User contributions for FatGuySeven
A user with 148 edits. Account created on 22 May 2014.
1 July 2014
- 12:2312:23, 1 July 2014 diff hist +1,052 User talk:Keithbob →Question about DR closing: new section
30 June 2014
- 16:1916:19, 30 June 2014 diff hist +325 Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.: I'm answering your questions. How about answering mine?
- 16:1516:15, 30 June 2014 diff hist +485 Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates We are supposed to keep talking. You are interpreting the original source? That's a no-no.
- 07:0407:04, 30 June 2014 diff hist +139 Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship →Proponents: adding earlier suggestion of Marlowe as author (member of group)
- 06:5706:57, 30 June 2014 diff hist −4 Shakespeare authorship question →Christopher Marlowe: wouldn't this adjustment work for both sources? Sole is problematic since it usually goes with the entire canon. Sole author of mist if the plays isn't really sole author, right? (Someone should read Zeigler it sounds like.)
- 06:5206:52, 30 June 2014 diff hist +2 Shakespeare authorship question →Christopher Marlowe: a group of authors by T.W. White? Fixing this sentence.
- 06:4906:49, 30 June 2014 diff hist 0 Shakespeare authorship question →Christopher Marlowe: in all the haste to find something wrong, you guys removed the correct date. Thanks to whoever fixed the punctuation problems created by Nishidani
- 06:2606:26, 30 June 2014 diff hist 0 Shakespeare authorship question →Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford: damn auto correct is wacky!
- 06:2406:24, 30 June 2014 diff hist +217 List of Shakespeare authorship candidates →DEF: restored with correct wording by Shapiro
- 06:1906:19, 30 June 2014 diff hist +202 Shakespeare authorship question →Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford: glad to see the Shapiro reference helps set the correct wording.
29 June 2014
- 20:0620:06, 29 June 2014 diff hist +2,510 Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates →Authorship doubts in the 17th and 18th centuries: answers for you
- 19:5419:54, 29 June 2014 diff hist +505 Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.: lack of references
- 19:4619:46, 29 June 2014 diff hist +91 Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.: signing
- 19:4519:45, 29 June 2014 diff hist +336 Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.: 2nd sentence should just go. It's completely wrong.
- 19:3619:36, 29 June 2014 diff hist 0 Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.: correction
- 19:3519:35, 29 June 2014 diff hist +1,058 Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.: i am answering your main question.
- 16:2116:21, 29 June 2014 diff hist +100 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents →Is this the right place to go when there are multiple issues?: added that I will keep talking.
- 16:1716:17, 29 June 2014 diff hist +193 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents →Is this the right place to go when there are multiple issues?: moved content dispute to the right place.
- 16:1516:15, 29 June 2014 diff hist +642 User talk:Nishidani →Notice: content dispute
- 16:1216:12, 29 June 2014 diff hist +641 User talk:Tom Reedy →Notice: content dispute notice
- 16:0816:08, 29 June 2014 diff hist −274 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard Correcting page name
- 16:0516:05, 29 June 2014 diff hist +1 m Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard Correction
- 15:5915:59, 29 June 2014 diff hist +3,916 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard →http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History of_the_Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=prev&oldid=613738915%5D%5D#Stating_opinion_as_fact._Misstating_scholarly_consensus.: new section
- 03:5703:57, 29 June 2014 diff hist +636 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents →Is this the right place to go when there are multiple issues?: johnuniq
- 03:3403:34, 29 June 2014 diff hist +224 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents →Is this the right place to go when there are multiple issues?: i was contacting them, using the template.
- 03:2203:22, 29 June 2014 diff hist +348 User talk:Nishidani Notice
- 03:1303:13, 29 June 2014 diff hist +349 User talk:Tom Reedy Notice
- 02:5402:54, 29 June 2014 diff hist +106 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents →Is this the right place to go when there are multiple issues?: signing
- 02:5102:51, 29 June 2014 diff hist +4,116 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents →Is this the right place to go when there are multiple issues?: new section
- 01:5701:57, 29 June 2014 diff hist +135 List of Shakespeare authorship candidates I am putting this back since it has a reference and I double checked it. Is there a reference saying Churchill is wrong, as you claim? I've seen this list of the Bacon group elsewhere.
28 June 2014
- 09:3409:34, 28 June 2014 diff hist +205 Shakespeare authorship question →Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford: added info from list article as well as the references.
- 09:2409:24, 28 June 2014 diff hist +73 Shakespeare authorship question →Sir Francis Bacon: a small rewrite to combine a Smith and Bacon. Expanding references, from list article.
- 09:1709:17, 28 June 2014 diff hist +144 Shakespeare authorship question →Christopher Marlowe: this was incorrect. I have corrected it and supplied the reference (from list article). I also attributed the opinion, which was reading like a fact.
- 08:4808:48, 28 June 2014 diff hist +4,755 Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.: The complete quote from Wadsworth, making clear he is discussing authorship doubts. Also additional quotes from he and Churchill.
- 08:1908:19, 28 June 2014 diff hist +4,658 Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates →The preamble leading into the list needs a lot of work.: I am just trying to reflect what the references say
- 03:4903:49, 28 June 2014 diff hist +182 User talk:EdJohnston →User notified: what does this mean?
- 03:3803:38, 28 June 2014 diff hist +959 Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.: answering Johnuniq, citing personal attack.
27 June 2014
- 06:0306:03, 27 June 2014 diff hist +99 History of the Shakespeare authorship question The lead needs to reflect the article and the full sources. I've offered several versions.
- 05:4805:48, 27 June 2014 diff hist +13 m Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.
- 05:4705:47, 27 June 2014 diff hist +32 m Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.
- 05:4405:44, 27 June 2014 diff hist +751 Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question →Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.: new section
- 03:4903:49, 27 June 2014 diff hist +425 Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates →The preamble leading into the list needs a lot of work.: not my battle, thank you.
- 03:4203:42, 27 June 2014 diff hist +1,382 Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates →The preamble leading into the list needs a lot of work.: I don't know a lot about how things were here, but you are clearly playing games with me
26 June 2014
- 08:5108:51, 26 June 2014 diff hist +235 Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates →The preamble leading into the list needs a lot of work.: I read up on citing reliable sources
- 08:4408:44, 26 June 2014 diff hist +311 Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates →The preamble leading into the list needs a lot of work.: reroute the lead based on the guidelines on lead sections for lists and articles. Now the information matches the sources.
- 08:3808:38, 26 June 2014 diff hist −1,032 List of Shakespeare authorship candidates Removing some opinions being stated as facts. We've already made similar statements above. The main articles go into greater detail.
- 08:3208:32, 26 June 2014 diff hist −1,107 List of Shakespeare authorship candidates Again, I am removing things that have nothing to do with the candidates. We don't need to hear about all of these theories so much, do we? Also cutting how the theories are being promoted through conferences etc. Do we really care?
- 08:2408:24, 26 June 2014 diff hist −1,483 List of Shakespeare authorship candidates I removed some additional history on the theory, didn't have a lot to do with the list of authorship candidates.
- 08:2008:20, 26 June 2014 diff hist −34 m List of Shakespeare authorship candidates I switched these paragraphs for continuity in the history through the 18th and 19th centuries
- 08:1208:12, 26 June 2014 diff hist +735 Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates →The preamble leading into the list needs a lot of work.: still waiting for some responses while I work on the article.
