I can assure you that the article will not be split because these ideas are not taken seriously by scholars of Shakespeare. See Shakespeare authorship question for a full discussion of the issue. Paul B ( talk) 12:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, of course. I know it. I know that there will be no changes for a certain time. However, there are many scholars of Shakespeare, not only the orthodox ones, dear Paul B. One of them is Kurt Kreiler of Germany.-- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 19:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Believe what you wish. But this claim has been around for a century, and before that the Baconians said much the same thing. There has never been any evidence and there is no sign that there ever will be. Paul B ( talk) 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

For Paul B: Looney´s book was published 1920, but of course there were doubts as far as Will Shakspere is concerned a long time before, even around 1780. As far as I know e.g. Lord Palmerston and a lot of other people have expressed their doubts about the man from Stratford. Among them were other very notable personalities, including at least three Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court. It makes little sense for you and me to talk like we do now about this very particular problem. However, you and other ladies and gentlemen of the Stratfordian camp should be accessible to some kind of arguments like those six famous signatures of Will Shakspere, Oxford´s Italian experience, and things like this. I will for certain time stop to write anything more for this W.S. article. But I intend to contribute to the article on the Oxfordian theory. This article is not sacred, I guess.-- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 16:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

If you think there were doubts in 1780, you are behind the times. This has been disproved. See James Wilmot. Yes, there are lots of notable personalities, almost all of whom are mainly notable for nothing to do with Shakespeare, and who know nothing much about Elizabethan or Jacobean history and literature. Doesn't that tell you something? The six signatures prove he wrote signatures, which is what you expect of someone who...writes. The fact that they are written in abbreviated form is evidence of a practiced writer. People who have to carefully trace their letters do not write in a scribbly or shorthand way, but rather the opposite. Oxford's Italian experience proves he was in Italy. So what? So were many other people. You don't have to go to Italy to set a play there. Lots of Elizabethan writers set plays in Italy, and all sorts of other places they never set foot in. You may as well argue that an artist who paints a martyrdom has to have seen someone being tortured to death. Paul B ( talk) 18:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for this clean up. You might be interested also in the discussion at the article's talk page, see Talk:2011_Chilean_Pen_Incident#Talk:2011_Chilean_Pen_Theft. What do you think about the article? Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 11:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Terrible. Please watch the article, too. Meanwhile, somebody has reverted my clean up again, so I reverted this. But from now on, I don´t have time and possibility. This is a war, also on all relevant Czech pages. Are you also active there? Only German pages are more or less correct. Zdravím Vás! -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 12:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you can join the discussion that is ongoing here. Na cs:wiki moc nedělám, většinou jenom když mě požádá někdo odsud. Zdravím z Brna :) -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 13:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, only discussing doesn´t help. Deleting at least something is a last resort, I know, but sometimes it is necessary, although people revert it again. The world is no more normal, so only beautiful history and music remain ... I am a lover of operatic music, too. Certainly you are much more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. Have a nice day in my beloved Brno. I was there two weeks ago, coming from really far. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 13:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I replied on my talk page, Zbrnajsem. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 15:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2011 Chilean Pen Incident, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. WP:IDL is no reason for deleting a content. Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 15:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2011 Chilean Pen Incident. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Reedy ( talk • contribs)

Is there any reason for your inserting line breaks in articles the way you did here? Were you trying to do something else? I'm pasting in a welcome template with lots of useful links about editing. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Welcome!

Hello, Zbrnajsem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Why are you continuing to make the same edit? what is your rationale? We don't use old-style spelling in heads and the work is not a book, but a title of a section. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I did it in order to restore a heading consistent with what is actually written in the section. Please look at the comment by Paul B. (talk of the article), who at last supported my editing and made a proposal to use italics. Your reverting of my first change meant that the heading was again inconsistent with the text proper. Anyway, it is very interesting to know about "Verses made by the Earl of Oxforde" and "Verses made by Anne Vavasor" in one book found in the 18th century. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 16:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

No, I actually thought you were joking around. Sometimes people will change Oxford's name to "Oxforde" or "Oxenforde" to try to get a rise out of Oxfordians. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Anyway, I think the section has been improved now. Paul B ( talk) 20:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi again! Thanks for posting about Greene on my page. I've read that quote before but never paid much attention to it. His Wikip page is quite interesting... Thank you for the "gift". :) Best, Knitwitted ( talk) 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Many thank yous for your warm greetings!! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too!! Wishing you the best!! Not familiar with Greene but always up for a good challenge... Unfortunately get the "feeling" (or rather "the pointed finger") that I won't be here much longer. Not a clue what the English say... can't understand them! Keep up the good work... hopefully we'll talk more later... Best wishes, Knitwitted ( talk) 16:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I re-added Category:Czech Technical University in Prague alumni to Václav Havel. According to Alumnus#Usage, it's "a former student and most often a graduate of an educational institution", so drop-outs (for whatever reason) are allowed. Favonian ( talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Still, I would say that this category should not be added again. Havel is already assigned to a lot of categories. It would be even rather misleading. Alumnus#Usage indicates that only "a graduate of an educational institution" should be normally called alumnus. I would respect this indication. In fact, Havel has then studied "theatre science" or something like this. He had no particular inclination to engineering or some kind of technology. I am sorry, but he was in a certain sense rather a dreamer with inclination to the "bohème", and in any case an artist turned politician. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 21:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Having gone over the Alumnus article, is uses neither of the words "only" or "normally", but rather "most often". We can agree that Havel never became and engineer, but if he attended the university in question, he qualifies for membership of the category. Favonian ( talk) 21:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Again, I don´t agree with you. Why to try to celebrate Mr. Havel for something which was not essential for his career? You have certainly read what has been written about the expression "alumnus" in the article on en:wiki itself: "An alumnus (plural alumni), according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "a graduate of a school, college, or university". An alumnus can also be a former member, employee, contributor or inmate as well as a former student."

