User talk:BenJonson

Greetings, and welcome to my Talk Page

It appears that a very determined group of Wikipedia editors and adminstrators, including some who have posted below on my this page, are currently collecting a list of my alleged crimes and misdemeanors against Wikipedia. So far I have not read the most damning of all claims that might be lodged against me: namely, that I have not stopped beating my wife. I sincerely desire to continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have done everything within my power to accommodate these gentlemen, whom I can only assume in many other contexts of their lives are upstanding citizens, talented and rational writers, and in some cases, sometimes, even scholars. However, the current procedures are nothing more than a parody of an authentic search for "consensus" on matters of public and intellectual importance. They no more resemble either a legitimate scholarly process or an impartial adjudication of impassioned debate than Bottom does Duke Vincentio --BenJonson (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill

First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common. -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. http://www.bartleby.com/130/

“I accuse him of a deliberate attempt not to present the Oxford case fairly and squarely, as honest opponents of ideas do that with the cases they controvert, but to set it forth so flimsily, and even grotesquely, that hardly anyone but an imbecile would very well believe in it if it rested on nothing more substantial. This is the kind of argumentation one associates with political maneuvering rather than a serious quest for the truth on great issues and it makes one suspect that he is not very easy in his own mind about the case.” –J.T. Looney, reply to O.J. Campbell, 1948 http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/etexts/si/00.htm

http://shake-speares-bible.com/--BenJonson (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

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

Done. Thank you.--BenJonson (talk) 21:47, 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)

Thank you for the notification. I think I have said all I have to say on this subject in any venue but this one. As I stated above, said action will only reflect poorly on Wikipedia and on those editors responsible for such an action. This is because the Wikipedia standards in this case have been twisted to support a POV that is anything but neutral. Bullying and misinformation, and a whole history of edits with primarily censorious purposes, have brought the page to its present impoverished state. It is merely another extension of what Richmond Crinkley, former Folger Library Director of Educational Programs, termed in a 1985 Shakespeare Quarterly article, the "bizarre mutant racism" by which Shakespearean orthodoxy has maintained its ad hoc control over the public discourse of authorship.

As I already pointed out on the page for which you are discussing my banning, moreover,Administrators have been guilty parties to in this process. Instead of applying their responsibilities with even a pretense of fairness, they have presumed a particular POV only because it is sanctioned by authority and embraced with enthusiasm by a handful of editors who are simply more savage in their single minded enforcement of intellectual conformity than those of the contending party have been in defending the values of open discourse. High-handed banning of other editors, through the kind of process that has been set in motion against me, has contributed extensively to the degradation of the article and its monopolization by one side in the discussion.

Anyone who thinks that banning my participation will solve the problems of the page or defend the values on which Wikipedia depends for its operation is sorely mistaken. Possibly said action might allow the Nishidani/Reedy railroad to achieve its logical denouement so that the article achieves featured status. If that does happen, banning me will only be a blip in the cosmic process that is undermining Wikipedia from within. Rather than participate in a discussion that I know is prejudiced against me from the start (why should a Black man expect justice in an all White courtroom?) I'll put my energies into the presentation/article I'm developing about the state of Wikipedia.

In brief: When it comes to knowledge as usual, Wikipedia is the most useful tool in the history of the human race. When it comes to issues that involve fundamental disagreements over fact and value, Wikipedia is in the stone age. Perhaps that is inevitable. I really don't know. But I won't contribute to the perpetuation of that state if I can help it. And if anyone discussing my banning wants to strike a blow against it, do what you will with me, but don't support the canonization of Reedy and Nishidani's idolatry.--BenJonson (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello BenJonson, Knitwitted has smiled at you! Smiles promote Girl Love and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the Sunshine by smiling at someone else's girl, whether it be someone you have had agreements with in the past or an awesome girl friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WTF are you going on about?

"including Mr. Reedy's extensive email communications with Professor Shapiro, prior to the time during which he and others larded the new page with numerous references to Shapiro's book" and "your notion of what is meant by neutrality is particularly skewed by your inability to even start to admit the gratuitous errors of your hero's book."

