User talk:Peter Farey

Helpme request
Is there an etiquette and process for competely re-writing an entry?! The one I have in mind is 'Marlovian Theory'.


 * Hi! Just reveiw this. and you can try. If the article gets messed up just revert it or someone else will. Instead of using just ask me by placing a note on my talkpage.User: (talk • contribs • count ) | Review Me! | Can I have your autograph? 13:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * These may also help: * Be bold in editing • Develop an article

EDIT CONFLICT
 * Perfect article • Manual of style User: (talk • contribs • count ) | Review Me! | Can I have your autograph? 13:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any specific policy, but it would be a very good idea to suggest it on the talk page for a while before doing anything drastic. You could also tag the page with cleanup-rewrite or one of the other cleanup templates during this time to raise awareness of the issue. --h2g2bob 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My apologies for the unintentional anonymity. I'm new to all of this, rather ancient, and without anyone nearby to show me how. But I'm learning! Peter Farey 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship
I see you've done some edits re Marlowe and the Authorship question. There is a discussion going on at the William Shakespeare main page regarding cutting the summary paragraphs about Bacon, Oxford and Marlowe. Here is the discussion: []. You might want to weigh in.04:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

SAQ
Thanks for agreeing to cut your paragraph at Shakespeare authorship question—I have briefly responded at the article talk page. I would like to make a suggestion about using the talk page: There is no good way to thread responses when multiple thoughts are in one section. I think it is best to add all new comments at the bottom, with some exceptions. For an example of an exception, the (at the bottom) shows you asking "which bit still has to be sourced to Gibson?" to Nishidani, and I have added a comment under your question. The best place for Nishidani to answer would be immediately after your question, above my comment. However, if Nishidani wanted to respond to something earlier (for example, your comment with timestamp 12:36, 17 February 2011), the best place would be at the very bottom of the section (after all other comments). That comment should very briefly quote something (say in italics) from the statement being responded to, then respond. Other styles of responses are very confusing; in particular, inserting a response into the middle of someone's comment makes it very hard for a third party to understand. These are just my suggestions—there is no universally agreed procedure, and there are advantages and problems with each different approach. No need to reply, but if you do, I will see it here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I have spent too much of my life in newsgroups, and needed some guidance as to the best format here. Thanks.Peter Farey (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 72, pal? You've pipped me and perhaps one or two others at the post for the title of elder statesman of the SAQ, dammit! I'd appreciate it if you dropped me a note when the outcome of that Phd on Marlovian theory is clarified. If we can get stuff like that, no doubt the Marlovian Theory page itself could be worked up to GA status, since the technical problem of sourcing stuff would be overcome. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation of Frizer
Hi Peter, I have reinstated the IPA pronunciation (—"freezer") lost in, on the basis that it appears to be more of a browser compatibility problem, rather than something from Hotson. Just undo it if you really meant the change, but if you didn't, you may need to check if you need a more up-to-date browser, or to take more care when copy-pasting via another editor (and / or check with the "Show changes" button). I'm watching this page for the moment, should you wish to reply here. Tim PF (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tim, you are of course absolutely right. I'm using either Google Chrome or Microsoft Explorer at the moment, but have no idea which I used that time! What I usually do, however, is to paste anything I am editing into Windows "Notepad" first, and I guess that this is where the error happened. Please keep watching though, as I'm sure that this won't be the last time I muck such things up! Peter Farey (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's more likely the copy and pasting to or from Notepad, but a quick check there doesn't give any obvious problem with UTF-8 encoding. I don't use M$ myself, so I cannot help too much.
 * It should be fairly easy to test. Start to edit that article, copy and paste into Notepad, and see if it still shows as  (—"freezer") .  If so, make a small change, select all, copy and paste back in to see if it's still ok.  If so, then there's some other problem.
 * As for watching, I don't think I can keep an eye on everything, although I'm very interested to know if Frizer really did kill Marlowe that day. Tim PF (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ipse Audrey

