User talk:Xover/Archive 4

Mass Deletions
A new editor is deleting mass amounts of material (all Oxfordian as it happens) from the Authorship page. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User: Smatprt is disrespectfully misrepresenting my attempt to keep the Shakespeare authorship article balanced. It has too many Oxfordian citations and far from being disruptive I have suggested neutral citations. I get the feeling that he believes that he is the only one who is allowed to edit this article. I notice that because he is on the edge of the 3R rule he is trying to use someone else to revert it. WellStanley (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! FYI - WellsStanley (above) turned out to be yet another sock puppet of Barryispuzzled. While you were gone he adopted another dozen socks - all of which were blocked rather quickly after being reported by either OldMoonraker or myself.

Welcome Back
Good to see you back on the boards! I agree - Bertaut has done some great work and deserves recognition.Smatprt (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Moves over redirects
If the redirect just points to the article you want to move back, and there were no edits to the redirect then you can just move the article back over the top of the redirect. You are welcome to try to see if it can be done, it is easier than asking with the db-move addition. If the move is rejected, then ask for it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Tempest GAN
I would recommend moving The Tempest from the Film and Theatre category at WP:GAN to the literature category. It's where we've put other Shakespeare plays, and, since it is a category with fewer nominees, we might get a quicker response. Wrad (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. --Xover (talk) 20:46, 31 July 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Please take it to talk!
I did. You have reverted me without responding there. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)
Thanks for your note from a couple of days ago.

Sorry to say Court of Common Pleas (Ireland) is far outside my area of knowledge (actually I didn't know for a fact that there was one until I got your message) so I doubt I can help there.

I'll take a look at The Tempest though, see if there's anything I can help with. I wrote a big chunk of the article a few years ago (no idea how much of my material has survived). As you'll have noticed, I'm no longer the active Wikipedian I once was. But I do look in occasionally. AndyJones (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

SAQ
Xover - the section in question has been part of the article for years, and as such (as you know) was the only consensus version. "Boldly" deleted by Tom without discussion or consensus, he and Nish edit warred to keep it out last month. Following Bold-Revert-Edit, I am restoring the consensus version unitl there is a new consensus for its removal. If you respect the rules and policy applications, you should support the material staying until such time as a new consensus develops. Or do you support this kind of forced consensus (tag team editing) that is going on? Smatprt (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm for everyone leaving off the reverts for a bit, because edit-warring is not conductive to civilized discourse (and I don't particularly care whether it's the version with or without the section in question). Right now there's actual discussion going on about the issue so our focus should be there instead of on the “undo” button. But, frankly, calling your version the “consensus” version is a bit disingenuous. Fair enough that you feel its removal was somewhat summarily done, but then it was you who inserted it originally without any particular consensus. The lack of maintenance and attention to the article does not ipso facto convey “consensus” status to a particular version. I'm also somewhat perplexed by your references to NPOV in reverting there. As I recall nobody has complained of it in terms of neutrality; the complaints are related to WP:FRINGE with resulting WP:UNDUE issues (I think we must consider and WP:COATRACK an explication on those issues, rather than as the main thrust of the complaint).

The Tempest (Shakespeare)
Thanks for the note. As it happens, I'm going to be at home for the next couple of weeks, so I'll be happy to do a copy-edit. In fact, I should be able to start this afternoon unless anything else blows up at Talk:Tosca, Talk:Otello and indeed Talk:Falstaff (Verdi)... Best. --GuillaumeTell 10:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you're wondering what I'm doing, I've been tinkering with Date, Sources and Text over the last few days. Here's where I've got to:  User:GuillaumeTell/Pebblebox.  I've removed as much duplication as possible but I'm perturbed by the amount of space given to the anti-Strachey case.  Thoughts? --GuillaumeTell 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Review?
Hi Xover. I was wondering if you could review 1949 Ambato earthquake at GAN? I know you're busy with ResMar's articles ;) and so I'd understand if you had to decline. Thanks,  ceran  thor 23:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation
I have filed a request for arbitration on this question, naming you as one of the interested parties. Would you please sign your acceptance? Otherwise, let me know and I’ll remove your name from the request. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:04, 19 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.

