User talk:Tom Reedy/Archive 2

Congratulations!

Thanks for all of your hard work on SAQ and my congratulations on it making FA. I have added the article to my watchlist and am an admin, so if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. By the way, I never heard back from the Flickr user. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and I appreciate your help immensely. I'll furnish some images in September after I return from holiday vacation. (Gotta remember I can write like a Yank now!) Tom Reedy (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Input, please?

Any better? Bishonen | talk 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

Redirects

Yea, I know, but I don't really mind that one. You click on 'move', which is invisible on some screens. It depends how your page is set up. If it's not visible you click on the down-pointing triangle between the star and the search box. I'm not sure whether or not I want to change the portraits one back. Something about the rhythm is satisfying! Paul B (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Groan. Sorry, but I did not properly parse Paul's comment before I moved the page back (it is now Portraits of Shakespeare, and Portraits of William Shakespeare is a redirect to that page). Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Andre Dubus

Not quite my field of expertise Tom, but wasn't it his sister who was raped, instead of his eldest daughter? Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

you are conflating him with his son, Andre Dubus III, who is also a (better, IMO) writer. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him. Proponents (called "anti-Stratfordians") say that Shakespeare was a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for some reason did not want or could not accept public credit. Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims. Despite the scholarly consensus, the controversy has spawned a vast body of literature, and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed, including Francis Bacon, the 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the 17th Earl of Oxford. In 2010 James S. Shapiro surveyed the topic in Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, in which he criticised academia for ignoring the topic and effectively surrendering the field to anti-Stratfordians, marking the first time a recognised Shakespeare scholar has devoted a book to the topic. Filmmaker Roland Emmerich's next movie, Anonymous, starring Rhys Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave, portrays Oxford as the real author. (more...)

Magnificent achievement award

		The Literary Barnstar
		While the Foolhardy Award was briefly considered, this Literary Barnstar was chosen to acknowledge your excellent and tireless work in elevating Shakespeare authorship question from quagmire to FA, and on to the Main Page! Thanks for enriching Wikipedia and its readers. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed history merge

Would you please examine a proposal to merge the history of SAQ sandbox draft2 into the SAQ article at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question#Proposed history merge (and comment there). Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Discovering hot water

Elliott and Valenza over again, by appearances, but perhaps they have something even more discriminating. You might be interested in the article, and checking follow-ups, for the attribution articles. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Undone Edit by Aspernessling

Dear Sir:

Please understand several things. I appreciate your involvement. I see where I erred as to process. I have never edited Wikipedia before. I'm thrilled to see there is a pre-process vice just posting, which I must have misunderstood many months ago when first reviewing it. I see the site states, "Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion," but I missed where it explicitly references how or where. I will read thru it all. Is it the Talk pages? That would be GREAT. The e-mail I received is unclear as to whether it's from you with a heads up on process (if so thanks), or from the system with an automated heads up, or from the administrators with an arbitrary, one-sided decision and a threat (it directs me to a page supposedly with the revision but which actually contains a warning with the phrase, "If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area...," as though a decision was already made by administrators, but it references a February decision). I think it's just internally confusing to as literal a person as me.

ARTICLE: What concerns me is WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED. The subject fascinates me as unfinished history, and I can see one set of circumstances under which Shakespeare could have been the principal author, even as I suspect a more nuanced explanation. Remember he was once viewed as the Sole author and is now understood, after much denial and wrangling, to have collaborated on several plays both early and late -- a more nuanced understanding that has become orthodoxy; no longer irrational heresy.

My edit carefully avoided taking sides -- it was descriptive of the field. It was intended to more acurrately summarize the alternate authorship arguments. Yes my edit removed the reference to "fringe belief" which may or may not be statistically accurate (certainly true when Stratfordians include the VAST majority who are unaware of the controversy, but not necessarily when looking only at those engaged) but seems inflammatory vice say, "very small minority." And yes I added to the "disdain" reference that scholarship discourages intellectual inquiry into the issue, which James Shapiro explained in "Contested Will" in 2010. No, I provided no note but the editors are clearly very aware of Shapiro's work and not every line requires a note or the site would need 2,000+. I'll look up the procedure. I added that proponents of various theories are disparaged, as Scott McCrea's work, referenced widely on the page, perfectly illustrates, not to mention Schoenbaum's reference to "heretics" or even as implied by the phrase, "fringe belief." [Lastly, I can understand why a Stratfordian, which you may or may not be, might object to the statement: "The article below represents the orthodox Stratfordian view of the anti-Stratfordian argument," but ONLY if it appeared on the Shakespeare page, not on the authorship controversy page, or if it were irrelevant or untrue. It is relevant and the article does represent the Stratfordian view of the viewS; a conflation of the unreasonable, the long discarded, and the truly fringe along with the reasonable inquiry, seen as one jumbled view which no one person likely holds. BUT, there is a process… AAAAH I THINK I JUST GOT IT. I think the opinion is the article doesn't have to and shouldn't include a statement that it's primarily a Stratfordian view, because those with a wider view can be in on its composition and help, thru agreement, ensure it doesn't, theoretically.  ?] Stephen Gibson Aspernessling 27 Jul 11 Aspernessling (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

