Please keep them coming - NO ONE can order ANYONE off ANY page. This is a common tactic among the Stratfordian camp - they have a history of bullying people off the page. Don't succumb to it! Smatprt ( talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Good friend. I think I did some good by playing "bad cop - good cop" with our hostile colleague. When he attacks my punctuation rather than my ideas, he sounds pretty desperate. Apparently some other knowledgeable friends have had some influence, too. The improved version is vastly better than the first one, although I see we have another apoplectic Stratfordian trying to intimidate us. There's great value in sticking together. You are doing a really marvelous job. I'll help when I can. I'll check up on WP: lead. Thanks. ( talk) Did I do that right?
I posted this to the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Merging
Alexpope, could you be so kind as to quote some samples from the Britannica article, which I do not have readily available, which illustrate the moderate NPOV which you are suggesting should be a model for the article? Thanks.---- BenJonson ( talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Given that I see you resuming contentious agenda editing on the Shakespeare authorship page, I am formally adding your name as a party to the impending Arbcom case (see WP:RFAR). As an uninvolved administrator who is going to be watching the field for signs of disruptive editing, I am also warning you to avoid edits that will be perceived as tendentious, uncooperative or as edit-warring. Any edits which, to the eyes of a reasonable outside observer, must give the impression of being motivated by anything but a sincere attempt to find a commonly acceptable neutral representation of the academic state of the art may be met with sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. Nishidani is correct that you placed your statement on the wrong page. It should be placed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Evidence and removed from the workshop page. Smatprt ( talk) 22:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alexpope,
I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [2]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
A case ( Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Please keep them coming - NO ONE can order ANYONE off ANY page. This is a common tactic among the Stratfordian camp - they have a history of bullying people off the page. Don't succumb to it! Smatprt ( talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Good friend. I think I did some good by playing "bad cop - good cop" with our hostile colleague. When he attacks my punctuation rather than my ideas, he sounds pretty desperate. Apparently some other knowledgeable friends have had some influence, too. The improved version is vastly better than the first one, although I see we have another apoplectic Stratfordian trying to intimidate us. There's great value in sticking together. You are doing a really marvelous job. I'll help when I can. I'll check up on WP: lead. Thanks. ( talk) Did I do that right?
I posted this to the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Merging
Alexpope, could you be so kind as to quote some samples from the Britannica article, which I do not have readily available, which illustrate the moderate NPOV which you are suggesting should be a model for the article? Thanks.---- BenJonson ( talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Given that I see you resuming contentious agenda editing on the Shakespeare authorship page, I am formally adding your name as a party to the impending Arbcom case (see WP:RFAR). As an uninvolved administrator who is going to be watching the field for signs of disruptive editing, I am also warning you to avoid edits that will be perceived as tendentious, uncooperative or as edit-warring. Any edits which, to the eyes of a reasonable outside observer, must give the impression of being motivated by anything but a sincere attempt to find a commonly acceptable neutral representation of the academic state of the art may be met with sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. Nishidani is correct that you placed your statement on the wrong page. It should be placed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question/Evidence and removed from the workshop page. Smatprt ( talk) 22:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alexpope,
I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [2]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
A case ( Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)