User talk:Reedlander

Shakespeare Authorship Question: "Queen Elizabeth I" as a possible candidate?
Hi Reedlander,

Well, welcome to Wikipedia, but if you are just starting out, adding what you propose to an article as controversial as that on the Shakespeare authorship question is not the best way to begin. If you look at the talk page, and archives of previous discussions, you will see that this has been one of the most controversial articles on, probably, all of Wikipedia. Also, this has reached "Featured Article" status, which makes it even harder to get your edits accepted. And that is understandable, since the contents and form of this article have been debated and worked over countless hours by dozens of Wikipedians over years and years. So, unless you have something to add that is considered especially suitable for this article, and it meets with no serious objections on the talk page, you are not likely to get your changes accepted here. If I had not been the one to revert what you added, I can guarantee that someone else would have in short order.

One thing I might suggest is finding some other place to add what you want. That said, I see that the source you provided is a blog. Blogs are not usually considered to be "reliable sources" for Wikipedia articles, so that would probably be challenged too. A blog, in particular, would be rejected as a "self-published" source. See WP:SPS.

Though of the contributors to the Shakespeare authorship question page there are others who are much more knowledgeable than I am about who the most important candidates have been for considering as possible authors of Shakespeare's plays, I can tell you one thing: this article is a general consideration of the question and there is room to mention only a few of the candidates that have received the most attention over the centuries. And I can tell you with certainty that Queen Elizabeth does not even come close. You might want to look at the list of the more than 80 proposed candidates to get an idea of where she fits in (yes, she is listed there, as "Elizabeth Tudor"). It is possible that you could add a bit to the article on Queen Elizabeth, or something like that, but I couldn't guarantee that that will be accepted either.

If you are not absolutely determined to post something to Wikipedia about the belief that Queen Elizabeth was the real author of Shakespeare's plays, then I would imagine you could find something else much less controversial to contribute to. There is a lot of work to be done here overall, and it will never be finished. On the other hand, if you are in fact so determined, you are not going to have an easy time of it.

I am not saying this to discourage you. I sincerely do welcome you here, and I'm sure others do too. I would just, if I were you, read a bit more about Wikipedia's rules and practices and areas that need the most work, take some time to absorb it, and only then venture to make some edits, hopefully on something that is not particularly contentious. I know the importance of this approach; I have the battle scars to prove it.

Regards, Alan W (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see you also posted to the article's talk page. And as I suspected, others replied with pretty much what I'm saying here. You do seem determined to pursue this particular topic. All I can add is, good luck. I will add just one more comment. What you argue may or may not be true. But that is beside the point on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, this is a repository of accepted knowledge as found in "reliable sources", in this case academic publications of repute and standing. What you have to say might be an astounding original discovery; but it wouldn't be acceptable here, as it is "original research", which is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia. That is simply not what Wikipedia is about. Again, good luck! --Alan W (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate it. Reedlander (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler
You must use the article's talkpage to explain why the omission of the sourced content improves the article, and how you believe that its inclusion constitutes "glorification." I'm not seeing it. You must achieve a consensus that the content is problematic before removing it.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)