User talk:CALR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/archive1 /archive2

Contents 1 Shakespeare authorship 2 personal attacks and mass deletions 3 Smile 4 Requested move at Kyiv 5 AfD nomination of Tyrannosaurus in popular culture 6 Countdown 7 Featured List of the Day Experiment 8 Massospondylus 9 Arabic scrabble 10 WP:LOTD 11 LOTDs and more 12 Shrink fit

[edit] Shakespeare authorship

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[1]] (Felsommerfeld 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your response. You MUST read the Life and Times of BenJonson (a Wiki editor here) which is on the Shakespeare Authorship discussion page. It should tell you everything you need to know. (Felsommerfeld 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

I'd better point out that it details the evidence for a deceitful sockpuppetry. (Felsommerfeld 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He know, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Soo - I am glad I am not the only one accused of being a Sockpuppet! Does that make me part of some club? (lol). Seriously, are there any technical wizards or Wiki gurus that can clear this accusation, left on dozens of administrators mailboxes by Felsommerfeld? Felsommerfeld and Hangemhigh are working in tandem to make deletions of long-standing, properly referenced material because it does not conform to their point of view. They have been quoted as saying the article should not even exist and because they can't delete the entire article, they are deleting Oxfordian and Anti-Stratfordian material and the references that support it. There was a consensus version in place since last November and for the last 8 months the page has been relatively quiet. In the last 5 days they have deleted masses of information and are preventing reverts by tag-teaming. As the only regular Oxfordian editor and do what I can but have been sucked into several edit wars and have even been banned twice, both of which I regret, and both times when Stratfordain editors attempted to delete information. So, what to do?Smatprt 03:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks and mass deletions

Hi again - I am continuing the discussion above about the current collapse of the Shakespeare Authorship Question article - I just posted the statement below on the Shakespeare project page as advised by another administrator with an "A". I am a long-time editor of this page and am coming under attack from 2 "new" editors and one sockpuppet (now banned). They have deleted material, section by section and my attempts to revert have not been successful. I tried posting information section by section, as advised by another administrator, asking for discussion, but none came. Instead, these ridiculous accusations came and reverts were made. My post below will tell my side of the story. I am asking that you revert the page to the version that was in place from Nov 06 to June 07 (before these recent wars started) and then lock the article for a cooldown period. Here is my posting on the project page:

"Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article"

As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and some are sickened by) my interest in the Authorship Question (laugh). My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the same page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept.

Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some smart administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer.

In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you personally disagree with the content, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions going on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out.Smatprt 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you can find time to read the testimony of many aggrieved editors on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Also here on the Fringe Theories board. [[2]] What is the procedure for completely banning Smatprt? (Felsommerfeld 13:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Smile

[edit] Requested move at Kyiv

Hello,

I am currently in a discussion on the Kyiv/Kiev naming page about moving the page to Kyiv, but although there is some opposition, the only argument now against moving it is that there was a poll about a move, and there was no consensus.

However, the poll which I had requested was closed in less that 15 hours, and no reason was given for that closure. Please don’t misunderstand me – I do not mean to insult anybody, nor do I take this as a slight or personal offence in any way, because I understand how much work it takes to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. Administrators have many things to do, so they cannot spend hours discussing one poll.

What is disconcerting, however, is that I was also told by an editor who disagrees with me: “You can try starting a new poll but it sure would be closed even sooner than the last one.”

I would really appreciate any suggestions you may have.

I have searched through the Wikipedia guidelines, but I haven’t found any information about poll guidelines. I want to open another poll/request to move. I would love to hear your opinion in this poll.

I do have a request, however. Please let this poll run for five days. There are many people who are very busy in the “real world” who would like to contribute. This is a question of a new nation’s capital city of a relatively new independent state, and it is important to very many people. The discussion on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming is roughly 50 thousand words long.

My personal arguments for the move are summarized in point 24, the topic at hand, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming#The_Topic_at_Hand, however, as I mentioned, there are very many people who have contributed to this discussion.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Horlo 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Tyrannosaurus in popular culture

Tyrannosaurus in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Tyrannosaurus in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrannosaurus in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Tyrannosaurus in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The great and mysterious Bearian has spoken at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrannosaurus in popular culture. :-) I think you shopuld note the Heymann standard in the comments, as I use it too often. Bearian 01:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Countdown

Hi Calr. I did ultimately remove this one. I noticed you aren't editing heavily and the article itself had not seen work. The lack of publication info is the first thing that needs addressing, if you do go back to it. I felt bad considering "It's not reasonable in the long term to expect editors like me to monitor an article like this for the rest of eternity." A frustration that hangs over every editor—all that we do can be undone. Anyway, hang in there, as someone else noted after your last comment. Marskell 11:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massospondylus

Hi Calr,

How are you doing? I've been working on Wikipedia's Massospondylus article for a while now, and I'm hoping to get this article up to GA status eventually. Since you worked on this article back in the day, I thought you might have ideas for improvement or suggestions for expansion. Any ideas are appreciated. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 10:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic scrabble

My pleasure. ;o)

Lots of photos available at the Boardgamegeek - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/images/game/320. IainCheyne (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LOTD

Congratulations. List of English words containing Q not followed by U was among the leading votegetters at WP:LOTD and will be recognized as list of the day twice. If you have any date preferences get back to me by the 26th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOTDs and more

BMH will love you for yours. +sj + 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shrink fit

On 14 December 2006, you reverted Shrink fit to a redirect to Shrinkwrap. As a mechanic, I can assure you that the two terms are not equivalent. Peedarp007's edit was substantially correct. Please justify or undo your reversion.Cstaffa (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)