User talk:Knitwitted

Add to MY User Page as I am currently blocked from editing said page thank you very much

Cites to add
- The Tempest
  - Reedy, Tom. "Dating William Strachey’s ‘A True Reportory of the Wracke and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates’: A Comparative Textual Study" Review of English Studies (2010) 61 (251): 529-552.

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 (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) 08:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIXED. Knitwitted (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third and last warning

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.

Diffs

[5] Tom Reedy (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Knitwitted (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, not for the first time, that you read WP:RS, WP:Fringe, and WP:ONEWAY. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Reedy So Review of English Studies, Critical Survey, The Shakespeare Yearbook, and McFarland & Co. are NOT WP:RS? Is that correct? Knitwitted (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, these articles and book have nothing to do with the SAQ. Knitwitted (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ARBSAQ, you are still (indefinitely) topic-banned from all edits "related to the Shakespeare authorship issue" In this [6] 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 [7] it clearly appears that your motive in adding these links was to systematically promote references to "Oxfordian" authors because they are Oxfordians. Furthermore, here [8] and here [9] 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Furthermore, here [10] and here [11] you edited articles that are unambiguously within the scope of your ban in their entirety." The first was a wiki-link; the second was a mistake which I quickly rectified.
*Your "From your user talk editing [12] 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.
*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.
*Please discuss why Review of English Studies, Critical Survey, The Shakespeare Yearbook are not [WP:RS]. Knitwitted (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Paul B (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Knitwitted (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 on Stritmatter's site. How's that for my "transparently dishonest" motive. Best wishes, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW #2 Paul B. Did you notice that Tom Reedy added a Shakespearean page for me? Is that topic part of my ban? Knitwitted (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Paul B (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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). Knitwitted (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]