Jump to content

User talk:Knitwitted: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Blanked the page
Tag: Blanking
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Add to MY User Page as I am currently blocked from editing said page thank you very much ==
* Cites to add
** [[Othello]]
*** "Base Indian" as per Q1 vs. "Base Judean" as per FF
**** K[--], H. “The Base Indian” ''Notes and Queries'' April 2, 1881: 264.
**** Quekett, Arthur E. “The Base Indian” ''Notes and Queries'' Sept. 24, 1881: 245.
**** Frood, A. “Base Indian” ''Notes and Queries'' Dec. 26, 1896: 516.
**** Fleissner, Robert F. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2868774 “The Three Base Indians in ''Othello''”] ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' Vol. 22, No. 1 (Winter, 1971): 80-2.
**** Duncan-Jones, Katherine. “Yet Another Source for ''Othello’s'' ‘Base Indian’” ''Notes and Queries'' Vol. 19, No. 4 (April, 1972): 128-9.
**** “Yet Another Source for Othello’s ‘Base Indian’” ''Notes and Queries'' Vol. 19, No. 10 (Oct, 1972): 386. [''see'' Arthur Freeman, ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' Vol. 13 (1962): 256-7.]
**** Poisson, Rodney. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2869048 “''Othello’s'' ‘Base Indian’: A Better Source for the Allusion”] ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' Vol. 26, No. 4 (Autumn, 1975): 462-6.
**** Veit, Richard S. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2869049 “’Like the Base Judean’: A Defense of an Oft-Rejected Reading in ''Othello''”] ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' Vol. 26, No. 4 (Autumn, 1975): 466-9.
**** Holmer, Joan Ozark. “''Othello’s'' Threnos: ‘Arabian Trees’ and ‘Indian’ Versus ‘Judean’ ''Shakespeare Studies'' Vol. 13 (1980): 145-67.
**** Shaheen, Naseeb. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2869376 “’Like the Base Judean’”] ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' Vol. 31, No. 1 (Spring, 1980): 93-5.
**** Fleissner, Robert F. “A Clue to the ‘Base Judean’ in ''Othello''” ''Notes and Queries'' Vol. 28, No. 2 (April, 1981): 137-8.
**** Levin, Richard. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2870337 “The Indian/Judean Crux in ''Othello''”] ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' Vol. 33, No. 1 (Spring, 1982): 60-7.
**** Levin, Richard. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2870222 “The Indian/Judean Crux in ''Othello'': An Addendum”] ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1983): 72.
**** Williams, George Walton. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2870223 “Yet Another Early Use of Judean”] ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1983): 72.
**** Levin, Richard. “''Othello’s'' Arabian Trees” ''Notes and Queries'' June, 1984: 201-2.
**** Fleissner, Robert F. “’Base Judean’ in ''Othello'' Again: Misprint or, More Likely, Misreading?” ''Notes and Queries'' Vol 35, No. 4 (Dec, 1988): 475-9.
**** Jackson, MacD. P. “India and Indian or Judea and Judean? Shakespeare’s ''Othello'' V.ii.356, and Peele’s ''Edward I'' i.107” ''Notes and Queries'' Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec, 1988): 479-80.
**** Milward, Peter. “More on ‘Base Judean’” ''Notes and Queries'' Vol. 36, No. 3 (Sept, 1989): 329-31.
**** Shaheen, Naseeb. “Shakespeare and the Tomson New Testament” ''Notes and Queries'' Vol. 42, No. 3 (Sept, 1995): 290-1. [Gives possible example of Shakespeare’s usage of the Tomson NT at ''Othello'' V.ii.348]
**** Shaheen, Naseeb. “''Othello''”. ''Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays'' Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1999, 2011: 602-3.

==Disambiguation link notification for May 19==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited [[Biblical allusions in Shakespeare]], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages [[Henry V]] and [[Exodus]] ([[tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Biblical_allusions_in_Shakespeare|check to confirm]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Biblical_allusions_in_Shakespeare|fix with Dab solver]]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 08:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
:FIXED. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 18:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

== Third and last warning ==

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose, at their own discretion, [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|sanctions]] on any editor working on pages broadly related to [[Shakespeare authorship question]] if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], any expected [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standards of behavior]], or any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|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]]. <!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} -->

