Felsommerfeld

Welcome, Felsommerfeld!

Hello, Felsommerfeld, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Redvers, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

➨ ЯEDVERS 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Shakespearean authorship question

Thanks for letting me know. I have contacted Smatprt and am hoping for a swift and happy resolution to this dispute! Soo 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't recognize that as an allegation of sockpuppetry; I was at work and I just skimmed it, thinking you were just accusing both of having a heavy bias. My mistake AdamBiswanger1 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how much time you have on your hands but just type Smatprt into google and read through a few pages. The number of times that he has been blocked or complained about on forums for altering material without consensus is amazing! (Felsommerfeld 02:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Sigh. Might I suggest that you start with a blank slate and create new heading called "consensus" or something, in which people can formally discuss (support or oppose) which exact changes they would like included in the article? I would also suggest a request for comment. AdamBiswanger1 03:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt

It was claimed by Tom Reedy that BenJonson was Roger Stritmatter, a conclusion at which I had also arrived. He's certainly not the same person as Smatprt, but Wikipedia also has a policy against what are called, rather unpleasantly, "meatpuppets": editors who, though separate people, act as part of a "group mind". I don't think S and BJ are so close in editing actions that they quite count as meatpuppets, however I do think that Smatprt's editing has been unrelentingly tendentious and riddled with double-standards. Paul B 11:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you are wondering what my comments to user:Hornplease about Witzel and Itihas Patrika have to do with Shakespeare, they derived from the fact that Hornnplease and I often edit pages related to Hindu nationalism and Indian hstory. Itihas Patrika is an extremist Hindu-Nationalist journal which claims that the Taj Mahal was built by a Hindu ruler, not a Muslim one. Paul B 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the Admin page. I doubt it will have much of an effect because Smatprt tends to work by unrelenting attrition rather than wild reversions. However, good luck! Paul B 12:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You can read about the procedure for banning here. However I would advise you against it because the procedure is generally long, and in this case highly unlikely to be unsuccessful - while I understand you find Smatprt frustrating to work with, I don't think he has committed any more major transgressions that 3RR violations. It's only likely to stir up more bad feeling. Soo 14:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Stratfordianism

Hi. I would request that you achieve consensus for removing referenced/cited material from articles before doing so. NPOV is created by including all good sourced material, no matter what ones opinion of the material. LessHeard vanU 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented generally at the article talkpage. My comments here were in relation to removal of cited references as complained of at WP:AN (a different section than those relating to 'User:Smatprt violations'). Removal of referenced material is not condoned by Wikipedia, but I felt that a gentle request to desist was preferable to the requested warning or blocking at this time. LessHeard vanU 16:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Shakespeare authorship question. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I know you're a sensitive boy Erik so I'll promise to be more careful in future! Felsommerfeld (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your campaign to delete Authorship-related articles.

Hi Felsommerfeld,

You may not be aware of this but Wikipedia has a specific Notability Guideline that deals with inclusion criteria for articles, and a well established Deletion Policy that outlines what are the grounds for deletion of an article and a process for how to go about it. All the lobbying or arguing in the world will have exactly zero effect if the relevant process is not followed. I think this, and using the negative word “crank” for a theory which several editors are deeply invested in, are making other editors perceive you as somewhat impolite and confrontational. Perhaps by choosing terms which are less likely to be taken as derisive we can achieve a constructive debate on whether the various Authorship articles meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. --Xover (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The theory is a very well known "crank theory". Reporting on it is not the same as supporting it. (p.s., I'm bemused by your claim elsewhere that promoting such theories is somehow "left wing". Typically it has been criticised for being implicitly right wing, though such labels are really rather meaningless in this context). Paul B (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your nomination of Oxfordian theory for GA

Hello, Felsommerfeld, I saw that you nominated Oxfordian theory at GAC.[1] I'm puzzled by your congratulatory attitude, however, especially since you made it clear at Talk:Baconian theory that these theories do not deserve GA-status and should even be deleted. As a result, I question whether you in fact intend for the Oxfordian theory article to become GA. Could you please explain why you have nominated this article (which you have seemingly never edited) at GAC? María (habla conmigo) 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I have purposely avoided editing it so that I could review it (that's how I understand the rules). I have made it well known that I have reservations about this piece and other similar ones, but I now see that with a bit of outside help they could be polished into good articles. It needs academic minds concentrated on it. Surely, the regular editors will be thrilled at the prospect of a GA accolade. Felsommerfeld (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you nominated the article for GAC, you cannot review it. In fact, articles should be reviewed by an individual who is not invested in the work; someone who has a strong POV should also not review. I hope that you will help this article through the reviewing process and also be fair as well as courteous to other editors. Some of your comments at the Baconian theory article concerned me, but I'm glad that you're now willing to help improve these interesting articles. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured that there is no conspiracy, as you put it. I suggest bringing in these "academic minds" and improving the article before nominating it at GAC; that way the review will go smoothly and the article will be more likely to pass with little edit warring, in fighting, etc. María (habla conmigo) 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no stake in this matter whatsoever. My advice to you would be to actually edit the article and improve it so that one day it will be ready for GA status. Your flair for the dramatic is not exactly helping your case, however, and I suggest dropping the matter for now. María (habla conmigo) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gone away

My creator has decided to take my battery out. Felsommerfeld (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

I'd like to know who wrote this last message because I didn't. Felsommerfeld (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)