User talk:BenJonson

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 23:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, You might want to check out the talk page for William Shakespeare. Particularly the discussion at [1] I believe you were supportive of the consensus that included "particularly the Oxfordian Theory, which has grown in the 21st centuury." There is a deletion of this reference being pushed. Smatprt 01:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back BenJonson! Um... you do realize that you are answering posts that are about a year old? Talk about doin the Time Warp! Smatprt (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stephen -- Yes, I did realize that I was responding to statements that date back a ways. I take a long term view of this process. I do hope to stay involved on a more regular basis, however. Please keep me posted on issues of concern.--BenJonson (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brief Chronicles

The article Brief Chronicles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

New journal, only 1 issue published as yet. Does not even have an ISSN. Article creation premature: cannot yet be notable. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not possible to address the concerns of the anonymous proposer for deletion for the simple reason that they are based on a priori assumptions. The respondent employs length of publication as the criterion for notability. However, the criteria say nothing about this. They say that "notability refers to being known for such engagement." The journal in question is excerpted by the two most influential literary bibliographical services in the world for its topic areas. Why is this insufficient to constitute "notability?" --BenJonson (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• What about the PROD is anonymous? I signed the prodwarning above and I edit WP under my own name... In addition I tagged the article for the Academic Journals project, so that a bot would warn the members of that project so that they could edit/improve/remove the prod/whatever. Length of publication is indeed in itself not a criterion, but it is exceedingly rare that a journal immediately attains notability upon the publication of its first issue. Meanwhile, another editor has removed the prod, so I'll take it to AfD and we'll see what the community has to say about this. --Crusio (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake -- I thought I edited it out. I apologize for the confusion on that point. I'm still getting used to how wikipedia operates. I appreciate your diligence, but I do not find your arguments (which seem to shift each time an objection is raised) to be very convincing. You say that it is "extremely rare" for notability to be achieved after the first issue of a publication. Could you give an example of when it did, or under what conditions it might? The truth is that you simply don't know the answer to that, since we are dealing with a new media, and the standards for what constitutes "notability" are intrinsically ambiguous. But given what those standards are, and especially your own wording that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field," it seems to me that you are on shaky grounds. Of course, you could always revise your own standards so as to prevent this entry from being allowed. Is that really what you want to do? Based on what, exactly?--BenJonson (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Brief Chronicles

I have nominated Brief Chronicles, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brief Chronicles. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BC Inclusion Discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brief_Chronicles#Brief_Chronicles

• Ben, I understand you feel strongly about the article, but please consider that nomination for deletion is not a personal matter. Crusio is an experienced and well-respected editor here, and I don't feel that their comments were larded with insults--only one person lards the lean earth as he walks along, as you well know, and it is not Crusio (incidentally, you may be interested in lardon). Please try to keep this as objective as possible and to always assume good faith on the part of editors. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to Crusio in that comment. I found him to be a courteous antagonist, even when we don't agree. However, if you look at what regularly goes on hereshakespeare authorship, with the comments by Nishidani or Tom Reedy, for example, you will see what I mean (and yes, I've given as well as got in that venue, but its always in response to the vulgarities of editors of that sort, who profess to be skeptics but are in fact very from being so. But I will try to keep your advice in mind. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, sorry. I thought, since it was in that AfD, that you were referring to Crusio. I'm staying out of the other discussion--my personal contention is entirely unoriginal: I maintain Christopher Marlowe wrote everything, including Jonson and Milton's works. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Fine with me. He survived his assassination and lived in Italy until 1623, right? --BenJonson (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is to thank ALL those involved in the BC debate, for their passion and intelligence on both "sides."--BenJonson (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Carole Chaski Determined to be Notable. "Speedy Deletion" Shoots from His Hip Again

• Hi Yutsi. Please note the secondary sources included in the article. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have removed the speedy tag; there is enough of a claim to notability there. The article needs work, no doubt, but speedy deletion is too blunt of an axe for that. Drmies

Thanks Drmies. Much appreciated. --BenJonson (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Did you see my note higher up on the page? Drmies (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep.--BenJonson (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Emerson

