User talk:Tom Reedy/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gangbangers[edit]

Because the page looks abandoned after archiving. Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can never bear the emptiness. I always feel I need to leave a couple of threads behind or the black hole will swallow all of Wikipedia. Paul B (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom. Just 1 hour into the 2nd presidential debate, did Obama say he was going to go after immigrant 'gangbangers'?Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't watch too many US cop shows. It's what The Bash Street Kids get to have with mash. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bejaysus! (Hope Zbrnajsem's not peepen) Same difference. mash. I doubt ya need a link for the variety of banger called a Strasburg sausage!--Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I´m quite eager to learn more English words or internet abbreviations. During my young years, I used to learn 10 English words per day from my ... - English dictionary. And now I am able to read TIME Magazine (and others) and to listen to the two cops. There is still no new Rasmussen Report after the debate, I suppose. Go ahead with your interesting semi-private conversation. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishi & Paul B: lol Knitwitted (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mytens[edit]

According to Christie's, the painting has been "historically identified" as the 15th earl, which just means that someone attached that name to it at some point in history. Its recent sales have been as portrait of an unknown male in the style of Mytens. Obviously, it's highly unlikely to be the man himself. The lot description of the most recent sale (14 Dec 2010) is:

MANNER OF DANIEL MYTENS Portrait of a gentleman, historically identified as John de Vere, 15th Earl of Oxford (c.1490-1540), three-quarter-length, holding a cane with identifying inscription 'John Vere Fifteenth Earl of Oxford/Lord ...of England/Gibson pinxit' (lower left) oil on canvas 49¾ x 41¼ in. (126.5 x 105 cm.)

"Gibson" may, I guess, be a reference to the 18th century copyist Thomas Gibson.

Paul B (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The "Lord ...of England" signifies that part of the inscription is damaged. Having looked at the more detailed file on the Christies website, I think the missing word was probably "chamberlain". It could be Henry de Vere, 18th Earl of Oxford. "Gibson" might be Richard Gibson (1615-90) rather than the 18th century one. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been added later. The inscription does say "John Vere Fifteenth Earl of Oxford", but it may be a slip-up by the inscriber (possibly replacing an earlier faded or damaged inscription). A bit more research has revealed that Richard Gibson, a dwarf page, who was also an artist, was described as "little Dick, my lord Chamberlain's page". I'm not sure whether that means he was page to Henry when he was Lord Great Chamberlain, but it would explain the attribution to him if that's the case (though stylistically it does not look like his work). Paul B (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Gibson was page to Philip Herbert, L.C., not Henry de Vere L.G.C. Still, they both wave white sticks. I've created a page on Richard Gibson (painter). Paul B (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford and Elizabeth[edit]

The supposed Lord Great Chamberlain engraving looks 16th-17th century in style, but I don't know where it comes from originally. It's semi-emblematic in character so it's certainly unlikely to be a "portrait" in any realistic sense. I'll have a look at some books on images of Elizabeth. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather the engraving is an adaptation by Hollar of a print by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder depicting a ceremonial procession of the Knights of the Garter. There is a photo of the original on the NPG website [1] (also in colour here). The original engraving is on nine sheets. The Bridgeman art library has images of several sheets [2]. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pennington's Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar (p. 93) has an entry on the Hollar version of the design. No mention is made of Oxford. Roy Strong has this to say about the 1576 ceremony, which is the one depicted: "Elizabeth appeared arrayed in her garter robes and wearing a diadem of pearls upon her head, the sword of state borne before her by the Earl of Hertford, her mantle supported by the Earl of Northumberland and the Lord Russell, and her train carried by the Countess of Hertford assisted by the Earl of Oxford." (The Cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan Portraiture and Pageantry, p. 168) If this is accurate, I guess the image should go in the article dedicated to Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford. Paul B (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the caption in the images online, and the one book I've got immediate access to is even fuzzier. I will be going down to London soon, so I'll look in ther British library for more detailed images - or maybe even have a look at the original prints in the BM. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Easier to sneak snaps with mobile phones these days. They can be sniffy about cameras. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information on attribution and changed one of the categories, but I sure didn't rename it. Wouldn't know how. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be still there [3]. Maybe it just went for a walk. Paul B (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request that topic ban be lifted[edit]

Hi Tom,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [4]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an administrator?[edit]

