User talk:Tom Reedy/Archive 1

Tom, When you are on my talk page, just click on "e-mail this user" in the toolbox. (That procedure works for anyone on Wikipedia who's entered their e-mail address into their preferences - and I have :). - Nunh-huh 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin
May I enlist your help on Latin? Although I'm not a bad copyeditor, I'm no magician. RedRabbit1983 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare
Good work. 

Marriage stuff
I'm just doing a light copy edit on the biography, because it's the best part of the article, thanks to you, RedRabbit and earlier editors, so I'm not really looking much up. I think that bit's almost fine now, except that we are getting a bit more detail on who issued this licence than perhaps anyone will be interested in.qp10qp 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You change whatever you need to. I hope to repeatedly copyedit the article in diminishing circles, with less and less to do each time. The tithes were there already and I just added some detail. The reason was that the passage read, for some reason, as if New Place resulted from the Blackfriars profits in some way.


 * On the profits from the tithes, I am just going by Wells, who says that the tithes brought him £60 a year, but of course, that has to be set off against his investment (£440) and an annual fee, which Ackroyd tells me was £17. The details aren't anything I'm wedded to, so long as we draw together some examples of his wealth (if you want to move tithes, I could put the 1602 Chapel Lane cottage in there instead).


 * On your point about the leasing of Blackfriars, I think it might be a little overtechnical to try to explain to the readers the nuances of the financial arrangements. The books I have with me don't nuance it; for example, Wells says "In August 1608 the King's Men took up the lease of the smaller, 'private' indoor theatre, the Blackfriars; again, Shakespeare was one of the syndicate of owners." I wonder if the readers of our article need more than that? We have in effect three layers of the King's Men: Cuthbert Burbage, the seven partners, and the wider acting company; but in a way they are all "The King's Men", so to speak. For me it's like saying that Chelsea have leased Stamford Bridge (if you are American, let's say that the Houston Oilers have leased the Astrodome). In truth, the financial complexities go beyond the simple statement; the chairman may be leasing the ground to the club, whose directors are making profit from the gates, etc. But for most purposes a fairly general statement covers this sort of stuff, I think. However, you do what you think is right.


 * As far as repetitions are concerned, there are quite a few here and there in the article, which we can iron out as we go along, I'm sure. I agree that the article is much better. I also agree with Alabamaboy that there's some dense stuff lower down, but I am confident that I can make it more and more lucid with each copy edit.qp10qp 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Semicolons, etc.
I didn't know that I did. Could you give me an example?qp10qp 11:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at my last edit yesterday, I deduce that you are referring to the caption. Well, I made the best of a bad job there. The clause is actually not dependent on "National Portrait Gallery, London", or it would seem as if the gallery itself, rather than the picture, was on display at the gallery in Washington. The comma there was unacceptable for that reason. The problem arises from the convention that captions don't have to be sentences: someone at some point must have piled extra information into the caption without reorganising it properly. I have solved the problem by removing the superfluous and temporary information about where the portrait might be on loan.qp10qp 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty confident about the cites in the lower parts of the article, because I've added quite a proportion of them myself. Of course, there are many refs that one cannot check, but I'm not aware of any extraordinary statements. I intend to fact check "Life" myself in the next few days as well, so don't worry if you can't do all of it.I was gutted when Xover said the number of Judith's children was wrong. It hadn't occurred to me to check such basic things as that, but now I'm determined to go into FA knowing the whole article in depth and not just the critical and arty stuff I had concentrated on.


 * I feel we can go to FA in the next few days. The article meets the criteria; and the main criticisms at the last FA were to do with references. That doesn't mean it will certainly pass, because we wouldn't be human if we didn't feel rather pleased with what we're doing, and cognitive dissonance might be deluding us. I don't know if you have been through an FA before, but gird yourself for some harsh and potentially upsetting criticism. And maybe for some hard work. An article like this is bound to be held to exceptionally high standards, and people might come along asking us to rewrite or ditch huge chunks of it. We should hold our nerve, however, and resist the temptation to buy supports by blindly doing everything requested. (For me, the gold star would be nice; but having a quality article with some integrity about it is more important.)  In particular, I think we should be cautious about any one asking us to change our whole reference formatting (a common request at FA). The amount of work would be enormous, and the criteria say only that we should be consistent, not satisfy any particular style choice. We should hold reviewers to the criteria, as they will do to us.qp10qp 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the ref formatting at the moment. I'm going to standardise Xover's refs when I fact check "Life", probably tomorrow. Consistency in the ref formatting is impossible at the micro level; and having been through a few FAs, I'm 100% certain that we will pass on referencing. The reason 100% formatting consistency is impossible at the micro level is because this article does not have a separate bibliography. Therefore it is using the footnote system as a references system (based on the formatting in the references template); and you do not find that in printed books, so there is no provision for it in manuals of style. This means that the style used is a hybrid of alphabetical bibliographical referencing and short-note footnoting. In the circumstances, I think it is remarkably clear. The only marked inconsistency is that we are using full stops for full references and commas for shortened references (the usual distinction is commas for notes and full stops for bibliographies). However, as inconsistences go, using a mere two styles, in a logical way, is not likely to challenge the reader: it is clear enough what is going on. The quality of our referencing is so far above average that I think it will be an asset at FAC. Any complaint by a reviewer about too much Schoenbaum or too many references to individual points will be irrelevant to the criteria. I notice by the way that more than one edition of Schoenbaum's Compact is cited; I will sort that out shortly, but could you have a glance at the refs to two editions of Lives and ref them consistently to the edition you have (I don't have a copy)? Again, not essential; but it's neat.qp10qp 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The semicolon is most excellent for antithesis, something I learned from Fowler. But edit as you wish: both are correct.qp10qp 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to keep our beans chilled
Oh, it's fine. This is normal for the Shakespeare article! People latch on to something they feel is under-represented and focus on that rather than the summary-style needs of the article. Also, not everyone grasps that Shakespeare scholarship is a three-ring circus where too many people are trying to make their name. That's why it's always best for us to go with the wise general-Shakespeare scholars, who (in this case, as in others) take no side but mention the theory in passing. Bottom line: we don't know. We shouldn't have to cite partial scholarship in an article like this.qp10qp 08:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I've just checked Greenblatt: Mamalujo overstates his position. Greenblatt actually says, "As the scholar Ernst Honigmann and others have suggested, Cottam could have been asked by the Hoghtons to recommend a promising young man to be a teacher to their children....", etc. In other words, he never strays from "could, might, assume...". The difference between our article and the biographies of people like Greenblatt is that whereas the latter need to explore every last possibility in order to fill up their books, we need to keep our article concise and as close to the known facts as possible.qp10qp 12:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wells ref
Tom, when you are available, could you drop me the book details for your edition of Shakespeare: A Life in Drama (I don't know what edition you have). The p 99 ref is promising. My only reservation is that this is one of Wells's early books, and we should be citing current opinion, since anything with even a hint of cultural imperialism is deprecated nowadays. Because the opening claims, though true, are challengeable, we need to have all angles of attack covered. I've stuck a Greenblatt ref in there for the time being: fortunately, he's a full-on Harvard prof, but anyone who's read it will also know how wiffly and populistic that book is—so reinforcement is certainly required.qp10qp 10:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:ShakespeareMonument.JPG—apology
There was a request on the William Shakespeare page to crop this image. I jumped in and did it, then noticed that you were a prominent contributor to the page yourself. Apologies for not giving you enough time to do it. I will not be offended at all if you do just this, and replace my attempt. --Old Moonraker 06:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tempest topical allusion
You might be interested to read the full case for the Stephano Janiculo allusion in my response to BenJonson's objections on The Tempest discussion page. (Puzzle Master 12:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

