User talk:Zweigenbaum

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare
Leaving aside the problems with your argument for the moment, there is no point adding views to an archived page. The debate there is over. You certainly should not add them to an article. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Paul B, which is why I am reverting the transfer to talk page of something that has been archived. Archiving does not "hide" text - it is there in the archives for all to read. That is why it is called "archiving". But that discussion was concluded. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. I don't think you can have missed my 3RR warning on Talk:Shakespeare authorship question, but since you've ignored it, I post one here on your page as well, to make sure you see it (being a new user). Bishonen | talk 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

WP:ANI
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. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

WP:NPA
Please don't attack other editors. Comment on content, not on the contributor, as per WP:NPA. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and your tone on Talk:Shakespeare authorship question is completely inappropriate. Example: you have recently accused an editor (Tom Reedy) of creating "a moral snakepit of prevarication that twists and skirts the guidelines for base partisan advantage." That's written as if you have no concept of the important wiki tenet of assuming good faith, which states that you're expected to assume, unless or until the opposite is proven, that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Avoid discussing the motives of others; discuss their actions and edits. If you continue to flout wiki culture and wiki policy and guidelines in your comments, not to mention ordinary civility in discourse, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I've been cutting you some extra slack because you're a new editor, but if you wish to continue here, it's getting to be time you started to internalise our principles for civil interchange. Bishonen | talk 06:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Arbitration Request
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) 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Logged-out editing
Just noting for the record that you have been making sterile reverts on a contentious article while logged out, with your IP. Since the identity of the IP was obvious from earlier talk page postings, I won't interpret it as a deliberate attempt at sockpuppeting; nevertheless, I'd ask you to try and avoid such edits, as they can easily lead to avoidable suspicion. I know this can sometimes happen by accident, though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 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)

Blocked
I am blocking you (both on the IP and on your named account, for edit-warring on Shakespeare authorship question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 18 January 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; ] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

SAQ procedures
I would like to offer some advice regarding the new section you have added at SAQ talk. Some of my thoughts will be quite trivial, while others are important. I am commenting here rather than at the article talk page because it is important to keep the latter focused on improvements to the article.

The most critical point is this: The above section advises that the SAQ arbitration case is closed, and that certain remedies have been enacted. Please be aware that remedy 1 ("Standard discretionay sanctions") is often enacted quite strenuously. What that means is that conditions are now very different at SAQ-related articles when compared with a month or more ago. Everyone is welcome to contribute, but it must be in a collaborative manner. I recommend special care to avoid strident language because that might be interpreted as degrading the spirit of WP:TALK.

The heading you used for the section (Oxford Summary too long, omitting academically endorsed major facts, and lacking Oxfordian participation, unlike the Marlovian summary which is written by an advocate.) is too long and unhelpful, and should not end with a period. Why not just "Oxford summary"? The heading used could be interpreted as advocacy, when headings should be neutral. Put your arguments in the text of your comment, not in the heading.

A comment is signed by adding a space then four tildes at the end of the last line. There is no need to write your username as well. Using "Show preview" helps to detect glitches like that.

Your remark about someone being "allowed" to edit is not correct. The editor in question has demonstrated a high degree of collaboration, and has responded positively to all suggestions made. The resulting text in the article complies with relevant policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV, and has involved consensus following discussion among seven editors on the talk page. No "allowed" involved.

Your comment that the Oxford summary should be brief has been mentioned on the talk page, and I believe everyone currently active at that page agrees. I do not think there is any good way to assess whether Oxford should be before or after Bacon, because anything other than alphabetical or chronological order is obviously subjective. At any rate, if you think the order should be changed, the procedure would be to state what you think the order should be, and why.

Regarding the content of the Oxford summary: Apart from the agreed desire to shorten it, is there anything that should be omitted because it is somehow "wrong" (misleading, inappropriate, undue, unsourced, or has some other defect)? Is there any point that should be added (i.e. something that should be in the summary has been omitted)? I ask this because it is not clear from your comment what you think should be done.

It sounds as if you plan some major changes to the Oxford summary, so I suggest that a draft would be appropriate. You could make a subpage for that, or simply create a section here on your talk page.