My polite question to you, Mr. Reedy, is expressed above. Are you an administrator for Wikipedia? If not, for whom do you act in my case? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That question shows there is a need to learn a lot more about Wikipedia before engaging in topics covered by discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBSAQ). The message posted at User talk:Zbrnajsem#Second notice--please comply with Wikipedia policy is standard for Wikipedia—sometimes an administrator leaves a message like that, but more often it is done by a non-admin editor. I recommend focusing more on the topic (Oxford), and less on other editors. In particular, a lot of your efforts on talk pages are wasted—just talk about the topic and whether particular text is warranted. Questions regarding how to matters can be asked at WP:HELPDESK. One way to check admin status is to view the contributions of an editor, then click "User rights" in the box at the bottom. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tom![edit]

I sincerely hope you'll write a bio of Oxford based on what his contemporaries' biographers wrote about him. I think *that* would be an interesting read and I think whole-heartedly you would do an excellent job. Best, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

without wishing to ply the needle too savagely, Twitknitted, why should a biography of de Vere, or anyone else, be sourced to what biographers of his contemporaries say (en passant?) about him? Like writing a biography of Shakespeare according to what biographers of Essex, Leicester, Queen Elizabeth 1, Raleigh, Spenser, Donne, Burghley, Marlowe, Jonson, etc.etc., happen to say about him. I think you have your grammatical knickers in a twist.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Say Squishidani, wouldn't it be interesting to read about the Ox as set against his contemporaries instead of in a Hoover vortex? BTW... I wasn't suggesting Tom write the bio for Wikipedia. I think he's capable of publishing his work in the real world of soybean ink. Enjoy your moment of blowing sunshine! Knitwitted (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon talk page notice[edit]

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning[edit]

It depends what scanners you use and the software, of course. What type of dots are they? We have very high quality ones here at the uni, which I can access. BTW, I've redone the version of the Ashbourne portrait to get rid of that milky line of ectoplasm above the head on the right, but I haven't uploaded it yet. I was not sure whether that came from some sort of print fault or the scanning process. Shall I replasce the file? Paul B (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corbett[edit]

I've just sent you an email. I don't know if he's notable, but the article has been around for a while without being targeted for deletion, despite the weird title. One of the regular editors looks likely to to be Corbett himself. For a long while it emphasised his status as a cult anarcho-punk figure. This seems to be true, but the only sources I could find were Punk fan websites and YouTube (I have a soft spot for punk, but I won't be looking for Apostles albums if the stuff on YouTube is typical). The editor-who-may-be-Corbett then deleted all the Punk stuff, since he seems now to be promoting himself as a gentleman-scholar rather than an anarchist nihilist! As for his career as a photographer, I've no idea how significant he is in that field.

Of course that's all separate from the question of Lewes Lewknor's presence on the list. The book certainly exists and the author of a book does not have to be notable for the candidate to be listed. The Anne Whateley advocates are very obscure persons, as are many of the other originators of new candidates. Of course I know that we should have at least notification of the claims by an RS. I admit I couldn't find one. The book's only just been published, but someone (who I wonder?) has splashed stuff about it all over the web. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in any case I'm not gonna nominate it for deletion--it takes too much time and I'm sure somebody will get around to it someday. I don't like setting a precedent for including non-RS sources in the list, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy[edit]

Hope this helps :) Best, Knitwitted Knitwitted (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am curious Tom. Why is it that whenever I post a comment directed to you your minions feel the need to come to your rescue? Just curious why you are not capable of forming your own response. Best, Knitwitted (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, can I be your minion? I have always wanted to be a minion! I have a lot of experience as a henchman, and I think it is time to move up... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL Knitwitted (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I very much appreciate your very fine work on Bob's new page. It looks really good!!! I am hoping he will write you a very nice thank-you letter. Otherwise, I hope my thanks will be reward enough for being my henchman. Furthermore, my attorney has advised me to take under advisement your request to be my minion per your minion Paul which said acceptance would subminionate your minion's position. Please advise Paul of his impending demotion. Many thank yous again!!! Best wishes, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cushion heaven[edit]

