User talk:Xover/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edmond Malone

I added a note about Edmond Malone's remarks on Johnson's Shakespeare to the Johnson biography, and Johnson's remarks about biography in general to Malone in the List of contemporary accounts of Samuel Johnson's life to preface how he wanted others to write biographies. I will put the Preface and Johnson's Shakespeare on my to do list and will be sure to add Malone there. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I created The Plays of William Shakespeare. Its not finished yet (still need to add some things, mention Malone more and some other Shakespeare people). It will need a main template, possibly a picture of Shakespeare at the top, added to the template for Shakespeare, and maybe some other things. Could you add it to WP:BARD? It was the first work to really analyze Shakespeare critically and make a case for the need of having a true edition of the plays instead of the slop dashed ones that existed at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm about half way/a third of the way done, and I have 7 more books to add information from, but could you look at The Plays of William Shakespeare page and tell me what information (broadly speaking) you would want emphasized? And I used the title because it seems to be the most notable work of that name (although it may require a disambiguation tag to link to the list of plays). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you had some involvement with the page - Per some comments at the FAC for Johnson saying that it does not go into enough analysis of his "works" or people he may have "influenced", could you look over the page and make suggestions? Also, I wrote up this as a possible source of information for any additions (with a section here for suggestions. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

can you intervene?

Please see this latest edit [[1]]. Can you do something about the editor? Smatprt (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet image

Hi - as requested I've just added source info for the Cushman sisters picture of R&J in the commons. Let me know if you need anymore info. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

History of a Six Weeks' Tour

I've responded to some of your comments at the wonderful GA review you have given (thanks!). When you have time, could you help me figure out how to better present the material? It has been very hard figuring out how to organize this article, let me tell you! Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the help with the Thomas of Woodstock (play) linking and redirects. I knew I was going to miss a few!Smatprt (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request for GA

Could you copyedit Fleance? Wrad (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Be a part of our next podcast

Xover, we remember your interest in being a part of a podcast about moving articles along the path of quality. If you're still keen to be involved with this, please join up here. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet is at FAC

Click here. Wrad (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome! :) -Malkinann (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

R&J

I would be interested in hearing your "long, rambling" list of reasons why a character list should be in the article (before you changed your mind, that is). I would also ask you to sincerely reconsider. Having a Synopsis without a character list seem absolutely ridiculous. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Shakespeare notice

There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Character Analysis. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)

Tempest

I just reverted your edit on Tempest and then saw your edit summary and realized you knew you were on a dab page. As my edit summary says - shouldn't adaptations, etc. be at The Tempest and this page just be an ordinary dab page. Or, if it should belong to the project, is it really of high importance? I leave it to you. I don't plant to revert again if you choose to replace it. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab pages are included because they need maintaining just like full articles, and the priority is set to High simply because it's very likely users looking for The Tempest will enter simply Tempest. I'm not sure what you mean about the adaptations; the dab page lists the various articles likely referred to as Tempest. Are you suggesting the page should just list The Tempest and not the articles on the various adaptations of the same name? --Xover (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Not suggesting that. I think the page is okay as it is. I think it unlikely anyone will remove The Tempest from the page and people looking the play will be able to find it. That's whats most important for the Shakespeare project point of view. As content, its not that important to the project (which is what I was assuming the rating was for). As navigation, it IS important, but its unlikely to need much monitoring. But I am not a "consumer" of the "importance" information to know whether "high" is appropriate or not. As I said, I originally though you didn't realize it was a dab page and wanted to make sure you were acting with that in mind. I now know you were fully informed and if it works as is now, I'm fine with that! Enjoy. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you working on Tempest. As you refine the source and date sections, I would encourage you to check out this short article: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm I know you don't usually tread this path, but Strittmatter and Kositsky have done some excellent work in this regard. And congrats on R&J!Smatprt (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew about Kathman (who I generally find mean-spirited), but I didn't know about Vaughn's 2008 refutation. Where do I find it (title?, link?). Thanks! Smatprt (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sonnet 18

Do you have any material you could add to this article? I've been toying with the idea of taking it to FAC. Wrad (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not off the bat, no, sorry. My sources on the sonnets are extremely scarce; I had to scramble to find anything on 151 when the AfD came up. I like the idea however, so I'll keep a lookout for decent sources and see if I can't rustle up something. --Xover (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare

(Moved here from Themis-Athena's talk page to maintain unified discussion.)

