Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 12 April 2013

Smatprt is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages after reflecting on the topic ban enacted November 3, 2010, a case involving the ongoing content disputes surrounding the Misplaced Pages articles: Shakespeare Authorship Question Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship Edward de Vere And, to a lesser degree, the articles listed here: Those articles listed in the attempted mediation Related cases were an RFC ] and a mediation], both of which, unfortunately, were left unresolved. As the RFC and the topic ban discussions are already archived, I am providing the link to those comments here:]. Regards to everyone and Happy Holidays! Smatprt (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 (articles) /Archive 7

Welcome back!!

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

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

A topic of interest to you is covered by discretionary sanctions under an Arbcom case

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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

• Conduct and decorum

"Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited."

Unfortunately, in spite of this directive, personal attacks, attempted blacklisting , and assumptions of bad faith continue to come from the current batch of editors, especially user:Tom_Reedyhominem attack, , user:Paul Barlow and user:Nishidani and . The current atmosphere, created by you and the other current editors, was commented on by Mr Wales here and here . Smatprt (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You would be hard-pressed to make a case based on any of those diffs, but feel free to try if you think such a move won't be looked at as unnecessary disruption. My only purpose was to remind you of the possible consequences of continued POV editing and reversion to try to get around the editorial consensus as determined by Misplaced Pages processes. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

With your most recent edits to Shakespeare authorship question, you have resumed a pattern of disruptive tendentious editing. In this edit, it must have been clear to you that the passages in question are claimed by anti-Stratfordians to represent early doubts about authorship, but it is not generally accepted as a fact that they represent such doubts. Presenting this edit as if it was "matching" the contents of the article to those of the History of the Shakespeare authorship question article is disingenious. Also, calling the other person's subsequent edit "vandalism" was clearly disruptive.

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

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

A New Banned-Aide

	For Your Relentless Topical Adhesion
	Enjoy your recovery! Best! Knitwitted (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proving Shakespeare

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

Disambiguation link notification

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

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

Enforcement of the arb com sanctions has been requested

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

Topic-ban reinstated

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

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

Thomas Weston (merchant adventurer)

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

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

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Smatprt. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 22:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice day today

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

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

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

Request that topic ban be lifted

Hi Smatprt,

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

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

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

Tag-bombing

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

The fact remains that the article is not in compliance with either WP:RS/AC or WP:WEASEL, and placing a handful of tags in an article of this length is not excessive. Please review the WP:RS/AC policy. Keep in mind: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." You do understand the meaning of "directly", right? In this context it means precisely or exactly. There is nothing precise or exact about such weaselly writing as:

• "Shakespeare scholars see no reason to suspect that the name was a pseudonym or that the actor was a front for the author" (all? some? no reason? They all say that?)

or this overly sweeping statement:

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

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

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

For your edification and review

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

Sanctioned again

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

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

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