Diffs

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Tempest&diff=608772753&oldid=608719919]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Tempest&diff=603822289&oldid=601058490]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hamlet&diff=prev&oldid=610701512]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Macbeth&diff=prev&oldid=609113674]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Much_Ado_About_Nothing&diff=prev&oldid=610700962]
[[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] ([[User talk:Tom Reedy|talk]]) 02:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:[[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] I am not working on the Shakespeare Authorship Question. The articles and book I cited are either published mainstream or are IIRC indexed in ''World Shakespeare Bibliography''. It is irrelevant that Oxfordians wrote said articles/book. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 02:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
::I suggest, not for the first time, that you read [[WP:RS]], [[WP:Fringe]], and [[WP:ONEWAY]]. [[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] ([[User talk:Tom Reedy|talk]]) 02:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:::[[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] So ''Review of English Studies'', ''Critical Survey'', ''The Shakespeare Yearbook'', and McFarland & Co. are NOT [[WP:RS]]? Is that correct? [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 02:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:::BTW, these articles and book have nothing to do with the SAQ. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 02:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:::: Per [[WP:ARBSAQ]], you are still (indefinitely) topic-banned from all edits "related to the Shakespeare authorship issue" In this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Tempest&diff=prev&oldid=608772753] and several similar edits, you added a "further reading" link to a Shakespeare article, pointing to a book by a prominent proponent of alternative authorship hypotheses, in which he explicitly argues in favour of those hypotheses (see e.g. page 204f.). To claim that this book has "nothing to do with the SAQ" is obviously bogus, and the argument that it is formally a "reliable source" from a mainstream publisher is entirely beside the point. From your user talk editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knitwitted&diff=prev&oldid=610702567] it clearly appears that your motive in adding these links was to systematically promote references to "Oxfordian" authors ''because'' they are Oxfordians. Furthermore, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship&diff=prev&oldid=610867386] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marlovian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship&diff=prev&oldid=611421469] you edited articles that are unambiguously within the scope of your ban in their entirety. These are all clear and unambiguous breaches of your topic ban.
:::: Since this is repeated case and you have been doing this consistently for a long time, the block duration this time is two weeks. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 07:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::::: Your "Furthermore, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship&diff=prev&oldid=610867386] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marlovian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship&diff=prev&oldid=611421469] you edited articles that are unambiguously within the scope of your ban in their entirety." The first was a wiki-link; the second was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marlovian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship&diff=611452419&oldid=611421469 a mistake which I quickly rectified].<br>*Your "From your user talk editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knitwitted&diff=prev&oldid=610702567] it clearly appears that your motive in adding these links was to systematically promote references to "Oxfordian" authors ''because'' they are Oxfordians." is INCORRECT. I am citing articles that were published mainstream or were indexed in ''World Shakespeare Bibliography'' that just so happen to have been written by Oxfordians.<br>*Your "To claim that this book has "nothing to do with the SAQ" is obviously bogus, and the argument that it is formally a "reliable source" from a mainstream publisher is entirely beside the point." That is your opinion.<br>*Please discuss why ''Review of English Studies'', ''Critical Survey'', ''The Shakespeare Yearbook'' are not [WP:RS]. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 14:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::Knitwitted, you are being ''transparently'' dishonest. '''If''' you weren't topic banned, no one would object to your including articles that "just so happen to have been written by Oxfordians" - that is, if you were adding them in good faith because they supported relevant article content. But you aren't. You are just collecting and listing articles by Oxfordians, sometimes sticking them in a "further reading" section solely populated by one of these articles. Even if this were not contrary to your topic ban and a transparent attempt to promote fringe material, it would be contrary to the policy concerning citations and bibliographies. I can't just go round articles adding sections called "further reading" consisting only of articles written by my wife. I can and have added publications by her to articles when they are relevant, but I can't just do it to make her work more visible. That's [[Wikipedia:Spam]]. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 14:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Paul B. I only added a "Further reading" section because I didn't notice an appropriate section to post cites to "Further reading" articles. Please don't misrepresent what I'm doing. If you'd please notice, I did not post every single article in ''Brief Chronicles'' since AFAIK no other articles were indexed in ''World Shax Biblio''. That is the only reason I posted Showerman's and Wainwright's articles. If ''WSB'' is not a [WP:RS], then that is my fault for not knowing. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 14:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::::BTW Paul B. Just an FYI, I got banned a few weeks ago from the noted ShakesVerean discussion group and, along with no longer being able to post comments, I am no longer even allowed to view their page. Nor am I allowed to post comments or edit my own work [http://shake-speares-bible.com/author/knitwitted/ on Stritmatter's site]. How's that for my "transparently dishonest" motive. Best wishes, Knit [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::BTW #2 Paul B. Did you notice that [[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] added a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tom_Reedy#Shakespeare_and_the_Bible Shakespearean page] for me? Is that topic part of my ban? [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 15:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