FA
No, it's quiet at the moment. No big things to do yet (calm before the storm?), except that someone said it might go over the heads of school students, so I'm copyediting for reading ease. It would be cool to have you sign the nom, though (Wrad and RR have), since you've done so much hard work on the article. Enjoy your holiday. I envy you Stratford, Ont.qp10qp 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's easy. Just put your sig and maybe a comment at the bottom of my little introductory statement. Check previous FAC link to see how it was done last time, if you like.qp10qp 10:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom, stop swanning about at Stratford for a minute and jolly well get your name on that nom. It's going well (famous last words), and we want your contribution known. Guillaume has name-checked you; but I don't care if you have to sign in from a satphone in the desert, just get your arse in gear and do it.qp10qp 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare FAC
Glad you showed up. I was worried you'd come back from Stratford to find you'd missed all the excitement. AndyJones 18:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing?
Although the work-intensive Shakespeare FAC is still ongoing, I wonder if you might have some time to copy edit Mary: A Fiction. It is currently at FAC and some concerns have been raised regarding the prose. Frankly, I feel that some of these concerns are unwarranted, but I am still trying to find editors to look at the article for me and fix anything that is amiss. I would greatly appreciate it. I would be willing to copy edit or review an article for you in return. I am, despite appearances, a good copy editor and reviewer. Awadewit | talk  07:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet
I don't know if you're interested, but Peer review/Hamlet could use some comments, or alternatively your help would we welcomed at the page itself. Best, AndyJones 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tempest
any thoughts? ;-)  AndyJones (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry: any time! AndyJones (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

othello
is othello the only one that the villain survives in? Wikisaver62 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded to this question at Talk:William Shakespeare. AndyJones (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A. S. Cairncross
Earlier today you edited the Ur-Hamlet article, changing "Alfred S. Cairncross" to "Alexander S. Cairncross". My edition of Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare gives the name of this gentleman as "Andrew S. Cairncross" (p.289). Do you have the actual book by Cairncross? If not, what is your source for his first name? —Aetheling (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

Fowl
I suspect the edit summary was refering to WP:PEACOCK; which isn't a policy, but a generally accepted style guideline. The house style, reflecting the house's own peculiarities of preference, if you will. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Approaches...
Hi Tom,

Listen, I think you ought to cool it a bit in dealing with the WS article. Smatprt has been very constructive, acting in good faith, and trying to build a consensus; where you've had a tendency to take a hardline stance, not really made much of an effort to keep the vitriol out of your discourse, and are now at the point of edit-warring with him (which particular activity he shares the blame for, of course, but still). The approach you're taking only serves to polarize the discussion and cause needless drama. I would strongly suggest you assume he's acting in good faith (which I am, personally, quite convinced he is; both in this specific issue and in general) and interact with him with a little more humility and respect, even if you vehemently disagree with his points.

I do think most of the notes will likely end up being removed from the article (my biggest worry is actually that they were brought up at the FAC, not any argument brought up during the recent discussion), but I wouldn't call the current situation a consensus (at best it's a simple majority among too few editors to carry that much weight). We need to take the time to go through the issues point by point, try to find alternate solutions (for instance, moving the Hamlet note to a suitable place in the body of an article and finding the right way to phrase it) before taking the “nuclear option” and simply deleting them outright. And you know what? Smatprt has indicated (in word and deed) that he is perfectly willing to try that and to listen to other editors' opinions on this.

Consider this: Smatprt's restoration of the disputed material is merely defending the status quo; deleting the (properly sourced) material without a full consensus is actually the disruptive act here (which point holds even if you're convinced the material in question is in some manner or degree deficient)!

Anyways, I'll not presume to tell you what to do; but I will say that in my—highly subjective and highly fallible—perception you seem to be fighting dragons while your actual opponent sits on a tree branch preening its feathers, hoots, and turns its neck at impossible angles… --Xover (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wish I could contribute more directly to that discussion, but I'm woefully short of time (and the heatedness and sheer number of words doesn't really help there) and the topic is a little outside my area of expertise (I'm a biography wonk; anything smacking of internal evidence in the plays or critical approaches sets my teeth on edge). I'm trying to write up a proposal for the WS talk page that I hope can serve as a framework for bringing us forward without exacerbating existing conflicts. I would appreciate your feedback on my proposal once it's posted. --Xover (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

authorship
EXTREME PERSONAL AND REFERENCE BIAS

The peer review submission by Tom Reedy is anything but neutral. Reviewing the footnotes he used to support his contentions, I read some of the most misinformed and bilious remarks about other scholars and other scholarship that I have ever seen. Kathman's and Nelson's in particular are little more than polemic, with Shapiro, Bate, Smith, and Wadsworth also characterized by summary judgment, unsupported by any specific factuality. The basic point of departure into polemic is their common assumption that Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford and William Shake-Speare/Shakespeare of literary renown were one and the same person. Since this cannot be asserted without numerous contradictions collapsing the argument, it throws into question the (lack of) scholarly motives of the individuals involved. There can be no neutral discussion under these terms, and in this case Tom Reedy's neutral point of view is a travesty. The defensive posture of asserting that Elizabethan authors did not write out of their own experience and social frame, for instance, is clearly disproven by their individual biographies. The only biography to work chasm is that of the subject in discussion, Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford. --Zweigenbaum

yes i've been reading the discussions o the authoship page. i try to avoid becoming involved because I can barely keep my temper when confronted with the double-think and twisting of evidence that's typical of Oxfordians. I also find Smatpmt a deeply disingenuous editor who is not remotely interested in presenting that actual state of play, and who resorts to fits of hysterics whenever his pet fantasies are challenged. in other words my view is very different from Xover's. Part of the problem is that many contributors here really have no idea of the fringe status of of these theories in academia, since so few editors have expertise in the humanities. So "community" decisions on the relevant noticeboards can be problematic. I think the important thing is to establish that authorship doubters come ito the category of WP:Fringe and that the appropriate policy should be followed in such cases. They can then be discussed at the Fringe Theories board. There was a time when Wikipedia policy on fringe theories had a contradiction built into it - the fringe theorists could use non-reliable sources published by any old fantasist, but mainstream opinion could only be represented by reliable sources, which resulted in the absurdity that wild website speculations remained unrebutted because there were no academic articles about them. The situation is now different, which allows non-reliable (i.e on-academic) literature to be used if it responds to positions outlined in i writings of fringe theorists. we also have to abide by wp:undue weight rules, which means that articles shoud be balanced, and should not list every argument that some Oxfordian, or Climate Change denier, or believer that aliens built the pyramids can come up with. Paul B (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The new editors "WellStanley" and "Anna Gram" have all the usual cryptographic subtlty and delicate wit of self-regarding Baconian User:Barryispuzzled. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ps, you can email the jpg file to me (you have the address) or follow instructions at Upload. Paul B (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Shakespeare signatures.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Shakespeare signatures.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 is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:01, 9 January 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.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 20:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Source information?
Hi Tom Reedy. At File:Shakespeare signatures.jpg, could you please list the books you used (preferably bibliography formatting) and/or the links which you used? Once you have done that, feel free to remove the deletion tag. Hope that helps to answer your question. Regards,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Shakespeare signatures.jpg looks good. I have removed the deletion tag.  Regards,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian verdict
I just saw your post about Emerson's 'Egyptian verdict' that Shakespeare was a jovial actor and manager. You say you have no idea why he calls the verdict Egyptian. By "Egyptian" I'm pretty sure he means "gypsy" (which is of course a contraction of "Egyptian"). I think he means that he can't reconcile the idea idea of Shakespeare as a "bohemian" (gypsy/jovial figure) with his verse. It's standard victorian bardoloatry. The Bard must have had a Higher Purpose in mind than mere public entertainment. Paul B (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, right, so he means, essentially, something like "hermetic" or "gnomic". That never occurred to me - and I'm supposed to be an expert on the Victorian era! Paul B (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's just the Oxfordian habit of wilful misreading. I remember having a debate about Ogburn's claim that "death to me subscribes" in sonnet 107 means "I am dying", even though it obviously means "I have triumphed over death", but that one keeps being repeated. Paul B (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK
You're now on your own with Smatprt ... and you won't get what you want ... he'll grind you down ... and when he does and you wish there was support for what you want to do (because no one will help you) I want you to think about your comment "Please spend your time more productively". Meanwhile, if I want to edit here I will and no ban will stop me ... StanIsWell (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jack Quinn UK
I think his comment can just be ignored. He only created his account on Monday, and appears to be a specialist in gibberish. I doubt that anything useful will come of the RfC. It might be better to raise the matter at the Reliable Sources noticeboard;. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it later tonight. Paul B (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