I'm not sure if your comment was intended for me or for Tom, but you are of course right that Emerson encouraged and supported Delia Bacon to undertake her researches, such as they were. However, that does not alter the fact that the essay from which the extract is taken treats as fact that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works, so it is inappropriate and misleading to use that quotation as evidence of "doubt" about authorship. I was intending shortly to add a brief section on Emerson's links to DB to the history section, along with Disraeli's comments in Venetia, but all these need to be placed in the specific historical context of Shakespeare studies at the time, not as manifestations of some timeless Platonic realm of repeatedly expressed doubt. Paul B (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, thank you for your response. My remarks were primarily directed at editor Reedy's cavalier use of argument by weasel words and insult. One of the purposes of the page should be -- I hope you will agree -- to tell the history of how doubts over time have developed. In that context, Emerson is an important figure -- as are Hawthorne, Bacon herself, and for that matter Walt Whitman. This is true however one interprets words like "Egyptian." This is a topic on which, unlike Tom, I actually know quite a bit, as for over a decade I have researched a major article, currently under review, which covers a good bit of the 19th century history on the topic. There's much more that needs to be added to the article to give a full account of this chapter in the history. I have no objection, and indeed would support, edits that avoid the oversimplification of merely listing Emerson as a doubter or skeptic. His position, not unexpectedly, was a complex one, which included elements of support for the inquiry with indications that he reserved a more traditional view himself. I believe the article should do justice that complexity, and I hope that you agree. Whitman, by contrast, was a "roaring skeptic" and definite anti-Stratfordian.

You might want to avoid taking potshots at Delia Bacon. Her book, while difficult and sometimes tendentious or misleading, is also brilliant. She is a much abused figure, as Whitman himself both understand and unequivocally stated.

By the way, I was interested to learn a bit more about you and the pages you edit. I applaud your efforts to contribute to a better understanding of issues of race and racial prejudice. If you are interested in the application of that subject to authorship, I cannot recommend highly enough Richmond Crinkley's 1985 Shakespeare Quarterly review of Ogburn. It is a pity that so many people who pretend to know something about the history of the authorship question have not read this article or understood its implications.--BenJonson (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I took any pot-shots at Bacon. Do you refer to my phrase "such as it was"? I meant that she she did not do much actual research in Britain. In particular she did not follow the advice of Carlyle and others to undertake archival work to support her claims. Yes, there's a great deal more that could be added to the article, but we also have to aware of the fact that the article is not a book - it has to be fairly concise to be readable. Paul B (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "such as they were." I appreciate your clarification. Original archival research is only one aspect of scholarship. If you reduce her contribution to the history of Shakespearean scholarship by such a minimalist calculus, imho, you are "taking potshots," even if your intent is not to do so. Here is what Walt Whitman said of her vis-a-vis Carlyle and her other critics:

she was “the sweetest, eloquentist, grandest woman…that America has so far produced….and, of course, very unworldly, just in all ways such a woman as was calculated to bring the whole literary pack down on her, the orthodox, cruel, stately, dainty, over-fed literary pack – worshipping tradition, unconscious of this day’s honest sunlight.”

Here is what Emerson said of her:

America had only two "producers" during the 1850s, "Our wild Whitman, with real inspiration but checked by [a] titanic abdomen; and Delia Bacon, with genius, but mad and clinging like a tortoise to English soil."

Wouldn't you agree that such comments by two such notable men deserve a place in Wikipedia, on the Delia Bacon page at least, if not on the SA page? --BenJonson (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Delia Bacon page is currently very short - a great deal could be added, especially about the actual content of her book. By all means add whatever you consider to be relevant. Paul B (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add some of this stuff over the weekend. Glad to agree on somethings at least. :) By the way, please don't take this the wrong way, but I do think I admonished you some days ago about being more careful about your spelling and usage. You see now how badly your carelessness reflects on your cause. To the extent that your cause is opposed to mine, then, I hope you continue to screw up. But I would prefer to have you as an erudite Akeelah who realizes that the authorship question is real, and that just maybe you have something to learn from the Oxfordians. --BenJonson (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben, you make spelling mistakes all the time. Do you want a list? On the very day you made similar remarks on the reliable studies board you added a so-called "grocer's apostrophe" to the possessive "its". Everyone does it when they write quickly. I have rather poor hand-eye coordination, which scuppered my intended careers as rock guitarist and fast-bowler. I also type on a laptop with a sticky keyboard, so I also make many typos. There is, by the way, a big difference between spelling mistakes and typos. Typos indicate an inability to hit keys with precision. They tell us nothing whatever about literacy. Anyone who regards these matters as of more importance than content and evidence is living in topsy-turvey world. Paul B (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that "don't take this in the wrong way" is useless with you. Welcome to the "topsy-turvey world," where spelling does matter, and everyone makes mistakes -- but some people make more than others. --BenJonson (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Critical Survey

Why would anyone create an article and then put tags on it saying that it needs more citations for verification and expanding? Why not add those references when you create the article? And given the discussion about Brief Chronicles, you should now know that indexing is very important in showing notability. The info can be found easily on the journal's website, so why not add it to the journal? Also, the journal has existed for over 20 years, why not mention that? And why not add basic info such as the ISSN?? I really am puzzled about this. --Crusio (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crusio. I did it to save you the effort. BenJonson (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pasquilltp.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Pasquilltp.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BenJonson. You have new messages at IngerAlHaosului's talk page.
Message added 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IngerAlHaosului (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Smtprt.--BenJonson (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Backup listings?