Wow, that certainly is a cornucopia of cushions. Of course they could all be grain merchants who did a bit of theology on the side. I'm also distressed to read that one of the Barlows was destroyed by "rabid fanatics". An ill omen. It's a pity I haven't been able to find a detailed published discussion of this sculptural convention. It would be good to have a section on it in the article. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. At least not in detail. One of my old tutors Nigel Llewellyn wrote about early modern funeral imagery, but there's no reference to the cushion torsos in his Art of Death. Scuplture is really rather neglected by art historians. There's the comprehensive series of books on public sculptures created by the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, but I'm pretty sure that funerary monuments are not normally included as 'public' works. Peter Sherlock's Monuments and Memory in Early Modern England is more interested in epitaphs and theology than iconography. I'm pretty sure there's no mention of cushioned torsos. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earl of Oxford's Men, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry VII, Tumbler and Thomas Dekker (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) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art critic?[edit]

Barrell was an "art critic"? If this is a reference to essay on the Ashbourne, I'd hesitate to call that art criticism, since it was not about evaluating it in any meaningful way. Or did he write some reviews of Picasso shows? Paul B (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barrell was quite a prolific writer from around 1908 until he became a film producer and then after. He was a prominent socialist and also a conservationist. He wrote several articles about art and artists, and I found several references to him as an art critic. The WP article about him could be much longer if someone took the time to trawl Goggle. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did try that once, but came up with nothing. Did you bjust do a straight search or find this material using a more sophisticated approach? Paul B (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I Googled his full name in quotes on the wed, Goggle books, and images. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy![edit]

Congrats on your recent article "Oxford's Men"... very nice research!

Is there any chance you would provide cites to Fripp and Groves (or anyone else) which shows how Shax used the Tomson N.T.? I'd like to correct my essay to reflect the facts. Thanks very much for your help! Best, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knitwitted, I'm not going to take the time to research an off-handed comment. All I know is that Fripp said it, and I'm sure his research is documented somewhere, since he was an ordained divine with a religious education that I doubt anyone now alive can match. You'll just have to do it yourself. I know his papers on archived at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford. You might want to e-mail them as to what their holdings are; I've always found them to be very helpful. The Oxford's Men article is nowhere near complete. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I certainly wasn't asking you to conduct research. I just thought you might have already done so and ascertained the validity of Fripp's/Grove's statements before posting said statements. Thank you for your suggestions for further resources... much appreciated!! :) re Oxford's Men... Perhaps as you say "nowhere near complete" but certainly a great beginning... Best with your research, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ward[edit]

Do I take it that you have answered your own question, since you have now added an image from the Folger website? I'm impressed that you found that image. I find negotiating the Folger website painfully confusing. Paul B (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference in Schoenbaum for one image. If I had folio numbers for the others I could get them, but I suppose one image is enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it would be nice to know exactly where the others are. The Severn book appears to group the entries thematically, and it only includes the "interesting" ones - or what Severn considers to be the interesting ones. It's referred to as a "diary", but it really just appears to be notes and comments written over the years, most of which are not definitively dateable. At least that's the impression I get from the literature and the Folger facimilies. Still, I'd like to be able to find out exactly how the various comments are grouped and whether there is any context for them. Your photo reveals that one comment follows directly from one of the others. But the secondary literature often groups them in different ways. Paul B (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trawling through the internets looking for references. I found some Ward information in this book beginning on 298. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found them. Schoenbaum sent me to chambers, and Chambers sent me to Munro. I'll have them all up in a little while. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Tom Reedy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Margery Golding[edit]

Tom, are you planning to add something that establishes notability to your new article on Margery Golding? That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). However, person A may be included in the related article on B. You may want to keep it in your userspace until you do, because as it stands, it could get speedy deleted at any time. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I was planning to add some more info, but as to notability if she doesn't qualify then I suppose the info should go in her husband's article. I was thinking about that yesterday after reading that particular part of WP:N and thinking that about half the articles in Category:De Vere family don't qualify either. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second thought: should Edmund Shakespeare and Gilbert Shakespeare be in his father's article also? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I rather think so. Unless you can find some info about Edmund's acting career to add? I know it's hard. I've made some late 17th-century actor stubs that went over all right, but with them I was able to add one or two parts they played and even gossip about audience reaction, thanks to The London Stage 1660–1800 and the Highfil-Burnim-Langhans Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, bla bla … in London, 1660–1800. Wonderful books. Nothing remotely like that wealth of material for the earlier period, of course. (Thank you Pepys and Colley Cibber.) My second thought: before you kill or redirect any of those articles, you may want to consult somebody more specialised in notability than me. For instance ask at the Notability noticeboard. Theoretically, there shouldn't be any different requirements for notability for the brother of Shakespeare compared to a modern celebrity, but possibly the practice is a little different. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Non-sequitur[edit]