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 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

shakespeare

 * I lose my access to all academic databases early October and am genuinely discouraged. Throw some of that low-hanging fruit at to me... &bull; Ling.Nut
 * Thanks! I'll look over your suggestions, and see if one calls to me. I'm interested in shooting for FA, so it can't be too broad (remember discussion at WT:FAC), but also can't be too small... Tks again &bull; Ling.Nut 09:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the sonnet articles are sh*t that smell a great deal like copyvio and/or college sophomore homework. Simply cleaning those up would be a huge civic service. Somewhere along the way, though, I hope to find something that could be a candidate for FAC. The bar for poems is probably unreachably high: have you seen Ode on a Grecian Urn? And speaking of sources, I'm assuming you can point me in the right direction etc. But maybe first just some cleanup work... &bull; Ling.Nut 14:12, 24 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 11:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving a note just to jog your memory. All but you and one other have posted their summaries. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

After you decompress from all that work
Hi Xover. Would you please take a look? Cheers. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about the candidate list. I think less is more on an article like that. It does what it proposes to do--list--very well, and like you I'm hesitant to start another battleground (which I can't do anyway because of the voluntary topic ban), and I'm afraid that trying to expand it any at all in its present form would just result in a bloviated article that doesn't do anything well. However, I have floated the idea of merging all the various authorship candidate articles into one article, of which the list would be a part. I think that would fulfill the merge resolution, in purpose and spirit if not in literal form, and could solve a lot of problems. The Baconian page is in the process of being GA decertified, the Oxfordian article is a laughingstock, and the Marlovian article is pure OR. In addition, there are bizarre pages such as William Nugent and other problem pages that are now heavy on SAQ and light on biography that need cleaning up. Just an idea for now, but at one time Jimmy Wales had an idea (or half of one, according to Larry Sanders). Tom Reedy (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

questions
Hi. How do you suggest one pronounce your user name? I am pronouncing it in the meantime as 'chover', but I was thinking is might be 'crossover?' Or 'hover'?

I was reading your proposal on the topic ban to Tom Reedy's page, and I was struck by your eloquence. Then, reading your page, I was struck again by it and by your obvious keen interest in the bard topic. But then I ask myself: if this is so, where were you during all the AN/I discussion and the mediation process? I thought you were one of the people named in the mediation page/process, but I didn't see many comments from you throughout the whole process. Why? Just a little curious, since the bard area in neither my area of interest nor of specialty, but I am interested in seeing how knowledge gets built on Wikipedia on historical areas where there is controversy and where new boundaries have to be constantly broken and/or explored. warshytalk 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

