User talk:Faktorovich

Welcome!

Hi Faktorovich! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

See also WP:SELFCITE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I am delighted that my edits have interested you. My series was already cited on the [page], I simply edited the citations so that they use the correct Wikipedia citation style, and include all 5 of the underlying authors my study attributes to the "Shakespeare" pseudonym. It is not self-promotion, if somebody else is already promoting me and I am simply correcting an error in their understanding of my research. The original version suggests that my study only credits William Percy as the author behind the "Shakespeare" byline, when in fact Volumes 1-2 of my series gives computational-linguistic evidence that attribute the various "Shakespeare" texts to the different ghostwriters I specified in my edit. I am a "subject-expert" in this field, as I have previously published two scholarly books with McFarland (Rebellion as Genre and Formulas of Popular Fiction). I would very much like to understand the rules of editing on Wikipedia, so I can make other changes that my research has corrected in the errors with the current British Renaissance attributions. So, please include your specific objections here, via email to director@anaphoraliterary.com or elsewhere, so we can discuss what you propose to make sure the pages present accurate information correctly. The data regarding who I credit as authors of specific texts (including the corrections I am making to the "Shakespeare" authorship page) is included for free to the public here: https://github.com/faktorovich/Attribution. Faktorovich (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If you copy this to Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Recent_WP:SPS_additions we can continue the discussion there. Disagreement on article-content should be discussed on the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have responded to all of your concerns, but you have not responded to my detailed explanations as to why my edits were bibliographically necessary for the "Shakespeare candidates" page, as well as the other varied points I have raised. I was familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines before your comments, but you don't seem to be interested in what these guidelines are saying, but rather merely in censoring me from participating in editing essential information on Wikipedia.Faktorovich (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not on WP 24/7. For almost everyone you encounter here, WP is a hobby. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

On editing Wikipedia

In short, every article is supposed to be a WP:DUE summary of WP:RS (per WP:s definition) on the topic. Per the nature of WP, this is achieved to a (very) varying degree, but that is the aim.

Your edit was fine (WP:BOLD), so was my revert (WP:BRD). Now, the SAQ-area is a problematic one on WP (there are others, like American politics), so we are expected to behave ourselves, I will give you the standard notice on that below. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Shakespeare authorship question. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

On discussing on WP talkpages

If you go here : Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable a thingie called "Discussion tools", you will get a "reply" link at the end of each comment, and using that both WP:INDENTs correctly and signs. There may be other stuff in the preferences you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, now, I see the "reply" option. It might have needed to update. Faktorovich (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I added the tool. But I don't see a "reply" option when replying now to your suggestion. Faktorovich (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes, you have to reload the page first.

BTW, I realize this last week's been no fun, but I hope you'll stick around anyway, and I hope that you will take my advice: Slow down. This isn't a fast-paced social media platform. You don't need to reply instantly. Or today. Real life first, and if you drop by Wikipedia just once a day, that's enough (really, more than enough) for people to be able to talk to you.

(I have just realized that there is no article on "When the Watchman Saw the Light" by Constantine P. Cavafy, which is a pity.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Filing complaints regarding unfair and illogical policies is my idea of "fun", just as I have fun writing 14 volumes so far in this BRRAM series. I actually haven't had any caffeine today (yet), so the speed at which I replied to your comments earlier today is my slow-speed. It would be rude of me to fail to respond immediately, and I find that it is better to communicate ideas while they are still fresh in my mind vs. letting them settle first. "Real life"? I work on my research from morning-till-night since I'm in semi-retirement and working on the second half or the other 14 volumes or so in the BRRAM series now. So when I stop writing these responses on Wikipedia, I just dive back into more research on this topic in my books. There are many articles and pieces of articles missing on topics related to BRRAM's findings I could edit. But if my bibliographic edits to the "Shakespeare Candidates" page are not made, I do not plan on attempting to edit/ write any other pages connected with my research, as your editors replies on Wikipedia have insisted I am not an expert, and I am biased by having written on this topic, and thus all of my edits/ writing would be deleted without suitable explanations. A victory for censorship. Faktorovich (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It'd be a shame to lose you. If complaining on the internet is also your idea of fun, then you'll fit right in.