 * Paul, I find it strange that you dismiss the idea of an allegorical meaning for the Touchstone/William exchange. Whilst I have never been entirely convinced by any of the anti-Stratfordian versions (including the Marlovian one) I find it hard to accept that it doesn't have an ulterior meaning at all. I could easily see it as reflecting what the writer felt about how the clown (William Kempe) kept on departing from his script, just as Hamlet would advise against their doing. It is within the writer's power to kill the clown character off in countless ways, and the fact that Kempe left the company at about this time would seem to lend support to such an idea. As for the Dickens myth, it is something which I finally persuaded the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition to remove from their latest publication, but such ideas do seem to be remarkably tenacious. Peter Farey (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many possible in-jokes in Shakespeare, of course, ones which we can never recover short of the invention of a time machine. It did occur to me that the Touchstone dialogue may have some joking reference in it that would have been understood by the acting company, and that's true of many other jokes in the plays. Obviously the extra in-meaning of the "great reckoning in a little room" phrase was unknown to everyone until Hotson's discoveries. There are probably innumerable others we now just pass over unknowingly. But an in-joke is not an allegory. The idea that Audrey represents Shakespeare's plays seems so absurd that I can't imagine how anyone could seriously propose it. Why would he represent his own creative work in the form of an ignorant, stupid and not very pretty peasant girl? Paul B (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting example you choose! How did Shakespeare, who was of course writing for a different "acting company", know something that nobody else seems to have done? (Incidentally, I have only today come across a letter from Robert Poley to Sir Robert Cecil, dated 18 July 1602 in which Poley complains that Cecil had "said to me I never made you good intelligence, nor did you service worth reckoning." Nudge, nudge, wink, wink - know what I mean? Not sure what your remarks about Audrey are all about, though. I suggested that Audrey represented the audience, not the plays. Peter Farey (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Audrey represents the plays in the version of the theory that I'm most familiar with. You haven't said anything here about her representing the audience or anything else. I'm not sure what you mean about S knowing something nobody else seems to have done. Are you saying the findings of the inquest were kept secret? There are some slightly mixed-up reports of it, yes, but that doesn't imply anything was hidden. You can only get a bit mixed up about something that's not secret. Vaughan gets the details right. I see no reason why Shakespeare would not have heard about it. BTW, I've just been expanding the Robert Poley article. Please add to or correct it. Re "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink - know what I mean?" Er, no, I don't. Poley was constantly shafting people all of the time. Why should the "service" be a reference to Marlowe? Even if it was, it could be to conniving at his killing. But really, the list of Poley's services to grassing people up is as long as an Orang Utan's arm. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I see the "Audrey = audience" claim appears in Pinksen's Marlowe's Ghost. That argument makes even less sense to me, and Gibson's objections apply even more strongly to it. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, I am not really convinced by any anti-Stratfordian interpretation of the Audrey passage, so I am certainly not going to get drawn into defending one! As for what Shakespeare knew that others seemed not to, I'm really not making a big thing of it, but he apparently knew that the fight was over a "reckoning", something which none of the accounts we know of, other than the coroner's inquisition itself, mentions. I found it an interesting coincidence that Poley also used this word in his letter to Cecil, as this just might have been a subtle reminder of something he had done on Cecil's behalf - whatever that something was - at Deptford that day. Of more interest to me is that none of Marlowe's biographers since Boas in 1940 seems to have noticed the letter at all.


