User talk:Smatprt/Archive 4

Section order

It's not worth arguing about. I'd save my ammunition for content discussions. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer disputing section order in regards to Geography.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

The Golden Bough Playhouse pics from the fires are fantastic. Please consider using one each on the articles for the theatre and for the Carmel-by-the-sea article as Wiki policy for FU images is once per image and this will keep anyone from deleting as inappropriate use of FU images. Also, please don't forget to add a numbered rational or it will most certainly become nominated or speedily deleted. Your image contributions are actualy very good. I know it can be a little confusing about all the image rules but Wiki is a stickler for copyright, source, attribution etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image File:CarmelOceanAve1908.jpg, does not have to be uploaded as "Fair Use". It is in the "Public Domain" in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some new images

Hi Smatprt,

I apologise for bothering you, but I could do with some advice. I'm currently doing an overhawl of Henry VI, Part 2, and one of the things I'd like to bring to the page is some pictures. I've spent a lot of time online, and I've managed to get five or six good quality images which would look well on the page. Now, I know there are copyright issues, and I started reading through the various rules and regulations and whatnot, and frankly, it meant nothing to me. When I was editing pages on the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha, I used to upload images from the DVD special features, and simply cite them and that was good enough, but I think more would be required in the case of Henry VI wouldn't it? Again, I apologise for bothering you with this, but I'd rather just not post any pictures than post a bunch that I shouldn't have done, so any advice is much appreciated (I can happily give you the links to the pictures if you wish). Basically, I'm just looking for a simple explanation as to what I can and can't post (If such a thing exists! Thanks very much. Bertaut (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries about the delay. Real life can be a hassle sometimes! Thanks very much for the advice. Actually, I think I've got my head around most of the info anyway. In terms of Henry VI, Part 2, I've found four images, three of which are in the public domain, so there's no problem (one is an awesome painting of the conjuration scene). The fourth I'll use under the fair use rationale thing, and if it's not kosher, then I've no problems deleting it. I've also uploaded a couple of stills for The Two Gentlemen of Verona and The Taming of the Shrew. I spoke to a guy who uploaded some images from 2001: A Space Odyssey and stuck pretty close to what he said as regards fair use, but again, if they're unaccaptable, I've no problem deleting them. I'm slowly but surely getting the hang of things though. It was all so much easier on Memory Alpha!! Again, thanks for the reply. Bertaut (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo feature

Hi. I though you might be able to use this article somewhere: http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-191501885-monterey_vacations-i Hope all is well! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:GoldenBoughPlayhouseFire1949.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GoldenBoughPlayhouseFire1949.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful!

"Tom is right - what does it really matter since the main contention is that he was a front man?" You're starting to use logic. Many more exercises like that and you'll be editing on my side! Merry Christmas. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes I don't don't what gets into me! And a Happy Holidays to you and yours. Smatprt (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship page illustration

An editor took down the illustration, as I'm sure you know by now. I grepped an illustration off the SAC site of the Droueshout with a question mark in the middle that would make a good illustration, but I don't know how to upload it. Do you know how? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - I had that SAC illustration up for a little while but after discussion (centered around dissatisfaction with the image for various reasons), replaced it with the book cover (which was agreed was a better image). I'm not in agreement with the reason it was taken down (neither the caption or the title take any particular stance), so I think I'd rather restore it and then open up a discussion on the image and various choices being suggested to see if a new consensus can be achieved. In the mean time, the previous image, for which a consensus was achieved, should remain. Smatprt (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your threatening behavior