I am asking you politely to retract your statements. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Tom, as an addendum, while profanity is not expressly a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL, I find it objectionable on my page, especially when employed for the purposes of intimidation and causing emotional distress, and have therefore taken the liberty of striking it from your heading.--BenJonson (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? They are true, as you well know.--BenJonson (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just on the technical side of things, you are accusing Reedy of colluding in a variety of socking, or, strictly speaking, of being Mr Shapiro's meatpuppet. The appropriate section of Wikipedia guidelines says this consists of, 'Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry).' In other words you are saying Mr Shapiro recruited Reedy to support the academic position on this fringe theory, and imply also that Shapiro, using Reedy as a stooge to get his own work profiled here, has an conflict of interest. There are venues where, if you believe this, serious complaints about the bona fides of any wikipedian like this are registered. Unless you do so, you would appear to be indulging in a gratuitous insinuation that violates WP:AGF, not to speak of, in regard to the what this implies of Professor Shapiro, infractions of WP:BLP, things which are not only actionable, but also not tolerated on articles, like the present one, that lie within Arbcom sanctions. Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's an earful. I said what I said, and I stand by it. Mr. Reedy has engaged in extensive ex parte discussion with Professor Shapiro. You can spin that any which way you like, but it happens to be the truth (and you will notice that he has not denied it. I wonder why that is?)

I did in fact deny when I said it was a lie. So the ball is in your court; it is up to you. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Tom, I sometimes can't keep up with your pace. You didn't deny it in this context so assumed that you were wise enough not to do it in any place. As you know, I have many responsibilities and cannot devote many hours a day to editing wikipedia pages or keeping up with the latest fashions in equivocation.--BenJonson (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you, Sir, want to interpret what I said through the jaundiced lens of your *interpretation* of the your particular and routine legalistic spinning, that's your business. None of it is any skin off my back. Your threats are just further indications of the manner by which you and Mr. Reedy and Mr. Barlowe have claimed "ownership" of the page in question -- your baseless attempts at intimidation and arrogant disregard for common principles of human decency, fairness, and accuracy. All your victories, such as they may be, are doomed to be Pyrrhic.--BenJonson (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could provide a diff of where I 'and Mr. Reedy and Mr. Barlowe have claimed "ownership" of the page.' Had you said 'staked a claim on', it would still be incorrect. My point was simply to direct you to policy, knowledge of which helps editors avoid needless hassles. That's it. Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Many inexperienced editors completely misunderstand Wikipedia's procedures and arguing the point here is likely to be interpreted as showing that this site is just like any other online forum where opposing sides slug it out. However, that is not correct.

@BenJonson: Let me spell it out: WP:CIVIL requires that comments concern content and not editors. There are exceptions, such as a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard like WP:ANI, but those exceptions do not apply in this case. It is likely there will be no consequences as a result of this breach, but repeating inappropriate actions will incur sanctions, and the SAQ topic is under "discretionary sanctions" as you have been notified above (the Arbitration Committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision). Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Many inexperienced editors completely misunderstand Wikipedia's procedures and arguing the point here is likely to be interpreted as showing that this site is just like any other online forum where opposing sides slug it out. However, that is not correct."

You have directed that comment to the wrong party in this discussion.--BenJonson (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand your approach to this—why would you think that my advice should be dismissed? Perhaps you do not want to take the time to find out how things are done here, but the timestamp on your reply shows that you posted after Tim Reedy's denial at 01:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC) above. That means you have once again declined to either substantiate your claims about another editor, or to retract them. You need to choose which of those paths to follow, and you need to do that soon. The alternative is for the matter to be raised at Arbitration enforcement where an administrator would decide if sanctions were warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq:

I'd be happy to explain it to you. If you carefully review the history of the page, setting aside for the moment any preconception you might have about the intellectual merits of either position (namely, 1) the authorship question is a real intellectual debate that has informed and knowledgeable participants on both sides, or -- 2) as Mr. Reedy, Mr. Nishidani and Mr. Barlowe would have it, a study in intellectual perversion a la creationism, etc., in which the majority is freely empowered to make use of every conceivable logical fallacy in the book, on a freewheeling ad hoc basis, including, effectively calling the other side Nazis, and doing so with impunity and the apparent sanction of Wikipedia admins), you will see that it is those three individuals who require your attention and moderation. This is not to deny that there have been improprieties on both sides. It is to categorically state that, up until this point in time, a small group of administrators have actively colluded, contrary to Wikipedia's actual principles and policies, to exclude one side from the debate, using arbitrary and capricious tactics such as banning persons for allegedly being sock puppets who were no such thing, but who had to be silenced because their intellectual and moral integrity threatened the narrow partisanship of said editors (if you would like details of this I will readily supply them).