I don't mind either way. It is not however a 'non-sequitur' (i.e.not following logically from what precedes): I put it in to introduce the remarks that follow. The low-survival rate of documents may have been covered elsewhere, I don't reread the whole page everytime I edit, but the point is important to understand why the sceptic objections re lack of evidence they insist must be there to 'prove' anything just fly in the face of the hazards of documentary survival.You know the page better than I, so either remove the Callaghan source as well or, if reconsideration changes your view, perhaps relocate it. Cheers, Tom Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found what I believe is a good way to reintegrate this passage. Nobody can please everybody. But I can try. Cheers, Tom and Nish. --Alan W (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd...[edit]

Tom, after writing the above note, I noticed that your talk page is in the category De Vere Family. Oxford isn't really your great-great-great, etc., grandfather, is he? --Alan W (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed that by inserting ":" to give [[:Category:De Vere family]] (which makes a link to the category, like this). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that (see my own use of the colon just above), yet when I tried to find and fix what you just did, I missed it somehow. Getting late here, and I'm just bleary eyed, I suppose. Problem solved, and thanks, John! --Alan W (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I went back and saw how I did that! Thanks for noticing and clearing it up. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You inadvertently did the same thing, twice, on Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard, which I've now fixed as well. Seems there should be a better way of avoiding this problem, which must be common. Using the colon is a rather obscure bit of markup, which I learned only today, after what I typed above the first time didn't look right, which led me to look up more about Wikilinking in the Help pages. And then I stumbled trying to fix the problem but soon saw that John had stepped in. I'll add that I'm relieved to know that Oxford isn't really an ancestor of yours, given some of the things you've said about him. Good night, Tom! --Alan W (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got ancestors who did worse things than Oxford! I've become quite fond of the old reprobate over the years. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the colon is a rather obscure bit of markup, which I learned only today,

Using the colon gerts rid of a great deal of obscure darkdown. James McAuley, on being offered the choice of a colostomy for bowel cancer, preferred to ignore the indignity and accept death, quipping:'Better a full stop than a semi-colon." Cheers, chaps! Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Hello Tom. I wanted to let you know that Old Moonraker has not editied since August of 2012. I miss him and I hope that he is well. You might already be aware of this but I wanted to let you know just in case. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk 16:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Shakespeare Problem[edit]

I found a link to an article "Wikipedia's Shakespeare Problem" at the top of the talk page for the SAQ article and so posted the following. I thought it courteous to let you know.

Wikipedia Stratfordians have a fresh problem - Stanley Wells! They have classified the Shakespeare Authorship Question as 'fringe' but now Wells is on record as being concerned that it's entering the mainstream. One editor in particular - Tom Reedy - seems totally averse to this being cited in notes where it strikes me as wholly relevant. They really need to change their policy on this, Authorship questioners may be a very small minority in academia, but they can no longer be classified wholly as 'fringe' Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I kept up with what every crackpot wrote about me I'd have time for little else. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The letter appears to have disappeared.Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been written in French: they usually end up down the gurgler.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This forensic analysis of our "problem" was featured in The Signpost' back in 2011: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-01/In_the_news. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These people show up here as regular as clockwork. Surely that must add some weight to the theories. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Tristram S would have it, they should wind up their c(l)ocks elsewhere. This ain't the place to screw up or screw around.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I have mentioned you in a discussion on Ed Johnson's talk page.Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned you in a discussion on my talk page.Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes on author pages[edit]

Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:Charles Dickens, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by a derivative works template. Could you give me a link to one? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope he refrains. It'll only get you to throw money the wrong way. See derivatives' market. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 27 June 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 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) 17:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Weever may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • id=Um0DAAAAYAAJ ''Antient Funeral Monuments, of Great-Britain, Ireland, and the Islands Adjacent'' (1631, 1767] at Google books.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the revert[edit]

I'm really sorry about the revert. I'm using some beta software (which really isn't a good excuse) and I didn't see your edit summary about the material being outdated. --Kangaroopowah 04:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The material was announcing already-completed casting and was redundant. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/George134[edit]