3R
Tom, I believe you know this, but WP:3rr is a pretty strong policy here. You have broken it before, but if it continues, I will need to take some action.Smatprt (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A 3rr report was filed against you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tom_Reedy_reported_by_User:Ssilvers -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You and the other editor (Smatprt) need to end this silly dispute. I understand you have issues with the wording, but you need to stop disrupting Wikipedia by misusing undo. Undoing each others' edits makes absolutely no sense as anyone can come along and simply undo your edits. The more you revert, the less likely neutral editors will believe that you're acting in good faith due to the annoyance and disruption of edit warring. I see you both have made comments on the article's talk page, which is an excellent first step. Now please get back onto the talk page and come to a consensus on the wording you both can accept before making changes to the article. If discussion breaks down then please see the dispute resolution guidance on how to proceed (which doesn't include recommencing an edit war). Any further edit warring (whether a technical 3RR or not) will result in a block to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. NJA (t/ c)  13:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that both you and Smatprt are continuing to revert. You are not taking NJA's very serious advice to get consensus on the Talk page before changing the article. Consider this an ultra-final warning.  EdJohnston (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Image fix
File:Shakespeare signatures labelled.jpg will now work.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * New version available here. Swapping columns left-right wasn't arbitrary: it just helped the vertical alignment. No obligation to use it!--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilmot
I've been trying to expand the James Wilmot article, having recently read Serres's biography of her uncle. I don't know if there are better sources for the Wright/Rollet claims, since I've had to source them to the James & Rubinstein book promoting Neville, which may be OK as a WP:fringe source, but is not ideal. The weakness seems to be their wish to link the alleged forgery to the Looney book, as if it were some sort of desperate Baconian fightback against the revelation of the True Author. If it is a forgery, it would seem more likely that it was produced to be sold to Durning-Lawrence during his lifetime, since he would be a clear target for forgers of pro-Bacon evidence. Is there anything to cite here? Paul B (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The laptop I use in the evenings had coffee spilled on it. The keyboard is very sticky and often I have to type letters repeatedly before they register (U and N are particular problems). So several of my postings will appear with missing letters. Thanks for the correction, but I do think there's a policy against altering even spellings of other editors' submissions! Paul B (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor
Please modify your comment here. You risk getting a block for WP:No personal attacks. Since the two of you won't settle down, and won't behave properly, you are migrating down the hierarchy and will be treated as annoying and incorrigible disputants pretty soon. It is distinctly *not* an honor to be mentioned repeatedly on admin noticeboards, and being mentioned at WP:WQA is not an honor either. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakspere
Hi Tom, unfortunately I haven't been able to provide much support recently - I been pretty busy, and frankly don't feel I know enough about the details. Though I've been watching the page and your resilience and good editing continues to impress. The article is certainly very POV in parts, external links for example reads like a who's who of anti stradfordians. I will proof read the article again soon to try and excise some of the excessive stuff. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem; drop in when you can. The circumstances under which one is forced to edit that article guarantee that it will be a long-term project. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Tom Reedy)
Hello, Tom Reedy. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at    :Requests for comment/Tom Reedy, where you may want to participate. Smatprt (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have requested that this RfC be deleted due to the evidence for attempts to resolve the dispute being not present. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not one-way
Tom - I think you may be tunnel-visioning on a very narrow definition of the one-way guideline. You seem to think it means "no mention ever", which is not the case. It's not as if I have gone through all 37 (38?) Shakespeare Plays and inserted a story about Oxford that Oxfordians believe is connected to the play in question. THAT would be abuse of the one-way guideline. What you have attempted to delete are legitimate, referenced edits that do indeed have a factual connection to the topics at hand.


 * In the case of the Chronology article, you have to know that there are numerous mainstream references to the chronology and how it affects the authorship issue (I have supplied 2!), as well as the fact that there has always been even greater debate within Stratfordian circles regarding so called "early" or "late" plays. The connection is clear, does not create undue weight or a coatrack.


 * As to Marprelate, first - I didn't add the initial mention (De Vere as Pasquill Cavaliero, as referenced to Appleton's book). I added the mention that DeVere is the leading candidate line. It's an obvious connection to be made: the article speculates on who Pasquill was, it mentions several candidates including newer scholarship, and one of those candidates just also happens to be the leading candidate for the works of Shakespeare. The additions hardly create undue weight, nor the appearance of a wp:coatrack. The one-way guideline just does not apply.

So how about pulling back from going after my edits this way? Or if you are going to continue, then how about taking a harder look at the connection, possible undue weight and whether or not wp:COATRACK applies? Smatprt (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about WP:COATRACK? My contention is that the insertions are violations of WP:ONEWAY. And I'm not going after your edits; as I stated, I'm following the links from the SAQ. Obviously you don't understand how they violate the policy. As you quoted on your talk page, the policy states that ""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." There are no independent reliable sources that connect the SAQ in a serious and prominent way to the articles in question, and many more articles into which it has been inserted in a clear violation of WP:PROMOTION.
 * Are we done discussing? Because I doubt we're ever going to agree on this and the sooner we begin dispute resolution the better. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom - the section on One-Way discusses wp:COATRACK, which is precisely why I raised it! It would help matters if you are going to quote a section, that you actually read the whole thing. Here is an additional quote from the section on one-way: "If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack." Now please explain how any of the edits you have reverted created undue weight or turned the articles in question into a coatrack. My answer is that they do not - not even close. And taking the SAQ article out of the template?? Come on. You even left every other "speculation" article link - which simply shows everyone that you are editing according to your own agenda - an agenda whose aim is to delete as much access to the SAQ article as possible. Smatprt (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the entire article. Your problem is this: "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," and "If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section . . ."
 * You have provided no independent RS connecting the topics in a serious and prominent way, because the only sources who do so are unreliable fringe sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Plenty of independent sources exist and many have been provided. If you see one that is needed, simply put up a fact tag instead of deleting material.Smatprt (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom, I have requested a third opinion here: []. I think it is important we iron this out, as you say. As you can see, I phrased the request using completely neutral language. Smatprt (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom Reedy asked you a question, Smatprt. You replied:'You are incorrect. Plenty of independent sources exist and many have been provided.'
 * That is not a reply. Please provide independent RS sources citing the fringe perspective you are pushing all over wikipedia, for the specific articles Tom listed. Unless mainstream scholarship adduces some result from the Oxfordian fringe that has recognizable merit as a contribution, the Oxfordiajn waffle should not be used. On past performance, I am not going to take your word on anything like this. Evidence, please.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have supplied independent references for most of the articles in question and will be supplying the rest over the next few days. For the chronology article, for example, I have supplied references to independent scholars Matus and Sams, as well as NewsWeek. I will be using similar references, including New York Times Harpers and Atlantic Monthly articles, as well as similar independent scholars on a par with Matus and Sams. Smatprt (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not all about independence. You need to be sure the sources "connect the topics in a serious and prominent way". If the Newsweek source is the same one you had earlier about Mary Sidney, it doesn't qualify for the statement you were using it for. En passant comments are not acceptable to source articles. The source should directly and explicitly support the statement, not be an extrapolation from the statements made in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical revisionism
Tom, as to your revert of my addition of the SAQ as an example of Historical revisionism, here is the discussion where a consensus developed that the SAQ was an example of a Fringe Theory/Historical revisionism []. It was one of Verbal's rewrites, in fact, that used the term "dangerously revisionist", which he then had me check the quote to the reference (which I did). Please note also that the regular editors of the Historical revisionism page had never even suggested that that the example was improper in any way. In any case, here is a link to a mainstream reference that uses the term "revisionist" in describing the SAQ [] (paragraph 5), and one that uses the same term in reference to authorship questions in general [] (second to last paragraph). Smatprt (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion you linked was about whether the SAQ was an example of a fringe theory, not of historical revisionism. You were the one who slid historical revisionism in there. And your examples aren't parallel with the SAQ topic. The first example you gave says that Oxford's authorship "revisionist chronology of the plays," which Mary Sidney Herbert's authorship would not, yet they are both examples of the SAQ. The second quotes the opinion that "a strictly scientific approach to authorship is dangerously revisionist", that approach being a mathematical technique to measure vocabularies. Neither of them say anything about the SAQ being an example of revisionism, and as you know--or should know--all references "must clearly support the material as presented in the article" Neither of your sources do this. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Hamlet
Tom, it is clear that you and Nishidani are teaming up to edit war as you carry out your agenda to delete all mentions of the SAQ and in particular, any mentions of De Vere, anywhere on Wikipedia. Your "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring" is the latest policy advice that you are abusing. The example of an "overriding policy" cited has to do with BLP issues, which Wikipedia is very sensitive to. To claim that the ONE-WAY rule is an "overriding policy" is just plain wrong. It's an abuse of policy. Smatprt (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You must have all your SPA and drive-by editors lined up. If you think it's an abuse of policy, file another ANI complaint. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Donald Friend
Is there any reason I don't discuss my reversions on the Donald Friend talk page: only that my reason is pretty simple, and I've already stated it: a whole paragraph about a "controversy" that doesn't actually exist, isn't worth including in the article. Please go ahead and get an arbitrator to look at the question. (I'm not being hostile or whatever about this, it just isn't really all that important to me - but I do have my view). PiCo (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * His prediliction for young boys is already in the article. That's not what's at issue. The point is whether or not Kerry Negara's docu has created a controversy. I doubt it has. PiCo (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed_Raza_Khan
Hi Dear, Why did you remove stuff from Ahmed Raza Khan's Article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslim007 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to ask this on the talk page of that article, and you need to discuss proposed edits on that page also. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion started
Hey Tom. Under the catagory of "let's address this issue once and for all", I started a discussion at the Edit Warring talk page to address your contention that wp:ONEWAY can be cited to excuse edit warring. Here is the discussion: []. I'd like to get this one out of the way (whichever way it goes) so we can move past it. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mercurius Civicus
Please see Talk:Mercurius Civicus. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Have Spacesuit, Will Travel
I moved the discussion on this from the OR notice board to the article talk page since it's been reverted back with the request "Or discuss".I hope you're interested.--Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ChartJackers
Hi there Tom. A few weeks ago you expressed an interest in reviewing the ChartJackers article to see whether it qualified for GA status (thanks very much, by the way). I've made several changes to the article since then (changes for the better, I like to think), and I was wondering what your opinion of it now was. Is the prose in the Synopsis section okay? Is the lead too long? If you get the chance, I hope that you can check it out. Thanks very much. Vobedd731 (talk) 14:49, 17 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 found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