PS- If you prefer for whatever reason to answer on my page, that's OK too, so we take this private dialogue somewhere more private.
 * Hi warshy. Thank you for the kind words. I tend to think of Xover as being pronounced ecks-over, but I can't say I've given it too much thought. It's actually just a very obscure technical reference (I'm a bit of a geek) that I once found handy when trying to pick a username. As for my participation in AN/I and the Mediation, there you prick my guilty conscience. I certainly should have, and wanted to, participate more in those processes; but just couldn't find the time. And I was also very weary of putting my nose in when I wasn't sure I could follow up properly. One thing is making drive-by comments on non-controversial issues, or, say, a conversation such as this—where the worst likely consequence is that you'll get a little frustrated with my tardy responses—but in the AN/I where the potential existed for editors to be banned (as, indeed, did happen) or the Mediation which might fail to be effective due to a sloppy phrasing or poorly chosen analogy… I simply found it the lesser of the evils to limit my participation to what I could reasonably manage to put the necessary time into. I comfort myself with the fact that even had I participated more fully the end result was not likely to have been much different. I may differ with Tom on whether the other parties are acting in good faith (I don't see a lack of good faith as a necessary precondition to explain any of the relevant behaviors and actions), but I do generally agree with his and Nishidani's (et al) description of the resulting problems: the endless bickering and confrontational atmosphere was literally driving editors away from the project (several good and productive editors have left over the years, partially or wholly due to this). While I'm sad to see Smatprt go, I hope we'll be able to take advantage of the resulting absence of the damaging and vituperative debates to build back up the participation and momentum in the project. PS. I don't think my user talk page is particularly more “public” than any other on Wikipedia, and I generally believe that the very public-ness of interactions here promotes an open, participatory, and fair process (not to mention counteracts intellectual lazyness and the formation of clique mentality). I'd be happy to continue this on your talk page if that's more convenient for you, but I don't immediately see any need. I'm also somewhat interested in the way Wikipedia's particularities affects collaboration and cooperative knowledge-building, so do feel free if you would like to discuss that further with me. --Xover (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello ecks-over. Thanks a lot for your thoughtful reply to my somewhat-out-of-the-blue questions. Your explanations all make a lot of sense to me, since I really only caught the tail end of the whole process, and then I tried to read back and catch up as much as I could. It wasn't an awful lot that I could really catch up with in the end. I just don't completely understand the whole process and the outcome, since it looks to me that there was one main mediator (Seddon), but the verdict come out from a different one. In any case, your post-fact attempt to bring some positive collaboration to the endeavor, even after such an abrupt outcome (from my perspective, at least) sounds interesting, and I wanted you to know that I, for one, will be following it with interest. Also, as I understand you are not an Admin on WP, correct? You see, I am still learning a lot of the ropes around here. Thanks again. It was good to read your thoughts on the matter. warshytalk 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator on WP, no; and to the degree admins have special status (mostly they don't, they just have access to some special technical tools) I don't have that either. In fact, you might rather say I fall more in the category “junior editor” if anything, as I've not nearly put in the effort and hours many others have here. I don't blame you for not being able to follow the situation, as there was quite a lot going on. There was the informal mediation related to Shakespeare authorship question, which sprang from a merge proposal, and in which Smatprt and Tom/Nishidani each went off and made a private draft of the article intended to replace the actual article in mainspace. Then there was a couple of RfCs, where one or more editors seek input from the wider Wikipedia community, on various topics. Then there was the actual formal Mediation, which sprang from a discussion on Shakespeare's plays, for which Sneddon was the mediator; and which ultimately was archived as unresolved. And finally, there was the report to AN/I (the Administrator Noticeboard for specific Incidents) where the whole history of dysfunctional interactions was discussed, and where LessHeard vanU attempted some ways to make amicable progress, but where utimately the result was that Smatprt was topic-banned (prohibited from editing articles, or even commenting on talk pages, that fall within a specific topic-area). Ultimately the real issue was (at least in my opinion) the toxic editing environment created by the endless circular debates and resulting frustration and acrimony. In that sense it didn't even matter which side was objectively right or wrong, the mere existence of the difference caused such problems that several editors left the project or just stopped contributing to Shakespeare articles. You'll note that nothing in the above actually requires a specific view of the merits of the so-called “Authorship question”. I could go on for quite a while on its merits (or rather lack of such), but ultimately it was the way it was dealt with that caused the problems and not really the details of the subject itself. This is, to my mind, a serious weakness of the Wikipedia model when it comes to dealing with fringe theories and what some call “Polite POV Pushers” (that is, someone who politely but endlessly pushes a specific point of view that isn't neutral). It's not that they can't be dealt with within the current policies and mechanisms, it's that it tends to burn out good editors several times over before it gets to that point. Anyways, I hope that was in some way useful or informative. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Your summary above of the whole process and of the problems in it is superb, in my view! What you say so clearly and even concisely and to the point above is what I suspected all along, but could not put my finger on. All this also confirms my gut feeling from the beginning that you should be the person to consult if I really wanted some clarification and some true insight into the whole mess. I am glad I did, and that you put this summary above, so in the "years to come" ( 8)) I (or someone else) can maybe try to go over the whole process again, and try to really cull out of the files and understand what really went on and when... In the absence of that, for me at least, in the meantime, your summary above is much more enlightening and to the point than anything I read during the process coming from LessHeard vanU, for example. (I am not trying to imply anything about him or about his judgement and his writing here; it is just that he was concerned with the technicalities that have to be dealt with from an Admin perspective, it looks to me, whereas, we "common editors" can't really grasp all that, and we end up loosing the thread, I guess...) Just some thoughts. In any case, as I said again, thanks a lot for the clear and to the point explanation of the whole process from a lay "common editor's" perspective. I appreciate your openness, and your willingness to explain things in a clear, direct manner. Also, in an insightfull and well written manner. Regards, warshytalk 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * «The skilful class of flatterers praise the discourse of an ignorant friend and the face of a deformed one.» (Juvenal, I think), but as «'Tis an old maxim in the schools, That flattery's the food of fools; Yet now and then your men of wit Will condescend to take a bit.» (Swift) I'll happily lap it up. :-)
 * But keep in mind, of course, that this is just my view of it; there are other equally valid views of the matter, and although I privately like to flatter (pardon) myself with possessing brilliant insight into such things, I've no illusions that makes my view any more universally valid than any other you might pick. I'm happy to give you my view (often endlessly), but do, please, make up your own mind about this (I shouldn't like the responsibility of making it up for you). :-)
 * Anyways, I'm glad you found my summary of some merit; and do feel free to drop me a note if you think I can help with anything. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I enjoyed the dialogue very much, and I will keep your points and suggestions in mind for the future. warshytalk 23:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again ex-over. I assume you still have your antennas tuned somehow to this issue? What do you think about the major onslaught initiated on the SAQ peer-review page by NinaGreen last night? I find it extremely interesting, at least her major/basic point, which is to show that anti-Stratfordian scepticism is a minority view, not a "fringe theory." I think, from my perspective, which is an outsider's perspective (or, as I put it in a question there, the perspective of an "non-initiated novice"), this completely redraws the 'lines of scrimmage' in the battle field on the issue. At least... (if not more.) I wonder what you are thinking. warshytalk 21:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

