User talk:Xover/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Hello Again!

Hi, Xover! Nice to hear from you again, as we haven't interacted since our paths briefly crossed in working on Characters of Shakespear's Plays. I can't believe it's been nearly a year and a half. I don't know if you've looked at the article recently, but I really took the ball and ran with it, or whatever the appropriate metaphor. That included finally making use of that picture of Francis Jeffrey that you came up with. I take very, very long to do things here, but as you see, once I make up my mind to do something, I'm stubborn and don't give up easily.

Anyhow, now that I've finally gotten that article to a point where I feel it says what I think it should say, I have been glancing around at some of the other things going on here on Wikipedia. I don't recall how I noticed the Shakespeare Authorship Question article, but when I did I found it very interesting and mostly very well written. I chimed in because with my special interest in the Romantic period, the way that passage was phrased just did not seem right to me, as I explained. I will soon think about fixing it and then I will look for other similar rough spots.

I will say right now, though, that I have no intention of getting involved in the controversial aspects of this article. To be honest, I was hesitant about stepping into this arena at all without a bullet-proof vest. It's dangerous out there, and even around the time I posted my message on the talk page I noticed some sniper fire whiz over my head, so to speak. :-) Tom and you and your colleagues are a brave crew indeed. Even now, as I am about to go back and see what's happened since last night, I will be walking very gingerly; it's like stepping out into a minefield. You lead an exciting life. SAQ is no dull backwater. Whatever else it is, it's never boring; but getting deeply involved would be for me a bit too exciting right now.

So... I will be happy to stay out there on the sidelines, providing another pair of eyes where I think my perspective might help, and stepping in now and then with a minor fix or touch-up. But, really, though I know and love Shakespeare as much as most Wikipedians, probably, I have no desire to get heavily involved in the authorship question or, really, in that much else in this area, if only because I am only one person, and my really major interest is in the Romantic period. Later... --Alan W (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for your kind own comments on what I did with Characters. I see what you mean about your interest in biography. I read the article on Judith Quiney, to which I see you made major contributions, and you and your collaborators have done well. It certainly deserves the GA status. I'll have to read more in that area.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I do have the background that makes it easier for me to deal with literary criticism, I suppose. Wherever we can help with our strengths, it is (not always, but frequently) appreciated, and that is one of the things I like about working here. I will take a look at the Edmond Malone article eventually and see if I can offer any suggestions.

I hardly know what to say about Ottava. We had a good working relationship with him, and he certainly could get along—but, I'm afraid, only with certain people. I have read much of the evidence in the ArbCom case, and I think I'd be fooling myself if I tried to maintain the belief that he didn't have problems, serious ones, interacting with others in certain contexts. I myself have seen, related to things I was working on, how he dealt with some others, and he really said things that no one should say in such situations without serious provocation, and I saw no such provocation. "Ornery" is a very mild way of putting it. It's too bad, because he did have a lot to offer here. He has a true love of the literature, he saw topics that were, almost incredibly, without adequate coverage on Wikipedia, and he was good at researching his topics, digging up all sorts of relevant and interesting things to say. I thought he worked too hastily much of the time, leaving to others the task of cleaning up rather rough areas in the writing, to put it mildly, along with the factual errors that inevitably creep in when one works that way; but since I have strengths in the kind of editorial polishing and cleaning up that was needed, I thought that we made a good team. In other articles, too, he would work well with certain others in this way (I noticed that Malleus Fatuorum played the polishing-and-cleaning role well in some of those articles, to take just one example that comes to mind, and the whole was greater than the sum of the parts). Anyway, I guess we just have to make the best of it without him, now that things turned out this way.

I had better stop now (I do get carried away), as I have not yet checked what is going on the SAQ page since I made my edit last night. I did notice, though, that since I edited the talk page (which I did before and again after the article page) there have been over fifty new edits. A rather, er, busy talk page, I would say, to put it mildly. OK, "see" you soon... Alan W (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read your comments in the SAQ Arbcom case. Well said! I'm glad to see that someone like yourself with an overall and long-running dedication to Shakespeare (in general, rather than specifically the SAQ) has spoken up. Your perspective is a bit different from that of most others, and is all the more welcome for that. After long hesitation, I finally tossed in my own two cents, after seeing productive work on the article grind to a virtual halt shortly after I entered the fray. And "fray" it is. You're right, brouhahas like this serve only to drive away good editors. I hope that the case will be settled in such a way this project can finally get back on its feet. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read your latest. Extremely well thought through and well expressed. I think you are absolutely on target with respect to the problems arising from the vastly different perspectives of the various parties to and judges on the case. Regards, Alan W (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: your latest comments on my talk page.... Agreed, but equally relevant and well expressed are your points about the perspective of ArbCom, reminding us that they cannot really know what we do, the weight they would naturally tend to give anything found in the New York Times, and so on. You've spotlighted some really serious impediments to the fair resolution of this case, allowing as a given the good faith of the arbitrators.