Amended Statement Follows next Par.

Since my statement regarding Mr. Reedy's discussions with Dr. Shapiro is true, effectively true, I will not retract it. I will, however, clarify a possible misconception. It is possible that the term "extensive" can be interpreted differently by different persons, and also that the term may not apply in this instance, as I see that Mr. Reedy in another context has taken issue with my use of that adjective. Moreover, I should like to clarify that I in no instance stated (and do not believe I even implied) that Mr. Reedy was "taking direction" from Professor Shapiro. I am confident that he was not and indeed hardly require an assurance on that point. It is my belief based on a number of statements made by Mr . Reedy going back to January 2010 that he eagerly anticipated Professor Shapiro's book, and either had advance knowledge of its contents or already felt so highly of the author's merits that he was willing to prognosticate its effects without first having read it. At that time Mr. Reedy clearly stated in fact that he expected it to more or less destroy the anti-Stratfordian movement. And it is also true that he communicated -- how extensively or un-extensively only he knows -- with Professor Shapiro. But I will reiterate for the record that it is not my belief that he was acting under Dr. Shapiro's direction. Indeed, that would hardly have been necessary, since it is obvious that Mr. Reedy holds Professor Shapiro's scholarly integrity in such high esteem that he would hardly be obliged to act as his "meat puppet" (to use a term Mr. Nishidani has taught me the meaning of) in order to be so lavish as he has been in supporting him (including making several visits to Amazon.com discussion boards when revelations regarding Dr. Shapiro's failure to fully and accurately acknowledge the sources of his knowledge of the probability that the Wilmot document is a forgery became evidently embarrassing to Professor Shapiro), promoting and supporting the extensive use of his book on the authorship page, and ignoring the many and manifest deficiencies of that same book. amended--BenJonson (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, I this opportunity to remind you once more that any statement to the effect that Mr. Reedy, Mr. Barlowe, and "Nishidani" are "scholars" is baseless. The only one of them who has published even one article in a peer reviewed journal relevant to the topics that bear on the page in question is Mr. Reedy. He has published one. I have published more than fifteen -- in peer reviewed journals published by Oxford University Press, Texas A&M University, The Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association, The University of Hertfordshire (Critical Survey, a leading contemporary journal of literary criticism -- 2X), etc. This being the case, one must wonder on whose authority Mr. Reedy acts if not on behalf of some other party for whom he has great and well documented respect, and whose book he was crowing about long before it actually arrived in print. And, speaking of that book, I wonder if you have taken the time to read my review of certain embarrassing mistakes contained within it, which you can find here:http://shake-speares-bible.com/2010/04/18/james-shapiro-and-the-notorious-hyphen/

Just why is it that a book that makes this kind of stupid elementary mistake, of the sort no graduate student would be allowed to get away with in the dissertation, is considered RS on Wikipedia? Why is it, moreover, that after being available on the internet for nearly a year, this critique, which should have been enough to expose the reckless incompetence of Dr. Shapiro's entire project, remains unanswered by Mr. Reedy and cohorts? Surely they must have an explanation for why Dr. Shapiro shot himself in both feet? Apparently not. Yet they continue to insist loudly that they represent "real scholarship" while "the Oxfordians" are to be treated, at best, like Indian mummies in a wax museum. And speaking of scholarship, here is another puzzle: http://shake-speares-bible.com/2011/03/15/professor-dale-priest-lectures-on-authorship-at-tcea-conference/

Why is it that the his year’s annual joint meeting of the Conference of College Teachers of English and the Texas College English Association can have a rational discussion about authorship without anyone jumping up and down and going on about how crazy, incompetent and mendacious the critics of the establishment are, when it seems to be impossible to do the same thing on Wikipedia?

The policies that have been pursued for months now on Wikipedia with respect to this issue have effectively chased away editors with real knowledge of the subject and empowered three individuals with no credentials to dictate the discussion of relevance, factuality, and POV. They have done so with indiscriminate disregard for the canons of real scholarship by manipulating Wikipedia policies for their own narrow agenda. This is a textbook case of intellectual inertia and misplaced respect for traditional but increasingly moribund authority, backed by a group of ideologues, which grows more threadbare by the week. It is clear that voices of informed dissent will be ousted by any means necessary, and "Truth's a dog must to kennel."