Has any journal or other publication unconnected to you ever published anything you have written about Shakespeare or authorship attribution? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

As I explained in several responses across this Wikipedia debate, I have published my research in two Journal of Information Ethics articles (one past, and one forthcoming), in two scholarly McFarland books that discuss linguistic and structural form of literature, Rebellion as Genre and Formulas of Popular Fiction, and I have had coverage of the BRRAM series in several media outlets including the Wichita article (described on BRRAM's main page: https://anaphoraliterary.com/attribution/). I have published a few other scholarly articles in outside journals etc. over the years. Why do you ask? I am not seeking a place to "fit in". Does anybody really want to fit into something that already exists as a clog or a brick into a wall of repetition? I have voiced my complaint with Wikipedia's policies, and your answer is that you don't have to actually read anything I have to say, and instead you and your buddies can joyfully hop-forward over the corpse of my attempts to fix biases and corruption on your platform. In contrast with your philosophy-of-life, I am just trying to communicate a true version of literary history that has been censored or misunderstood in all past history books and attribution studies. Faktorovich (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

So we're stuck with an unfortunate situation: all of your writing on the Shakespeare authorship question trips over a barrier in the policy. This is a barrier that is a net benefit to Wikipedia articles, but it does cause the occasional problem, such as this one. We can get misrepresentations of your work out, but we can't easily get accurate versions in.

You say that the true version has been "censored". Does this mean that other journals aren't really interested in publishing your ideas, or did you mean something stronger? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

WhatAreYouTalkingAbout? My articles on attribution in the Journal of Information Ethics is entirely not with my own company, and they do not tip over any type of "barrier in the policy". The article in the Wichita newspaper is about my findings and does not carry my byline. That article explains that BRRAM's Volumes 1-2 assign all of the tested 284 texts from the British Renaissance to the Workshop of 6 ghostwriters. This article links to the raw data on GitHub, which includes specific credits to which of these ghostwriters wrote which "Shakespeare"-bylined texts. The current "Shakespeare Candidates" page gives me credit for one of these, Percy, but not for the other 3 that have never before been proposed as "Shakespeare Candidates" - Byrd, Harvey and Sylvester. The misrepresentation is entirely with your editor, who failed to look at the data or to look inside Volumes 1-2 to figure out that I am not crediting all texts under the "Shakespeare" byline only to Percy, and the editors who later adjusted this line to giving "mostly tragedies to Percy" did not read the research either. They seem to be focusing on the number of citations involved in adding 4 instead of only 1 candidate, or their campaign against Amazon and for Google (both giant, equally "evil" or monopolizing corporations), and not on simply recording the citation as a scholar would cite it. If you are not reading my replies across this debate, why bother continuing to ask me the same questions?

When did I say the "true version has been 'censored'"? As I said, it has been published in a few scholarly articles, newspaper articles and in interviews etc. I have also been able to publish my research myself, so it has not been "censored" from publication by a government decree or lawsuit. Since you ask, I submitted the 18 or so articles that are part of Volumes 1-2 (it's 698 pages with each article presenting overwhelming different types of evidence to prove aspects of my re-attributions) to at least 200 different scholarly journals, or to nearly every single relevant journal on the planet. I have received direct insults regarding my gender, my Jewish ethnicity, my age, my birth in Russia, and pretty much everything about me in the rejection letters that followed. I have received a few death threats in the last few years too. I can email a copy of one of these letters - the last one was a poem, for some reason. A few of the rejection letters were clearly written by the same reviewer, who plagiarized his earlier replies without reading entirely different articles I was submitting to entirely different journals. What do you imagine you can do about any of this? What is the reason you are asking me these questions? I can explain the problem in more detail, but to what purpose? Faktorovich (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You wrote, in this comment on this page, "I am just trying to communicate a true version of literary history that has been censored" (emphasis added) at 01:51 UTC on Tuesday, February 1, 2022. I interpret that phrase as indicating that you believe the true version has been censored at least sometimes (although not necessarily by any government).