So I would say, if there is only an "it can be" possibility for "former students", we are free to decide about it in one way or the other. And my point of view is that it is unnecessary and even misleading to add Václav Havel to the category of those particular alumni. I am really opposed to the idolatry in the Czech Republic now surrounding the late President Havel. And the hatred fomented against the current President Klaus. I have frequently been among the various editors of Czech Wikipedia articles on both persons. I have been always trying to edit from a neutral standpoint, but it is extremely difficult there. Have you heard e.g. about the alleged "homosexuality" of Klaus that was for a certain time incorporated into the Czech Wikipedia article about Klaus, only on the grounds of a contention made by an actress who is well known to be Klaus´ opponent (as many other actors and actresses as well as journalists)? And on the grounds that this contention was repeated by a "reliable person", i.e. by the editor-in-chief of the journal "Lui", published mainly for the gay community, who said that his "gaydar" (radar for the gays) would also reveal to him that this contention was true. At the same time, and in the same article, Klaus has been and still is "accused" of several extramarital affairs with young women. Only a very strong arguing of several members of the Czech Wikipedia community, including my person, against this infamous story has lead to a revert of this contention. The revert has survived up to the present day. Alas, there are to be very often seen attacks by vandals on cz:wiki, en:wiki and de:wiki, who are trying to destroy the articles on President Klaus using suggestions on the most primitive level.

In the article on Havel himself on en:wiki it was stated accordingly: "(He was a student of the) Faculty of Economics of Czech Technical University in Prague but dropped out after two years." So he even did not study any engineering at all, and his studies there were of a relatively short duration. I am sorry, but this does not qualify Mr. Havel to any association with engineering or related fields of special knowledge.

I have the intention to revert your specific editing, if it is there again in the article concerned. However, I would prefer to achieve an understanding between us on this matter. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 11:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I don´t undestand what you mean. Where did I fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process? And who has written this reprimand to me? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 15:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I forgot to sign the post. It is a generic caution for anyone editing the affected articles or using their talk pages. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I have deleted your comment on the Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship page. It has been explained to you more than once that the page is not a place for general discussion of the topic. Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Please limit yourself to that purpose when commenting on the talk page of an article. Please read the Arbitration Committee ruling on talk page abuse and conform to the expected standard of behavior in the future. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Zbrnajsem,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! FifthCrow ( talk) 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

FYI, given your section above mine you may want to support this, even if it is a year late.

Talk:Spaghetti western#Requested move

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{[ chat} 17:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Zbrnajsem, please be careful with edits such as this one. Administrators monitor the pages about Shakespeare authorship since they have caused trouble in the past. If your edits seem to be intended to impose a personal point of view on this article (rather than provide a neutral summary based on reliable sources) your work on this article may be more closely scrutinized.

You have previously (on the article talk) declared yourself to be a supporter of the Oxfordian theory. Statements such as this one raise questions in my mind as to whether you intend to follow Wikipedia policy: "...the Oxfordian theory is notable. OK, it really is, and so more arguments, more detailed arguments, for this theory should be placed on Wikipedia." Outside of Wikipedia you may pursue any research you find interesting. Within our articles and talk pages, we expect that our policy will be followed. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 12:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

EdJohnston, the problem is that "The Merchant of Venice" was written between 1596 and 1598. Do you follow me? I have reverted only a sentence which is simply wrong or misleading even from the mainstream view. And besides this, the Constitution of the USA guarantees free speech etc. Do you agree? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You appear to be right about the source, since it refers to material in Othello. As for the "alien statute", if it was so notorious, I am not sure why you need to have visited the place to know about it. I will look at the details of mainstream arguments about this passage in the Merchant. Paul B ( talk) 12:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Zbrnjasem, see WP:FREESPEECH. There is no legal right to edit Wikipedia. If your point is that Contarini's book was not published in English before Merchant was written, then you could have a valid argument. Someone would probably need to get the full context from reading Neill's book to be sure. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I have replied in detail on the Talk page and Tom has also added some comments. Paul B ( talk) 16:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

EdJohnston, in arguing as you do, you could make some problematical points. Especially as the Talk pages are concerned. See what the Arbitrary Committee said and laid down concerning the Talk pages. My point of view is that such pages must be free for the Free Speech according to the US Constitution. Otherwise there is no guarantee of a truly scientific approach to the Oxfordian theory. And it is a theory, isn´t it? Even if you call it a "fringe theory", which is something I don´t agree with. I suppose you can´t go so far as to exclude me from my own User talk. By the way, Mr. Jimmy Wales had his own objections against some practices on Wikipedia, as far as I know. And I had a valid argument, exactly as you say. So there was no reason to reprimand me (or was it no reprimand?) for deleting the sentence written by User Cengime, as you did. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