I'm sorry, Sir, but the position seemingly advocated by administrators like yourself is no more high minded than that of a monarch whose pride is wounded because a subject conscientiously refuses to flatter, or recant a published truth that happens to conflict with the demands of arbitrary power. If you have trouble understanding what this means, may I respectfully request that you reread the first act of King Lear? Ask yourself who the author sides with in that scene and you will start to understand what I am saying. I realize that may require you to step outside the comfortable framework of fallible and easily misinterpreted and misapplied rules and regulations -- in a word, to adopt a Kohlberg stage 5 or 6 ethics, in place of a 4. But I trust that you can find within yourself the courage to do so, when put to the challenge. I hope you will not prove my confidence misplaced. Sincerely,--BenJonson (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to me, so I had better let you know that I am not an administrator. It is evident from your reply that you are not familiar with many aspects of Wikipedia. In brief: it is entirely normal for humdrum editors such as myself to comment as I have done (and in fact, usually admins are too busy to do more than deliver standard messages); we refer to other editors by their username, so whereas it doesn't matter, terms like "Mr." or whatever should not be used; it looks like there is some confusion about where scholars fit into this—no one cares if an editor is a scholar, what counts is whether information is sourced to a relevant scholar (for an assertion regarding biology for example, that would be an academic who works and publishes in biology—not an anthropologist or some other authority); your views on a possible relationship between an editor and some other person are not a suitable topic for discussion on any page of Wikipedia (except for certain noticeboards, if there is good reason to expect that such discussion would assist the encyclopedia). Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq:

Thank you for taking the time of your response. I mistook you for an administrator because you assumed (as you do in your reply) a status well above your comprehension. As I stated, there has been a group of actual adminstrators -- Andy Walsh, EdJohnston, and Bishonen among others -- who have engaged systematically in the behaviors described above. I used the term Mr. out of respect, as well as a reality check. Tom Reedy works in a public relations department of a Sherrif's office. Two recently banned editors, one them banned on the false accusation of being a "meat puppet or sock puppet," are trained MDs with specializations on the relationship between literature, literary theory, and psychology/biography. You did not address a single one of my substantive points but limited your remarks to issues of process that are of dubious relevance to the actual discussion. As I pointed out to you, the only bases for thinking that Professor Shapiro is a "relevant scholar" are 1) that he teaches at Columbia and 2) happens be fanatically devoted to a falling-apart majority opinion. By every ACTUAL scholarly definition, his book is neither a work of scholarship nor a reliable source. You seem unwilling to acknowledge the extent to which this statement has been demonstrated to be correct through the links I provided. Perhaps you feel that Wikipedia should be immune to criticism from the real world. I don't share that view.--BenJonson (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, attacking a major scholar of Shakespeare, univerally recognized as such, on your talk page is not an appropriate use of the page. See WP:BLP.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, nothing that I stated constitutes, as you seem to confuse it, an "attack" of a personal nature on a "scholar of Shakespeare." If you would care to engage the substance of my criticism, conversation would be possible. But it's pretty obvious that rational discussion with those who don't share your illusions is not your strong point, and that rational criticism of your chosen authorities will not be tolerated. Whether Dr. Shapiro is universally recognized for anything is not the point (he's certainly NOT universally recognized as a reputable scholar, however much you might want others to believe so, and it seems increasingly likely that within a reasonably short period of intellectual history -- say, less than 25 years-- he is going to be almost universally recognized for being one of "time's fools" (Sonnet 94). The point is whether anyone on Wikipedia is willing to stand up and explain why a book that makes errors of the kind documented in the provided links should be regarded as RS in this context. So far the only response to this criticism has been to attack or threaten the messenger.