 * Speaking of coincidences, I had spent much of yesterday writing a new Wikipedia item for Robert Poley, and just got as far as Deptford when I was informed that you had already done it! Mine has rather more detail than yours, so I'll see whether I think anything is worth adding. That letter makes the date of death wrong for a start, of course, but maybe a floruit would be more appropriate in his case anyway? Peter Farey (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised you were making a point about the fact that Poley uses the word "reckoning" in the letter to Cecil. I hardly think we can read much into that. It is just an ordinary word after all. By all means replace what I wrote, even though it's dismaying to have one's work obliterated. That's Wikipedia. As for the date, yes that should certainly be changed. You may or may not have noticed that I also created an article on Wilbur G. Zeigler, which you might want to look at. Paul B (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course I understand what you say about the obliteration of one's work! The question has to be whether what I have written, plus the further stuff I will edit the piece below to show (subject to your amendment), is a better new starting point for the article. I think it is, but then I would, wouldn't I? Peter Farey (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, it is better. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Obviously there's a need to add the Jonson stuff. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Paul. I'll complete the whole lot before any obliterating, after which you can have fun showing where I have gone wrong! I'm glad you mentioned the Jonson stuff though. I know about Poley having been placed in the prison to spy on him after he was committed, but wasn't aware that he was instrumental in Jonson's being there in the first place. Do you have a specific reference and page number for that? Peter Farey (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Sorry, I was so immersed in the Poley stuff that I didn't take in your comment about having created a Zeigler page. It's excellent, thank you! My only comment would be that Hoffman - as far as I recall, as I don't have his book with me right now - denied knowing anything about any earlier version of his theory when he came up with it! Peter Farey (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Poley
I have now moved the complete version to the Robert Poley "article" page. Peter Farey (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Missions prohibited sign.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Missions prohibited sign.jpg, which you've sourced to signmaker. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Stefan2 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BRIXMIS number plate.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BRIXMIS number plate.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
Please review my recent edits, and the edit summaries, to the SAQ article. I mentioned your name, and made an assumption that I would like you to verify. Same with the talk page, where I mentioned you. don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth. Thanks. (Hello, by the way. I don't think I've ever left a note on your page, IIRC) Smatprt (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not on my page, no, but we have certainly corresponded before. You are right to have said that I found it helpful there, but mainly because I couldn't find that specific point being made anywhere else! There is "Anti-Stratfordians say that nothing in the documentary record explicitly identifies Shakespeare as a writer", but that isn't quite the same as "there is no direct evidence clearly identifying Shakespeare of Stratford as a playwright". The words "direct evidence" and "of Stratford" were what made it different for me. Having said that, your edit did sit rather awkwardly in that paragraph, which is otherwise entirely to do with evidence used in support of one's own candidate, and not the reasons for rejecting any other.


 * Whilst Marlovians may not use some of those types of evidence as much as other candidates' proponents, we certainly make use of all three of those listed (plus stylometry) in our case for Marlowe. Peter Farey (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess my question is, do Marlovians "rely" on all three, since that is the word that is being used in the paragraph.Smatprt (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They are not the only things we rely on (Marlowe's faked death being another important argument), but we do rely entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and although I'm not keen on the "what they designate as" bit, that is what it says. Peter Farey (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * yes that is awkward. It's as if Tom is saying its not really circumstantial evidence, but it's what "they" call it. Terribly slanted writing as is typical. In any case, I found some indisputable RS sources confirming that anti-strats use both Biographical Criticism and Stylometry. Most of the stylometry refs have to do with Marlowe. If you haven't seen those references, they make good reading. I imagine you have though. You can follow the refs in my 2nd to last edit. And thanks for reminding me that we corresponded a while back. duh. Smatprt (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Poets' Corner
Peter, I think both the Times letter and the book and the blog are good sources, lets have all. It's not a blog but a downloadable ebook and has the advantage that readers can easily refer to it, it also has wide circulation. You should have both the Times reference and the book title to hand, so rather than revert I'll see if you agree with these suggestions. Peter Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Peter, I'm very happy to include a link to the e-book as well, and have done so. I'm still not happy about the quotation, however. Other than to correct some minor errors in your original edit, my suggested change was mainly concerned with your claim that they wanted the question mark removed "on the grounds that it encourages questioning of the authorship of Shakespeare", which is not what the source you gave actually says. In fact the reasons given requesting its removal in their 2011 letter to The Times, in their 2012 e-book, and in their 2013 Shakespeare Beyond Doubt remain constant -- it "flew in the face of a mass of unimpugnable evidence" and "denies history". Having therefore put these words into the body of the piece, there seemed to be no good reason for repeating them in the note, particularly since the rest of the quotation adds nothing but polemic to what has already been stated. Park Honan, of course, said that he did not object to the question mark, and that it would call attention to unsolved problems related to the poet's last day, but I don't think the article needs to get into that discussion does it? Peter Farey (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter, I'm a bit discreet about my identity for now. Thanks for your compliment about my talk, I had to revise it in a subsequent edition of the Marlowe Society newsletter, the basis on which I was invited turned out to be invalid. I think we should discuss this on the article talk page. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we should. In fact I was a bit surprised that you chose to discuss it here in the first place! Peter Farey (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cn't remember why, probably just because I wanted to introduce myself to you!Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570649889 your edit] to Christopher Marlowe may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * with which they deceived the jury" but came down against that scenario. Others, however, began to suspect that this was indeed the case. Writing to the ''Times
 * Frizer, with whom he was currently engaged in just such a swindle. In other words, despite their being referred to as "generosi" (gentlemen) in the inquest