My impression was that "Publishers and Hack Writers: Signs of Collaborative Writing in the ‘Defoe’ Canon" used the same computational technique but was a report on how you applied this technique to Daniel Defoe, not Shakespeare. A paper on Defoe's writings would not get us past the barriers for an article about Shakespeare's writings. It would have to be an independently published paper about Shakespeare's writings.

I am sorry that you have had to deal with all of this misogyny, antisemitism, and other forms of evil in those rejection letters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

In the statement you quote, I am not complaining about censorship I have suffered of submitting my articles, but rather all researchers have suffered by not having access to the true attributions my study has uncovered. You, and other Wikipedia editors are actively involved in censoring the correct bibliographic citation of my research, after one of your editors posted an erroneous citation of my study. So why are you asking me about who can possibly be censoring me, while you are involved in this very act. The "Shakespeare Candidates" page currently cites the Wichita paper article as a reliable source, it is just not properly crediting all of the ghostwriters I credit in it, instead only favoring Percy. There is no need for me to provide any other scholarly article I have published on "Shakespeare" elsewhere. And if you follow your objection in only trusting my external articles, you should edit the Daniel Defoe and other 18th century authors' pages that I re-attribute in my "Publishers and Hack Writers" article, and you should also edit the "Bronte", "Thoreau" and other authors I re-attributed in the forthcoming Journal of Information Ethics article. You are sorry about sexism, racism, etc. in the "rejection letters"? The poem death threat I received was not worded as a rejection letter, so the attempts at censorship are not all coming directly from these Holy Editors. Why don't you just apologize for your own actions, or irrationally biased decisions regarding my research, and let the other terrorists and psychos apologize for their own actions. Faktorovich (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever edited the Shakespeare authorship question article, so I am not affecting the representation of your viewpoint there. I'm also not certain that deciding to include or exclude a viewpoint in a particular article counts as censorship.

"I'm sorry" has two meanings; one is an apology, and the other is an expression of sympathy. The latter is the relevant meaning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This is my "User:Talk" page, so what you are saying here is mostly just for-my-information. So I don't understand why you are bothering to comment here. I understand that all available options for my appeals regarding your citation errors regarding my "Shakespeare Candidate" credits have been exhausted. So are you attempting to ask me for free review copies of BRRAM, so you can figure out for yourself what this discussion has been about, or are you doing a Richard II: “I wasted time, and now time does waste me;/ Since now time has made me his numbering-clock;/ My thoughts are minutes, and with sighs they jar/ Their watches on unto my eyes, the outward watch,/ Whereto my finger, like a dial's point,/ Is pointing still, in cleansing them from tears.” All this just to say, I'm working on translating Harvey's "Brandon"-bylined Virtuous Octavia, as the time I took to attempt to market/explain the first half of the series has come to an end. So please arrive at a point. Faktorovich (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that you have the potential to be a good contributor to Wikipedia, especially if you edited subjects other than questions of authorship (i.e., subjects for which nobody could make a plausible claim that you're engaging in self-promotion). I hope that you will continue editing.

For clarity, I do not want copies of your work, and I have never asked for any. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you make a horrid Wikipedia editor, especially on the subject of authorship because you do not clearly identify yourself on your User Page, and thus fail to allow other users to check if you have conflicts of interest especially on the subject of attribution. All or almost all of the users I looked up who participated in the Wikipedia editing discussion in the last few days of the "Shakespeare Authorship" question used pseudonyms or obviously fictitious names such as WhatAmIDoing, without any CVs or proof of how they were "experts" in the field, with superior knowledge/ lack of bias vs. me. When it comes to the question of ghostwriting and the use of pseudonyms, it is absurd if all who get to decide on this subject themselves use pseudonyms, while insisting it is a "fringe" theory to assert that writers in the Renaissance used pseudonyms. I know you did not ask for copies of my work: this is the exact reason why you, and the rest of your editorial-group commenting on authorship are not fit to be "experts" in this field, as this classification at the very least implies an interest in learning about the newest research findings. I don't know why you feel compelled to keep inviting me to edit Wikipedia, while banning me from doing so by reversing all of my edits, but I can guess. Faktorovich (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

