User:Bishonen/Evidence section for Shakespeare authorship question

Do not edit this page. Beware of the Darwinbish.

NinaGreen's article editing

I don't understand Nina's complaint here and in many other places that consensus is always against "Oxfordian" edits because "Oxfordian editors are vastly outnumbered by Stratfordian editors, and thus consensus is always against any edit proposed by an Oxfordian editor." That state of affairs is not a piece of injustice; it's how editing of controversial articles is supposed to work on Wikipedia. Even so, Nina's frequent claims that none of her major edits to the article have been accepted [diffs of these claims to follow] are highly exaggerated. In an attempt to randomise the information as best I can, I provide below a chronological list of her first 22 edits of Shakespeare authorship question. They're not cherry-picked in any way but simply represent Nina's editing and its reception over her first 16 hours editing the SAQ, on December 16 2010 (in my timezone). I hope such realism of detail gives the flavour of the thing.

1. [1] ref deleted—restored, and quotation from existing ref added to correct Nina's misunderstanding of what the cite was used for
2. [2] deletion—reverted, better ref furnished
3. [3] tagged cn—cite given
4. [4] added specific name of a person who made the argument—rv as part of mass rv
5. [5] deleted secondary source, add primary source—mass rv
6. [6] “tidied” by deleting introductory and “citing” her interpretation of policy—mass rv
7. [7] added name of dramatist—lost in mass rv
8. [8] tagged intro summary stated for cn—rv, cite not needed in intro
9. [9] ce and ref Oxford section—kept
10. [10] changed ref—kept
11. [11] ce—kept
12. [12] 2 edits, 1 rv, 1 kept.
13. [13] attributed Shakespeare play chronology to 1 person, rv
14. [14] attributed Oxfordian codes and ciphers to 1 person’s “opinion”—rv
15. [15] deleted overlinks—kept
16. [16] tagged statement and deleted description—cite given and edit kept (though section rewritten later)
17. [17] extensive rewrite of section referred to above—mostly kept
18. [18] m (close ref)
19. [19] m (ce tag)
20. [20] added ref—kept
21. [21] m (close ref)
22. [22] lede edit—mostly kept

Below, on the other hand, are some picked edits (out of many), illustrating the disruptive side of Nina's editing. None of these edits had talkpage consensus, or were given any kind of notice on Talk; none were kept.

1. [23] removed refs and then put cn tag
2. [24] replaced entire lede without discussion or consensus
3. [25] same edit after being reverted
4. [26] same edit after being reverted
5. [27] hair-splitting to disrupt
6. [28] (2 edits)
7. [29]
8. [30] (4 edits)
9. [31] calls Paul's edit summary OR