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BRIXMIS number plate.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BRIXMIS number plate.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just
hoping all's well with you, Peter. I haven't seen you around, and thought often of you. Nice to see your usual commonsense over at SAQ. Best wishes. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ...noticed your message, for which much thanks. How very nice to hear from you, especially given the kind things you say. I'm afraid that my input to Wikipedia and to the SAQ in general has rather tailed off lately, mainly due to ill health. Although all of the worst symptoms are gone now, I am left with a lethargy which I find difficult to shake off, even in the face of the severest provocation! Hope you are well. Tom said that he was going to visit you on his last trip to Europe. Did he manage it? Peter Farey (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ill-health is catching up with the old crew. Tom managed, despite spinal cysts, to met up. I limped up, with a chronic sprain, abandoning my bedridden spouse battling staphylococcus aureus. Good grief! We had lunch in the Vatican, and, unable to wangle a pass to the Vatican archives where he wanted to check a rumour that a manuscript of all the texts in the First Folio existed in a Urtext signed by Christopher Marlowe but in de Vere's handwriting, we had to content ourselves with observing a Chinese gentleman, sitting on his Pat Malone, taking 9 selfies of himself with a plate of pasta and some snags, an epiphany whose analysis engaged our exasperated hermeneutic wits for the half hour it took for the said gent to complete his photographic archive memorializing his experience of that Museum! Keep well, Peter.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My own ill-health entirely self-inflicted, with my liver declaring 'that's enough' after having to deal with four or five pints a day for the last sixty years. Have now joined Tom on the wagon, and it's done wonders for my waistline. You couldn't wangle a pass? Well that's just what you would say, isn't it? It's all part of the cover-up I tell you. Peter Farey (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good grief. That's terrible news. No, not off the wagon, which would be insane here,  with all the cheap good wine flowing. It's a tradition in my family to die of emphysema or alcoholism: I still recall an uncle lifting his oxygen tent in hospital to light up for a last drag, and another telling us to make sure his grave had a hose attachment  plunged from the upper soil through the coffin so he could have a nip if we did him to courtesy of passing by the cemetery. He cancelled this, almost as soon as he said it, realizing that, while we were mad enough to demand precisely such an installation  to honour his last wishes, we'd probably use it to piss on him in the hereafter!Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. I have a fondness for my great-great-grandfather Charles Lewis Farey (1827-85), who was the first of the Fareys to up sticks from Northants and head for London. About the inquest into his early deathThe Islington Gazette wrote of the "Sudden Death of a Cab-man", saying "A post-mortem examination of the body showed congestion of the lungs, fatty degeneration of the heart, liver extensively diseased, in fact witness had rarely seen a body more diseased." That takes some dedication. Peter Farey (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the witness had never been present at Lord Byron's autopsy! Nishidani (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Men of good fortune
If you haven't come across this before, you may enjoy it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)