'an overarching theory that fastens on one basic factor as responsible for the entire event appeals to those lazy enough to feel comfortable with ignoring evidence in disciplines they cannot control.' Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton University Press 1992 p.421Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Remember he was once viewed as the Sole author and is now understood, after much denial and wrangling, to have collaborated on several plays both early and late -- a more nuanced understanding that has become orthodoxy; no longer irrational heresy." This is completely untrue. The idea that Shakespeare collaborated on a number of plays has never been "heresy". The Two Noble Kinsmen was originally published as a collaboration, and the idea that Shakespeare collaborated on early works such as Titus and H-VI1 was very widely discussed in the 17th and 18th centuries. If you trouble to read - say - Dowden's books from the late Victorian era you will see that he gives a model of collaborations that is broadly similar to modern consensus. Of course modern techniques have made it easier to identify the exact details of collaboration, but the basic idea has been commonplace for centuries. As for "fringe", what you say is again inaccurate: that it is only "true when Stratfordians include the VAST majority who are unaware of the controversy". Every Shakespeare scholar is "aware of the controversy"; they just generally just don't take much notice of it. The statement "The article below represents the orthodox Stratfordian view of the anti-Stratfordian argument," would always be unacceptable, because all articles are supposed to represent all ponts of view, but with due emphasis on the mainstream view. So if the article only represented the "orthodox Stratfordian view", then it should be changed. Of course it doesn't. However, if we accepted your sentence we would have to add the same statement to all articles which present "orthodox" views: "The article below represents the orthodox view that Barack Obama is an American citizen"; "The article below represents the orthodox Eyptological view that the pyramids were not built by aliens" etc. It is not how encyclopedia articles are ever written. Paul B (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pled vs. Pleaded

In regard to this edit summary, both forms are technically correct. The legal community prefers "pled", journalists/writers prefer "pleaded". Since the context in the article concerns a court proceeding and legal action, I am going to revert your edit back to "pled". Nothing personal, of course :-) Lhb1239 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't change it. An IP user beat me to it for the same reasons. Have a great day. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, it was me who just reverted him. I was about to come and comment on the same thing. Tom, see these sources that show it's okay to use "pled":[1][2][3] 210.43.128.18 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on your page: I don't really care one way or another, but in an encyclopedia I usually expect the standard to comply with accepted reference works such as the OED instead of google. I don't get bent out of shape by either use, but in the area I work in (law enforcement) "pled" is used in conversation while "pleaded" is used in court documents. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what I stated on my talk page: I'm not understanding the part of your comment that says "accepted reference works such as the OED instead of google." It's not like I was saying Google is my reference. Google, of course, is a tool that we use to look for references. In my edit summary, I told you to Google it because Googling it will take you to reliable sources, like the dictionary references I provided you with (including Merriam-Webster), showing that "pled" is correct and is perfectly acceptable. It's pretty much always best to Google something to make sure you are correct in an assertion, unless you know for a fact that you are. 210.43.128.18 (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilding the lily

I supplied Hopkin's words verbatim, but I suppose we can tone it down. All that stuff is useless really, and I disliked adding it but Erik wanted something like that, quite insistently. Since I dislike copying and pasting from other articles, as he suggested, I used her, one of many. Tinker, delete, remassage according to your trade lights, pal.Nishidani (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm trying to comply with WP:FRINGE, which states that "restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment." It's a big, fat, target, how well I know! Tom Reedy (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers on film pages....

I think it would be best for you to take the spoilers off the page. People are going to look up this film, before and after they see the film and it's awful to have a film ruined for you, just because they googled the film and trust wikipedia.

Also, I was at a Q&A today where the writer, director and main actors were and they freely admitted that they took artistic license. I honestly am not on any side in the Shakespeare debate, but I think it's wrong to have spoilers in the second paragraph without at least putting SPOILER ALERT in the paragraph. If you want to put in negative issues and put your opinion that's one thing, but putting spoilers up on wikipedia is wrong. Everyone should be able to experience a film on their own. Because that is what it is, a film. Anonfan (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Anonfan

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonfan (talk • contribs)

Every movie article on Wikipedia has spoilers. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plot points and then their are twists and spoilers.I am a filmmaker and a writer and I have read hundreds of Wiki articles over the years, especially films. Never have I felt induced to start an account just to make an edit. I was that disturbed by the amount of the story given away. If I hadn't seen the film, you would have totally ruined it for me. That's awful. Do you like knowing twists and turns of a story before you experience it? Doubtful. This is not a film based off of a classic. It's not Romeo and Juliet or Jane Eyre where everyone knows the twists. It's an easy fix, just take out the fact that he's shown as Elizabeth's son and that he fathered Southampton with her. This is the kind of film people are going to research. I saw the film and got on google right away to look into the theory, the film, the people ,etc.I have already seen the film, you're not hurting me. There's no reason to ruin it for everyone else. Anonfan (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Anonfan