Hi, Tom, I thought I should ping you about this, in case you have ideas about a possible sockmaster. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I think "master" is overstating it a bit in this case.
It's amazing how you can't turn your back for a minute. Usually I'm the last to know when something like this comes up; the article and its offspring are so well looked after that by the time I find out about it it's already been taken care of. As tedious as the process was to get to ArbCom, it was well worth it.
P.S. My favouritest quote is "one of the most fascinating books of all time". Tom Reedy (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discretionary sanctions are a great comfort. I'll see your most fascinating book and raise you the quote at the top of my talkpage! I think I win because mine was actually in the article (briefly, yes, but several times!). Bishonen | talk 14:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Look up banana-bender if you are not familiar with the term, and just let your imagination run along correlated images evoked by a word that rhythms with 'sank'.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DR Daly[edit]

Thank you for the link on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it is a very good article. Reminded me of college days. --Dr Daly (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award[edit]

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring William Shakespeare (estimated annual readership: 4,550,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing William Shakespeare to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! Tom Reedy (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texas[edit]

I've lived in Texas for about 10 years now.--v/r - TP 16:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it takes a while to learn all the peculiarities! Tom Reedy (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

Be aware that your recent notification to just selected members of the Fair Use Wikiproject (not all of them) regarding the NFR template is a direct violation of canvassing. (A message on the project's talk page would have been acceptable). I'm not reporting it at this point, but be aware that while it is fine to get more input such as from that project, you have to avoid narrow notification which is one clear sign of canvassing. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Report away. My criteria was to go back five years with the expectation that the older members were the least likely to still have user accounts or be interested.
I really get tired of your cabal's clumsy attempts to threaten me. I know the rules; if you think you've got a case, just file it. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Ceoil (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann. You were involved in a prior discussion about that user. -- Lexein (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the matter was closed soon after this was posted. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Paine[edit]

Regarding your recent edit to Thomas Paine, I agree, of course, that it was not a book, but I'm wondering why the adjective "American" needs to be before "title". Wouldn't "the best-selling title of the period", or "the best-selling title in America" be all right? Were there significant sales outside of America?CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was an American title, and yes, my understanding is that it had significant circulation in Britain and France. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS comma[edit]

Hello. Could you direct me to that part of the MOS without the comma? Thanks. Inglok (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly: "The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for all Wikipedia articles." Also see MOS:DOB. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no example of a comma actually foregone. Inglok (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"birth–death parentheticals: Petrarch (1304–1374) was ..."; ""The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a ...". Tom Reedy (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To explain this more fully, parentheticals are interruptions, not appositives. Were I to write, "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who was born 12 April 1550 and died 24 June 1604, was an English peer and courtier of the Elizabethan era", "who was born 12 April 1550 and died 24 June 1604" would be an appositive,and rightly set off by commas. But in the sentence "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was ...", the vital dates, being an interruption, are set off by parentheses. If a sentence does not need a comma without the parenthetical material, it does not need one with it. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I see your point. Sometimes I am slow of study. Duh! Tom Reedy (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Just a quick link if you're interested: Richard Nordquist on apposition. Inglok (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind my intruding here. In the first sentence, "who was born 12 April 1550 and died 24 June 1604", is a non-restrictive adjective clause – that is, it does not define or identify Edward de Vere but adds additional information about him. For that reason, it is set off by commas. In the second example, "17th Earl of Oxford" is an appositive. It is a phrase that refers to the same person referred to before the phrase (Edward de Vere). The appositive should be between a pair of commas. The information in the parentheses adds additional information (dates) but, I believe, does not cancel the need for the second comma in the pair that must surround the appositive. Thus, in my understanding, a comma is needed after the parenthetical phrase: "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604), was ..." – CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I originally thought that Inglok was confused, when in actuality I was the one confused. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Inglok's statement, "I can see no example of a comma actually foregone," is unclear. There are rules for when a comma is necessary and when a comma is not necessary, and some situations when it is a stylistic choice. I would like to recommend to Inglok a wonderful book on writing entitled The New Oxford Guide to Writing by Thomas S. Kane, published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-509059-4. Part VII is on punctuation. – CorinneSD (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have given exactly the explanation you gave, Corinne. I said "foregone" because it mirrored Tom's edit and I knew he would recognize it. Tom: Corinne and I are discussing appositives on my talk page too. Inglok (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare and the Bible[edit]