I notice that on my Talk page you have threatened to block me if I continue my balanced editing. Not only do you falsely imply that you have Administrator privileges but I interpret this as a personal attack and an attempt to intimidate me. It will not succeed. I'd like your bullying behavior to stop which includes your implied contention that only you have the right to decide what goes into the Shakespeare authorship article. WellStanley (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can leave a warning template. I'm sorry, but mass deletions of material is regarded as vandalism. You need to build a case and achieve a consensus, just like everyone else. I'm sorry you don't understand that. Smatprt (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the logic that balancing an article, which is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, constitutes vandalism. I would have thought that this term better applies to those who edit to sustain the bias. WellStanley (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the matter of making mass deletions without any consensus that constitutes vandalism.Smatprt (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it is more important to achieve consensus than produce a balanced article? For an encyclopedia article that's patently absurd! That has more to do with the strongest getting their own way than with truth and reason! Am I right in thinking you prefer to operate by the former principle? WellStanley (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about how I prefer to operate - it's about how Wikipedia operates. We all have problems with certain rules, and are free to try to change official policy. But until such time as a policy changes, those are the rules we all work under. Smatprt (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite certain that you have no interest in the quality of an article which is the aim of the Wikipedia rules. By your visits to editors's talk pages, it is clear you try to manipulate people and Wiki rules to further your personal aim, which is ultimately to undermine the balance of the Shakespeare authorship article and have the entire article about Oxford who you think should be the ONLY alternative candidate. Your "moral high ground" stance does not fool me for one second. AnnaGram (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear! Hear! WellStanley (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I alerted a number of regular editors to the authorship articles about the deletions. They are all grown-ups and can decide for themselves if they want to get involved. And welcome back, Barry (and your other sock puppet, Mr.Wells). Smatprt (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can they really decide for themselves that you are misinforming them? Good to meet you too, George! WellStanley (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're mentioned at WP:COIN

Hello Smatprt. See WP:COIN#Wiki Page used to advertise theater company. You may comment there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ShakespeareQuestion.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ShakespeareQuestion.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx ...

... for playing! I love the way you religiously report my puppetmaster's socks (they stink BTW! Joking!) as if you're controlling when he visits. Haven't you heard?! He's got an infinite supply! Also I like the way you try to reduce my puppetmaster by referring to "the sockpuppet" as if that disempowers him (!) and fearfully delete his posts before people read the truth about your self-promoting purpose here! So ... our little conspiracy worked! Sane editors are now at work balancing the Shakespeare authorship page! Happy reporting and deleting! WillHeStan (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I want to even answer, but I find it amusing that you accuse me of self-promoting when you created your own page Barry R. Clarke and have been the MAIN contributor (and where YOU wrote "He is a man of many talents"). You must be so proud of yourself.Smatprt (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now where does it say on my puppetmaster's Wiki page that "I'm a man of many talents" and where has he uploaded a photo of himself? How come your page is 18,000 bytes and his is only 2,300? Bigger ego perhaps? (Certainly not bigger talent! Joking!) Maybe you should take responsibility for your actions instead of living in a cloud of denial. You are here to promote yourself and your views and no amount of throwing it back on someone else is going to change that fact. Lots of love :) WillHeStan (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right here, Barry [[1]]. And your further self promotion edits are here: [[2]],[[3]], and [[4]]. And your removal of a vanity tag is here: [[5]]. Of course you know all this because you already had your own AFD issue for the same reason [[6]], where it notes:

"Advertising and self promotional content created by the article's subject User:Barryispuzzled (who admits he is the same person as the article on his user page). In addition, the Shakespeare book mentioned in the article is self published, bringing into question the author's notability".

To answer your other question, yours is a stub (I am refering to your article, not your...), and you wrote it ALL yourself, whereas mine was was primarily written by uninvolved editors (11,000+ out of 18,000, in fact, with the remainder being the simple facts). Finally, performing artists are expected to have pix (duh). Now if there was only a tag for being an angry, frustrated, little baldfaced lier.Smatprt (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3R

I haven't reverted you three times. I've only reverted Bass once. All the others were as part of adding other changes. If you want to discuss, start a new section in the discussion instead of doing drive-bys in the editing comments. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and your bulls--t back and forth games are only taking time away from editing the article. My edit is properly supported and relevant. Objecting to it because it truthfully expresses what academics think is a waste of time on your part. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if you've ever played a game of tic-tac-toe, you'd know that you're the one who broke the 3R rule, at 1:10, 23; 21:36, 23, and 00:26, 24. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom - don't be so tricky - and read the 3R rule why don't you. First, hiding the edit within other edits is immaterial. WP still looks at that tactic of yours as a revert, but I expect you know this. And my edit of 1:10 was not a revert, but an initial change from "Fringe" to "Minority". Paul then changed it to "marginal" and his was not a revert either. But when you reverted it back to "Fringe" - that began your first of four reversions of the word "marginal" back to the word "fringe". And what one or some academics think is not what all academics think and you know it. Your truth is not my truth, on this we can both agree. But if we are going to be successful in working on this article, you need to learn the art of compromise and how to avoid making inflammatory edits.Smatprt (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other editor (Tom Reedy) need to end this silly dispute. You are both edit warring over minor issues with the wording. As you know the disruption to Wikipedia from misuse of undo will not be tolerated. 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) 13:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the advice at User_talk:Tom_Reedy#3R. Since you have an extensive block log, you are recommended to *not* follow WP:BRD. Instead, get consensus on Talk before changing anything controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Replying to your edit summary, no it isn't harassment (this is only my second post) and editwarring isn't restricted by 24hrs. Please read the links in the template you removed. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You brought the discussion to the Noticeboard and the discussion didn't turn out the way you liked. I made an edit with no POV, no grandstanding, with the reference provided at the noticeboard where you brought the issue. Why are you insisting on having your way when the clear consensus does not agree with you. I also provided all the references you asked for. You have made 4 reverts, so who is edit warring here? Smatprt (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion there hasn't "turned out not the way I'd like" at all. When you provide RS and stop trying to use the article as a platform then perhaps we can make progress. By the way, when I provide you with a 3RR template that automatically shows I'm aware of the issue. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. I think you have far less support than you think. Verbal chat 13:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I've supplied various references as has one editor on the Noticeboard page. How would you like to proceed? Smatprt (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Attempted outing?"