SAQ Incident
Looking over the Shakespeare authorship talk page you seem to be someone who has had trouble with unfair opposition to your edits. You might like to pass a comment here. RewlandUmmer (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting volte face, sir. You're obviously in major dispute with this Smatprt, you're writing competing articles. So what's the strategy here? Avoid the main point of the dispute - his unjustified deletions against a newcomer - and instead support him on it to convince him you have honorable intent and more easily gain concessions from him in your edit war? I saw through it immediately. RewlandUmmer (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Template restoration rationale

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


 * Sure. See here, especially the statement from the admin: "Discussion templates should not be removed unless there is documented consensus on the talkpage for such", which gives a link to the policy. The two discussions below that are relevant to the issue, too (although trying to follow them may explode your brain, so be careful). New versions of the Shakespeare authorship question are being drafted here and here. You're welcome to participate on either page. It's not a rush project, but editing for the long haul is the Wikipedia way. Cheers. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the info Tom. I see what you mean about exploding brains - I may have to lie down in a darkened room to recover for a bit after reading some of it. I'm agnostic on the Oxfordian/Statford Man debate, but I do think there's scope in WP to cover it all well. I am a little confused to say the least about the various proposals on all this and may come back to you with one or two questions in due course, if you don't mind. Thanks for your time! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * I would like nothing better, and I also have a list of other articles to work on, but right now I'm trying to get the SAQ draft finished. Until then, I'm only kamikazing a few random articles as it strikes me, usually when I look something up and notice grammar errors and such. I'm also hoping this mediation will be successful; that would free up some time for other projects, too.
 * tl;dr: yes, but later.
 * Shakespeare verbatim :the reproduction of authenticity and the 1790 apparatus (1991) by Margreta de Grazia contains some Malone material. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Shakespeare Verbatim keeps popping up; in fact, I suspect Martin wrote his Malone in part to answer perceived criticism of Malone from de Grazia. Is it any good? My local library doesn't have it and it's hideously expensive on Amazon, so I've been putting off getting it.
 * Glad to hear you have an interest in this and might lend a hand. There's no hurry, obviously; as mentioned my forward progress is slow, and I think I'll need to do some hunting for sources here too. Thanks or the tip. --Xover (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question mediation
Dear user,

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

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

Many Thanks

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


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


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


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

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

shakespeare: sorry, dude.
its backViniTheHat (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry about this
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * um...Nishidani raised this, so I had to respond. By mentioning you, I need to advise you of this. It was not my intention and I am in no way coming after you. I actually thought we were making (some) progress. In any case, I want you to be informed. Smatprt (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Derby
Tom, I see you added the date 1562 for the ballad on the Earl of Derby's adventures around the world. While I can certainly imagine some local Peter Quince composing a glorifying ballad for the Earl's return from some foreign trip (in hope of his sixpence a day reward perhaps), I can't imagine even the most enthusiastic flatterer having him kill tigers at the tender age of one. Where does this date come from? Paul B (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I misread this book excerpt. I'll check to see if you reverted; if not, I will. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the book that source refers to. It might be useful. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon perusing that book, Paul, it appears that the Garland writer plagiarised material from the 1562 poem that was written about the 5th earl not the 6th, and in fact it states that very thing on p. 3. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

images

 * I haven't looked in firefox or msexploder yet, but in google chrome your images are very, very, very seriously hosed. It's also bed time here; dunno if I can work long tonight. &bull; Ling.Nut 14:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. In Firefox and Explorer they look fine. Is there a fix so they all look good in all browsers, or is that a Wiki glitch? (Thanks for the edits, BTW. Your reputation is quite renowned.) Tom Reedy (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. They all look good until the Ashbourne portrait in the annals section. I'm wondering if it's because it splits into two columns and then goes back to default. I'll do some experimenting. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Splitting the text of the article is a very novel approach, and I personally would not recommend it. I believe many people would agree with me...
 * The images look much better now! Most people think they should alternate between left- and right-aligned, but I don't know if it's a rule. There are still a couple places where the abundance of images make the article look a little busy... have you triple-checked the licensing of every image? I am currently in FAR hell because an article was nommed by a clueless n00b, but it then got caught in an image-licensing hell...
 * At least two sections, "Authorship question annals" and "Full list of candidates" are too list-like, and should almost certainly be split off into separate List articles (unless you can make the former more text-like, but I think that would be a large project with a minimal return for your investment in time and trouble – still suggest peeling it off into a separate list).
 * I will spend some time soon going over things carefully... There are some problems with your references, forex, but so far they look minor... &bull; Ling.Nut 00:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The annals aren't lists; I thought it would be the most economical and logical way to cover a dense history in the least amount of space. Few of the individual events are notable enough for their own articles, and what is notable is covered in other articles, such as the J. Thomas Looney and Delia Bacon articles. The authorship candidate list is . . . well, a list. If you think it needs to be in a separate article, leave a note on the talk page and see what others think about it.
 * Most of the images are 400 years old or better, so I don't foresee any trouble there, but I'll double check. Unfortunately I'm going to be in all-day classes both Saturday and Sunday, so I'll be out of pocket for most of the weekend.
 * I really appreciate you taking your time to look at this.
 * All best, Tom Reedy (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