And as for the anti-Stratfordians, over the past few days I've looked back at some of the history of this dispute (as much as I could absorb without going stark-raving mad). At times I have been inclined to think, well, they've been acting in good faith. But I'm changing my mind, at least about some major participants here. There is something insidious about the persistent sophistry, the distorting of facts I see in some of the posts, including some of the most recent in the case. There may be good faith up to a point, but I'm guessing that to some, the end justifies the means, and some of the means, when you look behind the curtain, are ugly. For example, there may be a series of quotes, with diffs. But if you take the trouble to look at the diffs, the quotes utterly misrepresent the contents of the diffs! That, together with the "carpet-bombing", adds up to some really nasty behavior. It is very disheartening to see what is happening here. Keep fighting the good fight! I've thrown in my two cents, as I've mentioned; but you, as an ardent and committed Shakespearean and well acquainted with these issues, are well qualified to contribute much more, as you have been. Keep going! You're doing great! I'm in the wings, hanging on every word and, you may be sure, applauding. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:48, 25 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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair...

Reedy brought up Jimbo first. Nevertheless, your conclusions seem pretty accurate. Wrad (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware, but you could also find plenty of draining and poisonous SAQ debate to share at Hamlet, The Tempest, and the Shakespeare project talk page. Wrad (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Tempest shouldn't be too bad. It has only one archive. The only thing I might add to your review of the merge discussion would be links to the edit stats of the editors you bring up. We may also want to invite ScienceApologist to comment, since he has been brought up directly or indirectly by four editors now. Wrad (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess he's indef blocked. Ick. I'm really tempted to just quietly start working on Macbeth or King Lear while all this junk is going down. I've generally made it a habit to stay away from SAQ stuff. It just isn't any fun over there. Wrad (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Banquo. I was frustrated that reviewers said "there are x number of hits for Banquo on JSTOR and I don't see them all cited." I really scoured those sources! I don't really think that's a fair way to judge if an article is comprehensive. More like a quick and dirty way... Wrad (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edmond Malone

Hi. I did my best to answer your query about whether or not the standard modern bios of Samuel Johnson have anything to say about Johnson's relationship with Edmond Malone, on the Johnson talk page. I also provided a link to a 19th century biography of Richard Porson that has some stuff on Malone you may or may not find useful. Lexo (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I just did a quick read-through. Until this arb case is over I won't have time to do much anywhere else, but every once in a while I like to take a break and hit Lear of something else non-confrontational. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Two more if you want them

[1] 1 edit: Oxfordian vote

[2] 3 edits, all on 1 Oxfordian vote he apparently had a hard time.

I don't have room, and I'm gonna have to cut some as it is. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Characters in Romeo and Juliet

Hi. I've been doing some cleaning-up of this much-vandalised article (is R&J a set text at every school in the English-speaking world?) and am not sure that I've spotted everything. If you aren't too busy with the SAQ and ArbCom, you might have a look through it, as I see that it was you who expanded the article in August 2009.

However, the real reason I'm typing this is the (what seems to me) bizarre inclusion, slap bang in the middle of the Tybalt section, of a para on Luigi da Porto. Since this also appears in Tybalt and Count Paris (but not Mercutio), it must have been done deliberately, but it reads very oddly, particularly in the Characters article, but also in the Tybalt article, slightly less so in the Paris one. It's more or less identical to the text in the Sources section of the main R&J article, but, unlike that section, doesn't say what story was adapted.

Maybe I'm just being dense? Best. --GuillaumeTell 19:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(hasty reply, apologies if it is incoherent) It's been a while, and I haven't had a chance to look into in detail, but as I recall it's essentially just padding; and an attempt to insert some useful information in among all the “Juliet was very pretty and sad, Romeo is dreamy, Tybalt is a meanie” that had accumulated. My draft there was not actually intended to be a final version as such; just a draft of a particular layout for the article. All the individual character articles are in desperate need of more actual relevant information (of which da Porto is one example, even if poorly incorporated). Now, having said that; I think it would be better to focus on the individual character articles and make them into something decent (several of them could be GAs easily; some are potential FAs), and then just cut and paste (essentially) the lede from the article into the respective section of the article. Anything we do on the overview article is likely to just end up being patchwork, but on the individual articles we might be able to focus. In any case, I have no particular investment in that as it stands, so feel free to hew at it as you see fit. If you want to take a serious stab at any of the individual character articles I'm interested—if a bit short on time—and willing to help out. Particularly if you happen across any good sources to use for such articles. --Xover (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

dissing

Yes, it can be used in both senses in colloquial English, of course. But that's a recent drift of meaning. I am saying that the precise word is best to avoid ambiguity in a formal statement. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, the guy in the 17th cenutry was just wrong earlier than anyone else! Paul B (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidence length

