User talk:PametPuma
A topic of interest to you is covered by Arbcom sanctions
[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent edit
[edit]I had to revert your recent edit (diff) at Shakespeare authorship question because it broke the reference, and displayed some of the text from a reference in the article.
Another issue is that you did not give an edit summary, and it is hard to follow the reason for your change. The edit removed the link in "fringe belief", changing it to "fringe theory", and removed one of the eight references, namely Kathman (2003, p.621) with its quote "...antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system".
It's not clear why you would want to remove the link to fringe theory which merely states that "A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." That link seems appropriate to clarify what is meant—what is the problem with it?
Also, why should the Kathman reference be removed? Do you have reason to believe it is misused, or is not a reliable source? Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)