Tom's probably punching zeds. The most positive review yet to come out, by Kristopher somebody, says that many people, even the author of that review, had trouble following the plot because of the way sequences are jumbled temporally. Your assumption is that hundreds of millions of potential viewers of the film will have their impressions spoiled. Well, the statistics page indicates that about 5,000 people visited the page each day over the past month, peanuts compared to the future audience. What the plot gives away is a skeleton outline for a story which most will find as incomprehensible as the theory itself is for accomplished scholars. Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who can read and is interested in the subject knows by now what the film is about: everything in the article is cited to a media source. Those who don't read won't read the Wiki article, either. If Emmerich and Orloff had not positioned this film as correcting the historical record, I doubt so many critics would have dissed it so heavily or been so nit-picky on historical accuracy, but (for marketing reasons on Emmerich's part, I suspect; I doubt he's much of a true believer in anything except his own genius) they chose to go a more controversial route, even to the extent of sending out teaching kits to schools which strongly suggest there's a serious debate about this subject. Since their actions have raised so much controversy, it is incumbent on Wikipedia to cover it in detail, along with giving the reasons for it. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Many discussions re spoilers have occurred at Wikipedia, and the conclusion is that an encyclopedic article should cover its topic, and it is expected that such coverage will result in spoilers. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer which contains Wikipedia contains spoilers. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

'Support'

I removed your addition of the word 'Support' to my comment. I do; however, I didn't use that word—deliberately. User:Jimbo Wales started this silly poll, and no one is obliged to follow the format he suggested. By omitting the big-bold-word, people have to actually read what I said instead of scanning the poll without fully reading it. Good luck with this. Alarbus (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry for my presumption. I thought you had just forgotten. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Best, Alarbus (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On a different page, but related to the same word, do you think you could change your ambiguous "Support" at the AfD for the chronology thing to "Delete"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

wikt:ta#Interjection –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

why???

+++

why???

May I ask why you keep editing the Anonymous page to reflect your personal issues on the film and subject?

You keep editing out any response to your one-sided arguments- none of which should exist in the first place. You get your chance to edit... and then others get theirs-- or do only you get a chance?

Can you and I have a discussion about why you keep removing the totality of John Orloff's response to Shapiro? Or why you include such lengthy bad reviews )and no good ones)? Is that normal on Wiki? The answer is no, usually reviews are NOT part of a wiki page.

And why do you keep re-inserting the "errors" that are nothing of the such? For example, one of the errors is that the film purports that Romeo is all in iambic pentameter-- it does nothing of the sort-- that is Shapiro's error, not the films.

Shpiro's OPINIONS have no place in your article-- unless you allow a response in the interest of intellectual honesty. no?

Can u and i figure out a way to reflect the film accurately? Or is only Shapiro's opinion the one that counts?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkero (talk • contribs) 12:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else, or perhaps you think I edit under a pseudonym. I am not a major editor of that page; I merely reverted a series of vandalism that excised a large amount of material. You should post your questions on the talk page of that article. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Emmerich´s "Anonymous"

Good morning, Tom Reedy. The reason for my inserting line breaks in the above article was very simple. The date "7 April" read "7 (end of line) April (beginning of a new line)". There is another possibility to improve such a thing, I know about it now.

I am not so new to Wikipedia as you assumed. All the time I have only done rather small editings, also in other languages than English, according to my limited time and limited interest in such occupation. However, I regard Wikipedia to be very useful for everybody and also useful for myself. Very ofted I simply read articles and discovered mistakes, misspellings or false informations.

As to "Anonymous" and to the whole Shakespeare question, I don´t know exactly what your standpoint is. As to me, I simply can´t believe that somebody whose six known signatures were like they were documented (yes, documented) could have been the author of the whole marvellous "William Shake-Speare canon". What would occur to the world if it was someone else? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. We'd continue to read a play or two a month, and think of the plays, not the author,just as we don't read the Nausikaa episodes of the Odyssey wondering about the putative Sicilian princess to whom it was once attributed. I can't remember at school being told much at all about Shakespeare. We just read the plays. Hero-worship died out with Carlyle. However,-. . . .

So it was Bacon after all, and Will
A mere dumb presence on the rowdy stage;
At best old Adam, mostly just a page;
His Warwick burr was perfect for a dill.
A courtly eye and ear would quickly gauge
The uses of such boors for good and ill.
Th’Attorney General hired him as a shill,
His cut of the profits made a princely wage.

And though the price he’d pay was rather stiff
-A loss of copyright, the future blind
To his true genius – the chance to riff
On all the characters courts and human kind
Offered to his wit would make him sniff:
oh last infirmity of a noble mind!