Your evidence presently stands at ~1450 words, which is over the 1000 words limit imposed on every editor's submission. Please could you shorten your evidence? This comment is made in my capacity as the case clerk. Thanks, AGK [•] 00:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've pruned it as best I can and—presuming I've understood correctly that pure tabular data, headings, and numbered diffs do not count towards the word limit—I now stand, by my count, at just over 900 words. Will that be sufficient or will I need to further trim it? —Xover (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

AGK has indicated on their talk page that they may be unavailable for a couple of days. I seem to recall seeing text like "tabular data" somewhere, but I cannot find it now, and WP:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Evidence just says "under 1000 words and 100 diffs". Perhaps you might ask at User talk:X! (the other clerk). Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your personal attack on my talk page

I'm just trying to be helpful. You know me: I'm always thinking of others! Tom Reedy (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In between your disparaging insults and off-line conspiracy mongering, would you mind going here and striking through the tasks you have finished? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

SAQ citations

You are doing some amazingly good work cleaning up the SAQ citations. I hope you don't mind, but since Talk:Shakespeare authorship question is congested, I would like to mention a minor issue here. There is no need to reply (although if you do, I will see it)—I just want you to have the opportunity to consider anything I happen to notice. You unlinked (removed [[...]]) from Cambridge University Press in "The Cambridge History of the English Language: 1476–1776", and from Oxford University Press in "Reconsidering Shakespeare's Monument". I had thought that all such instances should be linked? In the hope it might be of assistance, I have finished removing the hyphens from the ISBNs, and have expanded each accessdate, but I am leaving the tricky stuff for you. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for fixing the ISBNs and dates. As for the links, as (IIRC) Nikkimaria says on the talk page, links should be given either on each occurrence or on first instance—the main thing being consistency—and I've last had flack from reviewers for too many links, so I'm trying for first use only. --Xover (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I put in a zillion publisher links the other day. I can do routine stuff reliably and easily, so if you confirm here that I should do it, I will remove all publisher links except the first (although it won't be for 24 hours or so). Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I need to go through all of it manually a couple of times anyway (there are a bunch of edge cases to deal with) so it may be better to wait until I'm through and then do a spin over it to get any that I missed. --Xover (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous cowards

If you get tired of reverting those IPs on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, drop me a line and I'll semi it. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC).

Nah, twice isn't that bad. But thanks for the offer: if they keep it up it may become necessary. --Xover (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Masterful

One reason it is good to work here is the great people you meet—thanks for your masterful comments and contributions at the various SAQ pages, where I am learning many interesting things from Tom Reedy, Nishidani, yourself, and others. Your diplomacy and insight have been invaluable in recent efforts to polish the article and resist disruption! Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements for images at FAC

I do some image reviews at FAC to help out - mostly on articles where I review the rest and there are fairly straightforward licenses and sources. I looked at the image in the SAQ article and some of them are fine, like File:Francis Bacon, Viscount St Alban from NPG (2).jpg, which dots every i and crosses every t. At the other end of the spectrum, as it were, are images with no source infroamtion at all, like File:Edward de Vere.JPG which only says it is a scan, but does not say who the artist was, when it was created, or what book or other source it was scanned from. Looking elsewhere it seems like the artist was Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger. If you or someone in the BARD project has a book that has this image, perhaps it could be re-scanned and sourced to that? I also wondered as there are two different portraits of de Vere used in the article (one in the lead composite image, another further down in the article) when the same image is used twice for the others in the composite. Even worse in terms of license issues is File:Shakespeare-1747-1656.jpg. The right image is an engraving from 1656 by "W Dugdale" but the left is a photograph and there is no indication of who took it or when - the composite looks like something scanned from a book to me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some more information on both Oxford portraits here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to do a review of all the images - probably best on the SAQ talk page? I can at least point out the ones that need more information. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) 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 Smatprt (talk · contribs). 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 [•] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Phew!