Oh, please. It has never been a secret and I've read comments by him on Wikipedia that it isn't a secret. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment on your talk page.Smatprt (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Shakespeare_Fellowship Tom Reedy (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schoenbaum

Actually, I beginning to have doubts. I was going to rewrite the comment myself. It was based on the writing style; the name (similar to Barry's "WellStanley", ie taking the name of a famous Shakespeare scholar), and the edit history (overlapping with barry's; long silence; sudden reappearence. I'm still suspicious, though. Paul B (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I actually know who this is. I'll double-check today. But it's good to be on guard.Smatprt (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes to the lead of Shakespeare authorship question

Hello Smatprt. I recommend that you revert the article lead to the last version which had consensus, which is probably also the last one that Tom Reedy approved of. If an edit war restarts, action will be taken. Remember you can use WP:3O to get outside opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your filing at WP:WQA. Editors are expected to possess *some* diplomatic skills. If this goes back to the admin noticeboards, it will not reflect well on any of the participants. A long-term full protection of the article is one option to consider if the current level of vituperation continues. Another option is a topic ban that would prevent both of you from contributing to this article. It should not require rocket science to figure out which changes to the lead are causing the objection from Reedy. Once the particular points are known, they can be discussed. I think that a request for WP:Peer review is one way to bring in people who are new to the dispute, but are willing to go through the minutia to give advice. Any initiative from you to actual resolve content points would be welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an initiative when I suggested we go back to a less contentious point in time and build consensus for the changes we both objected to. Was that so off base? In any case, Tom has already reinstated those and said that was that and I am not going to get in a revert war with him again. He, in turn, has allowed my two sentence addition to stand saying, basically, that he doesn't care what the hell I write or where I draw my "whacky" sources from.

My filing today has nothing to do with content. It is about the long-term and continuing insults and attacks that Tom has engaged in. For almost 2 years now he has made ad hominem attacks on anyone (not just me) who does not agree with his side of the debate. We have been labeled stupid, insane and ignorant, as well as suffering from a laundry list of psychological problems. Despite repeated requests to refrain and after deleting numerous insults and attacks, the behavior has not stopped. Enough is enough, so I filed the least aggressive report I could find. For goodness sake, he even outed another editor a while back but no one called him on it. One can only turn the other cheek for so long.Smatprt (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lately it seems the two of you can't cooperate even on small points unless an admin enters the discussion. What may happen soon is that everyone loses patience with both of you, and no one will listen to any more complaints. WP:Peer review is an initiative *you* could take, that should not take very much effort, and doesn't require any negotiation with your adversary. If you really think that the problem is Reedy, open an WP:RFC/U. I caution you that at least one other person would have to share your opinion, which could pose a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Regarding RFC/U, I really don't want to escalate, which is why I went with to WQA - it seemed like the least confrontational of all the options. 3rd Opinion was out because there are one or two other editors that have chimed in recently. One question - can I be open about "why" the article is being brought to Peer review (mentioning the dispute)? Thanks. Smatprt (talk)

You could mention that the article Talk page hows that, in the past, there has been a clash between Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian viewpoints. Peer reviewers are more likely to be interested in the article quality, and will watch for language that is not neutral. They will not want to decide who is right in a content dispute. Better not try to use peer review to punish your opponent. Peer review is sometimes a step towards a Featured article nomination. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]