User talk:Smatprt

Smatprt is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia after reflecting on the topic ban enacted November 3, 2010, a case involving the ongoing content disputes surrounding the Wikipedia articles:

Shakespeare Authorship Question

Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship

Edward de Vere

And, to a lesser degree, the articles listed here:

Those articles listed in the attempted mediation

Related cases were an RFC [[1]] and a mediation[[2]], both of which, unfortunately, were left unresolved. As the RFC and the topic ban discussions are already archived, I am providing the link to those comments here:[[3]]. Regards to everyone and Happy Holidays! Smatprt (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Topic bans apply broadly

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

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

Cengime asked me to comment here. As far as I am concerned, I would consider generic Shakespeare-related edits like this [4] to be okay, as long as they are not related to the authorship issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

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

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

November 2013

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

An RfC that you may be interested in...

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

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

Clarification motion

A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare

I nominated William Shakespeare for TFA because his 400th death anniversary is coming up. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smatprt. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Smatprt. 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]

Orphaned non-free image File:GoldenBough2onfire.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GoldenBough2onfire.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:GoldenBough2onfire.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GoldenBough2onfire.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts?

Hello Smatprt, please disclose if you have other user accounts. Thank you, Netherzone (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Just this one. Thanks for checking! 2603:3024:B49:1100:5D25:5031:B489:6E2E (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello Smatprt. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Smatprt. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Smatprt|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Graywalls (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls. Thanks for checking, but I have no financial stake in any topics I contribute to, and I don't get or receive compensation for any contributions. smatprt 50.213.42.61 (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have responded to the talk page of an article which whom it is suspected you have a conflict-of-interest with. Please indicate the nature of personal/professional relationship with the organizations/buildings/facilities in Carmel-by-the-Sea you have been editing on off and on for over a decade. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mandatory notice

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]