User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is what I wrote on the talk page, to which you have not responded:

I've reverted all recent edits by IP. The first edit says that the page reference to a book was wrong, and yet it was not - as can be seen here. [1]. There may, of course, be another edition with different pagination, but this one is verifiable. The second deleted the word "linguistic" from the sentence "James S. Shapiro has since provided linguistic evidence of the forgery". This is on the grounds that the word "unromantic", picked out as anachronistic by Shapiro, was first used in the 1730s. Shapiro acknowledges this, but states that "it wasn't yet in currency at the time Cowell was supposedly writing". However, this is irrelevant. Shapiro provides linguistic evidence. Whether you agree with it or not is beside the point. This is a description of what he provides. He constitutes a reliable source (WP:RS), but a Wikipedia editors' personal interpretations do not (see WP:OR and WP:SYN). The editor has also added the assertion that "The paper itself is of a type which first appeared in the mid-1790s", using the extant footnote to Shapiro pp.11-14. And yet Shapiro says no such thing on these pages. Perhaps they are stated by him or someone else elsewhere, but we would need an authentic citation. I certainly can't find them in the book. In any case, the phrase "of a type that first appeared in the 1790s" is obscure to say the least. It doesn't even say that the paper actually dates to that period. If the IP has some clearer information or an actual published source for the claim then this needs to be identified. Paul B (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See also my more recent comments on the talk page. Paul B (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford[edit]

When rewriting an article in future, please use accurate edit summaries and consider discussing them on the talkpage first. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Kgpg new.svg To edit, please log in.

Editing by anonymous users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. Registered users, however, are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may use this form to request a username. Alternatively, you may email us with your preferred username. Either way, use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. If using the form, please reference this block in the comment section.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Comments: When calling someone a vandal, it is prudent to check whether they are an admin - and certainly not one who is confident that they will be able to rationalise blocking someone where there may be a claim of involvement. To clarify, you are blocked 31 hours so as to diminish the potential for disruption at Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. When the block expires, you will be further prudent to discuss your proposed changes first.

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Nina, I've been unblocked but won't have much if any time to do any edits since I leave on the 7th. I just fixed one thing. Some editor put down 24 Feb 1593 for his heir's birthdate. I know in the primary documents it is registered 1592 but both Ward and Nelson (I provded Ward as a second source just now) of course concur on 1593, having adjusted for calendrical reasons. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Alan cites Cecil Papers, iv. pp. 394-5 (143/69, 71, 72v). I've not seen this document (it's difficult to get copies of the Cecil Papers), but Oxford and Elizabeth Trentham were not married until December 1591, so a birthdate of 24 February 1592 would be awkward, to say the least. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

HMC Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquis of Salisbury at Hatfield, vol. iv (1892), but I suspect you are not looking for the Theobalds linen inventory.Unoquha (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


Nina, have you read Joel Hurstfield's The Queen's Wards (1958)? The reason I ask is because I read your comments about Burghley and Hurstfield agrees with your impression. Although Burghley took bribes for awarding favours (which was looked at as a kind of fossil tribute held over from the feudal system), he didn't take advantage of his wards, from my reading of it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Tom, I'm a novice at this, and am just now figuring out how to use my Talk page. Yes, my view is that Lord Burghley did not take financial advantage of Oxford and other royal wards. In fact, a book of Lawrence Stone's (as I recall) demonstrates that Lord Burghley put the Earl of Rutland, a royal ward, on his feet again financially through his management of Rutland's affairs during Rutland's wardship (Lord Burghley was a good friend of Rutland's stepmother). The wardship system was a cash cow for the Tudor monarchy, and although Lord Burghley doubtless profited from his position as Master, he did not take financial advantage of his royal wards. In particular, since this article is about Oxford, Lord Burghley did not take financial advantage of Oxford during his wardship. The financial benefit of Oxford's wardship went to Leicester, as I've demonstrated from historical documents in my article in Brief Chronicles. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Nina (, I see you've not been welcomed yet, so please allow me. I hope you will get to like this site and decide to stay. If you are looking for help, please go to the new contributors' help page, the help pages, the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Here are some useful links:

As you have discovered, you can add your IP address on pages using four tildes, ~~~~, but may I suggest you would find it better to go here and create an account which you can use from any computer? You need not lose this page, which can be linked from a new user page. Again, welcome! Moonraker2 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See also[edit]