Hi, Ben. I noticed several items popping up in the form of BenJonson:Backup/Oxfordian Theory in the New Pages patrol listings. Curious, what's up? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rawr,

Thank you for your inquiry. The page is under attack here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Merging. My latest information is that hasty decision of user:ScienceApologist to merge the article with the generic Shakespeare Authorship page has been reversed. This is not yet official, but it is my understanding from credible sources. I wanted to make sure all the work on the existing Oxfordian theory could be preserved in some form (even if only temporarily in this form). Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Charlton Ogburn's parents

Hey, "Ben". Perhaps you could add information or start an article on Ogburns parents, since they already had written the 37-page The Renaisance Man of England (1947) and of course the 1300-page This Star of England (1952). There are some biographical notes on the Charlton Ogburn papers website. Not in these notes, but in the Mormon database are their vital data: Charlton Greenwood Ogburn, born 19 Aug 1882 Butler, GA, as the son of yet another Charlton Greenwood Ogburn and Irene Florence Wynn, and died 26 Feb 1962. He married 8 Jun 1910 in Atlanta, GA, with Dorothy Stevens, born 8 Jun 1890, Atlanta, daughter of George Webb Stevens and Abbie Dyson Bean. She died 7 May 1981 and there is an obituary for her on page ten of Shakespeare Oxford Society newsletter, Vol.17, No.3.

Charlton Greenwood Ogburn (1830-1890) seems to be the first Charlton; his father had the delightful name Littleberry. I even found a chapter The Pioneer Days of Littlberry Ogburn, so this family is well described for many generations. And Charlton (1830-1890) had an even more famous son, William Fielding Ogburn (1886-1959)[2], whom I just linked to from the Charlton Ogburn page. I never see Charlton (1911-1998) referred to with a middle name, so perhaps the annotations Sr and Jr are not necessary to distinguish them.

I would write something myself, but am only an occasional visitor to the authorship pages and real life keeps interrupting. Hope you can find time to flesh this out. Afasmit (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Afasmit. I appreciate your suggestion, and your excellent legwork. --BenJonson (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick work! Your stub looks good. I've added categories and the Charlton Ogburn papers website and the Oxford Society newsletter as sources, though there may be better material to refer to. Perhaps a bibliography (with ISBN numbers etc) is good; I don't know if his books on Law are notworthy. He seems to have been quite an influential lawyer though; there may be one or more highlights to pick from the Ogburn papers biographical notes. More importantly, perhaps you could emphasize Dorothy's own career as a novelist a bit more. We could have a redirect from Dorothy Ogburn to here. It may even make sense to have the article named after both, like "Charlton Ogburn and Dorothy Ogburn". I wasn't sure if the Bardauthor tag is appropriate, so I added it in hidden form so far. Afasmit (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My assumption was that we need another page for her; given her importance in the history of the controversy (it was she more than Charlton Sr. who really drove their common interest in the subject), it would seem warranted. If that does not happen, then we certainly need to rename this page and include her with equal prominence as Charlton. What do you think? --BenJonson (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a separate entry for her is much better. Afasmit (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory

I have nominated Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roger. The other way to preserve the article would be to copy it into your talk page, then archive it. Maybe I'll do this at my talk page as well. Smatprt (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I just archived both articles here: [[3]] so no worries as to preserving them. Let me know if there are any others you want me to add to this file. Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you want a personal copy of the article to work upon in your userspace, ask and I'll restore it there. WilyD 21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen. Other admins, please delete away. I just wanted to make sure that a copy of the article as it stood could be preserved, in light of the heavy handed methods which were employed to foist the merger on the wikipedia community (via a decision by ScienceApologist, against the explicit wishes of not only a majority of discussants but Jimbo Wales). Thanks for the notification of plans for deletion.--BenJonson (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendly reminder...

Please use edit summaries. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I see this is old, but belatedly thanks for the reminder (it shows you how often I check this page). It looks like I may be banned for standing up to bullies. In case that doesn't happen, and I am able to continue editing, I will do so more consistently in the future. Cheers, --BenJonson (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I have called for you to be sanctioned for personal attacks on the WP:AE page. Your uncollegial attacks in the section "Nishidani's vandalism" (nice start!) are very much the kind of thing the Arbitration Committee focused on in the recent case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. I assume you have followed it closely? Note especially the principle Talk pages and the remedy Casting aspersions, and please recollect that standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for this and related articles. We're not having that kind of thing on the Shakespeare pages any more. Bishonen | talk 02:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

I have called upon you to recuse yourself and learn something about the topic itself, including the history of the editing of this page in the long term.