PS my article, "Manipulation of Theatrical Audience-Size: Nonexistent Plays and Murderous Lenders", that specifically addresses "Shakespeare" and theater management/attribution is forthcoming in Critical Survey in the winter 34.4 issue; I'm doing a final polish for publication for it now. Faktorovich (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations on your upcoming publication!

I'm always surprised when people do use their real-world names on wiki, because it can lead to targeted harassment. I personally prefer obviously fictitious names, because there's no chance of an obviously fictitious name either accidentally or intentionally being confused for a real person. I don't think anyone on wiki is claiming to be an expert in the Shakespeare authorship question (except you, of course). Instead, I think they are claiming to be well-versed in Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia's rules in this area prefer independent publications over publications in your own journal (no matter how good that journal's reputation – for this rule, Anaphora and Poetics are on the same level in terms of articles they run from their own staff), and Wikipedia's rules prefer ideas that were generated by one scholar and analyzed/remarked upon by another scholar over ideas that were generated by one scholar but so far ignored by all other scholars. As you know, making the leap to the second status doesn't require good ideas, but it does require time, sometimes years. It seems that your ideas haven't quite reached that point in the scholarly cycle. Wikipedia will always be behind the times. Real experts should be reading the real literature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday, I gave a talk on BRRAM to the School of Liberal Arts of Uttaranchal University, India, and the organizer invited me to do a write up of my research for a guest-lecturer series collection he is putting together. They found out about my research without me contacting them. Critical Survey is a very old and very highly respected journal. Between these, the Wichita article, and the various other press coverage posted on the website, https://anaphoraliterary.com/attribution, if you were looking for non self-published sources that have already been discussing my research, you will have found them. Instead you and other pseudonymous Wikipedia editors have been searching for reasons to make my findings confusing (by refusing to give credit to the other 3 ghostwriters I am first to propose as "Shakespeare Candidates") or to avoid crediting my research all together on the other pages of Renaissance texts my study re-attributes, but your editors have not attempted to cite. It has been a decade since I posted a call for somebody to write an article on Wikipedia about my Anaphora Literary Press, and 14 years since I founded Anaphora. There are plenty of publishers, actors etc. who have just been founded this year, and are already listed on Wikipedia. The problem is anything but "time". I just can't figure out what the point is for you to carry on with this discussion, given that you are still ignoring as insignificant everything I am saying. You are actually defending the use of obviously-fictitious pseudonyms and non-expert editors judging against access to the press/Wikipedia by an expert who wants to edit content in a field of their specialty under their own name and while disclosing their full CV? Faktorovich (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought of you when I saw this:

Kirkpatrick, David D. (2022-02-19). "Who Is Behind QAnon? Linguistic Detectives Find Fingerprints". The New York Times.

I don't know much about QAnon, but the technique sounded like what you're doing for Shakespeare's writings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is behind a pay-wall. You're going to have to create a pdf and email it to me at director@anaphoraliterary.com for me to review it to see if they have appropriated my method without giving me a credit. If I studied the QAnon question, I am fairly certain I would find a precise answer as to whodunnit. Finding "fingerprints"? Every piece of writing has the fingerprint of a linguistic style; so if this is all a researcher finds, they have just found the text that is in need of attribution, without making progress towards solving that mystery. Are you challenging me to find out who is QAnon? Would it take me proving a current case for you to believe my findings about the Renaissance and 18th-20th century? Faktorovich (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd rather look for the originals than the popular press story. Here's what it says about who did it: "The two analyses — one by Claude-Alain Roten and Lionel Pousaz of OrphAnalytics, a Swiss start-up; the other by the French computational linguists Florian Cafiero and Jean-Baptiste Camps — built on long-established forms of forensic linguistics that can detect telltale variations, revealing the same hand in two texts."