We are not subject to the "US constitution" any more than to the Canadian or Australian or Indian constitutions. You are free, in the USA, if that's where you are, to say what you like (within limits, even there) in your own home, or on the street, or in your own publications, but that does not apply to Wikipedia Talk pages any more than to many other publications which have their own internal rules. The Wikpedia rules are there to stop people using inimdation, attrition, "original research" and a host of other things. As for the theory being fringe, I'm afraid that's just what it is, in fact, in academia, like it or not. I grant you that we can be too quick to revert on contentious pages, but in the end research just revealed that this argument - like the previous spat over Verses made by the earle of Oxforde and Mrs Ann Vavasor - was a load of old nonsense to start with. Paul B ( talk) 19:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Paul B, may I remind you of the fact that I was not the author of the sentence which at last has been finally deleted? The author of this sentence was User Cengime. And I take credit for an impulse for a larger and quite fruitful discussion and, say, for an improvement of the Oxfordian theory page by Tom Reedy and yourself. By the way, from your contribution on the Talk page of the Oxfordian page proper I can read that you personally have invited Oxfordian scholars to contribute to this page. Of course you would have some conditions for this, but still, this may constitute a progress in our mutual relationship. It is a pleasure for me to discuss with you. As for the US Constitution, I am sorry, but Wikipedia is no closed private organization, it is kind of publication, even international publication, although practically based in the US, and if there are Talk pages on Wikipedia, so there must be freedom to say (almost) everything there in a normal and polite way. Moreover, the Arbitrary Committee has made no special restrictions for contributions on the Talk pages, only for the articles as such. If I am wrong, so please give me a precise quotation of the verdict. Then I would go and study if there was no offence against the US Constitution and specific laws. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 21:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Zbrnajsem, Arbcom made special mention of talk pages at WP:ARBSAQ#Talk pages. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Admins are authorized to take action if they perceive that someone is using a talk page to advance a personal agenda, rather than to support the creation of neutral articles. Your theory about your freedom to say anything on talk pages is not correct. EdJohnston ( talk) 12:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The sentence added by Cengime has not been been "deleted"; it has been tweaked. Everyone can partuicipate on talk pages, but yes there are rules see WP:TALK. You can't just say anything, and the US Constitution has nothing whatever to do with it. Paul B ( talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Be not so sure. You might be wrong in this last respect, Paul B. On the other hand, I would like to hear from you what was the meaning of your proposal to attract the cooperation of Oxfordian editors on Oxfordian matters. This would be only possible, if administrators were not authorized to take action against any Oxfordian view expressed. In my case, EdJohnston should admit that it was more than premature to reprimand me for deleting a sentence with an obvious misinterpretation by Cengime of possible impacts of a book published in 1599 on actions in the years 1596 to 1598. At least this should be admitted, or I don´t "understand the world of Wikipedia". -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 18:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what you mean when you wrote on my talk page "Then it is also legally problematical what ArbCom said in this respect." Take note of WP:NLT. I don't think that was a "legal threat", but you do seem to imply that Arbcom was acting illegally. I rather doubt that. You have no legal right to freedom of speech on a forum that is not owned by you. That of course is not the same as a moral right. You might feel morally outraged at being forced to shut up, if you believe that a single "party line" is being unfairly enforced on Communistopedia or Fascistopedia, but there's not much you can do about it in law as far as I know. After all Fascistopedia has the freedom to be fascist! Equally you have the right to delete any comments you don't like from your own website, blog or whatever.
The ban on what is known as "soapboxing" is essentially to stop people using the talk page to write essays putting forward their personal theories. It has happened quite often on the Oxfordian theory page. The long rants by user:NinaGreen were what led to the restrictions. It does not apply only to Oxfordians (actually Marlovians are almost as bad!). If a "Stratfordian" started pasting long comments unrelated to debate about content, repeatedly denouncing Oxfordians it should also apply.
As for collaboration with Oxfordians. I meant what I said. We need to have someone who will be able to say "these are the important arguments" for such-and-suxch aspects of Oxfordian theory, or "this is just one person's eccentric view and we don't need it". My own view is that we should have a balance of arguments made over the years, and a sense of how they have evolved. But we also need to have the mainstream/Stratfordian responses to these points. Paul B ( talk) 20:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Again my question: Do you, Paul B, agree with me that talk pages must be free for bona fide cooperation, disregarding personal views like Stratfordian or Oxfordian? Only then Oxfordians can cooperate in your above sense without fear to be punished by an administrator. You know very well that there was e.g. the case of User Smatprt who is very knowledgeable, but what occurred to him? You are able and willing to really discuss with me, I would say much better than some other people. But you are just one Wikipedian. And the misinterpretations of ArbCom "verdict" on talk pages were many and by a number of administrators. So there must be some assurances for the future. Moreover, there should be additionally kind of "amnesty" for Oxfordians, only then they could and possibly would cooperate. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 20:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't understand what this great "question" is. Talk pages should follow the rules of WP:TALK They follow the maxim of English common law (a fig for the "US constitution"!). Whatever is not explictly forbidden is allowed. Smatprt was not very knowledgable. He knew next to nothing about the theory that he hadn't read in Ogburn or Anderson. He was astoundingly ignorant of Elizabethan/Jacobean culture. He was given years and years and years of freedom before he in-effect hanged himself by his blatant partizabship. Paul B ( talk) 22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Paul B, I am not in the mood to discuss abilities of certain users. I could give some other examples. However, I have reflected upon your proposal and its practicability. Now I see that in its present form your proposal is almost not practicable. As I see it, there can´t be a sharp division between editing the articles and editing on the talk pages. If "Oxfordian theory" as such is "forbidden", and every discussion of it is to be written only with the aim to repudiate this theory (or without any intention to defend it), so a cooperation by true Oxfordians cannot even start, neither on the talk pages nor on articles. Am I allowed only to put dots instead of commata? And even on the talk pages, what is allowed to be said? This is what I mean with "offences against the freedom of opinion and speech". Wikipedia is a serious undertaking, and it is not committed to one single theory on a certain issue. What are the credentials of ArbCom? Is it kind of democratic institution or is it an authoritarian body?

What I call now "matters Shakespeare" (the Shakespeare case) is a complicated case, I know it very well. If there were not so many doubts in the past and in the present, even by British statesmen like Lord Palmerston and Benjamin Disraeli, there would be no other theory. No base for any other theory would exist. We don´t know much of real interest about William Shakespeare of Stratford which could not be subjected to doubts. What is really to be taken for 100 p.c. granted? For example, who can say that he knows for sure that WS of Stratford really read the book by Contarini in English translation of 1599? He may have read the book, but there is absolutely no evidence for this assertion. I don´t want to go into further details. There are too many pure assertions in the mainstream theory. Or so-called evidences which are in fact based on assertions given by (interested?) people after the death of WS etc.

It is not correct to maintain in historical science, and our case is a historical one, that a theory which is supported by a significant minority of scholars and other people interested in historical research is a priori false and to be repudiated by all means. This is really what I don´t agree with. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 09:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Just some one or two another points. I should replace "assertion" with respect to Shakespeare having read Contarini by "assumption". Assumptions should not be used, should they?

Dispute Zbrnajsem and Cengime as of 21st August 2012:

Zbrnajsem

However, mainstream scholar Michael Neill maintained that Shakespeare "evidently learned these details" from the 1599 English translation of Gasparo Contarini's The Commonwealth and Government of Venice.