SAQ
Hey, Tom, did I mess up your edit? I didn't get an edit conflict, but look at the History! Scary. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC).
 * What the...it looks different now. A minute ago, it claimed our edits were simultaneous. Never mind, sorry, as you were. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC).
 * That's "sis", not "bro". Bishonen | talk 19:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC).
 * There is actually a way to edit the lead separately... but I don't remember it. :-) As for H5, snort. Just wait till I write one about a brave band of sisters. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Oops, not again! I'll just leave you to it. Back later. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Not necessarily. Sometimes the message system is buggy, and large swathes are silently deleted by the conflict. That's quite common on ANI, for some reason. But in a History like this, it's never a big deal to fix, I guess. OK, I'll just put in a small grammar thing in the lead, two minutes from now, and then I'll leave you to it. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

RfC
I don't want to get involved but I see there is an RfC here. I may make a comment, but would like to see some other input. Will you be commenting? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's Smatprt's second or third RfC on that page, and he can't seem to attract much interest. My opinion is that he's trying to draw attention away from his pending topic ban. Since I wrote a good part of Draft 2 along with Nishidani, which was moved into the main pages by an uninvolved editor as a result of the AN/I discussion, I won't be commenting on his version, which is essentially a cut down version of the same page that started all this way back in March. I would go into detail about the history of all this but you'd shoot yourself before I was half done. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Voluntary topic ban while the RfC is ongoing
I have volunteered you as agreeable to being topic banned per my comments here. Upon thinking about it further, you are of course able to work on the draft noted in the RfC if you think any of the comments there should be incorporated. However, in the meantime, could you just try and not get into any edit wars or stuff. The other named two parties are also getting this message. Stay cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you point me toward the RfC that was ongoing? I would review it, and the related drafts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK submission
Hello! Your submission of List of Shakespeare authorship candidates at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! If you think you can sufficiently expand the prose in the article, please leave a note to that effect under your entry. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another minor issue. To quote the rules: "The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim..." M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact in the hook must be explicitly mentioned in the article, which is currently not the case. Either the fact must be added to the article, or the hook must be changed to something which is mentioned in the article. (If you change the hook, it would probably be best to strike the original and add an ALT.)
 * You added a cite to the DYK nomination page, but there must be an inline citation immediately after the hook fact in the article. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  19:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

Man, this is kind of ridiculous that I can't edit my own article, but I'm trying to play Caesar's wife here! Tom Reedy (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about changing the hook fact to something like the following? It's mentioned in the article, with an inline citation. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ALT1:... that Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe are among the people who have been nominated as the true author of William Shakespeare plays (pictured)?

Never mind Paul. I changed it to Queen Elizabeth and King James. That should get some attention! Tom Reedy (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So does that mran that the 'hook fact' is now cited? Paul B (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've changed the hook(s). Now it's in the hands of a higher power. They're tired of messing with it and so am I, as I'm sure you are! Thanks a lot. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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

Nomination of James Rosier for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article James Rosier, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

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

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

Well, you were talking about correct word choice : D
I think it is typically "pour moi," not "a moi". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant "to" me, not "for" me. But it's been decades since university, and more than a few years since I've been in France. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Yeah. I just wanted to interject some faux sophistication into the proceedings. You should follow us around and see what it's like to have to take weeks and months to deal with an SPA editor over one word. It's a regular event. I'm contemplating suicide; either that or quitting Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think our stoical Tom didn't want to to be heard whispering before a wiki audience: Poor moi, like Miss Piggy. I was more upset, quite bilious, actually at the error of putting a circumflex over meme. I emailed Richard Dawkins, and he went ape as well.Jerry17:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I chose to place that little hat there. Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk *bop* Owww! Tom Reedy (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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

DYK for List of Shakespeare authorship candidates
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bard
Hi Tom, Thanks for the message. Certainly, I'll have a look at it tomorrow. Just about to eat right now ... Ericoides (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom, ta for the message. Just had the quickest of glances but I'm afraid I'm v busy at the moment. Will keep looking at it as and when I've the time. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

The limits of the topic ban
Hi Tom,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

How bombed is your carpet?
Hi,

I came across the following here

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

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

A Sandbox sandcastle
Just for reference, while looking at the article I made a sandbox version here which has the section under debate removed (and a few other such changes, like removing the quotes from the cites). I wonder if the case is not that if you take a look at it and still feel the article requires an Evidence section for balance and context, then I am very unlikely to be able to persuade you otherwise and I might more productively spend my time teaching the proverbial pig the merits of auto-propelled air travel. There's no need to contribute yet more weight to that talk page with this issue if there is no plausible probability of achieving agreement; especially as the section is a small masterpiece and in no way a detriment to the article (apart from the more abstract assertion and argument I've spelled out on the talk page). --Xover (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I really don't see how the article can be comprehensive without the academic response, and you're left with the third graf in the lede—about 20 percent—that relates to absolutely nothing in the article. I really think this is the optimal interpretation of WP:FRINGE. I do like losing the extended quotes in the refs, though, and if there was any way I thought we could delete them without new editors demanding that some text in the article be justified I'd cut them in a New York minute. I don't want to have to spend my life monitoring the page and arguing with POV SPA clones as we have been doing for the past few years. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's allright. As I've alluded to, I am to a degree taking the advocatus diaboli position on this issue. And, after all, if it should become an issue at FAC, the section is easily removed at any point. Let's rather focus our energies on more immediate concerns. The quotes in the references are actually a suggested way (in a footnote in WP:V or WP:CITE I believe) to approach this problem as a courtesy to other editors—and as you may have noticed on other articles, I'm quite apt to introduce copious quotes myself—so they are mainly an aesthetic problem. --Xover (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, i believe the history section can be edited down if length is a problem. I think our immediate concern is the disruption, which tends to halt production and chase away good editors. I think the main reason for it is the cooperative editing that was going on and the rapid improvement of the article toward FA status. I have no solution for it, as logic and common sense hasn't and won't work. It looks like another ANI case to me, which is yet another time-waster, although I doubt this one will take anywhere near as long as the last one did. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ANI? What for? Try RfC/U. Also a timewaster, but good to have to point to under certain circumstances. And at least RfC's aren't promptly archived the way ANI threads are. In both cases, it's going to be a problem to get outsiders to give any input (which is the purpose of RfC), because there's such a daunting amount of repetitious reading involved; but one can but invite them. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

Loaded terms
Yes, it is. Both you and Nina need to temper your remarks when referring to other editors. It is unproductive and does you no credit. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Complete double standard. Your own obsessive use of personal attacks does you no credit. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have provided some information at User talk:Moonraker2. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

No Groatsworth?
Hi Tom, Can I ask you a couple of things here rather than pour oil on the fire of the SAQ talk? You have probably discussed this before but why does it not mention Groatsworth in the 'evidence for'? This clearly says that an actor is trying to be a playwright and refers to Shakescene and Henry VI. I know that some of the anti's have tried to twist it upside down to make it say what they what it to say, but as you said elsewhere, all that is needed is to state what they say. Poujeaux (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we were trying to stick to explicit and unequivocal evidence that is used commonly by scholars to attribute authorship and on which they all agree. Groatsworth requires multiple layers of interpretation, and it is controversial even within academe. Several very influential Shakespeareans argue that it was not even written by Greene; others argue that it doesn't allude to Shakespeare, but another actor. If you go back any time before October 2010 you can see that it was included, but the arguments are so obscure and complex that we didn't think it suitable to include in an overview article. It was taken out early in our sandbox version, and when that was moved to the mainspace it of course was not added back. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Thanks. How about a separate article on Groatsworth then? That might be of interest, and you suggest that much of the work may have been done already in a sandbox. Poujeaux (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been wanting to create an article on Groatsworth for a long time now. What was in the old article is very slim indeed, but I've gathered a lot of material. I just haven't had the time, with one thing and another coming up. If you want to begin one, e-mail me and I'll send you the material I have about it, including some images. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already made one, but it's just a start - and it's thin on the central issue. Please send me your stuff. Paul B (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I've got the Jowett on another computer, and I'll send it later. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great - that was quick! A couple of hours after my suggestion it's there. I just linked it from the main Shakespeare page (and vice versa). The question remains - do we dare mention it and link to it in SAQ? Poujeaux (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well as I said, P, it's not explicit and so subject to interpretation that I think it will just take up room that would be better used for other evidence. But if you want why not compose it and post it on the talk page for discussion? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