I submit that until someone provides a reasonable explanation for these errors, capable of exonerating Professor Shapiro from the prima facie case of unreliability, his source should not be considered reliable. Is he a nice guy? No doubt. Are many of his colleagues so misinformed that they still believe him to be reliable? No doubt. These are not to the point. The point is how you can explain why someone who is so "universally recognized" would make such foolish mistakes in his book. You, Tom Reedy, and Paul Barlowe, are responsible for making Professor Shapiro's reliability an issue through your aggressive edits promoting his book as an RS. Your logic seems to be identical to the logic that was used when Catholic inquisitors refused to look into Galileo's telescope (just as you refuse to look at or at least acknowledge the damning criticisms of Professor's Shapiro's failures of both fact and logic in the posted links), because his Church antagonists were "universally respected" for their theological quodlibets. Can you answer my question? If not, please be so kind as to cease and desist your threats. All they are doing is leaving a paper trail of a rather dismal pattern of avoidance of issues of substance in favor of enforcement of prejudicial interpretations of protocol. This is no more edifying to the integrity of Wikipedia than are the speeches of Regan or Goneril to the state of King Lear. --68.55.45.214 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (BenJ)

You take Shapiro to task for what you think are a few slips. This is a rhetorical strategy. Let me illustrate. P.G. Naiditch, recognized as one of the foremost scholars of A. E. Housman, in his A. E. Housman At University College, London, Brill 1988, is notorious for his meticulous scruple, as pedantic as Housman himself, in getting texts right. Well he had to add a late 'corrigenda' listing 9 misprints or errors. Not enough. I have marked a further 11 in my copy. I do not deduce thereby that Naiditch is not a reputable scholar. R. D. Dawes, one of the foremost textual critics of our time, in his Studies on the Text of Sophocles, vol.1 (The Manuscript and the Text), Brill 1973 makes four mistakes by my count, ranging from spelling errors to a clamorous oversight in citing incorrctly the classical Greek abbreviation for 'et cetaera'. I don't think this evidence that Mr Dawes is a disreputable scholar. H. J. Harris in Hegel's Development: Towards the Sunlight,1770-1980, appears to show himself ignorant of elementary Greek accentuation on p.501. I don't get indigestion over this. Simon Winchester in his The Man who loved China, a biography of Joseph Needham, appears to be unfamiliar with the fact that 'personalité' in French is feminine, and requires 'ta', not 'ton'. He's a graduate of Oxford, and yet I think this insufficient evidence to condemn him as unscholarly. Robert Eisenman, in his 'James, The Brother of Jesus,'(1997) even in the 2002 reprint, gets 11 things wrong, including spellings, and frequently incorrect citations from the New Testament. He even, apparently, is unfamiliar with the dative case in Latin, confusing it with the nominative case (p.814). I'm not tempted to fire off a note to his Institute demanding his dismissal. Dear Helen Vendler, in her The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets, (1997) often screws up on her couplet-tie numerations(eg. p.243,302,321,471, 516), and even seems to fudge the evidence for structural parallelism between sonnet 36 and sonnet 39 on p.205. by wrongly asserting that Q2 (actually Q1) in s.36 corresponds (one, alone) to Q2 in 39. Horrible stuff. But she is, despite the fluffs, our foremost reader of poetry. One does not pick on such oversights on a page or two in order to challenge the credibility of the whole book, as you do. I was told several decades ago that it’s an effortless game, nitpicking what others do while never writing anything, or anything near the recognized level of quality of the work done by those one reviews. I took the advice to heart. In any case, it's not conducive to article writing to challenge sources when they and their authors fit the know criteria for RS, let alone waste time trying to diminish the stature of scholars, as you do with Shapiro, and Nina Green did, endlessly, with Alan Nelson. There are plenty of off-wiki places for expressing one's reservations about anyone in academia one may have a personal dislike for.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You're being discussed

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#ARBSAQ. You may add your own comment there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston:

I think I made my response to any "discussion" clear above. Discuss away. I've never participated in Kangaroo courts, and at my age and with the hard lessons I've learned over the years about the foolish demagoguery that keeps this lie alive, I sure ain't gonna start now. I'm waiting for the guest lectureship at Harvard. And what any fools do here isn't going to be any skin off MY Edgar's back. Signing off from North Avenue -- have a great evening in the "discussion."--BenJonson (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice

A request for enforcement of arbitration sanctions against you has been filed here. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per this AE thread, and under the authority of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, as incorporated by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, broadly construed across all namespaces. You may appeal this topic ban as provided in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. T. Canens (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Per violation of topic ban here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 5 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* ^{۩ ۞} 02:44, 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...)

Edward de Vere page

Hi Ben.

Thanks for writing on my wall. The editors at the Edward de Vere page have banned several people from commentating and making edits. It doesn't seem to bother them in the least that they are engaging in blatant censorship.