User talk:Rick 2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Sonnets 3 PT Theory 4 Take Care 5 Check this out 6 Watch out for minor arguments and POV words 7 new section

[edit] Welcome!

Hi there. I appreciate your additions to the Oxford Theory page, but I was hoping you could provide more references. Right now, a lot of the additions look like Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Your sourcing, so far, is pretty good, but I have put citation requests on the items which need references. Thanks, and welcome aboard! (For quite some time I have been one of the few anti-stratfordians to actively contribute to these pages.)Smatprt 05:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I only wish it was original. Most of the information comes from Ogburn, Diana Price's "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography," and Joseph Sobran's "Alias Shakespeare." Please excuse any inadvertent errors on my part as I'm a newbie here. I'll add the references ASAP. My next project has to do with adding a section on the Sonnet's. However, I'm not 100 percent sure of wiki's policy regarding extensive quotations. The best summary of the Oxfordian position I have ever found was in Sobran's work, but while it seems a shame simply to paraphrase it, extensive quotes also seem out of place. What is the Wiki protocol on lengthy quotations? And how lengthy is lengthy? I’ve run across the discussion on block quotes, but I was hesitant to quote 4 or so paragraphs, even with citations. Rick 2.0 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonnets

Good work on the Sonnet additions. Good catch on the PT heading. REgarding your question on lengthy quotations, I'm not sure if there is an actual policy, but keeping additons to a minimum is always the best idea. It leaves room for further additions and sections before the article gets too long. After 60kb articles are encouraged to be split. PT is too long right now and does not have that many proponents, much less some of the variations mentioned in the last additions. I'm not sure much of it will last in it's current form.Smatprt 04:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PT Theory

Thanks. I agree with your PT outlook. Anything more than 2 or 3 paragraphs simply makes this a listing about 2 theories, not one. I also don’t understand why the Notes section repeats all the references. I’d delete the second batch but I’m not sure if I’d be overstepping any boundaries.

[edit] Take Care

Hi there - I wanted to advise you about using "of course", and other such phrases. it does not convey an encyclopedic tone, but begins to sound like personal opinion. We have to be careful of appearing to POV, as well as avoiding original research. Also, watch out for making grand statements (fill up 3 pages, etc.) that can't possiblly be proven one way or the other. Finally - watch out for labling a position "ludicrous" - even though it may be. You'd simply never find something like that in an encyclopedia. Thanks for all the work - don't get me wrong - Ijust want us to be able to defend our edits properly, and in Wiki style. You might read the wiki articles on POV and OR. ThanksSmatprt 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I don't mind being edited and I realize that sometimes I can get carried away about something I think is important.

[edit] Check this out

You might want ot comment here [[1]]. Right now there are two angry stratfordians trying to delete (or alter) the authrohship line on the William Shakespeare page.Smatprt 11:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My only comment is that you have more patience then me.

[edit] Watch out for minor arguments and POV words

Hi again - good work on your many additions. I've noticed the article is getting so large that we may be required to split it in two. Before we reach that point, be careful of adding material that fails to further the theory significantly. I'm not sure if we need a section on every play, for example, since some of the arguments are less than convincing. (Henry IV,1 robbery incident, which is so compelling, compared to, say, Merry Wives, which is less specific and more interpretive.) Also - I was warned once about using POV words like "interestingly", "surprisingly", etc.. Thanks, Smatprt 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I was thinking the "Merry Wives of Windsor" is the last section on plays I should add. When building a circumstantial case the more circumstances the better, but there is a point of diminishing returns, which I think has been reached. I hadn't realized "interstingly" was a problem. Thanks for the advise.

[edit] new section

The latest section is (in my opinion) one of Sobran's weakest arguments. For example, the sonnet does not even say that he "wants" his name buried, just that it will be. Weak arguments like this only make Oxfordians look like they are grasping at straws. There may be better arguments for what you are trying to say, but I still think it's one of those non-issues that proves very little, if anything. I would recommend deleting it. Also, Instead of continuing to copy sonnets inwhole or in part, why don't we just start linking to them - then people can read the whole sonnet and we won't take up space in this article with too many quotes, which is what I think we have now. Your thoughts?Smatprt (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)