User contributions for Zweigenbaum
A user with 129 edits. Account created on 16 December 2010.
1 October 2023
- 23:1823:18, 1 October 2023 diff hist +51 m Pseudohistory expands discussion of differing methods and sources Tag: Reverted
- 23:1423:14, 1 October 2023 diff hist +6 m Pseudohistory expands discussion of differing methods between mainstream and Oxfordian research Tag: Reverted
- 23:0523:05, 1 October 2023 diff hist +36 Pseudohistory No edit summary Tag: Reverted
- 22:3922:39, 1 October 2023 diff hist +1,134 m Pseudohistory →Historical revisionism Tag: Reverted
3 November 2012
- 20:5820:58, 3 November 2012 diff hist −2 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment →Statement by {Zweigenbaum}
- 20:5720:57, 3 November 2012 diff hist +334 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment →Statement by {Zweigenbaum}
- 20:5220:52, 3 November 2012 diff hist −5 m Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment Support Removal of Topic Ban for Nina Green
8 August 2012
- 14:5314:53, 8 August 2012 diff hist +20 m Talk:Palgrave's Golden Treasury →Palgrave's Golden Treasury/ omitted poet
- 01:2001:20, 8 August 2012 diff hist +661 Talk:Palgrave's Golden Treasury →Palgrave's Golden Treasury/ omitted poet: new section
- 00:5200:52, 8 August 2012 diff hist +42 m Palgrave's Golden Treasury →Book I (Palgrave): omitted poet
11 April 2012
- 06:5906:59, 11 April 2012 diff hist 0 m Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship →Parallels with the plays
8 April 2012
- 04:5904:59, 8 April 2012 diff hist +3 m Henry Peacham (born 1546) No edit summary
- 04:5404:54, 8 April 2012 diff hist +3 m Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship →Perceived allusions to Oxford as a concealed writer
- 03:0403:04, 8 April 2012 diff hist +1,296 m Henry Peacham (born 1546) Addition to Henry Peacham/Peacham Jr. page
- 01:3901:39, 8 April 2012 diff hist +143 m Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship /* Perceived allusions to Oxford as a concealed writer * addition
- 01:1301:13, 8 April 2012 diff hist +1,908 m Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship →Perceived allusions to Oxford as a concealed writer
12 November 2011
- 09:3609:36, 12 November 2011 diff hist +12 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →'Authenticated' signatures?
- 09:2709:27, 12 November 2011 diff hist +568 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →'Authenticated' signatures?
9 November 2011
- 17:3217:32, 9 November 2011 diff hist +1,352 Talk:Palladis Tamia →Removal of Citations on Meres Page, Restoration Here
- 17:0317:03, 9 November 2011 diff hist +1,382 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →'Authenticated' signatures?
8 November 2011
- 04:1804:18, 8 November 2011 diff hist +4,179 Talk:Palladis Tamia Importance of Palladis Tamia in English Literary History
6 November 2011
- 06:4606:46, 6 November 2011 diff hist +13 Talk:Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays →Poll regarding redirect
- 06:3906:39, 6 November 2011 diff hist +386 Talk:Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays →Poll regarding redirect
4 October 2011
- 01:5301:53, 4 October 2011 diff hist +1,045 Anonymous (film) Shakespeare Authorship Question site readers should be warned of extreme conflict in the revision of that site 2011
31 August 2011
- 08:0308:03, 31 August 2011 diff hist +837 Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship →Removal of Footnote #87 material in 'Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship': new section
9 March 2011
- 18:5418:54, 9 March 2011 diff hist +879 User talk:Zweigenbaum →Topic-banned
- 18:3618:36, 9 March 2011 diff hist +218 User talk:Zweigenbaum →Topic-banned
7 March 2011
- 13:5013:50, 7 March 2011 diff hist +118 User talk:Jimbo Wales →Blatant Bias in Shakespeare Authorship Question page by Majority Editors
- 13:3913:39, 7 March 2011 diff hist +320 User talk:Jimbo Wales →Blatant Bias in Shakespeare Authorship Question page by Majority Editors
- 12:3012:30, 7 March 2011 diff hist +302 User talk:Jimbo Wales →Blatant Bias in Shakespeare Authorship Question page by Majority Editors
- 12:0112:01, 7 March 2011 diff hist +160 User talk:Jimbo Wales →Blatant Bias in Shakespeare Authorship Question page by Majority Editors
- 11:4711:47, 7 March 2011 diff hist +4,837 User talk:Jimbo Wales →Blatant Bias in Shakespeare Authorship Question page by Majority Editors: new section
22 February 2011
- 04:5504:55, 22 February 2011 diff hist +1,004 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Law follow up
- 04:3304:33, 22 February 2011 diff hist +3,427 User talk:Poujeaux →Suggested Oxford Summary being proposed and opposed at the SAQ article website: new section
- 02:4602:46, 22 February 2011 diff hist +459 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Law follow up
- 02:2902:29, 22 February 2011 diff hist +1,694 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Law follow up
- 01:1901:19, 22 February 2011 diff hist +437 User talk:Zweigenbaum →Topic-banned Response
21 February 2011