Unfortunately, the article doesn't provide a link to the analyses. It appears that they analyzed sequences of three characters each, rather than specific words.

I issue no challenges. You don't need to prove anything to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I am going to research these two studies tomorrow. One of them is available in pdf. You really seem to be issuing a challenge, or you wouldn't have mentioned it on my wall. So if I explore this subject and write an article in response that I'll post for free on my Anaphora website, are you going to add a note about these researchers' studies and my response to the Wikipedia page about QAnon? Otherwise, I will be stepping aside from my BRRAM study to explore subject I could not care any less about, and my findings will go entirely unheard by anybody... So this seems to be a pointless pursuit that does not even have the main benefit that BRRAM does, or that I want to know the answer to the mystery. Faktorovich (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No, if you write an article and publish it yourself in your own journal without any peer review, it will not be used as a source in Wikipedia. WP:SPS still applies. But you should definitely read the pre-print of the article by Cafiero and Camps, it's fascinating reading! @WhatamIdoing: that pre-print also explains their methodology. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have discredited all previous computational-linguistic studies among the hundreds I have reviewed so far in BRRAM. I am sure before I read the article you are referring to that it is erroneous. WhatamIdoing mentioned that they only analyze character-counts for 4 letters. This is just absurd. I will briefly glance at these articles and I'm sure it's going to be as erroneous as the previous hundreds of such studies I have countered. What you guys should really do is actually read Volumes 1-2 of BRRAM and perhaps the rest of it, where I explain why you are wrong to blindly trust where an article is published vs. what it says. Please don't post advertisements for nonsense-science about QAnon on my board. Faktorovich (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing mentioned that they only analyze character-counts for 4 letters. That is not what they said. They said It appears that they analyzed sequences of three characters each, rather than specific words. And if you had taken a moment to follow the link I provided, you would have seen that (just as WhatamIdoing also emphasized), the NYT article simplified things quite a lot. Their methodology involves various metrics, but does not have anything to do with "character-counts". Anyway, there is no real point in discussing this if your only motivation for editing Wikipedia is to try to include your own research. I am sure before I read the article you are referring to that it is erroneous That is certainly your prerogative. --bonadea contributions talk 17:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I anticipated I would have the response I had below before having it because these are the same types of mistakes I have explained in hundreds previous articles I reviewed from Stamatatos and the rest of this group. I am not editing Wikipedia, nor do I want to edit Wikipedia. Your guys have blocked me from editing Wikipedia by objecting to citation errors I found in your entries. You are not interested in improving Wikipedia, but rather advertising whoever you are ghostwriting for who pays you to puff them on Wikipedia. Faktorovich (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a review of the Cafiero and Camps article you have linked to for your benefit.

1. The abstract explains that they used under 12 words per-author to test Q's message against. It is absurdly insufficient to only use 12-word samples to establish attribution. This is like using only a millimeter out of a finger print.

2. They used 3-gram characters or 3-character patterns only. This single test for a string of repeating characters can isolate only the top-three most common words like "the". These are basically the same for all writers, and thus would result in nonsensical answers.

3. The most likely author behind Q is one of the social-media ghostwriting public-relations companies top celebrities hire. This nonsense conspiracy-theory would not have become this popular if it was not assisted by these top firms with connections to those who could turn it viral, and to bot-accounts, etc. to make it seem much more popular than it really was. These companies and their ghostwriters are not on the list of those Cafiero and Camps considered as potential Qs. As opposed to the authors they propose, there is a higher chance that you WhatAmIDoing was behind a handle name such as IWillRedPillYou, as you guys seem to have a similar attraction to short words linking.