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

Wikipedia turns 10
The tenth anniversary of Wikipedia is here! Time to spread all the anniversary cheer! Yeah! Ten years, whew! That's a lot in World Wide Web Years!-- RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage.    03:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good luck, Tom. I've read your stuff for 18 years - so long and longer does it take. While Wikipedia might seem absurd to some, after HLAS it must seem like escaping from the asylum. 67.243.57.182 (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. No problem. Sure, I'll give RLamb a shout out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Malone
Thanks for taking a look at Edmond Malone. Much appreciated! Just a FYI: everything in there from the section London onwards is the original text of the article, and is mostly a cut&paste from either Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition or A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature (both old public domain editions). I am anticipating replacing those parts entirely based on better sources. i.e. Martin covers the biography nicely, and Schoenbaum his work on Shakespeare; and supplemented with whatever I can dig up (like de Grazia's Shakespeare Verbatim) on his works, the Ireland forgeries, etc. I may use Shapiro's Contested Will too, once I've digested it properly. --Xover (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification at ARBSAQ Workshop
Could you comment upon the cause of my confusion? Please limit yourself to the proposal, and not my psychological and mental deficiences... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Try this one
Per MastCell! Get yer robes right here ! Genuwine ermine! Bishonen | talk 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Sheriff
You might be interested in this proposal. SAQ wouldn't have had to go to Arbitration if this were in effect. BE——Critical __Talk 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least part of the problems you see with the proposal would be taken care of if ordinary editors rather than admins could be sheriffs. And what if the editors on a particular page had to agree to accept the sheriff?  They could be told they have to have a sheriff, perhaps, but they could choose which one they wanted by full consensus.  Full consensus probably wouldn't be too hard to achieve on such a matter, if the pool of sheriffs were large enough. BE——Critical __Talk 01:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The irresistible urge to comment…
When your honored opponent is busily digging a big hole, it is often advisable to hand them a shovel and stand well away from the flying dirt. --Xover (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude! That's like defamation of my characters and stuff! --Xover (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Xover's worthy comment above has not struck home... Keep to the facts (within Wikipedia), please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case
I would appreciate your briefly commenting with regard to the issues raised in this thread, particularly the last of them. If possible, please do so by Wednesday evening. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Piggy
Hi thanks for your comments. I thought of nominating the article as DYK, but there was a bar on first nominations being self-nominations, so I couldn't be bothered! I cahanged the direction of the image, though I've never been a True Believer in the idea that figures should not look away from the page. The main image is a problem. I'd rather have that lower down. It's too dense for a top image, but it's really the only one that adequately represents the actual phenomenon.

I see Smatprt is making a bid for reinstatement, leaving it to the last minute, which means there's little time to reply, though I fail to see why a decision already made should be overturned. BTW, when you refer to "Nina's charges of NPOV", I think you may intend "charges of POV, unless she is charging you with undue neutrality. Paul B (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah well, I'm sure everybody figured out what I meant. And yeah, that was clever in that he got it in too late for anybody to rebut his fanciful interpretations, but then that kind of manipulation is exactly what we've come to expect from him. BarryisPuzzled, the person he says is responsible for most of the complaints about him, has been banned from editing since July 2008.
 * I'll nominate it for DYK if you think it's ready. It's a damn good article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, nominate it, if you have time. Thank you. The only thing that I have doubts about is the claim that there were two learned pigs in London c.1818, one of which was a Pinchbeck product. This just doesn't seem right to me. The contemporary references to the period speak of one pig. I think one of the sources has confused the American writer/illusionist Pinchbeck with the British writer/illusionist Nicholas Hoare, maybe merging Pinchbeck's book with Hoare's "autobiography" of Toby, and then other sources have repeated this. But of course that's the dreaded OR! Paul B (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked for 110 hours per WP:BLOCKME, including Wikipedia e-mail and use of your own talkpage. See Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Enjoy. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
 * 2) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
 * 3) NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
 * 4) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on . Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 20:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Striking other users' comments
Hey,

Just a quick note, the rule of thumb is thou shalt not mess with another user's comments, and that includes striking their points. Note what's fixed below and let them strike the items when they think the issue has been addressed. Most editors don't bother standing on this principle in this kind of case (i.e. when it's clearly don in good faith and helpful), but at FAC people tend to be a bit stricter. I suggest you revert that edit and make a note below that it's fixed. --Xover (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was recently reading through other FAC cases for guidance and saw a couple of very stern "do not strike my text" comments. It was explained that the procedure is: (a) reviewer comments; (b) someone takes action and posts "Done, some brief explanation" underneath; (c) reviewer again reviews situation and, if satisfied, strikes their comment. That is, no one other than the reviewer should strike that reviewer's text. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Photos
No problem - FAC has its own rules and conventions. Do you want me to ask on Flickr about getting a free license on a color image of the Shakespeare funerary bust, seen nearly head on? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, here are several - I will ask in the order you want (will stop when someone agrees to feeely license it). Photo 1, Photo 2, Photo 3, and Photo 4 Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have sent a Flickr message to the photgrapher of Photo 1 and will let you know what I hear back. I can't do anything about copyvios on Flickr, but have struck that one above. You can only upload files from Flickr that have a free license - this page has the basics and I use the Flickr upload bot on Commons to upload files from Flickr (it checks the license). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The photographer of Photo 1 has not done anything new on Flickr since Feb 21 and it has been 9 days since I sent her a Flickr message with no response. How long do you want me to wait? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just let it go. We'll get some head-on shots later this year. Thanks for trying. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check
As it's easy to miss stuff at Talk:SAQ, may I ask you here to check two things: I restored two of the four citations you removed, and commented to that effect at the FAC. While doing that, I thought it best to unstrike the text mentioned in the preceding section. Hope that's ok! Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For text "unambiguously referring to Shakespeare of Stratford" you added cite . I have just changed the "2003" to "2002", because I think that is correct. Please confirm!
 * I added a comment here (timestamp 00:21, 2 March 2011 UTC, at the bottom) about some grammar. I don't mind how that is resolved (if people disagree with my reading, that's fine), but I don't want it to be missed.


 * When posting comments at the FAC, I believe we are supposed to stick to asterisks for bulleted points (not colons for indents). When an indented comment is inserted into a bulleted list, that list is broken. For example, search for "Several sections have uncited material" in this version (just prior to your last comment), and note that that point is followed by four bulleted items. Do the same in this version (just after your edit), where you will see that the third bulleted item is now slightly broken (it has two bullet icons). When replying to an item that starts with "**", the reply should start with "***" (one more asterisk, and no colons). Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship
Hi Tom. I was impress with your "Shakespeare authorship question" article, and I wondered if you would be interested in making the picture at the top of the page clickable. In other words, clicking on the picture of Shakespeare would take you to the article on him, and the same for the other four. If you're interested, it would look like the one in my sandbox.-RHM22 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is cool as hell! Why don't you ask on the talk page of the article? If everybody else is OK with it I am. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I asked on the talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Time Zones
Hi Tom. I don't know why, but somehow I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that you were living in the UK (regardless of your origins, which I couldn't be sure about). Must be some erroneous notion I formed when first looking at SAQ a while back, and until now there has been nothing to dislodge it. I'm in EST in the U.S., so may I now assume (standing corrected) that you are living in the U.S. as well, in the Central time zone? Regards, Alan W (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While a timezone is a very big place, I would not advise publishing any personal information at all. Of course some editors reveal a lot of personal info (and here is an excellent story about an object outside an editor's house), but it seems unnecessary to me. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I seemed to be requesting more information than should be revealed here. And of course how much Tom wants to reveal is entirely his own business. But I do point to the fact that I deliberately was speaking only in terms of very broad time zones precisely because I didn't want to be too nosy. And he already did mention that he is an "hour behind me" so he volunteered that much. --Alan W (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alan, you probably got that notion because I write using British English, which I do because of editing Shakespeare pages. I got tired of switching back-and-forth so in order to minimise mistakes I just started using Brit on Wikipedia and American everywhere else. Anybody with Internet access can find out that I live in Texas and what I do for a living, since I use my real name, which I've done since the early days of Usenet. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An Oyrish yankie writen' the Queen's English. I'll contact my local branch of the IRA. People've been shot for less.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, I am relieved that you didn't take offense. Not that I would have expected you to at first, but then when Johnuniq chimed in, I thought that I had unthinkingly crossed some Wikipedia privacy line.