SAQ FA

 * Hi Xover (I pronounce it "zover" in my head). I want to take Shakespeare authorship question to peer review soon with the goal of an FA nomination. I did a quick survey and it appears that about 20 to 25 per cent of FA nominations weren't previously GA. I also studied the Fa criteria and I think it meets them all, and I have a hard time coming up with anything substantial that could be added to the article without making it overlong, so I think that if it is ever to have a shot at FA it might as well be now. I've asked Ericoides to look it over for anything that sticks out. Would you take a look at it and see what you think? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Responding here to keep threads together. Let me know if you prefer me to respond on your page.)
 * Hi Tom. Pronounce it any way you like, if I was bothered about pronunciation I would have picked a pronounceable nickname. :-)
 * I'll try to find the time for a review of the article, but no promises. It probably can't be any sooner than this weekend, but we'll see. Going to GA is mostly because it's a quicker and more informal review process, and because PR has a backlog and far too few willing reviewers. Since we have some experience writing FAs now, I think going straight to FAC is fine; so long as we actually manage to bring our FA expertise to bear on the relevant article (which is usually the problem, I think). Also, keep in mind that the FA Criteria as such aren't really comprehensive, the actual reviewers at FAC tend to have far more specific concerns than what is immediately obvious from the formal criteria. --Xover (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I'm thinking by the end of the year should be soon enough to try for FA. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Character lists for Shakespeare's plays
I just now copy edited the Titus Andronicus list. I looked at several plays and noticed some slight formatting variation between them. Is there a standard format to follow? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't, as far as I know, any standard for them. Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and The Tempest are the examples that have at least been subject to review—and so can be expected to be as close to acceptable as is likely to be possible—even if most were not particularly happy with them. For Titus I would suggest avoiding the nested lists, stripping incidental characters (if it's not important to the plot to know precisely who a character or group is, then they don't need to be in the list), and considering whether it would make sense to group them under a heading ala R&J. --Xover (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Man, I hate all those "is"s; em dashes look better and don't slow the reader down. I do like how they're grouped under headings, tho. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

King Lear to FA?
I've got my sources ready if you want to make this the first play project this year. (I want to take SAQ to FA but it appears I'll have to wait until the sparring takes a holiday.) What exactly needs to be done first? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to discuss this on the Wikiproject page? I've got some ideas... Wrad (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm there. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your peer review
Thanks very much. Where do you want to discuss these, on the PR page or the article talkpage? I'm really puzzled by a few of them. Like you, I think it can easily achieve FA, but not as long as the edit-warring continues, which we were done with until lately. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article's talk page is the appropriate place, or you can ask here if you think the atmosphere will be more… conducive. I take the fact you're puzzled as a good sign; it means I've achieved a fresh perspective (not necessarily right or sane, but at least fresh). :-) --Xover (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Irv Matus
Hi Xover, I understand your concern. I'm Irv's brother Paul. He died suddenly at his apartment in Maryland. He had been ill and the cause of death hasn't been established yet. I'm not going to alter your reversion as I suppose I should have waited for an obit. - Willshakes (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An odd thought occurred to me in this age of Wikipedia and ephemeral information written, as it were, on the air. Wouldn't it be something if we could revert death? -- Willshakes (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Resurrection
In fiction there are many stories involving bringing the dead back to life. Offhand, I can think of Lovecraft's Herbert West, Reanimator S. King's Pet Sematary</I>, <I>Frankenstein</I> and, of course, <I>The Monkey's Paw</I>. I don't know of a single one where it turns out well. -- Willshakes (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

see SAQ talk page
for my question. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 9 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 note them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)