Hi Themis-Athena,

I saw your post on the WikiProject Elizabethan Theatre page and noticed you list you interests as mainly Shakespeare. You may be interested to know that there is a WikiProject Shakespeare too, whose focus is somewhat narrower than Elizabethan theatre. Do please feel free to join up! Right now we're working on improving The Tempest to Good Article quality, and will probably follow that with Macbeth. Hamlet was our first play-related Featured Article, so it's in fairly good shape already, but there are plenty of sub-articles of Hamlet that could use some work (Characters in Hamlet, Sources of Hamlet, Critical approaches to Hamlet, Literary influence of Hamlet, Hamlet in performance, Hamlet on screen, References to Hamlet) if that's your main area of interest. The project progresses a bit in fits and starts—often with a frenzy of activity when it's time for a Featured Article drive and then long lulls between them—so there's no shortage of articles to work on. Anyway, just wanted to let you know the project exists. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Xover (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

_______________

• Xover, thanks very much for your message -- I'm very happy to join WP Shakespeare. "Macbeth" is another old favorite of mine, so I'm already looking forward to lending a hand there! :) In the meantime, I'll take a look at the background articles on "Hamlet" and see what I can do.

• One question, by way of guidance: In the Reception and Criticism and Sources chapters of my own Hamlet-related website (Project Hamlet), I have compiled a fair amount of background material on the play; including the complete texts of two of its sources (a modern English translation of the "Amleth" saga from Saxo Grammaticus's "Gesta Danorum" and that saga's late 16th/early 17th century translation, published under the title "The Hystorie of Hamblet"), as well as excerpts from critical texts on the play. Though most of this material is in the public domain (to the extent it's not, I've of course stayed within "fair use" limitations), it is not always readily accessible, because it tends to be contained in larger texts; so even on a site like Project Gutenberg, you really have to know what you are looking for in order to find it at all. Now, I've obviously read the warnings about self-promotion, and this is the last thing I want to do. However, would it be appropriate for me to link to certain select pages of my site wherever I do feel such a link would be helpful -- at least if no more "established" textual source is available online? (Outside of Project Gutenberg, I'm aware of only two other sites where something similar has been done in a systematic manner, though not with regard to "Hamlet" specifically; namely, Shakespeare and His Critics and Shakespeare Navigators. Of course I'll equally include links to those, to the extent you think such links are appropriate at all.)

• Thanks again; I very much appreciate your getting in touch!--Themis-Athena (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The original materials you have compiled, who are covered under a compatible license, would probably be good candidates for uploading to WikiSource. Pretty much all Shakespeare play articles include a general link to Wikisource so no change would be required there. As for links to your own web site I would recommend against adding those links yourself. Apart from policy, other editors will tend to be suspicious of such links; and for you personally it'll mean (I imagine) a lot of agonizing over whether, how, etc. I would rather recommend that you post such links to the WP:BARD talk page—with a generic note ala. «These links to my site might do well on [[One Article]]. Could you have a look and include those you find appropriate?»—or the talk page for the relevant article, and let other editors decide whether to include or exclude them. Be prepared that the links probably won't be included: within the topic of Shakespeare there is so much material published as Reliable Sources that web links have to be particularly high-value for it to make sense to include them in a Wikipedia article (but, again, the other Wikimedia projects such as Wikisource have different policies and aims). Anyways, apart from stuff that falls under the Conflict of Interest guideline you should remember that a central guideline of Wikipedia is to Be Bold! Don't worry too much about peripheral stuff; just dive in, improve articles, and try to take it with a smile when someone swoops in and reverts all your hard work over some technicality (a quick exchange on talk pages will usually resolve such things to mutual satisfaction if one assumes good faith). Nobody owns the articles—so no need to ask permission or to be shy about making changes—and no contribution is too small (moving a misplaced comma does help!). --Xover (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

* Xover, thanks very much for your input; I do appreciate this -- and I will keep your comments in mind. It'll probably be another few days until I'm ready to start submitting anything, but once I do, please don't hesitate telling me if there is anything I should be doing differently (or not at all)!--Themis-Athena (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Aggressive Behavior

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Baconian theory. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

As far as I'm concerned our dispute is over and we move on. I thank you for your apology and wish you well. Isnotwen (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Uneasy

First, thanks for the advice regarding my talk page. I have deleted the poorly used templates and suggest you do the same. Having said that, I am uneasy about the sudden appearance of the offending editor, as well as the reappearance of several former editors that popped up during the sock puppet fiasco that marred the Baconian article as it reached its final GA status. Would you mind looking at the editors Torricelli01, Isnotwen, as well as Sycorax13 and ProsperoX (both "coincidentally" created on August 1, 2008) to determine if we are involved in some similar behaviour? It appears that these 4 editors share certain traits and responses that, given the previous fiasco, we should perhaps do a little research into before we fall into a similar situation. Thanks Smatprt (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

I haven't seen you around much lately, but I hope that you have a good holiday and that you enjoy the rest of your year. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

Email coming your way. Wrad (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Barry Situation