 * Johnuniq, at first I thought you were reacting a bit severely. But maybe I took what you said too personally. You were probably just voicing a general concern and mentioning that as a rule it is best not to give out too much personal information around here. And I've been here long enough to know that not every Wikipedian is very nice, to put it mildly. So I think I see "where you're coming from".


 * Anyhow, Tom, I think you hit on it: your writing British English probably unconsciously led to the British association, and I started thinking that either you were born over there or maybe just now living in England and had picked up the orthographic practices. Or something like that, without thinking about it too closely.


 * Nish, I think you should complain directly to the Queen herself. As I take it, you're born and bred, and she'll listen to you, and then she'll telephone our President about this, who will no doubt reprimand Tom very sternly. --Alan W (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded severe—I can't help spouting advice (I guess that's why I'm here!), and I was simply suggesting that there is no reason to publicly post info: dribs and drabs quickly mount. BTW the link I gave above is useful when facing an editor who has trouble understanding what is meant by "encyclopedic information" or "overlinking". Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. As I said, I realized I shouldn't be taking what you said too personally. Yes, that link is amusing in its own way. But the point here, I think, is how much does a given Wikipedian wish to reveal about him or herself? While one should not reveal anything about another editor that that editor does not wish to have revealed, there is no rule against that person's fully disclosing personal information, as some do (and revealing real name, occupation, background, and so on, is quite common). The rule I follow is, if I discover something about a person, or think I have deduced it, I shouldn't say it here, unless that person has without doubt already volunteered exactly that information here. And I think I half-consciously followed that rule when opening this topic as the very vague "Time Zones". You may or may not have seen that Tom had already mentioned his time zone himself, and, I guess in what was just an interlude of idle chatter, I brought that up again here. I am going on about this (at the risk of hogging your talk page, Tom) because I think that all of you (and some other SAQ contributors who haven't posted to this thread) are among the finest—and most interesting—people I have met in my seven years on Wikipedia, and I would not want to be on the wrong side of any of you. Participating in this SAQ project has turned out a far greater pleasure than I had expected, for a number of reasons, but this is one of them. --Alan W (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC subsections
Re your last question at FAC, from WP:FAC: "Please do not split FAC review pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings)." When inserting a comment into a long section, I sometimes find it convenient to search for a timestamp, for example the timestamp of what I am replying to. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SAQ participation
Thanks for the nice note on my user talk page. I can't make any promises about my future involvement, but I do appreciate the invitation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been adding comments on changes after each point on the Talk page. Unfortunately the page keeps freezing up and I'm not sure whether some edits have actually appeared or not. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

good old days
Horsewhip the fellow, begad. Do you prefer pistols or foils in matters of honour? Paul B (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Shall we imbrue? Pistols, obviously. The other option would be off-topic. Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

An Open Letter to Tom Reedy
Dear Mr. Reedy,

I have been observing anonymously for quite some time on the “Shakespeare Authorship Question” discussion page. I have also taken the time to read a large portion of the (incredibly long and tortured) history of how the article got to its current state. My primarily reason for doing so, is that I am a huge fan of the plays and poems of William Shakespeare. My secondary reason for lurking has been the educational value (in terms of future editing) provided by watching the incredibly contentious battle of wits which this topic has engendered.

As of today, I am making the decision to step forward publicly to you via this letter. I plan to post the relevant contents of this letter on the discussion page later this week once you have had a chance to see this and respond.

While Anti-Stratfordian beliefs are undoubtedly a fringe theory, they are one which has created substantial public interest in the USA from the moment PBS aired The Shakespeare Mystery in 1989.

It is my opinion that the tenor of the debate (rather than the contents) is the chief reason that this topic has caught the general public’s fancy. It has pitted, on one side, life-long, academically trained, professional scholars, and on the other, a rag-tag collection of determined amateurs…some of them with theories as wild as their personalities. The fact that some of the amateurs were eccentrics, combined with the fact that many of the gentleman scholars have not ALWAYS acted and spoken like the perfect pillars of academia that they are supposed to be, has made it all the more engaging.

A Wikipedia page that continues to foment that type of debate hurts everyone involved and Wikipedia itself, hence the specific guideline in WP:GCONT which reads: ”An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.”

As I have not “lived through the debate” on this article, as you have, I have been hesitant to offer my viewpoint in the past, but I now feel compelled to do so.

1)	There exists a “Shakespeare Authorship Question” article and several individual “xxxx Theory of Shakespeare Authorship” articles (one for each of the four major candidates listed in the SAQ article). I applaud that approach.

2)	There is also, however, a sub-article entitled “History of the SAQ”, which is edited (primarily) by one of the chief contributors to the SAQ article.

3)	The relationship of the SAQ article to the “History of the SAQ” article and the current scope of the SAQ page has therefore puzzled me for some time.

4)	The Shakespeare Authorship Question is perhaps best described as an example of a “historical movement” with populist overtones…which, in this case, pits amateur sleuths vs. professional academics. It originated in the mid 19th century and continues, in that form with few exceptions, through the present day.  Yet this key aspect of the article has been relegated, in great part, to the sub-article “History of the Shakespeare Authorship Question” while the SAQ has become an area where the actual merits of the Authorship debate are being argued and cases for alternate candidates and even William Shakespeare himself are being presented.  Sections 2 and 3 of the current SAQ page, in particular, are currently dedicated to these topics.

5)	Would it not be more in keeping with the spirit of WP guidelines to COMBINE the SAQ article and the History of the SAQ article into a single entity, and completely eliminate sections 2 and 3 of the current SAQ page ? The historical case for each individual authorship candidate would then simply be presented on the pages already set up to do that without advocating the position for that candidate and mentioning in each case that this is ALSO a “fringe theory” related to the HISTORICAL SAQ.

6)	The page for William Shakespeare himself is already an FA I believe, and it ably makes the case for his authorship via the traditional biography.

7)	In actual practice, the revised SAQ article would be organized as follows:

a)	A strong “Lead Section”, as the current SAQ page already has…with the info about this being a fringe theory plus a few other key points including the concept of the pen name theory.

b)	A strong “Overview Section”, which the current SAQ page currently has as its Section 1…complete with a definition of the terms Stratfordian and Anti-Stratfordian and some commentary on the types of evidence favored by each side, etc.

c)	Complete elimination of Sections 2 and 3 of the current SAQ.

d)	Relevant info on this as a historical movement similar to the current Sections 4 and 5 of the SAQ combined with the info currently relegated to the separate “History of the SAQ” page and presented there in four separate sections.

e)	Footnotes (same as the current SAQ)

f)	References (same as the current SAQ)

g)	External Links (same as the current SAQ)

8)	This new section described in d) above should ideally:

a)	list all the major historical milestones and players in the SAQ phenomenon from 1850 to the present (this is relevant to the topic, fact based, non-controversial and can be backed up by RS),

b)	list without undue commentary all the major alternate candidates who have been favored by Anti-Stratfordians and direct interested parties to their specific “theory of authorship” articles (this is fact based, non-controversial and with easy to find RS), c)	list the people who first proposed each of these candidates and perhaps some noteworthy “champions” where they exist with quotes (this is fact based and non-controversial as long as one does not get too deeply into the “why” part as to how these people were proposed…plenty of RS here),

d)	list some of the more noteworthy critics of the SAQ phenomenon with quotes (this is fact based, non-controversial and there are an abundance of RS from which to choose),

e)	state something about the rise and fall of the favored candidates of the past and near present, (this is potentially controversial but only mildly so as it is primarily fact based at its core…might be tougher to find a RS here), and lastly

f)	state something about the recent developments (since 2000 and the rise of the internet) in this debate.