Hi Tom. Is there a specific wikipage where references to books, etc. on biblical parallels found in Shakespeare would be an appropriate topic? Or possibly, could a new page be started for such topic? Thanks for your help! Best, Knit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitwitted (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks! Forgot that Knitwitted (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC) thing.[reply]

Click on the link. Biblical allusions in Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tom!! Can I stick this in my Sandbox? Best, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better keep psalm 46 out of that sandpit, because it is more appropriate for the Biblical allusions '''to''' Shakespeare page.:(Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy Nishidani!! Nice to see ya again. Where's your third leg of Los Tres Amigos? Knitwitted (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, wouldn't it be absolutely considerate of you to invite the other 2/3 of your friends to join you on your latest internet venture? Just a thought... Knitwitted (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alerts[edit]

The world has turned since the old arbcom warning system, and the new style is:

{{subst:alert|saq}} ~~~~

A brief comment can be included, but it's probably better to add any wanted comment in a second edit because the new system checks for the above and, if detected, prompts the editor (you) to check that no previous warning has been issued, and you have to click Save a second time for the comment to be added. Viewing the user talk page history would show a tag indicating that an alert had been issued. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

Basically you just need to type some text, like starting an article. Sorry I've so brusque-seeming. Very busy! Paul B (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page: Category:People who knew William Shakespeare, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FatGuySeven (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!FatGuySeven (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vice-Admirals of Essex[edit]

Tom,

I've gone and fixed the links on the page to reflect the archived URL; I assume you already found your way to that. The principal compilers were Sir John Sainty and Andrew Thrush, and indeed I believe the page was taken down because the two published the compilation in v. 321 of the Standard Series, List and Index Society. It's not "original research" in the Wikipedia sense insofar as both the original IHR webpage and the List and Index publication, which I assume to be essentially the same, have been researched and written by experts in the field, and the conclusions drawn are theirs, not those of Wikipedians. His appointment is also corroborated by R. G. Marsden's earlier compilation in the English Historical Review. Given that his imprisonment was for bad behavior rather than disloyalty, and that he was at the time still a substantial landowner in Essex, his appointment doesn't strike me as extraordinary or unbelievable. Choess (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Tom[edit]

Thank you, Mr. Reedy, for correcting the errors of my ways at Biblical allusions in Shakespeare re articles cited in the scholarly journals Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian as well as the scholarly newsletter Shakespeare Matters. I am truly in awe of your unfettered dedication and selfless determination to rid Wikipedia of any cites to these said scholarly rags. Perhaps you would consider running your hindsight scrubbage on Dr. Stritmatter's page as well as Dr. Waugaman's page for any such mention of the above-mentioned scholarly rags. Perhaps you might even joyously scrub other such scholarly rags hence-to-now unknown to appear on Wikipedia's blow me standards of a pure, highly scholarly bibliographic nature. Again, I thank you for taking time out of your busybody schedule to correct my obvious mis-judgments. Yours very truly, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bonaventure[edit]

Hello you recently edited the article Battle of Pantelleria (1586) concerning the ownership of the Edward Bonaventure. The evidence that it was owned (or may have been owned) by Edward De Vere was from this article [5] Shire Lord 17:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

De Vere never owned it; the only documentation we have shows that he was considering buying it in 1581 but Leicester bought it instead. See [6]. (Nor is that source you linked to a WP:RS.)Tom Reedy (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect - that settles it. Many thanks. Shire Lord 18:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest William Foster's The voyages of Sir James Lancaster to Brazil and the East Indies, 1591-1603 (1940) as a reliable source. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will make the changes with that source. Thanks again. Shire Lord 18:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion[edit]

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) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there you were, thinken you could take the day off, and potter about[edit]

No rest for the wicked, pal. There's Oxfordian cypherism even in the sanctuary. So get off ya hammock and fire up the grey matter!Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. I think that's an image of Pedanius_Dioscorides. The 1636 edition has the same images, but they're clearly marked. I doubt the author tried very hard to disprove his theory. And hell no I can't take the day off: I'm busy correcting proofs that are due tomorrow! Tom Reedy (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Goodoh, I can now water my neighbours' pidgeons and feed my tomatoes with equanimity, the serenity of a pseudo-puzzle (that no doubt got its author pizzle rearing when he thought of it), solved. Fanks guv.Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "new portrait" has already made it to the talk page of the Shakespeare article. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Roger Stritmatter for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Stritmatter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be 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. Bomagosh (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare Quarterly[edit]