Cengime

Shakespeare evidently learned these details from the 1599 English translation of Gasparo Contarini's The Commonwealth and Government of Venice. ^[1]

Evidently? Was Cengime there and had he seen WS of Stratford reading the book? Was Neill there? Has WS ever put such an assertion on the paper? And Cengime de facto said WS had read something in 1599, and he applied this knowledge already in the years 1596 to 1598. A very careful editing, isn´it?

As long as there is no written evidence like "I William Shakespeare born 1564 in Stratford-upon-Avon have written 37 plays and 153 sonnets etc. Given in Stratford in 1615 (or 1616). Testified by AB, KL and XYZ" there will be doubts about the case. The Stratfordians apply a similar demand with respect to the Oxfordian theory. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 11:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC) -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 12:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC) reply

What you are saying is utter nonsense. If Oxfordian theory were forbidden we wouldn't have whole page on it would we? Nor on J. Thomas Looney, Charlton Ogburn, Percy Allen (writer), Charles Wisner Barrell, Prince Tudor theory etc etc. What we need is an Oxfordian who can work within Wikpedia rules. The Marlovian Peter Farey is perfectly capable of doing this, but Oxfordians seem to be congenitally incapable of doing so. Don't ask me why. I've explained what is needed - someone who can identify the most important arguments and organise them. Restrictions on Wikipedia only occur when there are problems. The pages on the Derby theory, the Bacon theory and the Marlowe theory do not attract so many editors who behave in a disruptive way (though there are certainly some Marlovian "fanatics"). Wikipedia rules mean that a theory should be expounded, the arguments given, but also that the counter-arguments should be given. If the counter-arguments are more accepted by experts in the field, then that is what we should note.
We cannot prove that Shakespeare read Contarini, or that Oxford or anyone did. But if the plays of Shakespeare quote from a book, then it is good evidence that the author read it. If a play set in Venice is totally mixed up about the actual city of Venice apart from stuff that oould have been got from a book, then that is good evidence that the author hadn't been to the place, but had read the book about it. If someone wrote a novel about Paris in which all the information about the city could be found in The Da Vinci Code, that would be evidence that the author read the book rather and visited the city. Yes, Cengime slightly misunderstood Tom's reference to Contarini on the Talk page, but the solution is to improve and correct the reference rather than to try to obliterate it. This WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is part of the problem. Your expectation that "doubts" are somehow legitimate because we don't have a personal declaration from Shakespeare himself is frankly bizarre. We don't have anything like that from virtually any other writer of the time, with the one exception of Jonson. We don't even have it for Oxford's own poetry, so by your logic we should doubt that Oxford wrote his own works! Paul B ( talk) 01:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello again Paul Barlow, I was not excited to hear from you that I had written “utter nonsense”. I don´t know what is your age but maybe you and me are two elderly gentlemen, as you would probably say. So I would rather say something like “It was not quite correct what you wrote”. In fact, I had set the word “forbidden” in quotation marks, so it was clear that I just wanted to say that the treatment of Oxfordian and other thought by mainstream editors in the past was very restrictive. There is scarcely any doubt about it, even if there were some single examples of a milder treatment. And what is most problematic, some administrators sanctioned even contributions on Talk pages. Again, my deleting of a logically nonsensical sentence in the Oxfordian theory article was reprimanded by EdJohnston without looking if it was correct or not, and then with scarcely any excuse.

Further, you have not yet answered my questions concerning the conditions for a possible future wider collaboration by Oxfordians. Would they be allowed to contribute to talk pages without any conditions besides that of “good conduct”? Would they be allowed to contribute to all articles and under which conditions? There could not be many restrictions, better again there could not be almost any restrictions besides those against obvious vandalism etc. The Oxfordian editors could not be obliged to seek for mainstream arguments themselves, how should something like that be possible? Nobody owns all books etc., nobody has so much time. I have not yet contributed much, because I don´t own e.g. any Ogburn. And even such a thing like the restrictions for the use of the word "Stratfordian theory". If you say "anti-stratfordian theories", so then there is obviously also a "Stratfordian theory". You call it "mainstream theory", but does every reader understand immediately what this term means?

You certainly agree that the “Shakespeare case” is the most complicated case in the history of literature. Stratfordian editors who are now those who prevail on Wikipedia (there are some reasons for it, but they are really not God-given reasons) would obviously be eager to detect any mistake made by an Oxfordian. I am not very optimistic about the prospect of any good equilibrium, of equal chances. Moreover, editor Paul Barlow is only one person. I am also only one person. How would be the response of other people, especially of mainstream administrators like Johnuniq and EdJohnston? And of Oxfordians? There are many, but they don´t want to collaborate on Wikipedia. And what does Tom Reedy think about your initiative? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 14:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

What I considered to be nonsense was your apparent assertion that "Oxfordian theory as such is 'forbidden', and every discussion of it is to be written only with the aim to repudiate this theory." If you look at the article on Prince Tudor theory, you will see that it just lists the various theories without refuting or repudiating them. That's partly because those ideas are so "far out" that disproving them seems redundant. However the main article should have what we call "due weight" per WP:FRINGE, which means the arguments should be given, but so should rebuttals of them. Oxfordian editors can participate as long as they abide by the normal talk page rules, yes.
No Shakespeare scholars call themselves "Stratfordian", because within normal Shakespeare scholarship this is not an issue. Shakespeare scholars do not define their position against that of alternative Shakespeare-personas, so "Stratfordian" is a nonsensical label. Even when debating attribution, they are not discussing the "Stratford" Shakespeare as opposed to some other 'Shakespeare'. They debate it in terms of Shakespeare as opposed to another writer. I don't know what about the Shakespeare case is "the most complicated in the history of literature", apart from the fact that his works are widely believed to be the complicated - in the sense of dramatically powerful and sophisticated. I don't know what Tom Reedy thinks, but he's always been perfectly willing to work with the Marlovian Peter Farey. My age, by the way, is 50. I wouldn't want to say whether or not that makes me "old". Anyway, I'm now off to the gym to at least try to keep age at bay. Paul B ( talk) 19:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I am years older than you, Paul B. More later. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 16:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Good for you, I guess. Paul B ( talk) 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Not really. Your statistical life expectancy is higher than mine. But never mind, you and me can still communicate about Shakespeare, this marvellous literary man. There are really people who say that it makes absolutely no difference for them if it was the man from Stratford or the man with the noble title. They would for ever love and enjoy his plays and poems. By the way, both men who are named as "great candidates" - as I see it - were English. So it should make no difference for the "national pride". The other "guys" were also English, but they don´t play any role for me. I am sorry for Peter Farey as I am sorry for a certain Professor of Medicine Emeritus in Germany who is also a Marlovian. He wrote and published a very thick book in favour of Marlowe´s "candidacy" recently. OK, it´s quite late for me now. "More later" again, either as an answer after you have written something or in the case I get kind of good idea. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You are "sorry" for Marlovians? How very odd. I'm at a loss to understand why you should be. Mind you I've been attempting to plough my way through an interminable verse novel about the subject, but I'm finding it very hard going. Do you pity Derbyites and Rutlandites too? Or do you merely look upon them with bemused indifference. Yes, they were all English, so I guess I can rest easy that none are French or Turks or Prussians: that in spite of all temptations to belong to other nations, he remains an Englishman. Paul B ( talk) 22:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I guess there was an attempt by the Italians to capture Shakespeare for them. But e.g. the Germans or the Czechs never attempted such a foolish thing. Marlovians are trying very hard, like Professor Bastian Conrad, but it is of no avail. I will add the hyphen. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 09:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

