(1)Paul: "All my information derives from reliable sources" You have yet to cite even one either here ,or on the authorship page,or on your home page.Even if you have one the fact that you continue to fill up someone else's page  for six  weeks without either bothering to excuse yourself or explain yourself constitutes harassment.
 "All you do is snip at an established scholar" I can't snip at an established scholar because after weeks of verbal regurgitation you haven't named one.And if you ever do the proper place to place that name  on the Pericles section of the authorship discussion.Do you have difficulty in remembering what you have been writing ,Paul?
"I AM NOT VERY INTERESTED in whether Nelson makes some possibly poor translations from Latin. He is a reliable source for Wikipedia." Paul,Nelson has apparently made over four hundred poor translations ,all,on the most merciful interpretation ,due to the initial fact that he has  never bothered to learn Latin before publishing his biography.Due to one of these four hundred mistranslations he has brought a false accusation of murder.But you are not interested because malicious defamatory information ,according to your interpretation of the laws of evidence ,can still  be "a reliable source for Wickipedia".This may be true,this be false, but why don't you have the guts to come right out and say what you mean,man. Your pal,Nishidamia did,"This is not about the truth," he wrote,and,for him ,as apparently, for   you,it isn't. Never has been,may be never will be.
You claim "the view that Shakspere  wrote Shakespeare is undermined because an American woman falsely claimed she was raped a few years ago." No,we are discussing an English department that knowingly aided and abetted a false rape claim  and used every effort in its considerable power to pressure other academics to join them in a knowing and conscious fraud which nearly lead to the deaths of more than one  falsely accused students.One of these individuals is former head of the PMLA and claims to be an expert on Shakespeare.
  You are claiming,whether or not you are deliberately faking  your readers on this point , that all these murderous creeps are "reliable sources" under the rules of
 Wikipedia and if they publish  their "evidence" on this blog  whether on Crystal Mangum or Swilly Shakspere it must be accepted under the rules of Wikipedia. and that you "are not very interested" if they are any more or less truthful than the other crank Strats  who obfuscate rational discussion here.
  I see the "charge" brought against me is that I correctly and charitably described you comments here as ignorant.
   By the way you keep ducking my question here as to the identity of a black magician who keeps addressing me and claims to be majoring in iconography at the University of Sussex.
    Now get off my page and take all your crappy posts with you.I get one more ignorant letter from you and I am(with the permission of the editorship) going to dump them all  right back on your site where your fellow lunatics(if any) can doubtless better savor the fruits of your accumulated wisdom.