Hey Tom, I didn't know you had an article published in Shakespeare Quarterly. Congrats. Have you had work published in it before? I don't usually read it myself unless somebody specifically recommends an article (normally something to do with Shakespeare on film), but I'll definitely grab a copy from the library and give your article a perusal. Bertaut (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, B. I've published in RES and N&Q also, and I have another one coming up in Shakespeare Survey. If you send me an email I'll send you the SQ paper. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tom, but no need. Already downloaded it from Project Muse. Will have a read over the weekend. Cheers. I've had a couple of articles published in Irish University Review and the Journal of Narrative Theory. Both of which, as you can probably imagine, have huge readerships! Bertaut (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with image[edit]

Hi Tom,

I'm a researcher who hopes to use this image of yours in a research publication. I was just wondering if you had a higher quality image than the one you posted to the article that you'd be kind enough to share. Thanks, and thanks for being patient with any mistakes/faux-paus I make, its been forever since I've edited. D-rew (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Send me an email and I'll send you the original file. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC) 03:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New JSTOR resource[edit]

Thanks very much for adding that link to the project page Tom, it's a hell of a resource. Already been using it for an upcoming module I'm teaching on close reading, using Othello as an example. Very nice find. Bertaut (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet Uniformity Act[edit]

I recently dipped my toe into updating 1 little element of Wikipedia's 154 Sonnet articles and, well, it turns out that more than 1 thing could stand improvement. I've written up a little manifesto cheekily called User:Phil wink/Sonnet Uniformity Act. Ultimately, I'll post a link on WP:BARD, Shakespeare's sonnets, and possible William Shakespeare. But 1) I despair of getting enough feedback to achieve "consensus" worthy of the name, and 2) I hope to get a sanity-check from dedicated editors before completely exposing it.

Would you be kind enough to read my harangue, and comment? (Please comment at User talk:Phil wink/Sonnet Uniformity Act so we can maintain 1 discussion.) I may continue tweaking it a bit, but I think it's pretty much complete, apart from updates based on ensuing discussion. FYI, I've put out this same request to Xover and Thefairyouth154. I'm much obliged for any insight you can contribute. Phil wink (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Shakespeare[edit]

I nominated William Shakespeare for TFA because his 400th death anniversary is coming up. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shakespeare Association of America[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Shakespeare Association of America, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've contested the nomination (removed the tag), because I don't believe it fulfils any of the criteria for speedy deletion: the copyright concern is questionable because the similar text is a simple listing of facts (mere facts are not subject to copyright protection); and the lack of an assertion of notability depends entirely on a subjective assessment of the definition of "asserting" (not to mention some extra leeway from the educational institution exception for criteria A7). To help with the latter I've included a citation to the collection of articles recently published by Arden and quoted their gushing sales pitch (which strongly asserts SAA's notability, but, you know, sales pitch…). However, that being said, that applies relative to the criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not sure the article can survive an AfD; not particularly because SAA isn't notable, but because a paucity of independent sources actually saying so would make it difficult formally meet the notability guidelines. In other words, it would be a good idea to de-stub it and expand with some cites that actually explain their impact and achievements. Have reviews of Shakespeare in Our Time started to appear yet, for instance (I didn't find any in a quick superficial search)? --Xover (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, X. My main purpose for creating the page was to get rid of some red links. I thought I had rewritten the graf well enough to avoid plagiarism. I think it is at least as notable as all the Oxfordian organizations with Wikipedia pages. I'll try to add more material to the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page ranges in the SAQ article[edit]

Hi Tom. You know, those edits of page ranges in the SAQ article by user srich32977, though no doubt made in good faith, did bother me when I saw them, but I couldn't put my finger on why. Now that you've reverted them, I thought about this some more and realized (as you said) that we were already consistently following one style, and there was no point in changing all the citations without good reason. Just changing everything to follow another self-consistent style does not by itself provide a good reason. That said, in scanning all the notes all over again, I did notice one inconsistency that had been overlooked, so I did change that citation now. Eternal vigilance!

Glad you're still around, and hope you've been well. Happy New Year! --Alan W (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare authorship question scheduled for second TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Shakespeare authorship question article has been scheduled as today's featured article for a second time, for 23 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

Shakespeare

Thank you for quality articles around William Shakespeare, including the Shakespeare authorship question, in almost ten years, for updates such as the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, for the reminder of conduct "well above par", - Tom, "kinder, gentler editor", you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1642 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Politicworm.com not fit for the External Links list?[edit]

Hello,

You (or someone else, per your notification) removed without comment an external link I added for Politicworm.com

 I know of nothing other than factual quality which distinguishes it from other sites on the list.  So I would like to know: what is the basis of its removal?