When I am bullied and attacked by people like Tom Reedy and Nishidani, I will respond appropriately. The historical behavior of both of them is a case study in personal attacks, argument by innuendo, use of arbitrary definition in place of reasoned discourse, weasel words, etc ad infinitum. I will not participate in a Kangaroo court. Do what you will. If you know anything at all about me you know that unlike either Reedy or Nishidani, I have published more than fifteen articles on the subject under debate in peer reviewed articles. I will continue to do so, the irony being that the very publications Wikipedia labels "not RS" are the ones writing the intellectual history to which the authorship article makes pretense of a contribution. The fact that my views are in presently in a minority within the relevant disciplines is not to the point. Nishidani most certainly has, from any informed perspective, engaged in a systematic pattern of vandalism of this page. It is fine for you or anyone to disagree. To turn those words into a hanging offense is simply to commit a basic error in logical typing. The statement is not an ad hominem, as you seem to think -- its a description of his *behavior* according to my understanding and interpretation of it. If you don't know the difference between those two things then I suggest you review elementary logic and read the opening scene of King Lear and reflect on what the play might be saying about the present circumstance. Best of luck with the program, but don't be surprised by the negative analysis when the intellectual historians review this case, as eventually they will. Its great to a have a club where everyone agrees with everyone else and anyone who sticks up for principle is thrown out on their ear for doing so, accused of being impolite, when the explicit or implicit labels of "creationist," "pseudo-scientist," etc, still ringing in his ears. So, maybe you could explain to me, here on my own talk page, just what is the difference between me saying that that Nishidani has vandalized the page, and him routinely and without the slightest notice or from those supposedly responsible for arbitration, and in the face of repeated attempts to create a more civil atmosphere, referred without the slightest justification to alternatives to his own opinion using such aspersions as those above. I'd really like to understand. By the way, do you know what Anonymous is? --BenJonson (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I will confirm this warning here as an uninvolved administrator, in case you don't want to accept it from Bishonen: if you continue in the above vein, you will very quickly be topic-banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect and Sunrise--

First, nice avatar.

But, second, I don't really care at this point what you guys do. Tag teaming me with chummy "adminsrus" and we stick together because we don't like knowledgeable and impassioned people contributing to "our" encyclopedia is not nice and is not conducive to the development of the resource. It only confirms Wikipedia's critics (among which I count myself on alternate days). Its not me whom it reflects badly on if you ban me. As I said above, I'm not going to participate in any discussion on the topic of banning except possibly on this page, because that would be to acknowledge an authority which at this point in time is utterly spurious for the simple reason that it has signally failed, over a long stretch of history, in its responsibility to impartially and fairly apply the principles on which Wikipedia supposedly operates. When all is said and done, after Anonymous appears and after my book appears, and after my article in a peer reviewed journal chronicling my experiences on Wikipedia is published, and after Brief Chronicles has had two or three more articles excerpted for reprint in series like Gale's Shakespearean Criticism, so that we don't have to hear any more dumb arguments about it not being "RS," I'll bundle it all up in a package to Jimbo Wales and let him think about it. God knows what he should do; far be it from me to figure that out, given the long shadow cast by the law of unintended consequences But at least, unlike many admins here, I suspect he might actually already know something about the topic under discussion and I am absolutely certain that his mind is not as closed as that of most of the admins I have encountered here.

Its quite true that I've been in some people's faces recently. That's because the worst thing Wikipedia could possibly do at this point in time is to follow through with Mr. Reedy's self-serving and pathetic argument that the article is ready to be featured. One by one, a whole string of people like myself who would have contributed in good faith to creating an authentic balance on the page have either thrown their hands up and walked away in dismay at the fanatical practices of Reedy and Nishidani et al or they have stepped over some imaginary semantic line drawn in the sand and gotten themselves banned. I've tried to avoid the latter fate through the former action.

Enjoy -- I have better things to do than wait around for y'all to decide to act on what you already knew before you read anything. Its not personal. I'm sure you're a great guy, but Wikipedia, in this case seems to be broken. Click on the "ban" link to confirm or hold your fire long enough to think and research first. It makes little difference to me, but a great deal of difference to you, and to Wikipedia. Have a nice day.--BenJonson (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced posting

Your posting to User:Richard M. Waugaman, M.D has apparently gone to the wrong place. You probably meant User talk:Richard M. Waugaman, M.D. (note the final period). Could you repost it there, so the mistakenly created page can be deleted? Thanks, -Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration enforcement#BenJonson

You're being discussed by administrators in the above thread. You may respond there if you wish. Editors have claimed you are being disruptive. It has been proposed that you be banned from participating in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)