With reference to the point you made here [2] I don't think you were around the Shakespeare authorship, Baconian theory, Oxfordian theory articles enough to see both sides of the argument. Do you want to hear the other side or are you only interested in casting me as the bad guy in your life? Smatprt's main reason for being here is to add Oxfordian Shakespeare authorship material to articles. For example, The Tempest [3], Titus Andronicus [4], William Shakespeare [5][6]. This has caused much disturbance which has led to several complaints [[7]] - particularly note the comments of the established Shakespeare editors Old_Moonraker, Paul B, and Bishonen. He completely took over the Shakespeare authorship article and tried to bend it to his views. I wrote the Baconian theory article (it went to GA status) but never tried to put these ideas in other articles. But Smatprt tries to put his Oxfordian ideas in the Baconian theory article [8]. Smatprt couldn't believe his luck when you came along. You put your weight behind him without bothering to discover the history of the dispute. Others have remarked how difficult it is to hold back his war of attrition "you delete information that you know to be true if it is mainstream/Stratfordian" (Paul B), he has an "attitude of a seeming complete disregard for other editors' views and lack of concern for progress and improvement to articles" (Old_Moonraker), "he edit wars to make the classic crank Shakespeare-wasn't-Shakespeare theory as large and as undue-weighty a part of the article as possible" (Ghirla-трёп), see [9]. By supporting Smatprt's attempts to get rid of me (the only one who tried to resist him) no doubt you believe you're doing Wikipedia a massive favour but you are seriously misguided. --- (Barry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryFried (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask you what issue you have with me? You seem very keen to keep me banned. Why? I'll tell you what my issue is with you. I spent years researching the Baconian theory article, I'm the only one who's worked on it, have had to defend it from vandalism, it's up for GA status, and you come along (never met you on Wiki before) and claim it needs significant changes. Did you really expect me to invite you in for a coffee? TerryFried (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (aka Barry)

Offer of dispute resolution

I've already tried to resolve this dispute with my "Clear the air" post so now I shall try once more. It's clear to me that you are holding on to considerable anger with your "I'll be happy to drown you in sources" post and that explains why you are keen to cast me as the "bad guy" because then you can justify loading your resentment onto me (which actually has nothing to do with me). This is not helpful to Wikipedia because I have much to contribute: I wrote most of the Baconian theory article and contributed many of the Shakespeare authorship sections. I have never tried to destroy someone else's article. If this is going to be resolved then I ask you to be willing to listen and ready to understand why I am using sockpuppets.

For me, the dispute started in 2007 after I had written the Baconian theory article and had contributed to the Shakespeare authorship. Smatprt tried to skew it with Oxfordian material. If you think I am being unjust here, check the evidence of other editors (“his editing greatly hampered the drive to make William Shakespeare a featured article, in the face of requests from assessors to stop”,[10] “he will push and push and push to get in Oxfordian arguments by any means and exclude "Statfordian" ones by any means”[11], “his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome”[12]). I tried to get help on the Admin board but no one listened. I felt deeply frustrated. My only recourse was to invent sockpuppets to defend the article. My mistake was to cheerfully tell everyone I was doing it! Smatprt is adept at playing the victim to get support for his aim (the addition of Oxfordian research to the Shakespeare project). I got banned and I was in an even worse position to defend the Baconian theory article (which Smatprt then started to change). That's the history of it. My aim on Wikipedia is to improve the quality of the Baconian theory and Shakespeare authorship articles, and that includes preventing people skewing them with their own agenda.

Now I'm happy to return to Wikipedia with a single account and not use sockpuppets (in reality, most editors are using sockpuppets - Xover is a sockpuppet for you!) . However, I'd like people to understand what has been happening on these authorship articles. As for Smatprt, I doubt that my issue with him will ever be resolved until he admits (to himself) that he is pushing an agenda here. I am not interested in turning other editors against him.

I think it better we aim for a Win-Win here rather than a Lose-Lose.

