant adventurer)
Thank you and also thank you for the information. I appreciate you thoughful offer of information. Must take my dog to the vet but will continue editing on this in the afternoon. Mugginsx (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for that great link. I am back now and will continue expanding the article, and tomorrow also.Mugginsx (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice day today
Nice day today, user Smatprt. I am greeting you. There is some discussion on the talk page of the Oxfordian theory, and on my talk page. Thank you for message. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can repeat the message as of 16 July 2012. It´s similar. However, there has been kind of invitation for Oxfordian editors to cooperate, by Paul Barlow. Interesting, isn´t it? Look at my Talk page and the Talk page of the Oxfordian theory.--Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

--Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Request that topic ban be lifted
Hi Smatprt,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted. I hope I can count on your support.NinaGreen (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shakespeare authorship question, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lord Buckhurst, Robert Greene and John Fletcher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read theFAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Herbert and Public weal(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tag-bombing
You need to stop yourWP:TAGBOMBING. These have been hashed out and are cited either at the end of the sentence or in the lead, and you know it. In case you don't know it, tag-bombing is considered to be a form of disruptive editing. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that the article is not in compliance with either WP:RS/AC or WP:WEASEL, and placing a handful of tags in an article of this length is not excessive. Please review the WP:RS/AC policy. Keep in mind: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." You do understand the meaning of "directly", right? In this context it means precisely orexactly. There is nothing precise or exact about such weaselly writing as:
 * "Shakespeare scholars see no reason to suspect that the name was a pseudonym or that the actor was a front for the author" (all? some? no reason? They all say that?)


 * or this overly sweeping statement:


 * "Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence" (according to whom? All Anti-Strats? Some? What about physical evidence or documentary evidence?). Your citations don't answer these questions.


 * And any weaselly phrasing (as per these examples: "some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...") needs to be addressed. Smatprt (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)'''


 * I've moved this discussion to the article talk page. See you there. Smatprt (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

For your edification and review
The Arbitration Committee has permittedadministrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or anynormal editorial process. Any editor who engages in inappropriate behavior in this area may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read atArbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanctioned again
Since you came back from your second one-year topic ban, I have been following from a distance what was happening on the SAQ pages, wishing to give you the benefit of the doubt and hoping that a new pattern of constructive collaboration could be established. What I'm seeing, however, is that things are back very much in the same old pattern, or worse. Your presence has resulted in a constant stream of unproductive, time-consuming fights and constant edit-warring. Your interventions are perceived by others as tedious, wordy and repetitive lawyering, powered by the tenacity of a tendentious single-purpose agenda, as if designed to wear out opposition by sheer stubbornness. Whether your own intentions are at fault in this or not, this is clearly the effect your presence has.

The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when I saw how you quoted these papers by Merriam et al, as if these authors were examples of an "anti-Stratfordian" programme. Judging from the summaries you linked to and from Paul Barlow's report about the content of these papers, this is clearly not the case. Paul Barlow rightly protested against your edit as a rather crass case of source misuse.