Proximity1 (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)proximity1[reply]

You asked at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question#Why is "politicworm.com" denied a place here in the "External Links" list?. That is the right place for a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom: If wanted, please remove this redundant section including my comments. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare Authorship[edit]

Tom I am relatively new to editing wikipedia

1)I am a little troubled that you are banning posts which disagree with the view of the editors and acting as judge and jury.

2) I dont have an axe to grind on the topic, but I think scholarship has moved significantly over the past 20 years and that the view presented on wikipedia does not reflect the mainstream. I think the devere and bacon authorship theories in particular are on the decline while scholarly and linguistic theories connecting marlowe are on the ascent. I footnote some 2017 studies. I would say the article is particularly biased in implying that computer linguistic studies reinforce the hypothesis that shakespeare wrote everything himself. I believe they suggest the opposite.

3) everything I wrote is meticulously footnoted and documented and presented in a fair and neutral manner.

4) if you delete my post in its entirety, you deny the wikipedia community an important resource, namely a summation of all Shakespeare works in chronological order and present the arguments relevant to each text. the chronological pattern is very important, because it highlights the earliest works are thought to be collaborations with Kyd, the next several tragedies are strongly attributed to Marlowe, then Shakespeare starts writing more on his own, and then as his business matures he delegates more to Middleton and Fletcher.

please restore my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to the SAQ talkpage. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ 2a) some other aspects of the existing article which troubles me: it is written as if people are binary. pro-stratfordian or anti-stratfordian. that mindset made sense 20 years ago, but many scholars today are assuming multiple hands worked on each play, trying to parse out which phrases were edited by which co-author.

another thing which troubles me; the article seems more interested in advocacy than unencumbered analysis. so, for example, the article takes the standard argument that shakespeare lacked the education or background to write these works and attempts to turn it on its head, maintaining his fallability shows he was a likely candidate. i dont buy this argument for a minute, because the author of these plays had a level of erudition far from what could be obtained with a grammar school education. but mostly the article is written in a style of someone trying to defend a view at all costs rather than in a manner which suggests intellectual honesty.

I am sympathetic because it sounds like wikipedia is getting barraged with edits which overwhelm the editors. but may I humbly suggest you are getting so many edits because the article as written does not adequately cover the material, does not reflect recent scholarship, and is not open enough to divergent viewpoints.

also, I was not attempting to espouse anything new and radical. merely to summarize what I believe be to the scholarly consensus in a concise chronological chart format which does not presently exist. perhaps you wish to have separate columns presenting arguments for and against shakesperian authorship of each play. other readers are free to annotate this chart if I missed relevant arguments.

but simply deleting the chart (and other edits) cannot be the right answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what "Please take this to the SAQ talkpage" means? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare Statistics discussion[edit]

If you´re interested: [7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had one too many at the Mermaid[edit]

Hi, Tom Reedy. I just noticed this picture you uploaded some time ago. The description reads:

Also known as "Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern". The painting depicts (from left in back) Joshua Sylvester, John Selden, Francis Beaumont, (seated at table from left) William Camden, Thomas Sackville, John Fletcher, Sir Francis Bacon, Ben Jonson, John Donne, Samuel Daniel, Shakespeare, Sir Walter Raleigh, the Earl of Southampton, Sir Robert Cotton, and Thomas Dekker.

It looks to me like Ben Jonson, John Donne, and Samuel Daniel have, between them, but 2 heads. The first, gazing directly at the viewer, I take to be Ben Jonson (albeit more dashing than I've ever seen him before). The second, to me, is a coin-flip between Daniel and Donne... but Daniel if I had to choose. Granted, there's a fuzzy profile-like splotch behind Daniel/Donne, but given the clarity of the rest of the figures, surely that splotch is not intended to represent one of WS's contemporaries? Do you have anything to shed light on this super-important problem? Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. I don't even remember uploading it! Tom Reedy (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found an engraved version online, from which it is clear that the splotch is Daniel. Huh. Phil wink (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_Reedy/Archive_5&oldid=1077384141"