Best Wishes and I extend the hand of friendship,

Barry Kessinger01 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Barry, but you've abused my willingness to assume your good faith too much. In your last attempt (with the TerryFried account) I was in the process of writing you a long reply, but then, thankfully, checked the various talk pages before saving; and found you were right back to your old tricks again. As long as you're unwilling to play by the same rules everyone else does then I can't see why we should keep giving you chances. You've broken several policies, lied and deceived, you've persisted in attacking other editors (e.g. Smatprt in the above posts), and you keep coming back using Sockpuppet accounts. I might have had a different view if I'd seen any kind of sign that you'd realized that other editors are deserving of respect, and that Wikipedia by nature requires you to compromise and work within the bounds of consensus (Wikipedia is not the place if your goal is to advance the Baconian theory!) and other core policies. As it is I'm pretty much just left the option of reporting this latest sockpuppet account. --Xover (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm now clear how you're acting out your issues on these forums. You hijack a dispute that isn't yours and act like you're in charge, you choose not to listen to my feelings and motives, you flout Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion and compromise, and all because you desperately need to assign "evil intent" to my expressions of frustration to cast me as your victim. I notice that there's an assumption in your message that you see yourself as superior to me (I search in vain for its justification). It's as if you believe that you speak for everyone else here and that it is YOUR decision as to whether or not I can edit on Wikipedia. How does that work because I've been editing in other parts of the Shakespeare project throughout this dispute?! I've seen this arrogant presumption of yours in messages to other editors, for example, on the Baconian theory Talk page, where you're not “suggesting” but “telling” other editors what to do about their self-deleted messages.[13] Don't you get it why no one has complied? Then, as already mentioned, there's your rather sadistic “I'd be happy to drown you in sources”.[14] What really marks you out as a bully though is your desire to exclude and to encourage others to exclude, because then you can get the group to bully your victim and justify your sadistic behaviour to yourself. You're a controller and you hide behind the Wiki rules to do it.

I also notice that you bask in your own self-congratulation as if these accounts were difficult to find. However, I revealed the first accounts myself, hinted at the next ones by engaging Smatprt's unwittingly-manipulated supporters on talk pages, and for others I quite openly identified myself. So what credit do you deserve? The biggest head-shaker though is “No dice” ... as if I need your permission to edit! Who the hell do you think you are?!

So nothing changes. The authorship articles seems to be in good shape right now but if I notice anyone skewing them by bullying or victim-playing I'll confront them. If I see a misguided and disconnected person like you supporting the abuse of these articles I'll confront them. Rest assured I'm very clear about that.

Congratulations, here's another throw-away account to add to your childish collection. GotYaGame (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Xover. You have new messages at Closedmouth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry, I completely forgot to reply. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

anon edits to Shakespeare Authorship

I see we now have an anon editor, possibly Barry, making repeated edits to this article, which we have both reverted, but which keep coming back. I agree with your summary that the present version is more clear and will revert (again) the latest edit - which was basically an "undo" of what you already reverted....(sigh). Thanks for keeping an eye out. Smatprt (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: th edit you mentioned - Sorry, but I wasn't trying to be misleading - feel free to have a go at recasting the sentence, since you know the particulars on this information.Smatprt (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I think your proposed edit could be making an assumption that has never been proven - that Shakespeare of Stratford could indeed write. I think the anti-stratfordian position is that perhaps one of the reasons no letter by him has ever been found is that he never wrote any. To say that none of his correspondence has been found implies that there was indeed such correspondence. I think saying that "no letter written by him is known to exist" is stating this fact exactly as we know it. I don't see how that is misleading. Does that make sense?Smatprt (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Barry is back - and deleting material from the Shakespeare Authorship article. He's got at least 3 more names going.Smatprt (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

At least 4 more sock puppets of Barry are at it again on both the Shakespeare Authorship page and the Baconian Theaory page. I've reverted but the edits continue and I don't want to violate 3RR. Puppets include RegHiside, Sycorax14, ProsperoY and Kessinger03. At Shakespeare authorship, the last unvandlaized version was here [15], but he's already attacked it. The last (pre-Barry) Baconian article was here [16]. Smatprt (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone doesn't stop this guy Smatprt he'll put "Oxford wrote Shakespeare" in every Shakespeare project article. That's why he's here. It's in Wikipedia's interests to stop him. Please check the changes and try to understand why they're being made. I need your support on this one or at least support no one. RegHiside (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd - I don't think I've ever put "Oxford wrote Shakespeare" in any article! But it's great to finally know why I'm here! I feel like we've got an old time record playing and it keeeps hitting the same skip, over and over again. Ah well. Smatprt (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings and Welcome back. I see we now have the same edits being made again and again (you and I have both reverted and requested discussion, to no avail) fromIP 24.45.221.70. Could this be Barry again? How do we address it? Smatprt (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamnet Shakespeare

I nominated it for GA. Might want to have a look. Wrad (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have the GA watchlisted. --Xover (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DASH

Thanks for this. It did look a bit as if the MOS might have decreed it, but I couldn't face checking it there. (You missed the ones I did yesterday!) I think it looks really ugly without the spaces, but then I think an em dash looks ugly anyway, and I see that an en dash with spaces is quite acceptable, so that's what I'd vote for. Anyway, I'll leave all of them alone from now on. BTW, I'm enjoying doing this, as it's pretty much my favourite Shakespeare play and I'll be seeing it at Stratford in March, so it's quite educational, too. Or at least some of it is - I couldn't believe the inaccuracies in the Synopsis when I started. Best. --GuillaumeTell 19:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)