- 23:2023:20, 21 February 2011 diff hist +137 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Law follow up
- 23:1023:10, 21 February 2011 diff hist +5,140 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Law follow up
- 17:3317:33, 21 February 2011 diff hist +3,137 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Zweigenbaum's proposal for rewriting of the Oxford section. Text and discussion
- 08:4008:40, 21 February 2011 diff hist +15 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Law follow up
- 08:3508:35, 21 February 2011 diff hist +406 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Law follow up
- 08:2208:22, 21 February 2011 diff hist +1,736 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Law follow up
- 07:1907:19, 21 February 2011 diff hist +3,496 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Zweigenbaum's proposal for rewriting of the Oxford section. Text and discussion
- 05:4305:43, 21 February 2011 diff hist +2,512 Shakespeare authorship question Emphasizing major facts of Oxford Summary as per Nishidani suggestion
20 February 2011
- 23:3423:34, 20 February 2011 diff hist +1,624 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Law follow up
- 23:0723:07, 20 February 2011 diff hist +3 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Zweigenbaum's proposal for rewriting of the Oxford section. Text and discussion
- 23:0423:04, 20 February 2011 diff hist +2,133 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Zweigenbaum's proposal for rewriting of the Oxford section. Text and discussion
- 15:5815:58, 20 February 2011 diff hist +6 Shakespeare authorship question →Authorship revives in the mainstream media
- 06:4106:41, 20 February 2011 diff hist +12 Shakespeare authorship question →Authorship revives in the mainstream media
- 06:3106:31, 20 February 2011 diff hist +39 Shakespeare authorship question →Authorship revives in the mainstream media
- 05:2705:27, 20 February 2011 diff hist +1,169 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question /* Oxford Summary discussion
- 05:0205:02, 20 February 2011 diff hist +59 Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard →Shakespeare Authorship Question
- 04:5904:59, 20 February 2011 diff hist +2,779 Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard →Shakespeare Authorship Question
- 04:3204:32, 20 February 2011 diff hist +4,410 Shakespeare authorship question Update on Oxford Summary for discussion purposes
- 04:1804:18, 20 February 2011 diff hist −275 Shakespeare authorship question →Authorship revives in the mainstream media
- 04:1004:10, 20 February 2011 diff hist +36 Shakespeare authorship question →Authorship revives in the mainstream media
- 04:0204:02, 20 February 2011 diff hist −9 Shakespeare authorship question Update regarding Supreme Court Justices' Oxfordian dispositions
- 02:5802:58, 20 February 2011 diff hist +574 Shakespeare authorship question Update regarding Supreme Court Justices' Oxfordian dispositions
- 02:3202:32, 20 February 2011 diff hist +7,326 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question /* Oxford Summary responses to remarks and questions
- 01:1301:13, 20 February 2011 diff hist +1,178 Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard →Shakespeare Authorship Question
19 February 2011
- 19:1919:19, 19 February 2011 diff hist +1 Shakespeare authorship question →Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
- 19:1119:11, 19 February 2011 diff hist +2,339 Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard →Shakespeare Authorship Question: new section
- 07:1107:11, 19 February 2011 diff hist +4,020 User talk:Zweigenbaum Explanation of proposed shortening, focussing, and generally improving the Oxford Summary
- 06:2106:21, 19 February 2011 diff hist −1,062 Shakespeare authorship question Oxford Summary: shortened, more pertinent information, and academically recognized and modernized references added
18 February 2011
- 23:2723:27, 18 February 2011 diff hist +16 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Proposed edit re: Oxford Summary, to be shorter, more to the point, and written by someone knowledgable in the literature
- 23:0623:06, 18 February 2011 diff hist +1 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Proposed edit re: equity with Marlowe edit, briefer format, more pertinent information, change placement
- 23:0223:02, 18 February 2011 diff hist −149 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Proposed edit of Oxford Summary: briefer, more pertinent evidence, and written as is the Baconian section by someone familiar with the candidacy
- 22:5522:55, 18 February 2011 diff hist +2,525 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Proposal that Oxford Summary too long, secondary, and showing unequal treatment vis-a-vis the Baconian summary
15 January 2011
- 00:5500:55, 15 January 2011 diff hist −3 Shakespeare authorship question Filling out missing early history with references as per talk page
- 00:4500:45, 15 January 2011 diff hist +1,062 Shakespeare authorship question Filling out missing early history with references as per talk page
14 January 2011