{{OD}}
As is so often the case Knitwitted, I find your reasoning unintelligible. Tom answered a question you'd asked. Are you blaming him for providing you with information? I don't see why the fact that you've been banned from the "noted ShakesVerean discussion group" and from Roger Stritmatter's website demonstrates anything other than your propensity to get banned from websites. Is this supposed to prove that you must be neutral because the Oxfordians have 'censored' you too? It doesn't alter the fact that your claim that the is articles you added "just happened" to be by Oxfordians was transparently dishonest. It's not a question of whether the articles count as "RS" or not. There are hundred and hundreds of "RS" books and articles published on Shakespeare every year. We don't list them all. You just picked out ones written by Oxfordians. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 18:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:Paul B. You miss my points entirely. (1) I'm not blaming Tom for anything. I was pointing out a Shax topic I've been working on which is unrelated to the SAQ. i.e. Presumably, I'm free to work on other Shax topics which are unrelated to the SAQ. (2) "Just happened" meaning what difference does it make who wrote the articles I cited? Again, I was basing my decision to cite Showerman and Wainwright based on my IIRC that such were indexed in ''WSB''. Again, Stritmatter/Kositsky's articles as well as their book were published mainstream. (3) Your "We don't list them all." Then who decides what does get listed? (4) Your "You just picked out ones written by Oxfordians." Please see (2). [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 18:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::Please explain how posting cites to articles (and a book) published mainstream or indexed by ''WSB'' are related to the SAQ. Again, what difference does it make who wrote said articles/book. Thanks. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 19:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Also, please explain how (1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship&diff=prev&oldid=610867386 adding one wiki-link] to the "Oxfordian theory" page and (2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marlovian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship&diff=611452419&oldid=611421469 incorrectly posting a cite] on the "Marlovian theory" page which was removed constitute a gross indifference to my topic ban on the SAQ. Thanks. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 19:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::::If you can't understand how adding content to articles about SAQ is violating you topic ban on adding content to SAQ articles, then nothing I can say will help. '"Just happened" meaning what difference does it make who wrote the articles I cited?' I've already answered that question. You were adding non-notable articles ''solely because'' they were written by Oxfordians. As I've explained, even if we forget the topic ban issue, that's not acceptable. I shouldn't be adding articles written by my wife, or my friends to "further reading" sections unless they are justified ''because'' they are major relevant texts, or are directly cited in the article. Read [[Wikipedia:Spam]]. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::Are you serious that adding a wiki-link to the Oxfordian page and mistakenly adding, then un-doing a cite on the Marlovian page (the cite should have been posted on Marlowe's page) constitute a violation of my topic ban on '''ADDING CONTENT''' to SAQ articles? [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 00:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::BTW, "Further reading" is just that... Articles/books that are '''not''' referenced in the main article. "References" are articles/books cited in the main article. It's very annoying Wikipedia cannot be consistent in how such sections are to be used. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 00:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Where on earth did you get the idea from that your are banned only from "adding content" to SAQ articles, (or only from edits to "SAQ articles", for that matter?) You are topic-banned from making ''any'' edit related to the SAQ whatsoever. It can't really as difficult to grasp this as you make it out to be. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 14:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Gee. Now I'm disappointed I didn't add a truck-load of crap to SAQ articles rather than my one teeney wiki-link to an article I started and am working on and was instructed by a bot to add wiki-links AND a corrected error to receive such an over-blown block. I'll have to remember that for when I purposefully want to be obnoxious. Have a nice day. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 16:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Why don't you actually read what people are saying before hitting the keyboard. You write "Further reading" is just that... Articles/books that are '''not''' referenced in the main article." YES I KNOW. READ [[Wikipedia:Spam]]. I REPEAT, "I shouldn't be adding articles written by my wife, or my friends to "further reading" sections '''unless they are justified ''because'' they are major relevant texts''', '''or''' are directly cited in the article. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for August 4==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited [[Roger Stritmatter]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Mark Anderson]]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 09:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