4. They use rolling - which they explain to be the selection of chunks of text and their examination separately, such as taking the first 1000 words, and then the next 1000 words. But their sources are mostly tweets that are as few as 5 words-per-tweet, and some of their authors have only posted a few samples of such short posts. They thus have to combine all of these samples together before splitting them up again. Samples under 1000 words are not likely to produce accurate attributions. Splitting samples apart if you have less than 1000 words is just as illogical as splitting a finger print apart and comparing the lines in it separately. They note the problem of small samples later in the article, and don't provide a solution, or a reason why they have broken down already small samples into still smaller ones.

5. I have previously explained the errors in the sources they site, such as Stamatatos, with whom I communicated via email directly about his process.

6. They only tested 12 potential "authors" behind Q, when they needed to test at least 100 of those who have been vocal in these forums and some prolific writers who never posted on these forums to begin to have a corpus that considered a significant quantity of potential candidates. They conclude that "Paul F." was Q, when a single ghostwriter might have been behind both "Paul F." and Q and this is the reason they match. They do not provide the raw data I would need to test their findings, but if they had chosen a sample of instinctively similar writers in the Q universe, I would assume several would have an identical style to Q and many would be pseudonyms/ bots that Q would use to puff himself by having his other personas write positive replies to his posts. For example, they mention that "Christina U. and Michael F." also have spikes that indicate similarity with "Paul F." and Q; this should have led them to speculate a shared ghostwriter behind these four bylines, but they simply interpret this as an error in their testing method (which it might have been as well).

7. The study of 3-character patterns might be less problematic than other approaches I have read about, but only if they used the most-common patterns. But instead they state they let an artificial-intelligence program choose with letters were more significant than others. For example, they state that these 3-character strings were revealing in a speaker, "‘nyb’, ‘ybo’ (in ‘anybody’)"; "anybody" is a pretty rare word in ordinary speech, so these cannot be the most common letters if frequency of appearance. If I retested these texts, I'm sure this would reveal the method is designed to fail. They should have just used my 6-most-common words/letters pattern tests, but I'm sure neither Trump's "fake" nor this "anybody" would be on the list of the much more revealing top-6 words. An author can choose to repeat "fake", whereas their use of "she"/"I" and other most-frequent words is instinctive. Using "racist insults" is not instinctive, but rather takes deliberate intention, especially if some of the slurs used would be bleeped out on network-channels, and so most people know they cannot use these without being beaten up in public if they don't have an internal censor for them. It is far more likely that the ghostwriter behind "Paul F." had a note in his files that while using the "Paul F." pseudonym he was to insert as many insults as he could. This is how Mark Twain used slang and the southern dialect while writing as his characters, but could also use regular speech in third-person descriptions of an omniscient narrator.

8. Figure 2 shows almost identical graphs with some of the same words appearing between them. So this should have meant that there was a single ghostwriter behind all 12 of these bylines.