- 17:0217:02, 14 January 2011 diff hist +492 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Question about article scope and focus
- 16:5316:53, 14 January 2011 diff hist +272 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Question about article scope and focus
13 January 2011
- 02:1102:11, 13 January 2011 diff hist +1,172 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Question about article scope and focus
- 00:2600:26, 13 January 2011 diff hist +2,595 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Question about article scope and focus
12 January 2011
- 20:5220:52, 12 January 2011 diff hist +1,661 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →The SAQ scope and focus: new section
- 09:2209:22, 12 January 2011 diff hist +1,898 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Shakespeare Authorship Question site has questionable reliability sourcing in proposed article
- 03:3003:30, 12 January 2011 diff hist +6,743 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →Shakespeare Authorship Question site has questionable reliability sourcing in proposed article: new section
7 January 2011
- 16:5316:53, 7 January 2011 diff hist +911 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question
- 08:5308:53, 7 January 2011 diff hist +597 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Tom Reedy's Comments On Wikiquette
- 08:1708:17, 7 January 2011 diff hist +4,498 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question
6 January 2011
- 15:3915:39, 6 January 2011 diff hist +1,122 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question
5 January 2011
- 16:4116:41, 5 January 2011 diff hist +1,613 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question
- 15:5515:55, 5 January 2011 diff hist +1,517 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Tom Reedy's Comments On Wikiquette
4 January 2011
- 21:1421:14, 4 January 2011 diff hist +1,525 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question
3 January 2011
- 23:4323:43, 3 January 2011 diff hist +2,596 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question
- 03:5503:55, 3 January 2011 diff hist +1,727 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question
- 01:1801:18, 3 January 2011 diff hist +406 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Request for NPOV Review on Shakespeare Authorship Question article by Editors Who Are Astute about Neutrality Problems: new section
- 01:0601:06, 3 January 2011 diff hist +4,344 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard →NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question: new section
30 December 2010
- 19:4319:43, 30 December 2010 diff hist +1,159 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum response to charge of believing in certain Oxfordian theories
- 07:2607:26, 30 December 2010 diff hist +462 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum endorsement of Green first sentence in article
- 03:0103:01, 30 December 2010 diff hist +182 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Review of talkpage interactions, and article editing
29 December 2010
- 18:3518:35, 29 December 2010 diff hist +1,371 User talk:LessHeard vanU Zweigenbaum response to Bishonen appeal to LittleHeard re: Shakespeare Authorship Question disputes
- 03:3703:37, 29 December 2010 diff hist +1,786 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum response to Bishonen incorrect charge of neutrality tag without discussion.
28 December 2010
- 16:1616:16, 28 December 2010 diff hist +3,609 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →"Lunatic fringe" quotations from Shakespearean academics and critics, all from supposedly reliable sources
- 16:0816:08, 28 December 2010 diff hist +3,858 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum response to Nashidani accusation of posturing
- 05:2205:22, 28 December 2010 diff hist +822 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum comments on dissension in the neutrality discussion and polemicizing by Stratfordian participants and references they cite.
26 December 2010
- 21:3321:33, 26 December 2010 diff hist +1,720 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum response to Reedy's claim he has co-operated by cherry-picking phrases from Zweigenbaum's specific objections.
24 December 2010
- 23:1923:19, 24 December 2010 diff hist +7,074 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum response to Reedy's rebuttal re: Shapiro, Greenblatt, Simonton, and biography,
23 December 2010
- 18:5418:54, 23 December 2010 diff hist +516 m Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Neutrality tag restored due to numerous differences, and 'concerns the proposition' in place of 'is the argument'
- 18:3518:35, 23 December 2010 diff hist +660 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum's response to requests for studies discrediting Shakspere of Stratford as 'Shakespeare'.
- 18:0918:09, 23 December 2010 diff hist +9 Shakespeare authorship question Differences evident in the discussion exchanges and personal hostility shown by the article's author indicate a neutrality dispute.