It seems to me that almost all of this has already been done in the current sections 4 and 5 of the SAQ and in the four existing sections of the “History of the SAQ” article. One would just have to do some editing to combine them coherently.

9)	 In other words, the SAQ piece should be a SMALL historically based article on the “SAQ Phenomenon”, rather than the huge and contentious piece (filled with POV issues) which it has become.

10)	By allowing the sub-editors on both sides of the debate, to present the case for individual persons here (whether it be Bacon, Oxford, or yes, even for William Shakespeare himself) POV controversies are virtually guaranteed. In my opinion as an observer, this is why the debate has spiraled out of control.  This one practice has created an article which invites violations of the guidelines of WP:GCONT, when it simply does not need to do so based on the structure of the other "xxxx theory of authorship" articles mentioned above.

11)	I therefore recommend and hereby advocate that the “Shakespeare Authorship Question” article should not delve into dissecting the case for any alternate candidates at all (leave that to individual “xxxx theory of authorship” pages for these candidates). Neither should it attempt to “make the case” for William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.  It is inappropriate to do so here and quite frankly, unnecessary, as his biography is already a FA and he is already accepted by 95% of the world or more.  To do so, only invites eternal controversy and outright mischief.  This is a debate which has lasted 150 years, spawned thousands of books (4,500 by 1949 alone per Shapiro in Contested Will) and is probably not going away in any of our lifetimes.

If creating a highly relevant and non-controversial article is the goal, then why not just stick to the historical facts which the title of the article suggests by PARING down the scope of this article ?

Respectfully,

-Rogala (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rogala, I suggest you read WP:5P and every link on that page to discover why your plan is not compatible with Wikipedia. "[C]reating a highly relevant and non-controversial article" is not the goal of this or any Wikipedia page; it is instead the creation of accurate, verifiable, and neutral articles based on reliable sources. "Non-controversial" is not another way of saying "neutral".
 * The history article was split off from the main article when the main article got too unwieldy. My philosophy of writing is to spew as much information as possible and then pare down. While I felt it was premature and did not support the splitting of the article at that time (I think it was a WP:POVFORK), the fact is that doing so was very much in line with Wikipedia policies (see WP:SS).
 * As to your idea of how the article is to be written, let me be sure that I understand you: you've been on Wikipedia since before 9 Oct 2009, when you created your current user page, and you "have been observing anonymously for quite some time on the 'Shakespeare Authorship Question' discussion page", yet you just now feel motivated to offer a radical reorganisation and rewrite of the entire page on the cusp of an almost-completed FAC. Is that an accurate summary?
 * To one point of yours: the SAQ is not made up of only one side; the "Stratfordian" side has been present since its inception in the 1850s. One other point: your characterisation of the SAQ as an "'historical movement' with populist overtones which ... pits amateur sleuths vs. professional academics" is quite inaccurate. For one thing the occupation of English literature professor was not professionalised until the late-19th/early 20th century. The SAQ predates that event by half a century. For another thing both sides are made up mostly of amateurs, with professionals mostly ignoring the topic.
 * Finally, why you chose to single me out I have no idea, as I am not the arbiter of what is included on that page. I would suggest you present your ideas at the SAQ talkpage. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Reedy, Thank you for responding so quickly. To answer your points, in no particular order:  I will re-read WP:5P.  I have been a user of Wikipedia for many years...probably going back to the very start of the site.  I created my own user page in 2009 when I decided to write a specific article regarding heraldry.  I do edit, but have always preferred to do so anonymously until very recently.  I have indeed watched the SAQ page for quite a while, and I have seen how contentious it has been...culminating in the arb case, etc.  I thus fully realize that this "open letter" was likely not going to be welcome to you as I perceive that the entire process of being an editor on the SAQ article has been very time consuming for you already, and that any suggestion for a re-org at this stage was going to be met with antagonism.  I posted it here rather than on the FAC or SAQ discussion page 1) out of my respect for you as the "driving force" for the FAC and on the SAQ topic in general, 2) I am guessing that I would be flamed by some of the less gentlemanly editors out there on both sides and 3) I wanted to discuss the topic with you in a polite manner before I post it anywhere else.  Regarding your comments on the SAQ as a historical phenomenon/movement: I respect the viewpoint of your answers and have no wish to debate you.  I would only point out that the SAQ was first widely opined starting with Baconian theories of authorship and that the topic endures today with a number of candidates. I think this is a "historical fact" and that it does qualify for the phrase "a movement" if for no other reason that it sprung up quite suddenly and has spawned many thousands of books over a period of 150+ years.  It is merely my opinion (as I stated) that, in the public's eye (at least since 1989 in the USA) it has been viewed as a "contentious battle" between amateurs and professionals.  I think the opinion, however, is widely echoed in many articles about the topic which have appeared in the popular press (the 2007 Time magazine article to name just one) so I don't think my statement is hyperbolic in any way.  Lastly I was using the word "relevant" to mean "relevant to an article entitled SAQ" and I was using "non controversial" to mean "not violating the WP:GCONT or WP:NPOV guidelines".  It is axiomatic that all encyclopedia articles should be "accurate, verifiable, and neutral".  I think we all agree with that.  If I have offended you in any way, I regret that.  It was not my intention. Rogala (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Reedy, I re-read the guidelines you suggested including WP:SS. Question: Is the fundamental reason why the SAQ became "too unwieldy" perhaps because it is filled with arguments for the Anti-Stratfordian side and also for William Shakespeare himself (the material in section 2 and 3 of the current article) ?  That was the entire point of my open letter.  I perhaps did not express that as succinctly as possible before, but, with your help, I am stating it that way now.  If one sticks to the historical topic suggested by the title SAQ, the article will be "accurate, verifiable and neutral" and will not spawn edit wars, POV battles, etc.Rogala (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I forgot to respond to one point. You wrote: "you...feel motivated to offer a radical reorganisation and rewrite of the entire page...Is that an accurate summary?".  No. I do not think the page needs a radical reorganization.  The page has a lead and 8 sections.  I suggest that two of the sections should be eliminated (Sections 2 and 3) and that two of the section (Sections 4 and 5) should be edited to re-incorporate the information in the sub-article "History of the SAQ" which is the meat of what an article titled SAQ should be about.  I don't think "History of the SAQ" should have necessarily been forked at all.Rogala (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See. Whether it should have happened or no is a moot point. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than take space here, I have provided my thoughts at User talk:Rogala. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded on my own use talk page. TY for your polite points.Rogala (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Reedy,


 * I am trying to "crisp up" my language to avoid any potential confusion with editors on the SAQ.


 * 1) I plan to use the term "SAQ phenomenon" henceforth, as I have, after careful thought, decided that this is a less ambiguous term than "SAQ movement" since "movement" may imply, to some readers at least, a more centrally coordinated social, political or artistic agenda than can be applied (with consensus) to the historical SAQ.  In your OPINION, will the the phrase "SAQ phenomenon" be unambiguous to the editors on the SAQ talk page ? (Without your necessarily commenting on the validity of the premise...although please comment further if you have the time.)


 * 2) I have been thinking more deeply about your comments regarding the origins, history and evolution (into the present day) of the "SAQ phenomenon" which started in the mid 19th century. As I stated above, it is my OPINION that this is the topic on which an article entitled the SAQ should focus.  I think your comments, though brief, are very insightful.  I re-read some sections of Mr. Shapiro's book this AM in light of your comments and I agree that the wording of my premise, as stated above in #4, needs clarification.  I am considering "populist sleuths vs. elite academics".  Does that wording remove any confusion, in your own mind, versus the phrase "amateur vs. professional" as far as identifying the "opposite sides" to whom I am referring ?? (Again...without your necessarily commenting on the validity of the premise...although that too would be appreciated.)


 * Thank you in advance for any feedback.Rogala (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)