Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:31, 14 June 2014

Smatprt is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages after reflecting on the topic ban enacted November 3, 2010, a case involving the ongoing content disputes surrounding the Misplaced Pages articles: Shakespeare Authorship Question Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship Edward de Vere And, to a lesser degree, the articles listed here: Those articles listed in the attempted mediation Related cases were an RFC ] and a mediation], both of which, unfortunately, were left unresolved. As the RFC and the topic ban discussions are already archived, I am providing the link to those comments here:]. Regards to everyone and Happy Holidays! Smatprt (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 (articles) /Archive 7

Topic bans apply broadly

Hi, Smatprt. You should probably ask Fut. Perf. before you begin editing based on your narrow interpretation of the ban. WP:TBAN says that "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" (emphasis original), and as your ban was originally applied, you are "topic banned from Shakespeare articles" and "topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed". Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, Timon of Athens, and Titus Andronicus are all "broadly related" to Shakespeare and to the authorship question, being the very works whose authorship is disputed. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cengime - you are correct about the original ban. However, the current ban language was only for 'Shakespeare Authorship" articles. Even broadly construed, formatting a cast list has nothing to do with the authorship. I quoted the precise language of my current ban above. You note "Parts of other pages that are related to the subject" - well, that would be sections such as sources or the like. Certainly not formatting, or working on a cast list. Those parts are not related even broadly. Smatprt (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Cengime asked me to comment here. As far as I am concerned, I would consider generic Shakespeare-related edits like this to be okay, as long as they are not related to the authorship issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Smatprt (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies. I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that? This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.) 1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page? 2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist? 3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages? 3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time? 4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content? 5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page? 6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page? 7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of dialogue, connection, community and collaboration? 8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered? Many thanks for taking the time to read this! TheoryofSexuality (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 17-Mile Drive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Hopkins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Golden Bough Playhouse, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just now I see you contribute again. Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)