No reply is needed, but if you would like to reply, please do so here as I will notice that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Thank you for your thoughtful message. I have been including my name in these communiques as I have experienced not being logged in, even when the prompt says I am, and the use of the tildes does not seem to affect anything. I use the marks of the tildes each time. 1) To begin with, although I have already addressed several of these points, I will be happy to restate them here. 2) The long section about Looney (paragraph 2) belongs in the history section, or in the Oxfordian Theory article. It could stay in the summary, if it were trimmed down. The Looney scholarship is no longer relied upon by the Oxfordian community, since so much other more specific material has been found. It is an important artifact. The best place for a discussion of it is in the History section. 3) The two mainstream refutations do not belong, as the other summaries include none and it was agreed by the present editors not to present mainstream arguments in summaries. Thus "No documentary evidence connecting Oxford to the authorship of the works has been found" and "Although Oxford died in 1604 with 10 Shakespeare plays yet to be written according to the most widely accepted chronology" do not belong in the summary. They will be immediately contradicted by the references following the statements of the summary text and Theory article, a circumstance which makes them appear puzzling, out of place, and liable to make a reader think someone is telling them what to think right in the summary. In the context of the treatment of the other summaries, this could be interpreted as gratuitous or a certain implied bias and we wish to avoid that. 4) The longest paragraph ( paragraph 4, about Frisbee and codes) does not belong at all. Detailed discussion on that topic goes in the Oxfordian Theory article. Presently it is being given far too much space, too much weight, and does not represent the main points raised by most Oxfordians. US News and Atlantic magazines summarize examples of what the major Oxfordian points are. The scholarly and established magazine references are included should the reader seek detail beyond what is in the sub-article itself. 5) The longish PT theory description does not belong in a brief summary. It too should go in the Oxfordian Theory article, where it should be understood as an approach, not the Oxfordian position. Placement in the summary can be interpreted as an invitation to ignore ensuing evidence because this aspect of the Oxford contention is usually considered shocking, sensational, and therefore incredible, despite a certain amount of documented evidence supporting such exploratory notions. 6) I suggest that the summary end with the last line of the new text just added. That would make it the most concise summary of the major Oxfordian points, as evidenced by the references provided following the new text. 7) The Minerva Britanna graphic need not be in the Oxfordian summary. This is another example of detailed evidence presented as the strength of the Oxfordian contention, whereas it is really a side-light, showing how the literary types of the era amused themselves and each other by communicating through puzzle means what they did not feel safe to say outright. First, it is not a "major" theme of Oxfordian research, and second, it was used by Baconians as well, so is not specific to the Oxford case. It could go into the history section, be included in the Bacon expanded discussion (since Baconians used it first), or located in one or more of the theory articles. Regardless, it should not be where it is, giving the wrong impression of what kind of evidence is relied upon in Oxfordian studies, (or perhaps what a Stratfordian writer would wish was the only kind of Oxfordian evidence?), and--returning to the important standard of brevity observed elsewhere--it just makes the summary longer mentioning a minor issue. Zweigenbaum Zweigenbaum (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to take the time to think about the content of the section at the moment (and a discussion of that should be at the article talk page). In my earlier comment here, when I asked if anything should be omitted or added, I was suggesting that a bold edit which makes a lot of changes is more likely to be well accepted if a case for the changes has been made, and I was suggesting that it would be desirable to identify any problems along the lines I mentioned and explain those. I won't say any more about that here; it's just a thought.
 * Re talk pages: The correct procedure to create a new section on a talk page is to click "new section" at the top of the page. When you do that, it is not possible to enter an edit summary—instead, the heading you specify is used along with "new section". When you want to change or add text in a comment, you should click "edit" at the right hand margin, on the same horizontal line as the heading of the section. When you do that, the edit summary is pre-filled with the name of the section in "/* ... */" (which is what the C programming language, and others, use for comments). It is common to append text like "tweak" if changing one's own edit, or "comment" if adding a new comment to the section. Have a look at the history of your user talk page to see how it looks with regard to my two edits where I first created this section and later replied (this reply).
 * Re adding your username: It's not important, but you should always use "Show preview" when editing because it is easy to make a blunder, and it's best to catch it before saving the edit. When you preview, you will see the four tildes expanded to your username and the current date if you are logged in. If you are not logged in, it will show your IP address and the date. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the problem is who is being referred to in the phrase 'most Oxfordians'? On behalf of whom, or under what authority, can any one editor speak for a movement characterized by such a diversity of nuanced opinions? Unless we have an RS filter for such generalizations, they remain spectral abstractions from within the fold, reflecting an opinion, perhaps deeply informed, perhaps not, of some kind of deliberative uniformity whereas the material I read seems to host quite a substantial array, from month to month, of variegated ideas.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had to revert to the older version. One look at the formatting, and the sources, suggests that you need to adapt future edits to the style of the page, and adhere closely to its fundamental principles (no primary sources, no fringe secondary sources). Excessively recondite details can be trimmed down, and it would be helpful if you could provide your input on what there strikes you as central, and what peripheral, to the Oxfordian case. Whatever decisions are made, the guiding principle is that the text must be sourced to works by established scholars familiar with the subject. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning
Zweigenbaum, your current activity a the SAQ talkpage, arguing and re-arguing the same points at length that have already been covered by months of previous discussion, verges on disruptive filibustering (aka WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Please be advised that I will consider using the "discretionary sanctions" rule of the recent WP:ARBSAQ to prevent further disruption if this crosses a line. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic-banned
I see you continue exactly as before, with yet more of the same repetitive walls of text. I believe I am acting in pursuance of the intentions expressed by Arbcom in their principle #8 ("Talk pages") at WP:ARBSAQ, by placing you under a topic-ban from all edits and discussions relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, for a period of three months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the first notice of whatever is on FuturePerfect's mind that I have seen. I happened to check the Talk site.

