• 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. “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. “Othello’s ‘Base Indian’: A Better Source for the Allusion” Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 26, No. 4 (Autumn, 1975): 462-6.
      • Veit, Richard S. “’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. “’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. “The Indian/Judean Crux in Othello” Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 33, No. 1 (Spring, 1982): 60-7.
      • Levin, Richard. “The Indian/Judean Crux in Othello: An Addendum” Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1983): 72.
      • Williams, George Walton. “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.

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[reply]

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

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

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

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

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. Knitwitted (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, please explain how (1) adding one wiki-link to the "Oxfordian theory" page and (2) incorrectly posting a cite on the "Marlovian theory" page which was removed constitute a gross indifference to my topic ban on the SAQ. Thanks. Knitwitted (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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? Knitwitted (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Knitwitted (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Knitwitted (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Paul B (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. 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) 09:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FIXED Knitwitted (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Georgetown website. That violates Wikipedia's copyright rules. It's really just a matter of rephrasing. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Knitwitted (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically until someone else comes along and spots it! Paul B (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL. I did my best for now. See what you think please if/what more I need to work on. Thank you!! Knitwitted (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Bomagosh (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Knitwitted. I just came across a six-week old edit of yours to Prince Tudor theory 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. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for letting me know. I thought posting "Criticisms" of the SAQ would be okay. Apologies for taking such liberties. Best, knit Knitwitted (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Paul B (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul, did you read the articles? They are CRITICISMS of books on the Prince Tudor theory. Have a nice day. Knitwitted (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Paul B (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.55.226.53 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hello, Knitwitted. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. CodeTalker (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Yes, the book was published in 1603 BUT the handwritten notes are considered to be the work of Ireland. Thanks! Knitwitted (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, did you read my footnote? The Courtyer ... done into Englyshe by Thomas Hoby. B.L. as catalogued at the British Library See Notes: With spurious autographs of Shakespeare, forged by Samuel W. H. Ireland. HTH Knitwitted (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No I didn't notice the footnote. I think the information about who did the forgery should be in the text of the article rather than in a footnote. To clarify, this forgery was allegedly created by Samuel Ireland, not William Henry Ireland? That's very peculiar. I've not seen any statement anywhere else (in the Wikipedia article or in any of the books I've read on the topic) that Samuel, the father of William Henry, did any forgery. Where did you see the information that this is the work of Samuel Ireland? I don't see that in the British Library page you linked to, although for some reason the Details tab is not loading for me. CodeTalker (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the entire British Library record:

Title: [The Courtyer ... done into Englyshe by Thomas Hoby. B.L.]

Author: Baldassarre Castiglione, conte, 1478-1529.

Contributor: Thomas HOBY Sir.

Publication Details: London : Printed by Thomas Creede, 1603.

Uniform Title: Libro del Cortegiano

Edition: [Another edition.] B.L..

Identifier: System number 017784543

Related Titles: The Courtyer ... done into Englyshe by Thomas Hoby. B.L. (Uk)MP1.0000661955 Imprinted by wyllyam Seres: London, 1561. 4º.

Notes: With spurious autographs of Shakespeare, forged by Samuel W. H. Ireland.

Physical Description: 4º.

Shelfmark(s): General Reference Collection DRT Digital Store 8403.d.20.

UIN: BLL01017784543

Have you ever read this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Ireland

"Although he was apparently christened William-Henry, he was known as Samuel through much of his life (apparently after a brother who died in childhood), and many sources list his name as Samuel William Henry Ireland."

P.S. Please stop wasting my time. Thx. Knitwitted (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wasting your time? Goodness, what a surprisingly rude response. I am only trying to improve a Wikipedia article. I'm sorry if you took it in any other way. It seems to me to be asking far too much of the reader to figure out that the "Samuel" referred to in your footnote is the son rather than the father, when the name "Samuel" is not used ONCE elsewhere in the article to refer to the son, but is used many times to refer to the father. I have made a change to the article which clarifies this, but please do not feel obligated to check it since you clearly have far more pressing demands on your time than editing Wikipedia. CodeTalker (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Knitwitted. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]