Given these circumstances, I believe it's time for me to pull the emergence brake again. You are therefore again, for the third and final time, topic-banned from all edits regarding the Shakespeare authorship issue. This time the ban is of indefinite duration.Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * FuturePerfect, according to the ArbCom ruling, and reiterated in their ruling of May 7, 2011 regarding Discretionary sanctions - prior to imposing such a ban, you are required to give a warning . ("Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning"). You gave no such warning, nor did any other administrator.
 * Frankly, I believe this is because I have followed the ArbCom ruling by using established practices in dispute resolution: I have not engaged in edit warring. I have discussed contested edits on the Talk Page, and I have used the Noticeboards when talk pages discussions led there (usually at the urging of the main editors to "take it to a Noticeboard").
 * If I have failed to live up to the ArbCom ruling, it was incumbent upon you to advise me of that prior to taking such drastic action. The ArbCom ruling is quite clear - "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;". You have not followed this ruling, so I don't think I can simply accept your action. And for the record, I am ready to receive advice from you as the ruling demands - and am asking for it now, as I have asked for advice from the current editors. Yes, I made a mistake with that source, but a single editing mistake made due to my own haste, does not warrant such a severe sanction, if if the required warning.
 * As a better example, if we use this Noticeboard discussion as a sample of my behavior,[] - how else do you think I should have handled the situation? I outlined the issues which brought me to the notice board; I cited relevant policies; I provided excerpts and references; I offered suggestions; I offered compromises,... and I was berated, accused of making a "frivolous noticeboard action" and told to "shut up". Please note that the uninvolved editors there never requested I change my editing habits nor commented in any way on the "effect my presence has". Only the 3 heavily involved main editors - Tom, Paul and Nishidani - ever make the complaints you mention above. It's their official stance, as is their ongoing barrage of insults and personal attacks. It's such behavior that the ArbCom ruling also forbids. If you have been watching my actions from afar, why have you not taken similar actions, or issued any warnings, to the other offending editors?Smatprt (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is just more pure animal dung. Anybody who reads out Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship can see that we were bending over backward trying to avoid you getting topic banned again, which I made quite clear several times.  We all had hoped that your two year-long topic bans had had some salutary effect, but after a while it became painfully obvious that you had not adjusted your attitude or your agenda, but had just decided to be more careful to try to stay within the technical lines. Your wounded victim act got old a long time ago. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Bending over backwards is a joke, right? Your diffs are deceptive and inaccurate, as usual. If any independent editor or administrator looked at your behavior with an open mind, you are the one that should be banned. You attack anyone who disagrees with you. You have chased everyone off the page who threatened your control. Smatprt (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your thread at ANI
Hello Smatprt. You opened a complaint about FP at ANI and then [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=551054821 decided to remove it]. This should not be done if any others have responded to the topic. In light of your willingness to pursue other options, I restored the ANI thread but put a closure box on it to indicate you have withdrawn it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be blocked if you make another frivolous change to the ARBSAQ log. Your route of appeal is to WP:Arbitration enforcement or to Arbcom itself. Editorializing in the case file will do you no good. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban reminder
Edits like this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=551371395&oldid=551370952] are a breach of your topic ban, which extends not just to article edits but also to talk page discussions, in all namespaces. Please don't do that, or you will have to be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise
I share your concerns about this administrator. I have been insulted, abused, threatened and bullied. If you need someone to support a complaint then I'm happy to do so. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

My experiences on the Shakespeare Authorship Page
Smatprt, I read with interests about your discontents on the SAQ page. I recently made a minor edit on the 17th Earl of Oxford website, adding a reference to show that not all academics reject non-Stratfordian theories entirely. It was the first edit I ever made on a Shakespeare-related page and the response was quite extraordinary. I can't be bothered getting annoyed with these people any more or wasting time discussing, in the wider scheme of things intelligent people soon learn to look beyond Wikipedia. However if there is ever another arbitration on this, or even an investigation by adminstrators, I'd be pleased to give evidence. I'd not declared any view of my own on the authorship, I simply considered that the fact that a small number of academics question it is significant and should be given a small amount of space. Please feel free to draw this comment to the attention of anyone else who may feel disappointed by what goes on on that page. Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sceptic1954, please be aware that Smatprt can't respond on the topic of the Shakespeare authorship question due to his topic ban. You can verify the existence of the ban by studying the log of WP:ARBSAQ, at the bottom of the page. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ed, it seems rather harsh that he can't even reply on his own talk page. How can this editor and others who have been topic banned get together and highlight common grievances in any appeal? I don't know precisely what led to the topic ban but what I've seen on this page in the last few days has appalled me.  Guess I'll get threatened with a topic ban next for raising this here.Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sceptic, you're not under any topic ban yourself. But it's not helpful to leave notes for topic-banned people in the subject area of their ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Smartprt, I'll continue this on Ed's talk pageSceptic1954 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King Lear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)