:FIXED [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

==[[Richard M. Waugaman]]==
Hi Knitwitted, I'm afraid you are going to have to change the text of the article you've just created because it's pretty much copied word for word from [http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/waugamar/ Georgetown website]. That violates Wikipedia's copyright rules. It's really just a matter of rephrasing. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 17:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you Paul. Is there a time limit this must be done, or will an on-can-do basis suffice? Appreciate your help! Best, knit [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 17:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
::Basically until someone else comes along and spots it! [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 17:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
:::LOL. I did my best for now. See what you think please if/what more I need to work on. Thank you!! [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 18:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Knitwitted. The article on Richard M. Waugaman has been nominated for deletion because there are no reliable citations in the article, and the subject lacks notability per WP:SCHOLAR. I wanted to notify you as the author of the original article. Thanks. [[User:Bomagosh|Bomagosh]] ([[User talk:Bomagosh|talk]]) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

==Your SAQ topic ban==
Hi, Knitwitted. I just came across a six-week old edit of yours to [[Prince Tudor theory]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Prince_Tudor_theory&diff=prev&oldid=631344259 here], where you created a "Further reading section" with three book reviews. The Prince Tudor article is about the SAQ controversy, and so are apparently (from the titles) the "Criticisms of Prince Tudor theory" that you added. Did you forget you are topic banned from all pages related to the SAQ? Of course I'm not going to sanction you for something that happened in October, that nobody noticed at the time. But please try to remember. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC).
:Hi Bishonen. Thanks for letting me know. I thought posting "Criticisms" of the SAQ would be okay. Apologies for taking such liberties. Best, knit [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 23:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
::Oh so disingenuous. Those links are not criticisms of SAQ, as you well know. They are ''all'' articles in Oxfordian publications, defending orthodox Oxfordian theory, which is not criticism but ''promotion'' of SAQ. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 00:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Paul, did you read the articles? They are CRITICISMS of books on the Prince Tudor theory. Have a nice day. [[User:Knitwitted|Knitwitted]] ([[User talk:Knitwitted#top|talk]]) 18:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I read all of them. Knitwitted, did you read what I wrote?: "they are ''all'' articles in Oxfordian publications, '''defending orthodox Oxfordian theory'''". Oxfordianism is part of the SAQ, therefore they are promoting SAQ. You know this, so stop being disingenuous. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 15:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, I also find that over a longish period you have also used your userpage for collecting materials and making editing suggestions to others in support of your SAQ arguments. Your topic ban explicitly includes all edits ''related to'' the SAQ in any way, ''in any namespace'', so these user page edits have also all been in breach of it. I also note you began making SAQ-related edits in article namespace repeatedly since August of this year, only few weeks after your latest 2-week block, which had been for exactly this kind of evasion.

Since this is such a long-term issue with you, and since you apparently have never shown any interest in editing anything other than SAQ topics, I also don't see why I should consider the matter "stale" now, just because the latest addition was a few weeks back. I am therefore blocking you for a year. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
: Riiiiight. And since you've now carried that same pattern over to this very talkpage, instead of responding in any meaningful way, I have also blocked your talkpage access. If you want to appeal the block, you can do so why the UTRS system or via Arbcom. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 00:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Roger Stritmatter]] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:Roger Stritmatter]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].

The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Stritmatter]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice -->[[User:Bomagosh|Bomagosh]] ([[User talk:Bomagosh|talk]]) 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. As you topic banned me long ago, I haven't the slightest interest in your virtual book burning campaign. If you do succeed in deleting the entry, it will merely confirm the already well documented, criminal hypocrisy of Wikipedia's practices. Perhaps calmer, smarter heads will prevail, but given the sorry history I am not holding my breath. If the page is deleted, you will reap the whirlwind. Cheers. Dr. Stritmatter <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/207.55.226.53|207.55.226.53]] ([[User talk:207.55.226.53|talk]]) 20:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:O dear. Maybe you know what is new about Droeshout gravery. --[[User:Zbrnajsem|Zbrnajsem]] ([[User talk:Zbrnajsem|talk]]) 21:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

== [[WP:ACE2016|ArbCom Elections 2016]]: Voting now open! ==

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Knitwitted. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2016|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 [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates|the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/399|the voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/40&oldid=750777917 -->

== Images in Ireland Shakespeare forgeries ==

Hi. I noticed that a few weeks ago you added a section "Images from Castiglione's The courtier of Counte Baldessar Castilio Diuided into foure bookes (1603)" to the [[Ireland Shakespeare forgeries]] article. Can you explain how this is relevant to the article? This book was published almost 200 years before the Ireland forgeries, and as far as I can see has no relevance to the Ireland forgeries. I'm inclined to delete this section, but I'd like to hear your explanation; perhaps I'm missing something. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:58, 14 April 2024

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knitwitted&oldid=1218849538"