Thank goodness for that explanation, which explains, at least to myself, why the way it was, though in line with bigger numbers enumerated, just looked odd. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, that's exactly why those numbers are not abbreviated in ranges. The cognitive dissonance is just… too much. --Xover (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Our use of the {{cite}} templates

Hi Xover, if you get the chance perhaps you could respond again on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/example style#Specific problems with citation templates. JJ was asking why we feel the need to use {{cite book}} rather than the more generic {{cite}} template. As I recall, you were the one who changed all the entries in the References, so you can answer this better than I could. There must have been a good reason why you put in all that work. Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed there'd been more discussion there, so it's “on the list”, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. But the change in citation templates was in itself not a big deal; the big job was filling in missing bibliographic information, the change in which template to use was incidental to that. The reason essentially boils down to using specific citation templates versus more broad ones, and the resulting formatting (i.e. everything separated by commas regardless of the details). --Xover (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Alan W (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens in ISBNs

It's easy to miss stuff on the SAQ talk page, so I wanted to ask you to please check Talk:Shakespeare authorship question#Hyphens in ISBNs. It's not an important issue, but you may want to add your thoughts. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

While looking at what had happened, I noticed that two ISBNs are the same (different chapters in same book, so it's ok). However, the citations are formatted differently. Side-by-side comparison:

*{{Cite book |chapter = Authorship controversy  *{{Cite book |chapter = Education
  |last = Dobson                                  |title = Oxford Companion to Shakespeare
  |first = Michael                                |series = Oxford Companions to Literature
  |editor1-last = Dobson                          |editor1-last = Dobson
  |editor1-first = Michael                        |editor1-first = Michael
  |editor2-last = Wells                           |editor2-last = Wells
  |editor2-first = Stanley                        |editor2-first = Stanley
  |title = Oxford Companion to Shakespeare        |last = Wells
                                                  |first = Stanley
                                                  |authorlink = Stanley Wells
  |publisher = Oxford University Press            |publisher = Oxford University Press
  |year = 2001                                    |year = 2001
  |pages = 30–1                                   |pages = 122–4
  |isbn = 978-0-19-811735-3                       |isbn = 978-0-19-811735-3
  |ref = harv                                     |ref = harv
}}                                              }}

It's probably worth making these the same. Rather than blunder around myself, I thought I would ask you to do the work! Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, provided I understood your concern correctly. Note that the order of the parameters in the wikicode does not (or at least should not) affect the actual display of the citation, so the only substantive difference between the two is the lack of the series name (Oxford Companions to Literature) in the former. Having a consistent order of the parameters is of course mnemonially useful for those editing the references, but it shouldn't really affect display. --Xover (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand about the wikitext, and perhaps should have made it clearer that the "series" was the substantive difference. However, consistency is good! Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

untitled comment

Am I correct in inferring that the talk page on this matter has had numerous comments deleted, including several by myself, in the last couple of hours. If so, may one inquire the justification for this selective removal of content? Just how far are Wikipedia editors who don't know anything (or very much) about a subject authorized to arbitrarily delete comments from users who actually do know something and are posting comments critical to the community's knowledge of a topic? I don't understand how a supposedly democratic and intellectual process allows something like that. But be that as it may a simple clarification of whether said comments were removed or not, and what the justification was, would be much appreciated.

Thank you for your assistance.--131.118.144.253 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There were several comments removed from the FAC review page by the FAC Delegate on the grounds that they were improper and improperly placed. My suggestion would be to turn your focus to the bit above where you say “I don't understand”, and consider ways to remedy that, rather than focus on your grievances. The key hint I might provide you is to ask questions and attempt to understand, rather than make assertions and accusations. --Xover (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sensational

What a sensational comment you have recently added at the absurd arbcom case (and, no, I'm not talking about Shakespeare). Due to the circles I inhabit, I have encountered the participants before, and used to watch the talk page of the former admin. I had to unwatch it because it was too painful to see the mounting problems (and that was a month before the current situation). I suppose I should support your comment, but meanwhile I want to thank you for taking the trouble to explain that private deliberations are, well, private. Johnuniq (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you're talking about another ArbCom case, Johnuniq, but I would like to mention also my appreciation of many of Xover's responses to outrageously un-Wikipedian behavior on the SAQ and SAQ Arbcom pages. As I read your postings, Xover, I formed an image of you rising in righteous indignation, issuing stunning rebukes, and achieving genuine eloquence in defense not only of that article, not only of articles on Shakespeare, but of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia itself. This helps all of us, and I, for one, would like to express my gratitude here. --Alan W (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

SAQ FAC

Thanks for doing the cleanup-- that will make it easier for me to get through! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. Anything that makes going through that mess a little less unbearable for you (I am so glad I don't have your job right now)… --Xover (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want it right now :) When I sit down to read tonight, I'll probably pr/ar everything else, to lighten the page, and then read that one thoroughly after a break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just remember: Scotch is for sipping, relaxing, and deep thoughts... Jack is what you drink when you need to work through the pain. --Xover (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

But I'd have to call the locksmith to unjam the lock on my liquor cabinet! I just may have to do that after this week ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)