How is the famous dedication (as in the article on "Sonnets") to be read:

TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.

THESE.INSUING.SONNETS.
Mr.W.H.   ALL.HAPPINESSE.
AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
PROMISED.
BY.
OUR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
WISHETH.
THE.WELL-WISHING.
ADVENTURER.IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.

T.T.

Ever living or ever-living? You, Paul B., wrote recently "ever living" in the Oxfordian theory article. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 20:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Is the hyphen really really important: filled with tell-truthy significance for Shake-speare? If so, feel free to add it. Paul B ( talk) 22:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby ( 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) 11:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

No, I've never been there. I just saw the DAB link on your page above, do I had a look out of curiosity - or nosiness! Paul B ( talk) 11:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Nice expression, nosiness. By not having been in Brno up to now, you have missed a lot. I would say it is a special city, quite modern but ancient at the same time. It is a rather big city (but not too much), with a large area. Vast amount of culture like an opera house etc. The city was home of one of the most important, really epoch-making opera composers of the 20th century, Leoš Janáček. It was later home of Gustav Brom Orchestra, one of the best swinging big bands of the world from the 50th to the 90th. Beautiful environment, beautiful young women. Very good wines from South Moravia, especially white wine. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Nearby ancient and romantic Veveří Castle - famous visitors of the castle were Sir Winston Churchill and his wife Lady Clementine who spent there several days during their honeymoon journey throughout Europe (1908). Churchill alone stayed there twice before. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 20:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishopric ( 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) 11:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply

For Paul B.: You asked me if I can state what I believe to be the problem. Well, for now I would like to wait for a certain time, and look afterwards what has meanwhile happened to the Oxfordian theory page. In fact, for time reasons today and in the next few weeks I am only able to give you some broad explanations. As for details of my approach, it is certainly the choice of arguments and even single words in all articles concerning the whole “Shakespeare complex” and the related “alternative theories”, especially the Oxfordian theory, which is partially instrumental for some of my worries.

As a person with academic background and interested in almost everything, I have privately studied quite a wide range of political and historical questions, especially with respect to our contemporary times, but also concerning the Middle Ages and the period of Renaissance. So I would like to point out that it is certainly not enough to read just a few books on such colourful personalities like Pope Alexander VI, King Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I, Philip II of Spain or French Henri IV, if we name only some of the important rulers of the 15th to 17th century. Every author points out different aspects, and very often he has his special bias, maybe due to his national adherence. This is also the case with other highly born men like Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, or say William of Rosenberg, a noble Bohemian.

And, alas, there is a severe problem of historical accuracy with men and women whose origin was not noble or not noble enough. We don´t know much for certain about the youth of Leonardo da Vinci. And what do we know about William Shakespeare of Stratford for certain? It was not his fault that he was not of high descent and that he possibly did not receive such a good education as Queen Elizabeth I or, I would say, Edward de Vere. However, there is the problem that too much about WS of Stratford is not known for certain, and there are too many assumptions concerning his curriculum vitae.

As for a special aspect with respect to the Earl of Oxenford, I don´t think that a description of his abilities containing e.g. the words “a mediocre poet” will ever be accepted by the Oxfordians. Moreover, it is to be shown what he really did or what he did not write. I would recommend to everybody the books by German author Kurt Kreiler, even if they were published in German language. I have already mentioned his principal work somewhere, I suppose this title is part of bibliography of the article on the “ Shakespeare authorship question”. Kreiler also wrote about the possibility that Edward de Vere was the true author of “The Adventures of Master F.I.” (Fortunatus Infoelix), which is part of the well-known publication “A Hundreth sundrie Flowers” (1573). He translated this poem to German (Fortunatus im Unglück: Die Aventiuren des Master F.I., Insel-Verlag, Frankfurt 2006, ISBN  978-3-458-17316-8). -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 10:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Appreciate your friendly face re Stritmatter's themes! When will those people get a clue and realize *nobody* spends time on "nonsense". i.e. They are making the case for the authorship question by being so persistent. :) Best and enjoy your new week! :) Knitwitted ( talk) 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip II ( 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) 16:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I haven't found your arguments persuasive at Talk:Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford, but that doesn't give anyone license to be rude. I removed one phrase directed at you, and persuaded an editor to make another change. That change was probably not mandated by policy, so I hope you can accept it as a sign of good faith. I don't have an opinion on the POV issues, except to note that they apparently are at the right venue, so I hope they will be resolved there satisfactorily.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh, and in the interest of good faith, while your concerns about the use of blasphemy may be warranted in some places, I am very familiar with the policies governing who can and cannot edit Wikipedia. Uttering blasphemy is not one of the disqualifications. You are free, as an editor, to make such a proposal to the community, but it is not currently such a rule, so I request, as a sign of good faith, that you redact your mistaken claim that it "disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia". -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you, User Sphilbrick, for your message. Unfortunately, I am not able, only out of time reasons, to immediately follow your kind recommendations. As soon as I can write a redaction in this sense, I will do it. You certainly understand that this will take a certain time, first because of the need to redact precisely, second because I have some obligations tomorrow. Anyway, thanks a lot again, and good evening. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm very understanding of time concerns, as I have some overdue projects, and probably shouldn't even be posting :) I appreciate your willingness to take a good faith step. However, I wonder if you are and have the same meaning of the term, as what I was suggesting would take seconds, far less time that it took you to say you didn't have enough time. I was simply hoping you would go to the talk page, click edit, delete the two sentences preceding the phrase "good morning" and add an edit summary "redacted". If you thought I was suggesting that you write out an explanation or an apology or something else, that was not my request. In fact, if you give me permission, I'll do it for you, but only with your permission.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much again. I really appreciate your advice. Please have a look on my recent editings on the Talk page of "Edward de Vere" and on WP:ANI. Best wishes, -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 20:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Zdravím Vás, odpověděl jsem na své talk page ( User_talk:Vejvančický#Hlasov.C3.A1n.C3.AD), ale asi by bylo lepší přesunout celou sekci na moji českou talk page, což je odpovídající fórum ... Nebudete se zlobit? -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 15:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC) reply