- 17:5817:58, 23 December 2010 diff hist +9 m Shakespeare authorship question Due to the divisive and ungrammatical use of 'argument' in the article's first line, 'concerns the proposition' is substituted.
- 07:5507:55, 23 December 2010 diff hist +3,078 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum response to Reedy's ad hominem featured rebuttal of the neutral term theory/ hypothesis, and the suggesting the additional term proposition.
- 06:2206:22, 23 December 2010 diff hist +1,561 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum responding to Reedy's rebuttal of Zweigenbaum's suggestions about the prospective article.
- 05:4205:42, 23 December 2010 diff hist +1,738 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum responding to Paul Barlow's condemnations
- 02:1602:16, 23 December 2010 diff hist +421 m Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Selecting neutral term to replace "argument" at beginning of PR article made public with reverted term theory and neutrality tag removed again.
- 02:0602:06, 23 December 2010 diff hist +2 m Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum followed link supplied and used alternative word found there, although this is not a science article. Either word is neutral, as opposed to argument, which is not.
- 00:3100:31, 23 December 2010 diff hist +378 m Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum agrees that "debate" is inaccurate so changes "argument" to "theory", which is more accurate than argument, debate, or controversy.
- 00:1600:16, 23 December 2010 diff hist −2 m Shakespeare authorship question I agree that "debate" is inaccurate, so am changing "argument" to "theory", which is more accurate than argument, debate, or controversy.
22 December 2010
- 21:3321:33, 22 December 2010 diff hist +1,895 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum reiteration of neutrality point of view issues with examples
- 19:3419:34, 22 December 2010 diff hist +2,190 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question /* Zweigenbaum’s objections *: reply to dismissals of Zweigenbaum objections
- 13:0913:09, 22 December 2010 diff hist +19,303 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum commenting on Reedy's review of Zweigenbaum's previous detailed suggestions for neutrality changes
19 December 2010
- 22:0222:02, 19 December 2010 diff hist +5,782 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Specific changes re Reedy proposed article discussed in terms of compliance with WP: WORD and WP:RELIABLE
- 18:2018:20, 19 December 2010 diff hist +2,586 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum response to Bishonen charge that my use and lawful re-use of neutrality tag when it was (twice) edited out unlawfully is itself a tendentious edit
- 08:2108:21, 19 December 2010 diff hist +1,416 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Repeated reversion of neutrality tag by Tom Reedy, writer of the disputed version of the authorship article, now under peer review
- 07:3307:33, 19 December 2010 diff hist +7 Shakespeare authorship question Numerous unresolved conflicts among the peer review editors indicate neutrality of the article is in question
- 07:2607:26, 19 December 2010 diff hist +1,539 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum response to Barlow claims which are based on evidence assumed but not presented
18 December 2010
- 19:0319:03, 18 December 2010 diff hist +2,551 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum responds to Barlow's contentions regarding the nature and consistency of evidence supporting the Stratfordian view
- 17:5617:56, 18 December 2010 diff hist +7 Shakespeare authorship question A significant number of editors constituting a majority question the proposed article's neutrality and are debating the matter at present without a resolution
- 10:3110:31, 18 December 2010 diff hist +5,128 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Zweigenbaum response to Reedy improper removal of neutrality tag, accompanied by disparagements about Zweigenbaum's post
- 02:3002:30, 18 December 2010 diff hist +15,652 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question underhanded removal of materials that should be on talk page?
17 December 2010
- 23:4223:42, 17 December 2010 diff hist +872 N User:Zweigenbaum Unexamined assumptions keep the parties in conflict
- 20:2220:22, 17 December 2010 diff hist +7 Shakespeare authorship question Tagging for Neutrality problems, as per multiple talk page and Peer Review discussions
- 16:5816:58, 17 December 2010 diff hist +1,265 User talk:Tom Reedy →authorship
- 16:5216:52, 17 December 2010 diff hist +1,266 Talk:Shakespeare authorship question →Simplify the article!
- 16:3916:39, 17 December 2010 diff hist +1,212 Shakespeare authorship question extreme bias in references , rife with ad hominem attacks
16 December 2010
- 14:2514:25, 16 December 2010 diff hist +299 Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive2 Ad hominem methods and summary dismissal in the proposed article, and its footnotes, preclude the claimed neutral stance.
- 14:2114:21, 16 December 2010 diff hist +922 N Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive2 Ad hominem methods and summary dismissal in the proposed article, and its footnotes, preclude the claimed neutral stance.
