User talk:Charles Darnay

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wilkins

Can't you get anything straight,Paul? You undoubtedly came over here with this balderdash in hopes that your readers(if any) won't know what was originally said on the other thread at Shakespeare Authorship discussion:subhead Wilkins.The discussion was supposed to be about how a manuscript containing Shakespeare matteer came to be adulterated by a third rate hack named Wilkins who was never to appear in an authorial capaciity again.

Two documents were cited,as a preliminary thereto.The second document was discovered by a man(previously unknown to you and Reedy) called Hotson who incorporated it into a book(equally unknown to you and Reedy).It is that document which is pertinent-- not Hotson's(whom you,as late as yesterday believed to be somebody named Hodson) failure to incorporate any coherent interpretation of said document in his book(which Reedy may still believe to be a pamphlet.

As to your further misconceptions about available source material I'll try to reply to them where they belong.I mean the Wilkins section,not the sand box.

"I'm sure Shakespeare scholars are as interested in 20th century writing as anyone else who likes literature, but professionally, I can't imagine that they would derive much benefit from such people," Such people! Paul,do you actually know who Ernst Robert Curtius is? It is one thing not to know Leslie Hotson but not to know Curtius shows an equal ignorance of expertise in Modern,Renaissance and Medieval Literature.Try googling "Curtius James Joyce" or "Curtius,Literature and the Latin Middle Ages".The latter was,may still be,a standard Columbia graduate text for many generations.Too bad that Shapiro was too dellinquent in his studies to consult it.

I know Sussex isn't in the same league as the Ox-Cam circuit but this is unbelievable. Though I agree that Dave and Stanley's style expertise would render them impervious to whatever Curtius will continue to offer.Now let's get back on topic,the life of Oxford(which seeing that Nina trounced you guys,you are understandably reluctant to do}. No one except Alden Brooks of Harvard and copycat Alan Nelson(Berkeley,1967)is known to have believed the Arundel charges in the past four hundred years.This definitely meets the Wikipedia definition of Fringe theory.In so far as they seek to relate themselves to the life of Edward de Vere they are fringe theorists,by definition on this blog (whether or not this is a desirable definition you claiim to be outside the purview oof mortal man). Further,as you have had your free daily lessons in remediable Shakespeare 0002,remediable World Literature 0001, and Edward de Vere 0000,I trust that you may eventually come to understand why you are not qualified to describe yourself as mainstream.Charles Darnay (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles, your arguments and comments are now becoming completely childish. I did not "come over" to the De Vere page. I replied to your comments, which were written there. However, I will not continue to add material unrelated to the page's topic, so I am replying here. I not recall any discussion of the circumstances in which "Shakespeare matter" was "adulterated by a third rate hack named Wilkins who was never to appear in an authorial capaciity again." I recall you obessing irrelevantly about brothels. If you want to recall what you wrote here it is: Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#George_Wilkins. We both know that Wilkins had already written a play, so there's nothing surprising about his then getting involved in a collaborative venture with WS. His other activities have no relevance to his ability to write, such as it was. Hotson was not unknown to me at all. Indeed I read his rather unconvincing book on the Hilliard portrait years ago. I just mistyped his name, then quickly corrected the typo. That's all. As I have already said, you have shown yourself capable of typing wholly incoherent sentences, so why do you think you can crow over one letter? I rather doubt he was unknown to Tom either. Again you are making things up. I knew nothing about Curtius, nor do I see why it is remotely relevant. I'm willing to acknowledge that I have not heard over every 20th century scholar in all areas. I doubt that you are willing to admit to even your most glaring inadequacies. You show no evicdence of any meaningful knowledge at all. Almost everything of substance you have said is riddled with basic errors, as has been pointed out repeatedly. I am 'mainstream' in this context because I defend the mainstream view, that's all. Paul B (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 Paul,I just saw this or would,for the final time,have replied sooner.This he said,I didn't say(knowwing full well what that you did say and do) is standard practice among the Kathman,Reedy,Kennedey  rent-a-mob culture over at HLAS.They have exported it to Wickie.You have apparently drafted to play the role of formerly  alloted to  David "tangled "Webb
 "We both know that Wilkins had already written a play, so there's nothing surprising about his then getting involved in a collaborative venture with WS. His other activities have no relevance to his ability to write, such as it was." 
  Where did you take your 001 in logic ,man? 
 Actually Wilkins had written in two produced plays but even then,IF Wilkins collaborated on the Globe version of "Pericles" (and there is no contemporary evidence that he,unlike Bacon, was regarded as a collaborator of Shakespeare)there is no way he could have got the job short of his old breakfast companion Will's active intervention.
 Haven't you read Charles Nichols or Peter Ackroyd on Nichols yet?You'll a lot better finding a mainstream than by hanging in there with Kathman,Reedy and Donald Foster.The former  say Shakespeare is redolent of the brothel .Here's the biographical link you guys have been looking for these past hundred years and you don't even thank me.Just yap,yap,yap.
 Come back when you've read Curtius.

Posting of personal information

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.

The information you posted has been removed and suppressed by a member of the Oversight team. Do not make any further attempt to publish private or personal information about other users, or you will be blocked. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Happy‑melon 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

::::  This is absurd as we posted no personal information about anyone except George Wilkins.
   Paul's identity is all too well known and if he has not earned any independentt respect here,it is certainly not our doing.The more he indulges in romantic self-revelation the better it is for the cause of objective truth .By all means, yak on. Paul