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision.

I would add that further edit-warring is likely to draw a harsh response from administrators. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply

You are correct in your assumption that the policies of Wikipedia are subject to US law, as the servers are located in Florida. You should be aware then that there is no law of any kind in the US that promises you freedom of speech. The first amendment to the US Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The emphasis is mine. The key words there are "Congress shall make no law..." Last I looked, neither en-Wikipedia nor the WMF have any affiliation with congress or the US Government. Therefore, they can, have and will make policies that may restrict your freedom of speech. You think your freedom of speech is absolute? Suppose you work at Burger King and a 300 lb. man comes in and orders 5 Whoopers from you. You serve them to him and say "Here you go, Lard-ass". Do you honestly think your employment would continue beyond that point? Of course you don't have freedom of speech. Wikipedia cannot tell you what you can or cannot say, but they most certainly can tell you what you can or cannot say on Wikipedia. To think otherwise is nothing but ignorant. The government may not be able to pass a law saying you can't call my wife a whore, but if you call my wife a whore in front of me, I am most assuredly going to knock you on your butt. And there isn't a cop in the land that would arrest me for it! Freedom of speech is an illusion, my friend. It does not, and never has existed. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I never wanted to be rude to someone. I am no US citizen, but still I think that the US is a very free country. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Howdy Zbrnajsem, Knitwitted has stopped by and left you a smile! Smiles promote really cool blogs and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the bright yellow happy face by smiling at someone you know! Go on, smile! Cheers, and have a happy day!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Oh yes, this is a very good idea, indeed. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 09:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Am glad it helped!! Another link for your perusal... Best wishes!! Knit Knitwitted ( talk) 19:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Happy Holidays!! Best Wishes!! Knit :) Knitwitted ( talk) 02:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Howdy!! HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! enjoy and hugs !!! Knit Knitwitted ( talk) 19:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. Check out de Vere on the River Avon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilton_Hall :) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mariánské Lázně, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech ( 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) 11:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Please check this out... Enjoy :) Knitwitted ( talk) 19:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Howdy!! Hope all is well and you are keeping busy!! I am having a blast with my "WP:BAN"... I think Tom Reedy is a closet-Oxfordian. Hooray for Tom!! Have a very nice weekend and ENJOY!! :) Hugs, Knit Knitwitted ( talk) 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David A. Karnofsky.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply

You have been told time and again that the talk page is for discussions about changes to the article. If you have nothing relevant to say, please stop clogging up the page with other issues. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for guidelines on how to use a talk page. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Tom Reedy has complained to me at User talk:EdJohnston#Would you take a look? about your behavior at Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Your remarks on article talk seem to be a continuation of the problem reported at ANI four months ago. You may respond to Tom Reedy's complaint on my talk page if you wish. I notice that Smatprt drafted up an alternative for the article lead in his talk comment of 22:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You might consider offering that in a WP:Request for comment, which would allow other opinions to be brought in. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Dear Zbrnajsem, Thanks for your message on my talk page. I am sure that pages relating to SAQ were rather contentious in the past but I don't like what I see there now - one side has won and there is a lack in NPOV. I find similar situations elsewhere in Wikipedia, in articles on the Holocaust and Homeopathy for example and think it is a shortcoming of the project that this is so. I've lost my enthusiasm for Wikipedia at the moment and just point out these defects to others. "There is a world elsewhere" as Coriolanus says. All forms of media have their bias, even the BBC! Sceptic1954 ( talk) 14:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Procedures

I see there is a bit of an edit war at Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford#SYNTH, Cherrypicking and COI issues. regarding a comment that you have re-added in various forms ( last example).

Many inexperienced editors mistake the open policy of Wikipedia as an indication that there are no rules—that is a mistake and editors who cannot learn standard procedures are eventually removed. You may not want to take my word for it, so please ask at WP:HELPDESK and indicate that it has been suggested that your comment is not appropriate for an article talk page, particularly one subject to WP:ARBSAQ, and opinions would be welcome. No experienced editor would support your inappropriate comment, and I am formally asking you to stop commenting about other editors on an article talk page. Before disregarding my request, please consider whether you want to continue editing at Wikipedia because the WP:ARBSAQ conditions apply, and repeatedly ignoring advice about standard operating procedures that are obvious to everyone else would eventually result in sanctions.