I don't believe FuturePerfect has the right to topic ban me.

He is an involved editor, having participated on the SAQ article/talk page, as well as being an involved participant (non-arbitrator) in the ArbCom case. Zweigenbaum (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Zweigenbaum: Please stop commenting on SAQ matters because whether it is fair or not, whether someone has the right or not, the above is a topic ban and it covers discussions and edits. I understand that Wikipedia is a confusing place, but you must stop now. There are appeal procedures, and you are welcome to carefully pursue those, but you must not use any page of Wikipedia (not even your own talk page) to discuss or edit regarding any topic remotely related to Shakespeare authorship question. I think WP:BAN applies.
 * @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Perhaps a ban or block should be accompanied with information on appeals? Please provide the correct information if the above is wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, since you openly refused to heed the topic ban, I have blocked your account to enforce it, for 48 hours. I hope longer blocks won't be necessary. This block can be lifted once you agree to abide by the topic ban. The ban itself can be appealed through the normal means laid out on the arbitration page, i.e. normally through an appeal at WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And as your first edits after your block expired again broke your topic ban, I've blocked you for 55 hours. I recommend that if you do this again the next block be for a week. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot on Literary Criticism
But on giving the matter a little attention, we perceive that criticism, far from being a simple and orderly field of beneficent activity, from which impostors can be readily ejected, is no better than a Sunday park of contending and contentious orators, who have not even arrived at the articulation of their differences. Here, one would suppose, was a place for quiet co-operative labour. The critic, one would suppose, if he is to justify his existence, should endeavour to discipline his personal prejudices and cranks—tares to which we are all subject— and compose his differences with as many of his fellows as possible, in the common pursuit of true judgment. When we find that quite the contrary prevails, we begin to suspect that the critic owes his livelihood to the violence and extremity of his opposition to other critics, or else to some trifling oddities of his own with which he contrives to season the opinions which men already hold, and which out of vanity or sloth they prefer to maintain. We are tempted to expel the lot. -- TS Eliot

Zweig, now you see how the land lays here. You will have to use lit. against bureaucracy, the ju-jitsu of the artist. Try to follow the letter of the law, my friend, and then

delve one yard below their mines, And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,

when in one line two crafts directly meet.

--BenJonson (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Request that topic ban be lifted
Hi Zweigenbaum,

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

Clarification motion
A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has  been modified by  which changed the  wording  of the  discretionary  sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just  articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)