I hope this helps you guys with understanding some of the many errors in this analysis. It would take me at least a week to find at least 500 "authors" with at least 2,000 words per author and to run all of these through my 27-tests and then to derive who was Q. The deletion of social media records for many potential ghostwriters who have implicated themselves makes this a uniquely challenging case, but I am certain it cannot be anybody who has been named as a likely Q in the media, as this is a well-run public-influence campaign, and it would be irrational for somebody who is cashing in on this to sue themselves. Faktorovich (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you are not interested in helping the rest of us build an encyclopedia, this conversation is pointless, perhaps apart from the fact that it shows very clearly that you have no expertise in stylometry, or even in linguistics in general. That is fine as long as your edits to Wikipedia are firmly based on reliable secondary and independent sources that have zero connection to yourself, but it doesn't look like that is something you are interested in doing. Editors also need to be able to understand the sources and to represent them correctly – the post above doesn't show either of those things. A mindset that is open for the possibility that other people might be right is also crucial. Most people are not interested in being Wikipedia editors, and that's also fine. Good luck with your future work. And thanks for linking to that external discussion forum where your method was discussed. --bonadea contributions talk 08:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There are errors across nearly all of Wikipedia's British Renaissance pages because across the past 400 years scholars have leaped to attribution conclusions for anonymous or initial-bylined texts without any rational proof or by erroneously intuitively guessing and adding credits even to bylines that never appeared on any published texts. This is just one of many reasons for the errors that have been repeated in textbooks and on Wikipedia alike. My BRRAM resolves these errors and explains them using various types of documented evidence, and my computational-linguistic method is only a small part of these re-attributions. I do not have to cite my own research at all to make most of the corrections, as they involve instead pointing to evidence in the public domain that counters the current attributions etc. I was planning on making these edits across Wikipedia's British Renaissance pages after making the minor bibliographic edit to the page where your editors already mentioned my BRRAM findings, "Shakespeare Candidates", but your editors went out of their way to block even basic bibliographic edits to the errors in your citations in reference to my findings on this page. I have filed an appeal on Wikipedia, and your team has refused to acknowledge the basic citation-improvement adjustments I was proposing, and has sealed the pages where I asked for a response to any further comments. And now instead of discussing these questions with me in a public forum, you are posting continuing harassments on my own wall, while subversively continuing to threaten me with refusing to allow me to make any edits on Wikipedia? And you have challenged me to review the findings of recent articles about who is the author behind Q, and then after I invest time into posting my honest review of the errors in one of these articles, you respond by insulting me without mentioning a single specific point in my review that you object to, as if you had not read any of my review, and are just spewing insults uncontrollably, like "Paul F." has been proven to do in this study? Why are you here? Move your idiotic insult campaigns to your own talk-page. Faktorovich (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

February 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, you may be blocked from editing.

Wikipedia's sourcing policies have been thoroughly explained to you. You are obviously free to disagree with them, but you may not violate them when you edit. Do not add your own publications as sources. bonadea contributions talk 19:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It has been a year since I last edited anything on Wikipedia. Since that time, I published the 6 final volumes of my 20-volume British Renaissance Re-Attribution and Modernization series. The objection previously was that the sources I cited were from publications I published with my own Anaphora Literary Press. The 3 new sources I added as citations are all from other publishers, such as De Gruyter and McFarland. And all of these are peer-reviewed scholarly journals that are respected in academia. Yes, I wrote these articles, but all of the sources cited on this "Shakespeare" page must be to articles/ books written by the people being credited with the re-attributions to these bylines. For over a year you have been incorrectly crediting me with claiming that only Percy was the ghostwriter behind the "Shakespeare" byline. As I have explained previously, and the data here indicates, https://github.com/faktorovich/Attribution, my findings re-assign the texts currently assigned to "Shakespeare" to 5 different ghostwriters, of which Percy is only one. Somebody else has previously credited Jonson as a potential "Shakespeare", but nobody has previously credited Gabriel Harvey, William Byrd or Josuah Sylvester. An editor needs to actually take a look at the findings I explain in BRRAM and on its site: https://anaphoraliterary.com/attribution and edit this page so that it correctly credits my attribution claims. There was no single writer called "Shakespeare", but rather it was a pseudonym that was shared by different ghostwriters, or anonymous texts have been previously mis-assigned to "Shakespeare". The idea that there was any "true" single author who "was" "Shakespeare" is absurd, and is contracted by the data I provide on the before-cited GitHub page. So why don't you, or any other editor of Wikipedia email me at director@anaphoraliterary.com and I'll forward a free link to the volumes in BRRAM or copies of the scholarly articles, so that you can finally understand my findings and cite my scholarly articles or the BRRAM series; thus, it would not be I myself making the edit, but rather anybody else. Since one of your editors has added my Percy assignment, it would be only rational that this editor or another editor who edits this page would want to understand the research findings better to make them clear to the public. The citations I made in this round are entirely different from those I made last time, as I added three peer-reviewed articles. It appears that you have not reviewed what changes I actually made, before assuming I had just repeated my previous citations. I do not believe Wikipedia has any policy against all self-citations, as experts in fields are allowed to cite themselves; and as somebody who has published several scholarly articles and books; I am indeed, by definition, an expert in this field. Faktorovich (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)