Apparently you are objecting to an editor making the following statement about someone who died four centuries ago: "So in your opinion, since Oxford's main notability today is his candidacy for the True Author of Shakespeare's works, this article should concentrate on the reasons for that and ignore or minimize everything else, such as his military service, his loathsome treatment of his wife and mistress, and the personality characteristics that made him such a shit." ( diff) You have chosen to ignore the actual message in the comment (which presents over 600 words of clearly written and policy-based content)—all because it contains one naughty word ("shit"). Responding to a well-reasoned and policy-based comment by ignoring the message and focusing on one word is exactly the kind of problem that WP:ARBSAQ was intended to avoid—such a focus has no basis in policy, and is probably due to ignorance or incompetence. I suspect it is the former, although an inability to take advice eventually leads to a conclusion of the latter.

Regarding "ignorance"—editors without a good grasp of English should not focus on a single word because that word may not be as offensive in standard English as suspected (given the context, that is the case here). Article talk pages are to discuss article content, and even if there were a legitimate concern about language used on that page, such concern should be raised elsewhere. The suggestion that "said actions are against the rules of Wikipedia" again completely misses the mark—there is no truth in that assertion. Please ask at WP:HELPDESK for advice or just remove your off-topic comment—if you want to reply to the over 600 word comment at the article talk, please reply to its message. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lightning rod, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech ( 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) 19:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Czech political corruption affair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immunity ( 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) 10:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David A. Karnofsky, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 18:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Sonya Yoncheva ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cinema, Canton, Frankfort, William Christie, Gulbenkian and Auditorio Nacional

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vittoria Puccini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Duguay ( 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) 09:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ekaterina Rybolovleva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equestrian ( 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) 08:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David A. Karnofsky, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello Zbrnajsem. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled " David A. Karnofsky".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David A. Karnofsky}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot ( talk) 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:David A. Karnofsky and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ( talk) 01:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello! Zbrnajsem, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 ( talk) 01:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, Zbrnajsem. Please be careful about editing articles (particularly recent and historical events) and trying to add flourishes to the "dull language" such as this and this embellishment. I'm sure your intentions are good, but these 'improvements' fall afoul of WP:WORDS guidelines (please read the guidelines carefully) and turn the articles into WP:POV pieces. Thank you for your understanding. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:David A. Karnofsky, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bata Chowk metro station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech. 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) 11:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:David A. Karnofsky, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Zbrnajsem. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, " David A. Karnofsky".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Zbrnajsem. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, " David A. Karnofsky".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

David A. Karnofsky, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CatcherStorm ^talk 00:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I am very pleased with the outcome of my submission. Thank you very much for your help, CatcherStorm. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 11:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! CatcherStorm ^talk 11:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Zbrnajsem. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Daily Mail has been determined to be an unreliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764420952#Daily_Mail_RfC

We need another source for the claim that Trump was an early supporter of Reagan. You mention "The Daily Mail citation was not the first in the article" but I am unsure what you mean -- I do not see another citation for this claim, but perhaps I am overlooking something? In any event, if there is another source for this claim, we should use that source rather than the Daily Mail which is unacceptable in these circumstances. Adlerschloß ( talk) 09:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Donald Trump. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You have also misunderstood Dervorguilla's comment, as a result of careless reading. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

You question whether Trump is a liar and attack another editor? Not good. Try catching up. Here are about 300 sources which abundantly document him as a habitual liar, many of the lies, and why ALL fact checkers place him in a category of his own as an exceptional liar. They have never encountered a public person like him.

• Talk:Donald_Trump#Sources_documenting_Trump_as_a_liar

BullRangifer ( talk) 15:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Stop telling me things, BullRangifer. There is maybe this one side of the opinion spectrum. However, there is the other side, too. And we are not expected to write down our opinions in the articles. Please read all the rules and warnings given ať the beginning of this discussion side. They tell us something about the necessarily cautious editing concerning U.S. politicians after 1932. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 16:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I've been here since about 2003 and have helped write many of the policies we use, so I do know quite a bit more than you. You're a newbie here, and that's fine. We are here to help you learn. We all have to start somewhere, and you'll save yourself a lot of grief if you learn from more experienced editors. Your interpretations need improvement.

We document everything here, including opinions, as long as they are found in RS. We are also uncensored, so documenting that Trump is known as a liar is perfectly fine, as long as we quote RS and attribute the opinions. BTW, it is known as his most defining character trait. It's the word which defines him best. That's what RS say. Start reading those sources and you'll learn a lot which sources favorable to Trump will never tell you and will keep hidden from you. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

It is of no use to tell me how long you are on Wikipedia. I am on Wikipedia since 2011, am by God no newbie. And even if I were really a newbie, you would not have the right to tell me that I should learn from you, and possibly be silent. Whar does it mean, reliable sources? Who defines whether a source is RS or not? Sources favourable to Trump are maybe rare, those who are not favourable to him are plenty. Somewhere I´ve put a notice that the most prominent of ″sources″ that are hostile to Trump are at least partially owned by Trump´s very well known adversaries like Carlos Slim Helú (NYT) and Jeff Bezos (Washington Post). So what can you, can I expect from them? Generally, I don´t bother very much about what the ″sources″ will tell me. I have my own brain, can also read between the lines, user BullRangifer. And I am very probably much older than you, in this sense more experienced. I have lived during the times of 14 US presidents, and I know a lot about all the problems with which they had to cope. And if we, i.e. if Wikipedia is uncensored, so it is perfectly OK if I say that there is no way to call Trump a liar. You can´t delete it here on my own discussion page. And you have no right to censor me even on the discussion page of Donald Trump´s article. And now, please, accept what I have written to you. I do not wish that you try to give me any more ″lessons″. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 21:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

You can safely ignore everyone else in the world and everyone else's opinion everywhere but on WP, where the only thing that counts is what Reliable Sources say. Most of the longtime editors, such as those you disparage on the Trump article, probably don't even have a personal opinion. I know I do not. Please heed their warnings. They are trying to ensure you remain in good standing helping us all to improve Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

This is extremely funny, user SPECIFICO. So you admit not having any personal opinion, and attribute this strange condition also to other editors of Wikipedia. You have obviously been massively influenced by media like NYT, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Time, The New Yorker, The Nation, Foreign Policy, CNN, ABC, etc. etc., to such an extent that you believe all the stuff they are telling you, without any reflection. And you call them ″reliable sources″, without any hesitation. No personal opinion! No personal thoughts??? How can you improve Wikipedia without personal thoughts? Are you a human being, not a roboter? This is alarming. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 08:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, Zbrnajsem. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you missed that rather large notice on Donald Trump? You'd be advised to reverse your reversion, otherwise it may wind up at arbitration enforcement, WP:AE. ValarianB ( talk) 19:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I was just coming here to suggest the same thing.- Mr X 🖋 19:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I just reverted it. [1] Sorry for eliminating the prospects for more fun at AE, unless Zbrnajsem does it again. ― Mandruss  ☎ 19:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

And has any kind of consensus been obtained on the talk page? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 20:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Not yet, but it's been less than 7 hours since the question was raised on the talk page. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

As far as ValarianB´s question is concerned, I know very well about this large notice. It seems to me that some other editors disregard this notice quite heavily. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 21:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't know about other articles, but it's taken quite seriously at that one. If you see someone disregarding it there, feel free to revert them as I did. That kind of revert is 1RR exempt, provided you're clearly right. If I have a shadow of a doubt I leave it for others. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

User Mandruss, the article on Donald Trump is, in my opinion, full of disregard for the "large notice". In fact, I am completely tired of all this stuff, as there are too many people working in a certain direction. Obviously I am not free to write something or to revert anything. This is very sad. So keep going on ... Nonetheless, there will be no substantial change concerning the whole matter, regardless what has been put down in this particular article. You can´t count on it. Adieu. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 21:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Donald Trump has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. My edit was not "vandalism". It was a standard challenge to your inappropriate material. Scjessey ( talk) 16:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Please don´t tell me anything about the sandbox. You have reverted valid and sourced informations, that´s the problem. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 16:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

The sandbox is part of the polite message you get with an automated warning. The problem is that you edit without seeking consensus, and then whenever someone challenges your edits by reversion, you violate Arbcom restrictions by reverting. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Donald Trump shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Scjessey ( talk) 17:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Since you have not responded to warnings or ceased making troublesome edits, I have a filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for enforcement of discretionary sanctions based on your actions at Donald Trump. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ( by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Violation of article editing restrictions and other disruptive editing like this. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

If you don't understand the restrictions then please use the article talk page and refrain from editing the article directly. Repeating the same behavior will probably get you topic banned. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ NeilN: It's clear from their comments that they understand the restrictions. They should have been blocked yesterday under DS. Editors should not have to spend time putting together AE complaints for clear cases like this. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Mandruss: Was any admin approached yesterday? -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

{{ping|NeilN} Not to my knowledge. Is WP:AN suitable for that purpose? But, given that article's high visibility, it's extremely likely that more than one admin were aware of the disruption starting yesterday. There is too much reluctance to use DS in general. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Mandruss: AN, ANI, or the talk page of any admin who admins in that area (I'll handle simple cases unlikely to cause drama on my talk page). And I think you overestimate the number of admins looking to hand out DS unasked for. If the edits aren't obviously problematic from a content point of view, we're not keeping an eagle eye on who reverted what when. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I shall try AN next time. Thanks. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard

This is not a valid appeal request and your edit summary (if that's the reason for your appeal) won't get you very far per WP:NOTTHEM. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Zbrnajsem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angelique Kerber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbora Strýcová, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhang Shuai ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbora Krejčíková, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubles ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West–Eastern Divan Orchestra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daniel Vallverdú, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coach ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bijan Djir-Sarai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The FAZ article and the Füllsack article on which it is based are contradictory. They cite Rebikow's story that when he was shown the short score of Debussy's Pelléas, he recognized four chromatically stepwise descending ninth chords as stolen from his op. 16. Both authors make their point saying Pelléas was only printed in 1902, two years after the publication of Rebikow's op. 16 (1900). Debussy composed the first act (with the ninth chords) 1893-1894, though (cf. the chapter on genesis and sources in Nichols/Langham Smith: Debussy, Pelléas and Mélisande, Cambridge 1989, p. 37). He completed the short score of the work in 1895. It is impossible that he stole the chords from Rebikow.

However, I haven't even mention Debussy. Rebikov's grievance was not only because of Debussy, who of course was known as an intensive "Plagiator" (I am sorry). Possibly the chords have been added by Debussy shortly before publication in 1902. Rebikov suggested that Stravinsky and Skrjabin lent from him, too. Jan Brachmann is editor-in-chief for FAZ's Feuilleton and an excellent musicologist. So he knows what he writes. Would you please sign your contributions? Otherwise I would again delete what you write. Even so I would like to restore my version. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 11:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Please note that Brachmann only refers to Manfred Füllsack's scholarship. So if you want to restore your version, you should not quote Brachmann, but the original source by Füllsack ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/932955 ). Füllsack, btw, is no musicologist, but professor for sociology in Vienna. It is very unlikely that Debussy added four chords only for publication after he stole them. As you might know, the opera follows Maeterlinck's play very closely. So if he composed act 1 in 1893-94, it is unlikely that he added chords to words that were already in Maeterlinck's play and were already composed by him. This is all speculation and I only believe it if you show me the short score of 1895 and the passage with the missing chords there. Furthermore, I do not agree that it is common sense in the musicologigal scientific community that Debussy was an intensive plagiator (I am sorry myself). There is a disscussion, yes. But in my understandig there are still differing positions. 2001:4DD3:8C98:0:C9E8:500D:FF08:455C ( talk) 14:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Again me. Maybe you can name some sources about the plagiarism Debussy is accused of. I can only find scholarship that is inconclusive or prefers not to call the use of similar melodic shapes plagiarism. (e.g. Roy Howat, Ravel and the Piano, in: The Cambridge Companion to Ravel, ed. Deborah Mawer, Cambridge 2000, p. 74-75). 2001:4DD3:8C98:0:C9E8:500D:FF08:455C ( talk) 14:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

OK, you know more than I do. So let us end this discussion. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 16:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Suggestion: Add the Füllsack Article under "Bibliography". You seem to be more experienced here. 2001:4DD3:8C98:0:E411:4D90:C6C3:C039 ( talk) 16:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alberto Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply