User talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 10

DYK for Woman with Flowered Hat

On 10 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Woman with Flowered Hat, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Roy Lichtenstein's Woman with Flowered Hat established a new auction record for the artist when it sold for over $56 million in May 2013? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Woman with Flowered Hat. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

114 17th Earl of Oxford

Paul, if you could point me to the title of the book I'd be grateful. And if you think that the film deserves a brief mention why did you do a wholesale revert? Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a wholesale revert. That's why I explained that the film should be mentioned. I actually corrected the link, because you were linking to the word "anonymous", not the film. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I got confused (it's after 11 here in Moscow) and yes I found Blakemore. That quote definitely needs to be balanced, wikipedia has to show all points of view. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Welles, 8th Baron Willoughby de Eresby

Hello. I have reinstated a comma after you removed it here because a non-restrictive appositive should be set off by commas. Please see some of the earlier conversations on my talk page if you're uncertain about this. Thanks. Inglok (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my typos in Elizabeth Woodville! (Old age doesn't come alone.) Deb (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An entire army would be required to fix the typos I typically make. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual coercion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red howler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr Bot, I was expecting your message. This one was intended. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI (Wagner talk page)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

In the Name of God the Beneficent, The Merciful.

Peace and Blessings be upon His Last and final Messenger, Prophet Muhammad, Peace and Blessings be upon he and his noble family and companions. Ameen

Peace be upon you. I read the MOS and that is understandable and fine, but I will not stop making changes.

Allah says in the Holy Quran in Surah Ahzab ( Chapter of the Confederates) in Ayah 56

إنّ الله و ملاءكته يصلّون على النّبيّ, يا ايْها الذّين آمنوا صلّوا عليه و ساّلمو ا تسليماً Inna Allaha wa Malaaikatahu Yusalluna alannabiyy, yaa ayyuhalladhina aamanu Sallu alayhi wa sallimu tasleemaa Surely Allah and His angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe! call for (Divine) blessings on him and salute him with a (becoming) salutation. اللهم صلّي على سيّدي و حبيبي محمّد و على اليه و اصحابه و سلْم تسليما امين

Oh My Lord! send peace and blessings upon my Master and my beloved Messenger Muhammad and his family and his companions and send salaams on them with much zeal. Ameen.

I cannot stop making changes ,as it is disrespectful to my beloved Prophet, to just call him by his first name without any title before it, and it is a sin not to send peace and blessings upon him once his Holy Name is uttered,

It is related by Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam said,

“The miser is the one in whose presence I am mentioned but he does not supplicate for me.”

[At-Tirmidhi, Saheeh Al-Albani]

To say his name without a title or Salaams( Peace) afterwards is disrespectful and sinful, its like calling some common person by their first name, and he is not,by any means a common person. He is the reason for creation, and a Mercy to all the worlds. He was not only sent to the Muslims you know. His ways have benefited all of mankind since the day he was born uptil today, and he is not dead.

Do you not call the Pope or someone that is important to you in some name by his proper title? The same goes for any of the prophet's of God Almighty. I have a question. Are you a Christian? If you believe that Jesus ( Upon him be peace) is your Creator then why do you disrespect him? Are you a Jew? Do you call your Lord YHVH? Do you believ in His Prophets? would you call them by their first name if you were in their presence? Whatever you are, Whoever you are, whether or not you follow a religion or Believe in the One-ness of God almighty, you have to have some respect in your heart. Would you call your mother by her name, or would you call her Mom, mother , or some term of endearment? Would you try to show her the utmost respect? Do you fear God? Do you fear His punishment ? Do you LOVE God? well if you love Him, you should try to please him. I would like you to take the time out of your day and read these few lines from the Holy Quran and Hadith, just to show why I made the changes I did to the Wiki article on Prophet Muhammad Peace and Blessing be upon him.

Thank you and Peace be upon you. May Allah guide you to the light of truth, and make your way easy for you in guiding others to His light. Ameen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.58.34 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If you wish to dispute the guidelines, do so at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Paul B (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you do that remember to change every reference to the judao christian god to God. And that's why we don't do it. Britmax (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valention2013 taken to ANI

Took him to ANI for copyvio a couple of hours ago. I also gave him a 3RR warning which he obviously ignored. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Carlyle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psych

Saw your revert of my revert of your "boyfriend" note on Psych. Since this appears to be a big deal to you, I'm not going to fight it. However, my point, which seems to be pretty obvious, is your use of the term "boyfriend". Since the show doesn't follow a day to day, week to week chronology, we have no idea how long Juliette and Declan were "seeing eachother", dating, going out. Thus, calling Declan her "boyfriend" which in my mind implies a stable, long-term relationship (unless you are 5th grade of course where simply holding hands = boyfriend), when they could have just gone on a few dates (or it could have been many many more - we have no idea), seems a little much - thus my "non-NPOV" statement for the revert. Oh and you'd get around the "Juliette and Declan breaking up" later sentence by simply modifying the second sentence - not hard at all. So not a huge deal, but since I rarely get reverted (unless its on one of the more contentius Christian-oriented pages where everyone has to be "right"), I thought I'd at least explain myself. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

It seems to be a big deal for you. Boy oh boy it does. I added the passage, as I explained, because there was a reference to a "breakup" of their relationship in the next sentences. You can't have a "breakup" unless you are "together" to start with. I added the sentence so that the reader does not get a sudden jarring experience of confusion, as I did when I first read it. I've no idea whether they just went on a few dates or not. They aren't real people after all. The character of Declan/"Shawn 2.0" was, I assume, introduced to create a (somewhat absurd) crisis to resolve the will-they-won't-they plotline typical of this type of comedy-drama. As for the definition of "girlfriend", that seems to me to be a very minor issue. If there is some other phase that helps you sleep better then use it. Here are some suggestions: "they become involved"; "they date"; "they have a brief relationship". If you'd wanted to resolve this by "modifying the second sentence" you could have done, but you didn't. As far as I'm concerned the function of these plot-and-character summaries is to help the reader/. If you suddenly start watching a show like this mid-season it can be very confusing. These segements of articles on TV shows serve to help viewers read up up on the backstories and the characters (if they want to), and thus help to "slot themselves in" to the show. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... That's one way to react. Holy cow - the arrogance... I guess an honest attempt at discussion to work through what I thought was a simple misunderstanding is out of the question.

BTW, I've watched the entire series from the start, not that that matters at this point. Ckruschke (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Let me be Frank (nudge, nudge), it doesn't matter whether or not you are the the founder of the Psych fan club. What matters is the function of the summaries for readers who may not be coversant with every plot twist or in-joke, as I explained. That's the whole point. By the way, when you sign, you just add the four tildes. Typing your name as well is redundant. Paul B (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House of Brutus articles

Hi, I noticed your edits to the legendary kings of Britain, specifically related to family tree of the house of Brutus. I hadn't realised it at the time, but someone edited the family tree template to stop it from floating to the right of the article text (much like an infobox or picture would). This seems to have broken the articles, which then started with the family tree centred, followed by the text, and I can see why you would then make changes, or revert my edits to try to put them at the bottom of the article.

The size of the family tree is frankly ridiculous compared to the rest of the article, which was why I wanted to try to put it to the right of the text (incidentally also making the article seem longer by making it go further down the screen), and I've now restored the template to allow this again (and fixing the other articles again that you didn't get around to changing in the process, like Camber (legendary king); which is now as it was when I made the edits); if you disagree with this, let's discuss and come to a consensus. --xensyria^T 16:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got the impression that you thought it would "hang" at the right, like an inbox. Unfortunately it just appeared as a long bunch of boxes, pushing the article itself off the screen. Even the alteration you have now made creates a very odd looking text. Im afraid I'm no good at the creation of these things. I can't do the coding. Ideally, I guess, it should look something like the "Six Islamic Prophets" I've appended to this section. Paul B (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have kept an eye on the templates, though I agree it still looked only slightly less monstrous. I hadn't seen any other similar templates, like the Islamic Prophets one, which is much better styled. I've copied the style over, only changing the colour for kings to that of the succession box "Legendary titles", and I reckon it looks better now; thanks! Let me know what you think, and whether you think we should move the tree back to the top of some of the articles. --xensyria^T 17:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks a lot better. It still seems really big for many articles that are so tiny, but that may bve a reason to expand some of them if possible. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully so. I'll restore the trees in the meantime, when I get round to it. --xensyria^T 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last revert

Regarding the page of P N. Oak, i think we had agreed to not repeat the theoretical review about him, in more than one section. Kindly remove the text from any one of the section. Capitals00 (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan

I was wondering why the paragraph suggesting Tara as a root word of Aryan with valid references keeps getting deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.237.242 (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't "a root word of Aryan" (whatever you may mean by that) and no remotely respectable scholar says it is. 11:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paon de Roet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margaret Beaufort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul have you checked your e-mail lately?

Please do. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O

I might take on the pending WP:3. (It is refreshing to see such a polite conversation, so I hope I can help out!) While you are on your sojourn to SoA, I've asked Doc to lay out exactly what the dispute is. If I can get something like "I think blah-blah-blah (giving the exact language) should be/not be included." I've posted a similar message on Doc's page. In the meantime, don't be surprised if another 3O volunteer takes on the question. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christ myth theory

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princes in the Tower

I've reverted User:Rushton2010's latest edits, which include only a blanket reference to Philippa Gregory's documentary to back them up. Perhaps you could also keep an eye on this situation. Deb (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The piece you reverted was actually referenced to [BBC History Website], thank you very much. Only the line "The theory that Prince Richard survived is supported by novelist and historian Dr. Philippa Gregory" was referenced to the BBC documentary "The Real White Queen and Her Rivals", BBC2, 4 Aug 2013". A documentary that featured several historians, not just Gregory. And would have been thoroughly fact-checked by the BBC before they broadcast it. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"false assertions and unsupported misleading claims"? Everything in that section you deleted was fully referenced from the BBC History website. The BBC is the British National TV Broadcaster and is a trusted and reputable source. Calling them false and misleading is frankly ridiculous and suggests you haven't even read the website before deleting the information.

I am currently re-writing the section to make it clearer. The information comes from a reputable and trustworthy source and is fully referenced. If you're not happy with how that information is presented; feel free to rework it. But to flat out delete information when it has a reputable source could be seen by some as vandalism. If an IP user deleted a referenced section like that, they'd be warned for vandalism no questions asked.

I'm sticking to Wikipedia's policy of civility. Perhaps you should do the same --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He knows what the BBC is, and also how variably reliable their website is. Gregory is certainly not an RS, whatever channel she is on, and her views really don't need mentioning. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's a cretin,as are those who cite her. Skol! Basket _Feudalist 12:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Update 1

Naomi entreating Ruth and Orpah to return to the land of Moab.

William Blake Archive GLAM Update #1 Check out the first update on the GLAM-Wiki cooperation with William Blake Archive and the William Blake Task Force, Sadads (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] This is a transclusion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry/William Blake/Updates/Update 1. If you would not like to receive future messages about Blake GLAM-Wiki, please remove yourself from Wikipedia:Blake#Members. This update was distributed by User:Sadads

Blake's illustration from For Children The Gates of Paradise

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Council of the North, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margaret Beaufort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem.

The was no call for this edit. The word really was misspelled. StAnselm (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Myth Theory

You just erased 64,213 characters of information on Christ myth theories, which citations are fringe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 09:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that Paul Barlow, I would appreciate it if you could also look at Greenground's contributions to the article Historicity of Jesus. I have opened a thread at AN/I about his activities, Anti -religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits.Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback/Thoughts on Spectre (Blake) or Visionary Heads

Hey Paul, would you mind giving some feedback/thoughts/help expanding on Spectre (Blake) or Visionary Heads? The first is on the way through DYK, and the other just finished it's stint, and it would be nice to have another set of eyes on them as part of WP:Blake, Sadads (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad day?

A few typos in your latest contribution, methinks. :-) Deb (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I constantly make typos. Often I have to retype contributions six or seven times. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The not-so-great "debate"

You may or may not have noticed that I've opted out. I have my reasons, and I don't expect anyone else to fight my battles for me. Being an admin makes me less free than others to say what I'm really thinking. Let's just get on with making things, and let others preoccupy themselves with breaking things. Deb (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Paul,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 12:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A favour

Hey Paul, the way you mediated the situation here at Cox-Forbes theory, i think, you should perform the same kind of mediation in Bhavishya Purana, i actually agree with this suggestion[1], you should really contribute. Thanks Bladesmulti (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

zionist propaganda.

The curse has been mentioned in the Talmud which is the holy book of the jews (it is even regarded by some as more important than the Torah itself) and the bible, but it has never been mentioned in the Qur'an or the Books of Hadith, and if it has been mentioned by some muslim historian like Ibn Khaldūn (born about 7 centuries after the death of the prophet Mohammad) that does not make it ingrained in the Muslim tradition, unlike the jews who still look down at black as manifested by the quotes of Rabi Ofadia Yosef (former chief rabbi of israel) about Hurricane Katrina:

"There was a tsunami and there are terrible natural disasters, because there isn’t enough Torah study... Black people reside there [New Orleans]. Blacks will study the Torah? [God said], Let’s bring a tsunami and drown them... Hundreds of thousands remained homeless. Tens of thousands have been killed. All of this because they have no God... Bush was behind the [expulsion of] Gush Katif, he encouraged Sharon to expel Gush Katif... We had 15,000 people expelled here [in Israel], and there [in America] 150,000 [were expelled]. It was God’s retribution... God does not short-change anyone"

Another wild claim made by the writer was a quote from Goldenberg's book, that Islam is a religion with long history of slave trade, which is a false claim, as a matter of fact, there are certain penalties imposed on muslims who sin, one of them is freeing a slave as mentioned in the quran chapter 58 verse 3:

"And those who make unlawful to them (their wives) (by Az-Zihar) and wish to free themselves from what they uttered, (the penalty) in that case (is) the freeing of a slave before they touch each other. That is an admonition to you (so that you may not return to such an ill thing). And Allah is All-Aware of what you do".

On the other hand, it is common knowledge (among historians at least) that the slave trade throughout history has been dominated by the jews. not least the atlantic slave trade.

and having books published by big names like Oxford or others, does not mean that Goldberg is not a die hard Zionist and clearly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingEyes (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The full documented list of Muslim authors who wrote that blacks were cursed to slavery by Noah's "Curse of Ham" actually does go all the way to the time of the prophet (Ibn Ata), according to the sources present in the article so far. You don't dispute that it is a documented teaching of Mediaeval Muslim scholars, you seem to be arguing that we all have an obligation not to report this fact because it doesn't fit in with your teaching. But the way wikipedia works is, if Mediaeval Muslim scholars taught such a thing, and it is documented, then we are allowed to say that Mediaeval Muslim scholars taught such a thing and that it is documented. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stopfuckingrevertwarringtheCurse of Hampage.IamapersonalfriendofAnna Gunnandsheisaskingmetoeditwaronthisarticlesheispayingme$2000todoso.

Well that was her money down the drain then, wasn't it, since it's not going to alter the content in the least...! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Gunn is paying you $2000 to edit war? Awesome. That's money for nothing. If she pays me the same amount I might consider digitally removing that uinsightly mole from her arm in the picture on her page. on second thoughts, make that $4000. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effie Gray

"That's an utterly silly theory" re observation in recent (by no means convincing) Brownwell book. It is however a suggestion that has been made. I won't put the words back in because you'll only delete them again, but please try to refrain from using that patronising tone! IXIA (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yakub (Nation of Islam), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eden and Public Enemy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...

Can you pull your head out of your arse for a second and admit that the belief that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible is the very definition of pseudoarchaeology? It's only believed by a few to push their agenda. It's physically impossible. Its arguments fall flat. Get a grip Indiasummer95 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get a grip and pull your own head out of whatever orifice it happens to be in. The Muslim theory that Muhammad is 'foretold' in the Bible is essentially no different from the Christian theory that Jesus is 'foretold' in the OT. It's theology. It has nothing whatever to do with archaeology, pseudo or not. Take it to the Fringe theories board if you wish to have another opinion. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Abnegation

Hi, PB. Still concerned that this is a little known $10 word in a world where we want Wiki readers to quickly understand. And I do not just mean that it should be dummied-down to some lowest common denominator...asked around the large office today, all professionals with university degrees in broad range of disciplines, and found 1 (a recent ECON graduate) who knew the word.

I know it runs a few words longer, but believe it would meet broader understanding to say something like "...archetype of a devoted mother who ignores self-interest for the sake of her child". I'll check back here tomorrow. - Jmg38 (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talkpage stalker swoops in.... Well, mostly just came to comment that *I* knew what the word meant. <preens> But on the other hand, I just finished changing "the round struck him" into the less-jargonic "the bullet struck him" on some unrelated article, so I strongly agree with Jmg38. Plus, what better way to prove how L33T my vocab skillz are, than to rewrite wikipedia use everyday words any fourth grader will grok? HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

Akhenaten, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Wilson, Scottish Martyr

Paul, I'm curious as to your concerns in restoring your earlier version of this article, which inaccurately describes the the Kirk Sessions of Penningham and Kirkinner parishes as "witness statements" when they are in fact summaries of hearsay. I've viewed the originals in the course of my research and Mark Napier's assessment, (in, yes, "History Rescued", sorry, I would have corrected this when I noticed it) is a genuine and sustainable critique. The Session records are contradictory and do not contain actual witness statements. The Wodrow material that is considered as firm evidence in version you have restored is quite properly forensically demolished by Napier in the work I cite. And yes, Josephine Tay is not a respected historian, but Mark Napier is, and is cited in every serious historical work dealing with the Glorious Revolution in Scotland! Have you actually read either Napier or Wodrow yourself? For, if Napier, who, as a solicitor, argues his historical case presenting full quotations of Wodrow's work and other earlier sources, is unable to meet WP:RS requirements, then Wodrow's exceedingly one sided propaganda work is utterly unsustainable as a serious source. On the "reliability" issue, if you check the Wikipedia quidelines they state that sources themselves "do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral." Napier is clearly not neutral, I agree, but his assessment of the Kirk Sessions of Penningham and Kirkinner parishes clearly is. In this Napier, employing his legal training, offers a reliable source that differs radically from the work of Wodrow who was recognised even in his own age as a political propagandist.

I am concerned that your edit is intended to restore a grossly inaccurate and unsustainable version of an historical story developed in the nineteenth century that has undergone a radical re-apprasial in historical circles in recent years. I had hoped to fold in current scholarship over the next few days before you started what appears to be an edit war that I'm unwilling to engage in.

I am seriously concerned that your removal of my developing thread of new information, which was aimed at increasing the accuracy of the article, and your revertion to your earlier uncritical acceptance of Wodrow's version of events is profoundly detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia, which, as I understand it, is intended to permit a full and objective a presentation of a theme rather than to perpetuate sentimental myths which distort the issuesRathlain (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathlain (talk • contribs)

Request for comment in WP:RSN

Hello. Would you mind commenting on this please? Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Paul. In you final sentence, you mention "not the best source to use, but not useable". Did you mean "but not un-useable"?--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Sorry. Paul B (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RSN: Skull Tower

Can I please get your opinion on the reliability and appropriateness of the sources originally presented at the RSN Skull Tower discussion? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Passovers of Blood: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aegean and Cherem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protap Chunder Mozoomdar

Dear Paul, I have a question regarding Protap Chunder Mozoomdar. You surely know the name of Swami Vivekananda. Both Mozoomdar and Vivekananda attended the Parliament of the World's Religions (1893) in Chicago. So how come Vivekananda became world famous and Mozoomdar fall into obscurity? Solomon7968 12:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Happy New Year! I apologise if you don't want to reply to the question. I was thinking on this for a while and it seems odd that even though Mozoomdar is historically more significant than Vivekananda, there is far fewer academic scholarship regarding him, and it gets a meagre 93 page views per month, compared to 91587 page views of Vivekananda. BTW, thank you for creating the article! Solomon7968 16:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the sockpuppet English Patriot Man

I just want to say that I am not the sockpuppet you accused me of being via a talk page on an article, I used Google search with " " to find out who this English Patriot Man is and it turns out this is a blocked and banned sockpuppet user. I don't approve or like being accused of something I am not or something I have not done.--Windows66 (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maizie Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Model (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

[[

File:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thabo Mbeki may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], [[Union of South Africa]], Mbeki is one of four children of [[Epainette Mbeki|Epainette]] and [[Govan Mbeki]. The economist [[Moeletsi Mbeki]] is one of his brothers. His father was a stalwart
• -->

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ma Barker's Killer Brood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Kendall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devyani Khobragade

I guess we were discussing about the page "Devyani Khobragade" not "Devyani Khobragade incident" for which discussion is going on. Also, there is absolutely enough content for creation of individual page for "Devyani Khobragade" and it should not depend on keeping/deleting of "Devyani Khobragade incident". And the file i uploaded is being used by all the news agencies and if it is copyrighted, then please mention who holds its copyrights. --KakaDesi 17:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakadesi (talk • contribs)

Amazing job at Rhyging!

I worked on that article years and years ago when it was in pretty poor state, and had a few POV battles over it. Always meant to come back and do it justice, but you've really knocked the ball out of the park. Kudos! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MatthewVanitas, please do not use wikipedia as a recruiting-forum. I am sure the job-opening at your company Rhyging is truly "amazing" but you should not be soliciting for new employees thereof on Paul's talkpage. Yours in humour, the management.   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Dear Paul, I just logged in an incident on ANI. Check this [2]. I feel that the action by the admin in discussion was harsh, sudden and one sided. Whilst I wait for the discussion on ANI to progress, I am placing a request to you if you can review this independently and give me your feedback. Cheers AKS

Henry VII of England

Hey Paul, I noticed your editing on Henry VII of England. Thought I would let you know that some of WellsSouth's edits appear to be plagiarism and original research, and it appears my edit to change that did not accomplish what I intended. :-/ --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Sorry. :-( --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cobbe copies

Dear Paul,

I've left some comments about the Cobbe and its copies on the talk page. In particular detailing the evidence that the Janssen portrait was used as the basis for the Droeshout engraving. I'm a scientist - a bit of an art buff, but and have `no skin in this game'. The argument appears quite strong to me, based on viewing the various copies in the book that Stanley Wells put out on the Cobbe portrait. I own the book, but unfortunately most of the copies are not easily viewable on the web.

If Wells wants his case to be better understood, perhaps he could be convinced to allow some of these additional copies to be posted to the Cobbe wikipedia page. There might be copyright issues, but as it's said, a picture is worth a thousand words. Once you see them, it becomes pretty clear that the Janssen is one of a sequence of copies of the Cobbe. And that the greater similarities of the engraving to it (as opposed to the Cobbe original) are difficult to explain in terms of the Janssen being simultaneously a copy of the Cobbe and of the engraving. The implication is that the changes to the Janssen hairline were made before the execution of the engraving.

With regards, Chris Thompson 128.100.76.86 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, thanks for your comments on the Cobbe portrait. I remain firmly convinced that it depicts Overbury, and that Wells and the Shakespeare Birthplace are making fools of themselves by plastering it all over their literature in Stratford. Regarding the content of the article, unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot include speculations that are not supported by published research. It's called "original research" here (see WP:OR). However, I have to say, I find your arguments unpersuasive. Firstly the doublet (or corset) in the Janssen portrait looks absolutely nothing like the one in the Droeshout engraving at all. The design and decoration is completely different. It's very slightly different from the Cobbe, yes, but that's easily explained by the artist adopting a simpler design to ease copying. I can see nothing in the image to suggest that the artist must have used the Droeshout "as the basis for his design of the corset". As for the modification of the face, there is next to no chance that that was the work of the original artist, since the original surface was clearly repainted at some point. It's true that we have no direct evidence of when that occurred, but the evidence of other images (see Ashbourne portrait and Flower portrait) strongly suggest that such alterations were typically made in the early nineteenth century, when 'bardolatry' was taking off. As is noted in our article on Portraits of Shakespeare, at least 60 'portraits of Shakespeare' were offered to the National Portrait Gallery within the first forty years of its existence! If the Janssen were used as a model for the Droeshout engraving why are the face, forehead-shape, hair, collar and doublet all completely different from it? Why does the Janssen have a beard, but the Droeshout doesn't? It makes no sense. By the way, I know of no instances in the entire history of art in which a portrait has been repainted by the artist to 'update' it to reflect the aging of the sitter. Of course, one should never really say never - so I guess there maybe rare cases, but all I can say is that I've never heard of it, and it's certainly contrary to all norms of portrait practice. Paul B (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon

Keyboard: Itler waz bad!
The contributor is upset whereas the child's speech reads: "But its tru! What R U, a Nazi?!!"

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thais (Thaïs)

Good morning Paul:

I did NOT undo the writings of you or others in article titled “Thais”. I simply added some new material.

Are you certain that ALL of that material needed to be erased? Every single sentence?

Are you 100% sure?

I understand that you added material to that page before. I appreciate that. I enjoyed reading what you had written. But from what I understand, no one person owns the Wikipedia. And an encyclopedia should represent alternative views on a subject.

This article is one sided. It blames a historical person who can not defend herself for the act of others. And there are many historians who don't agree with the story of Thais, as stated in this article.

Here is a link to an alternative view on Thais. The book is called "Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction" published by Oxford University Press. The first link is about the two conflicting views on the issue:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XcWD9idtjaMC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22as+is+well+known%22+athenian+courtesan+thais&source=bl&ots=za-n34H4Iz&sig=VXkMbytAIYTEY94SaNWsxheDbMQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uky4Ut3LEtHaoATVsYCIDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22as%20is%20well%20known%22%20athenian%20courtesan%20thais&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vc09cvAxxIkC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=Thais,+a+Athenian+courtesan&source=bl&ots=27CaOdFiuy&sig=tHHMNeuBhFhwc-n9TizBRDfgJaA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xdW3UvqMOcnooATBiYHACg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Thais%2C%20a%20Athenian%20courtesan&f=false

And no, I don't get my material from Google searches. I'm an art historian and I've been teaching art history at various universities for years.

And what was that comment about “silly sentence”? I didn't get that.

Best,

Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.40.219 (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The silly sentence was about loss of life. It was not added by you. The content you added was an uncited personal essay, most of which was a lot of generalities about femmes fatale. You even added a picture of Judith, which has nothing to do with the topic at all. Paul B (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could add a note that it needs Citation. My editing was not done yet, my friend.

Did you check the above links on alternative views on this?

I was going to add the links after I was done.

Again why not add the "Citation Needed"?

And please answer all the points that I brought up.

Here is a link to an alternative view on Thais. The book is called "Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction" published by Oxford University Press. The first link is about the two conflicting views on the issue:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XcWD9idtjaMC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22as+is+well+known%22+athenian+courtesan+thais&source=bl&ots=za-n34H4Iz&sig=VXkMbytAIYTEY94SaNWsxheDbMQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uky4Ut3LEtHaoATVsYCIDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22as%20is%20well%20known%22%20athenian%20courtesan%20thais&f=false

Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.40.219 (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only fair to ask since you indiscriminately erased ALL of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.40.219 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an "alternative view", and it bears absolutely no relationship to the stuff you were adding about femmes fatale, so you can't reasonably claim you were intending to use it as a citation. What you added was in any case largely anachronistic - since it was based on late-nineteenth century ideas about destructive female persona. Paul B (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You're avoiding the points that I'm bringing up and just harping on that one note. No problem. Thanks for your response.

Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.40.219 (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what point is being 'evaded'. Thais isn't being 'blamed' by anyone, since the event is not described in terms of criminality. It was a war after all. She has no need to 'defend herself'. It's pretty much her only claim to fame. However, that's not the issue. I reverted your edits because they were all irrelevant, essay-like and anachronistic, not because the article is 'perfect' - which it isn't. If they had been relevant and informative but uncited I would either have added a tag, or, more likely checked for a citation myself. If you wish to get a view on this you can go to the NPOV noticeboard for an opinion about the neutrality issue.

hello, Paul Barlow

I am just checking to see if you are my old friend, Paul Barlow, who lived in Honolulu for a time and met his wife there. Then he was off to Taiwan, and I have not heard from him since. Might this person be you? If not, I apologize if I have inconvenienced you. Happy New Year!

Sincerely,

Shannon McMonagle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.207.107 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not me. Sorry. Never been to Honolulu. Or Taiwan. Still, happy new year. Paul B (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cobbe Portrait

Hello again Paul,

First it should be said that the argument I've given (that the Janssen was one of a sequence of copies of the Cobbe, and that it in particular was the source for the Droeshout engraving, based in part on the overall shape of the doublet) was discussed in the book on the Cobbe portrait published by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. The book is quite detailed and I believe counts as published research. I'm simply framing the logical absurdity of the reverse proposition so as to emphasize that Wells et al.'s argument has some strength to it.

My comment was focused on the shape of the doublet (thanks for the correction in terminology): e.g. the outline of the arms, how they connect to the trunk of the body at the shoulders, their angle of tilt with respect to the trunk, and the relative length of the trunk appearing above the bottom boundary of the image. Indeed the detailing is largely gone in the engraving. But I do maintain that there is a significant resemblance of this overall shape. I agree that the changes from a preceding copy of the Cobbe to the Janssen version might have been due to factors such as you mention. Regarding the changes to the hairline etc in the Janssen: it's worth keeping in mind that these were paralleled (though in the opposite direction) in the Cobbe original. So there's direct evidence that the Cobbe was painted when Shakespeare was already balding, that the hairline was `backdated' at the request of the customer, that the copies of the Cobbe reflected this backdated hairline, but that at Shakespeare's death a decision was made to depict him as he appeared later in life, during the peak of his fame. I find it quite natural that, since everyone `knew' what Shakespeare looked like from the bust and engraving, that any changes to a painted portrait `must' have been made to reflect those more familiar images. But when looked at critically, this argument is based on an unfounded assumption: we have no independent evidence that the changes to the Janssen predated or postdated the creation of the engraving and bust, except the internal evidence of the paintings.

Chris 71.19.175.238 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul, I've added a few details of the Cobbe and its copies, of Wells' proposal, with citations to the exhibition catalog and the review of the catalog in Shakespeare Quarterly. I believe the revisions are narrowly based on the literature, and do a better job of explaining the internal evidence provided by the paintings. Comments welcome. Happy New Year. Chris Thompson, University of Toronto 138.51.85.201 (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris,
Yes, I know what's in the catalogue. I have a copy of it myself. I think the similarity of the pose is meaningless. There is a portrait of Michael Drayton on p.21 of the catalogue with another near-identical pose. It was standard in illustration at the time. The authors provide zero evidence that Cobbe "was painted when Shakespeare was already balding" or that the hairline was "backdated". The catalogue is full of unsubstantiated assertions like this. Asa I say, I know of no instance in the entire history of art in which a painting has had the hair removed to make someone look older. The authors of the catalogue provide no such examples, they only vaguely say that it was common to alter hair and beards in portraits. This is wholly misleading. Yes, copies would be be painted with more 'modern' hairstyles, not in order to intentionally 'update' a picture, but mainly because the copyist was simply more familiar with painting modern hairstyles. Paintings that had become damaged would be retouched (that happened to the Chandos portrait, for example), which also often led to changes in hair and beards, but again, this has nothing to do with updating. The catalogue authors claim that another 'balding' copy was painted in the 17th century, but again provide no real evidence this other than assertion, and to my eye, the style of that copy looks very distinctly 18th century. Having said all this, of course the catalogue is a reliable source in Wikipedia's sense of the term, though I personally find it quite objectionable that such an obviously tendentious piece of work should be published as objective scholarship. Paul B (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request expertise

Hello Paul, you can call me 74. There is a thread over at Talk:Islam#English_versus_Arabic on whether to speak of "Allah" in the Islam-related articles, or to translate that into "God". Since I have a pretty solid hunch you know more about the sources than me, if you would care to comment on which usage is more prevalent/logical/appropriate/whatever, it would be appreciated. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery at Black Egyptian Hypothesis

I see the bust of Tiye is included in this new gallery. Thought you might like to comment as you've commented on it being used at the AE race controversy article. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to ignore it. You might get swept up in the current ArbCom case trying to get me and some other editors banned or blocked. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For my understanding, is it primarily the Tiye bust that is concerning? If so, I will find another image of her when reintroducing pics of Tut's grandmother to the article. Pics of Tiye help to address the specific modern day controversy over the race of Tut.Rod (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view is that images should be used to show how they have been deployed as evidence of race. Tiye is one of those. So is the Nefertiti bust (usually used to argue for 'white' identity). But they should be chosen and captioned to indicate how they have been used in the debate. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

Up to ANI for edit warring? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, asap, if s/he persists. Paul B (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Aryan Migration Talk

See Aryan Migration Talk. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism Talk page

I reckon you also follow the Hinduism Talk page? See Talk:Hinduism#a fusion of Arian and Dravidian cultures? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some help

Hallo! I see that you have recently edited the document on 'Sayyid Qutb' in English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb). I have just submitted an edit request (now in the talk section) and I am looking for an established user with editing rights to add that integration (the page is protected). Would you kindly be able to help me with that? There is an article that I would like to add in the 'Bibliography' section of Qutb's document. It is in the edit request in the 'talk' section of Sayyid Qutb. Thank you very much! --Sesamo12 (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You want to add "Qutb’s political philosophy has been described as an attempt to instantiate a complex and multilayered eschatological vision, partly grounded in the counter-hegemonic re-articulation of the traditional ideal of Islamic universalism". Humm. Not Brilliant Prose methinks. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjohnjames. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Vision Publishing House

Was it you who recently took part in a discussion of Global Vision Publishing House? Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can recall. Would that have been in the context of WP:RS? Paul B (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, possibly it was another Paul. Whoever it was suggested a couple of related names to look for. Thanks anyway. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green's Groatsworth talk page ...

Hello, Paul, Thank you very much or the insight regarding that mini-debate -- I very much admired your fighting the "good fight" on that one. I suspected that we were dealing with someone of that persuasion, but she was pretty good about playing with her cards close to the vest, I think you used the word "stealth". Now I get it. I looked at the University Wits page, and OMG, it is vastly improved from the last time I looked at it -- it is much finer and more interesting now. You deserve some kind of blue ribbon for the improvement. I did consider seeing if I could contribute to that page after your suggestion on the Groatsworth talk page. The value of the term (I think) is that the University Men did seem to band together and express hostility towards those who were not part of their "in crowd" (like Kydd and Shakespeare). And that needs to be understood and studied more, and I think the article now will help increase the understanding. The difficulty with the term "University Wits" is that -- in the most general way -- a hypothesis needs to be "locked down" as tight as can be, and we don't have (and never will have) a precise list of who's in or out, and we seem to have a wide-open admissions policy with Kydd being included. If I can find a published scholar who agrees with me I would try to add that note. Until then it's just between you and me. Thanks again.GretDrabba (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great to get a critical view on sectioning structure!

I was unsure of whether the headings ought to be searchable from the table of contents, or only for those reading a particular section; thanks for giving an alternative opinion on this!Arildnordby (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poles/Slavs

Hi Paul, User:Windows66 has removed referenced information from the Nazism article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Binkie Stuart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose of Tralee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calamus

Regarding your undo of my revert [3]. I hadn't noticed that calamus is a disambiguation page. I disagree that "we shouldn't be linking to a specific plant since there is real dispute". I think the Acorus calamus opinion is widespread enough to serve as a disambiguation of "calamus", but will not insist, since I agree your solution is probably the less controversial at present. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	That was a well researched/balanced/worded piece of editing. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Corocotta may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [http://www.celtiberia.net/articulo.asp?id=1149 El testamento del cerdito Corocotta], 12 May 2007], Celtiberia.net (paper forthcoming).</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Circassians may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the '''Adyge''' ([[Circassian language|Circassian]]: Адыгэ, ''Adyge'') and [[Kabardian people]]),<ref>{{citation | last = Gammer | first = Mos%u030Ce | title = The Caspian Region: a Re-emerging
• |''Натыхъуай'' {{IPA-ady|natəχʷaːj|}}, ''Наткъуадж'' {{IPA-ady|natəχʷaːd͡ʒ|}})

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louise Welsh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and poet [[Christopher Marlowe]], author of ''[[Tamburlaine (play)|Tamburlaine the Great]])'' Her third novel, ''The Bullet Trick'' (2006),<ref name="Lawson">{{cite web |url= http://books.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tamburlaine Must Die may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 8 December 2008 }}</ref> and Alan Wall in ''The Guardian'' called it "buccaneering tosh".<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/jul/03/featuresreviews.guardianreview15 Alan Wall, "Zounds

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Termagant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Rede

Can you reply to User talk:Moonriddengirl please? As I suspected, we ignore what Wikisource says and make our own determination. Theirs made it possible for them to keep it there, but not here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Portraits of Shakespeare shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question at the Entertainment desk

Hello, Paul. I see you have worked on the article Niggers in the White House, and of course I'm familiar with and appreciate your contributions at the Humanities desk. Currently there is a question at the Entertainment desk (where I don't think I've seen you often, so you may have missed it, which is why I'm bothering you here) to which you might have something to add: WP:RD/E - "Dinah Washington". Thanks and have a happy Tuesday! ---Sluzzelin talk 15:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Davenant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Suckling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declare your Agenda

Curious minds want to know. Not related to British imperialist Zionism, or any such-like thing, am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs)

Well, of course. "British Imperialist Zionism" is the only philosophy that counts. And what particular edit of mine has "revealed" my ideological agenda? Paul B (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease ad hominem dehumanizing terror-tactics of verbal sophistic argumentation. You are not fooling anybody.

Unconventional style is not identical as pseudo-intellectual. It is not my fault you lack erudition, Knight Qadoth. Now leave me alone please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs)

If you want to be left alone, I suggest you stop leaving messages on my talk page, and please look up the meaning of ad hominem. Paul B (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not alone, Paul. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion

Dear fellow, I am happy that you shared your opinions regarding Jesus in Islam on article Jesus talk page. I am happy that you know that Islam regards Jesus a messiah. When it comes to crucifixion, Islam denies that Jesus was crucifixed. But that does not mean that crucifixion never happened. According to Islamic point of view, a disciple of Jesus was crucifixed in place of him. The person which was crucifixes looked identical to Jesus. Islam states that Jesus was raised alive in to heavens and he will return in end times to fight Antichrist. Thanks again.Septate (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed on the talk page. You are not telling me anything I don't know. We all know that crucifixion happened. I've seen Spartacus. Saying that the crucifixion of Jesus didn't happen is a quite different matter. Paul B (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Would you agree to changing Judeans to Jews? I believe the latter would be a better fit, because the former is somewhat antiquated. Everybody knows who Jews are.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about it, but I think "Jews" is more associated with a religious identity, and Judeans with the ancient ethnic group. However, they are all encompassed by "Israelites" anyway. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mpande kaSenzangakhona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Quartermain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Coglan Horsfall

Thanks (Msrasnw (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sweden stats

Hi Paul, I noticed you reverted some changes I made, perceiving them as editorializing. If my wording seemed problematic, can you think of some other ways to fix the sentence to contain the 2 pieces of information I was attempting to add:

1. They repeatedly referred to one "study" not "studies". This is important as implies that a specific source might be locatable.
2. That we don't yet know which study they are referring to (saves the reader the trouble of reading the whole article to realize that the Primary source is not mentioned).

From contextual clues - that it was a victim-survey and was cross-country in Europe - this hints at International Crime Victims Survey which seems to be the main (only?) such large-scale study of that nature. It could be used as a source to back up what brå is saying (making the paragraph on the wp article stronger), but is a bit hard to locate at the moment. I've made some brief attempts to track down and update the current location of ICVS but have been unsuccessful. Help would be appreciated if you can find the source!
Thanks,
-SColombo (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden stats

Hi Paul, I noticed you reverted some changes I made, perceiving them as editorializing. If my wording seemed problematic, can you think of some other ways to fix the sentence to contain the 2 pieces of information I was attempting to add:

1. They repeatedly referred to one "study" not "studies". This is important as implies that a specific source might be locatable.
2. That we don't yet know which study they are referring to (saves the reader the trouble of reading the whole article to realize that the Primary source is not mentioned).

From contextual clues - that it was a victim-survey and was cross-country in Europe - this hints at International Crime Victims Survey which seems to be the main (only?) such large-scale study of that nature. It could be used as a source to back up what brå is saying (making the paragraph on the wp article stronger), but is a bit hard to locate at the moment. I've made some brief attempts to track down and update the current location of ICVS but have been unsuccessful. Help would be appreciated if you can find the source!
Thanks,
-SColombo (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the website refers to "victim surveys" in the plural, and then refers to "the survey that exists" making the specific comparison which they claim to be the relevant one, apparently one survey. I do understand your problem, and frankly the website itself comes across as rather self-serving and evasive. On the whole the best thing is to stick to what it says. The plural/singular issue is not really a problem, it was the addition of the word "uncited", which carries the implication of deception or at least dubiousness. Paul B (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ndlela kaSompisi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ndebele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ndlela kaSompisi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ndebele people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Paul,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 01:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

A content dispute resolution process has been started at [4]. Please participate and contribute to a resolution. Wdford (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need you really really badly.

At first I though I was going to have issues, but I noticed you posted here on my talk page, BustaBunny, and so I have come to contact you. So I notice you also saw I made no such threat on vandalizing Wikipedia. In actuality, I was responding to that crappy comment by the above user. However my account is currently blocked. Why? Because of this (look at the bottom part of this section):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73#Arbitrary_break

Notice that I am mentioned a couple of times and a random user told this sergecross guy I was threatening to vandalize Wikipedia. Then, almost like this "admin" never actually checked, which makes sense given our other encounter, I am blocked, poof. This guy and the users hanging around with him have become an annoyance to me. If you look at the very bottom of the page under the "Hi there!" section, you will see that the only reason why I am having issues with this admin and co. is because I ASKED HIM FOR HELP! Read the "Hi there!" section, that's exactly what happened. These guys are literally following me around, it's ridiculous.

So yeah, my account was blocked because of something I did not even do. I wanted to ask you personally what I can do about this crooked admin block. How do I get my account back? I figured since you know more about this place (nice user page btw) you would know what I should be doing right now. Thanks! DigitalBunny (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were blocked because you were said to be a sockpuppet of user:Jakandsig, an editor accused of vandalising video gaming pages. I know nothing about that, so I can't really comment. Obviously you know whether you are or are not a sockpuppet, but Mark Miller's intervention was not the reason you were blocked. I think his comment was wrong, but that's a marginal issue. If you are a sockpuppet, your best approach is just to admit it and agree to avoid the actions that led to the block. If you are not, you can appeal the block. Paul B (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was clearly blocked because Tarechanging in that post I linked to said I was "threatening" to vandalize pages, which led to the block. Did you read that section where they mention my username? Your reaction is also very strange because looking at their history they left me completely alone for days UNTIL that comment. They even mention Mark in that same conversation, yet you agree what mark said was wrong, so your reply is confusing. Sadly, he IS the reason for the block. I also can't appeal the block because I am currently not allowed to edit my talk page. I tried, but it will not allow me to edit in the unblock template. Which is why I am asking you. if you know of some other way I can appeal the block. DigitalBunny (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section says "Blocked per WP:DUCK, closed per WP:DENY. He's awful, but lets try to DENY him the recognition." Mark's comment was not given as the reason for the block. You could send an email to the blocking admin. You were probably "left alone for days" because it took a while before your edits passed the so-called "duck test" (WP:DUCK). Paul B (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the one inch above that pat where they TA actually says that I was making threatening comments and seconds later serge made the block? You are not reading the whole conversation. Sigh, This is so frustrating. I still have no idea how to appeal the block either. Well I guess you were not the help i thought you would be. DigitalBunny (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the whole conversation. OK, maybe Mark's comment "helped", but it was not the main reason. Frankly, there's nothing I can do and I shouldn't really be engaging with an admitted sockpuppet of a blocked editor. Paul B (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now you are putting words in my mouth saying I admitted I was one? I get it, it's guilty until proven innocent here. I am not going to have an argument, I will just go through these policies and find a way to undo my block. Your strange responses are just causing more problems for me. Have a nice day. DigitalBunny (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said you were Bustabunny. Bustabunny is blocked. Hence you are an " an admitted sockpuppet of a blocked editor". The words came from you. I didn't put any of them into your mouth. They came out all on their own and are now glued to this page. Paul B (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indra's Net (book)

Please be so kind to review my latest edit to this article; I expect them to be quite unhappy with it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "they" thought JJ's edits were not optimal. When he made those edits, I think JJ was confused about the difference between an image and a philosophical concept. The image exists in the Atharva Veda, though the concept is not the same as later developed. The same can be said about many images with meanings that evolve over time. Since the book only employs the image as a metaphor for the concept, but does not focus its major attention on the evolving meanings of the image itself, it is WP:UNDUE and a distraction from the topic of the page to go on at length about such things. If you think that such material is actually WP:DUE for understanding the book, then I recommend actually reading the book, and seeing what you think after reading it. --Presearch (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distraction? Or a clarification? Mentioning the Athatva Veda without a clarification of the use of the image there suggests Hindu origins of the metaphor, thereby lending it "authority" by its ancientness. It's highly ironic that Malhotra uses a Buddhist metaphor to defend Vivekananda's interpretation of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Malhotra himself states "I seek to [...] show it went on to become the central principle of Buddhism" (emphasis JJ). But according to you "the book only employs the image as a metaphor for the concept, but does not focus its major attention on the evolving meanings of the image itself". So, which one is it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Well, I was expecting this. I already mentioned that despite those books, I am not sure about him as he is not widely known for being so. Yet, you may have heard that her mother was a slave. Except for that, all my contributions were quite proper. I guees you undid by mistake. You can check each of them. Thank you.Listofpeople (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some edits were legitimate. On the whole, they were obviously motivated by ideology. Paul B (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits? There is not even a word which is incorrect there. I do now know what you mean by ideology, what I know is that you've just told someone "nitwit". I assume it was to the author of the book for some "ideological" reasons. Leonardo was already removed when you undid for the second time. As to Mantegna, it is the portrait of Carlo de' Medici by Andrea Mantegna. Carlo de' Medici is the illegitimate son of Cosimo de' Medici the Elder and his Circassian concubine. All you have to do is to read Pernis and Adams book "Lucrezia Tornabuoni de' Medici and the Medici Family in the Fifteenth Century". Thank God, there is this link for you to check it out: books.google.com/books?&id=f6vbAPWZM2QC&q=Circassian Also, you should maybe google it yourself. I will wait till you do that, then I will revert my version accordingly. Regarding other edits, if you somehow could not check the sources, I can discuss them providing more sources as well. Meanwhile I'll be digging into da Vinci, but we can easily settle others today.Listofpeople (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing the walls, I've found some:

• "Medici Money: Banking, metaphysics and art in fifteenth-century Florence" by Tim Parks (http://books.google.it/books?id=hfVEAAAAQBAJ),
• "The Medici Giraffe: And Other Tales of Exotic Animals and Power" by Marina Belozerskaya (http://books.google.it/books?id=SeQ2AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT267&dq=circassian),
• "The Rise and Fall of the House of Medici" by Christopher Hibbert (http://books.google.it/books?id=HzV9uDSjjEcC&pg=PT119&dq=circassian),
• "Society and Individual in Renaissance Florence" edited by William J. Connell (http://books.google.it/books?id=pxe96uVQtoEC&pg=PA45&dq=circassian),
• "Daily Life in Florence in the Time of the Medici" of Jean Lucas-Dubreton (http://books.google.it/books?id=fppoAAAAMAAJ&q=circassian),
• "Magnifico: The Brilliant Life and Violent Times of Lorenzo de' Medici" written by Miles J. Unger (http://books.google.it/books?id=G-tC6hyMlxkC&pg=PA327&dq=circassian),
• Kathleen McGowan's "The Poet Prince" (http://books.google.it/books?id=6IziGpmrpv8C&pg=PT216&dq=circassian),
• "The Chapel of the Magi in Palazzo Medici" by Franco Cardini (http://books.google.it/books?id=xNVGAQAAIAAJ&dq=circassian)

With respect to this, I am now reverting except for Leonardo da Vinci because it is still contentious. I was also wondering if it's possible to add references to the infobox section within the template itself.Listofpeople (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer absurdity of this should be obvious. There is no good evidence that Carlo had a "Circassian concubine", and even if he did, there's no reason to assume her skin would be "dark". Circassians are not dark-skinned. Your links are just an arbitrary collection of books that combine the words "circassian" and "medici". The term "Circassian" is not even used in a meaningful way. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why you couldn't believe is his skin colour? Well, I've heard that those people in the 15th century were one of the palest in the world; yet, it's a painting in the end, not a photograph of his and among Italians dark (not black) colour is not rare as you think. It actually appears that there is so much evidence to his concubine, but it's history you know. To your surprise, all these books talks about Carlo with marked Circassian features. It doesn't matter whether one believes that his painting does not represent Circassians, as long as he is a descendant. A Medici, why not in the infobox? Maybe you can offer someone else who is better to show up there. Eleven books, all pointing out Carlo's origin, and you still oppose this. For da Vinci, I can understand, but this is too much. Once again, you can always find another person/picture and replace it. Thanks.Listofpeople (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undid again? Oh my God, what would be your problem with a historical figure like that? How many reliable sources do you need? Please, you could remove just him, instead of removing anything I added to the article. I would understand if you put someone else's picture there, reverting all is nothing but disrespect. Onn Jaafar, father of Hussein Onn and grandfather of Hishammuddin Hussein, looks quite Asian, too. However, it does it change the fact that his mother, Lady Ruqayyah (aka Ruquaiya or Rukiye), is a Circassian from the Ottoman Harem. Then I am adding the third Malaysian Prime Minister, Hussein Onn, to the list. (Aksiyon's article: http://www.aksiyon.com.tr/aksiyon/haber-28971-malezyanin-osmanlilari.html) (http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx?file=%2f2007%2f4%2f1%2flifefocus%2f17281586&sec=lifefocus) (for another magazine cover: http://gizlenentarihimiz.blogspot.com.tr/2011/12/yedikta-dergisinin-41says.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listofpeople (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kidnapping of Edward Bremer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Enemy No. 1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tom Brown (police chief) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Van Meter, who fell dead.<ref name="LAW">''Homer Van Meter Walks Into Police Trap and Dies Shooting]'', Lawrence Journal-World, 24 August 1934</ref> He was 27 years old.<ref name="LAW"/> Detective

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vlad the Impaler may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Rezachevici, ''Unde a fost mormântul lui Vlad Tepes?'' (II), Magazin Istoric, nr.3, 2002, p.41)</ref> The Comana monastery was demolished and rebuilt from scratch in 1589.<ref name=Rezachevici>{{
• Und schneyd den frawen den prüst ab den musten ire man essen. Danach liess er sie all spissen." {{quote|"Er briet die Kinder, und ihre Mütter mussten diese essen. Er schnitt den Frauen die Brüste

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's religion

Hello fellow, I would like to know why did you revert my edition on the section "Religion" in the article Shakespeare. Tell me what do you mean by "undue". For my part, I will tell you that, as I see it, there is lack of neutrality in that section. The only thing that is mentioned there is the Catholic background of the family members and the position of some scholars about it, which come the conclusion that 'Shakespeare may have been a Catholic'. Nothing is mentioned about the point of view of scholars who differ with the previous position, and nothing is quoted from Shakespeare's own pen. You would like to know that there are also prominent scholars who see Protestant rhetoric in his work, as is even stated in the article Shakespeare's religion. In addition, even though there are people who find it objectionable, his Will has been referred by important scholars as an relevant writing that shows possible evidence about Shakespeare's religious position.

I want to make you clear that nothing of what I wrote is "in part Original Research", as you falsely stated. I supported everything I wrote in the article with appropriate references. If you had checked them -- if you do it-- you could find that every statement is supported by research or studies from well-known Shakespeareologists. I want to ask you to allow that other points of views, which in this case are very relevant, not be censored. Thanks in advance.--Goose friend (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO, you did not support what you wrote with appropriate references. If you had bothered to read beyond p 27 of Scott Kasten, you would have seen that he clearly states that passage from the will you quote is "wholly formulaic". Read page 28. You are misrepresenting the source and adding a massive chunk of almost wholly irrelevant primary material into the article. And by the way, there is no such thing as a "Shakespeareologist". Paul B (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carlo de' Medici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circassian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

That is exactly what I was planning to do. Thanks for your contributions to the article Carlo de' Medici. Unless some conclusive evidence comes up, the way that you put it sounds good to me since there are two prevailing views.Listofpeople (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward III (play) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Salisbury]], the wife of the [[William Montacute, 1st Earl of Salisbury|Earl of Salisbury]]). As Edward arrives, the rampaging [[Scotland|Scots]] flee. Edward immediately falls for the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nennius of Britain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fletcher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Howard issue

Honestly, dealing with your website is ridiculous! If the person you have on your website are requesting ONE SMALL little tiny detail to their page, WHY WON'T YOU JUST HONOR THEIR REQUEST???? They are NOT ASKING FOR SOMETHING RIDICULOUS. Cheryl is NOT a working actress but is RON'S LUCKY CHARM in his films. There is a real difference. She is working very hard at her writing career and would like to be recognized as that... just as you all would like to be recognized as writers on wikipedia. WHY IS THAT PROBLEM!!!

So when people REFERENCE your website for ACCURATE INFORMATION, they are being mislead that she is an actress. All she would like is for you to add writer! They go to you for true information. what is wrong with adding that she is a writer??????

This page is NOT ABOUT YOU! This is about the person you have on your website.

I need to talk to a person on the phone. Will someone please call me? [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOUISAVELIS (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I live in England. I can't call you on that number. There aren't enough digits to connect. I've redacted it from this page. Anyway, what would a private conversation prove? We have article and user talk pages. If you wish to convey something privately you can email me (use the "email this user" facility in the section "tools" at the left of this page). However, if you want to talk to me, you can call my office. Information here: [5]. Paul B (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Howard request

The reason I had wanted to speak to a live person is because I feel this issue is being made into a ridiculous situation. There is no conflict of interest in asking to have Mr. Howard's wife having the word WRITER in front of her name. She has written one novel and now writing her second. All she wants is to have the word writer as part of her husband's wikipedia page. There is no conflict of interest in me asking this reasonable request by employer who I have worked for the past 35 years. If you were in my position and your employer asked you to do a simple thing, you would gladly do it for them. But Because these websites make it so difficult to communicate and take it upon themselves to put what they deem reasonable, I am at a loss as to what to do.

There is no reasonable explanation in all these emails as to why you can not simply add writer to her name in the body of the page, since you have seen the proof, there should not be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOUISAVELIS (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think other editors have explained what to do. You need a source. We now have a source, which I have placed on the talk page. The problem is that you just kept adding stuff with not source and asserting that you were speaking for Mrs Howard. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing whether or not that is true. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul, I think you should see this. Regards. Ates Gulcugil

http://039a2b6.netsolhost.com/thearcadianshepherds.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atesgulcugil (talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two different IPs at Suzannah Lipscomb

Hi Paul, the two IPs are completely different. The one who removed the information again, did not put it there originally, and I'm pretty sure is the original edit-warrior logged out to evade a potential 3RR block. But I'm glad you restored it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised that shortly after I wrote the edit summary. They are similar, but not the same. I'm sure you are right. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The one who restored the information is on Virgin media and the remover/reverter is on Telefonica O2. What a mad-house that article is. UGH! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cretin Comment

You are correct that the word "cretin" is a malformation of Christian, and means that they are human beings equal to everyone else. It more specifically referred to persons with a serious thyroid deficiency due to lack of iodide who were both mentally and physically disabled, and so did not look, to an outsider, to be human. They were being called Christians to point out that they too had been baptized as infants, and so were Christians just like their fellow Europeans. It meant that individuals who were not only mentally disabled but also physically deformed were still humans. Euphemism treadmill, indeed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

• Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theories#Paul B is wrong. Aryan Migration Theory is Disproven.
• Talk:Rigveda#Fake Aryan Invasion theory

Groet, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You're more polite than I am; thank you for staying so calm and friendly. I'm a little bit fed-up with all this chauvinistic nonsense... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Name is Earl: fictional location clues

I noticed you made a recent edit to the wiki page for My Name Is Earl and was considering making an edit there myself. I will leave it to someone with more wiki experience than me. As to the location that "Camden County" is modeled after, one episode I noticed featured a contest for "Hands on a Car" which is exactly modeled after the contest that was once held in Longview, TX, "Hands on a Hardbody". That episode (according to Netflix) is season 1, episode 10: White Lie Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.66.20 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen the episode. There are other TV shows that use the hand-on-car competition. It appears in an episode of Psych (which is set in Santa Barbara). I don't think it tells us where Camden is actually supposed to be! Paul B (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat help

Hey Paul. I've been trying to create the Category People who knew William Shakespeare, but I've been out of the loop so long I forgot how to do it. Can you make it stick for me? All best, Tom Reedy (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks Paul. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Boyhood of Raleigh

Hi. Why did you erase my edit without any discussion in the talk for the article? "It came to epitomise the culture of heroic imperialism in late Victorian Britain and in British popular culture up to the mid-twentieth century." is an opinion. If you are going to keep it in an encyclopedia it must not be a personal opinion. As an opinion it really should be explicitly prefaced by the name of the person to whom the opinion belongs.

The painting cannot factually "epitomise" heroic imperialism in popular culture in Britain in the 1920s to 40s because imperialism of all complexions was definitely fading by then - any older British person knows that after the first world war British popular culture was largely anti-establishment and would cheer Gandhi rather than Cecil Rhodes (General strike, fighting in the Spanish Civil War, cheering Gandhi etc...). OK, someone might hold the opinion that the painting epitomised imperialism in popular culture but this is unlikely to be a fact so you must say who had this opinion. If we know who it was we can assess the person as well as the belief and the entry becomes encyclopedic. If you do not know who made this comment then it really should be deleted as tendentious, unreferenced and unnecessary.

It might be possible to introduce a narrative that could sustain the sentence but this would need to be about what people believed to be the sentiment of the painting that epitomised heroic imperialism, not the painting itself. As far as the picture tells a story it is a tale of the wonders and dangers of the sea rather than a tale of conquest so the mistaken interpretation would also need to be explained. Discovering appropriate references for such a foray into social history would be difficult at best.

The simple truth is probably that prints of the painting were displayed in some schools in Britain to indicate the courage and adventurous nature of the person who adopted a seafaring life in Elizabethan times, ie: the story of the painting.

Category:People who knew William Shakespeare

Category:People who knew William Shakespeare, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Durning-Lawrence

A man cannot be a suffragette. A woman is a suffragette, while the male equivalent is suffragist.--The Theosophist (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to believe you can be this ignorant. In British history, the terms "suffragette" and "suffragist" are commonly used to refer to two distinct factions at the time in the struggle for votes for women, with the former term used to refer to the more radical group [6]. You appear to be falling for the etymological fallacy. The suffix "ette" is a derogatry diminutive that was taken up as a badge of honour by members of the movement. In other words, it is a de facto proper noun. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could surely be more polite. I actually do have limited knowledge on the subject, but you cannot call me ignorant because of that. I could also call you ignorant for calling -ette a derogatry (sic) diminutive, when it is also a main feminine suffix. Moreover, this etymological fallacy is very easy to happen, as the Wikipedia articles on the suffragettes in general and on those two societies in particular, make limited reference to the matter we are discussing, and you can surely not treat it like it is common knowledge. If you insist in leaving it "suffragette", then a footnote explaining these is more than necessary, as anybody with a basic knowledge of French seeing a man being called a suffragette, will definitely consider it a mistake.--The Theosophist (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought it was completely common knowledge I would not have explained it, as I did in the first edit summary I made. Sneering at a minor typo is bluster and a sign of desperation. The last sentence in your post is merely a grudging acknowledegement that you have grasped the concept of etymological fallacy. Paul B (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you could be far more polite. "Grudging acknowledegment"? I never pretended knowing anything on this subject more than the basics and I think that I have the right of being apt to such an etymological fallacy. Anyway, there SHOULD be a footnote explaining this story.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. I did not point out your typo to offend you but to demonstrate the stupidity of calling people ignorant for petty things.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The history and terminology relevant to a major cultural movement is not a patty thing. Your edit changed the meaning of the sentence. Accuracy is central to the aim and purpose of an encyclopedia. Paul B (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kilvenmani massacre

On 22 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kilvenmani massacre, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 44 Dalits were burned to death in a hut in Kizhavenmani village of Tamil Nadu in 1968? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kilvenmani massacre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Droeshout portrait/archive1

Hi Paul. There are some comments there about the article Droeshout portrait. Tomer T (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as though whether the FAC for Droeshout portrait is going to progress, is down to you. If you don't want the nom to continue, maybe leave a note for Tomer; otherwise, there are comments there you might like to check out. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Blaschke's POV

It's just that such stuff 1. doesn't belong to intro 2. source doesn't confirm Florian Blaschke's POV directly. The Kurgan hypothesis as a whole belongs the realm of 19th-century European nationalism. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What utter baloney. How does a hypothesis about Steppe dwellers in Central Asia, invented in the mid 20th century by a feminist "belong [in] the realm of 19th-century European nationalism"? Paul B (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Turkist who pushes the Kurgan-as-Turkic fringe POV and the Paleolithic Continuity Theory™ malarkey complains about 19th century nationalism. Hilarious. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've made that point on his talk page. Paul B (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. superior-IE Blaschke, is there also a second option like not being a Pan-Turkist who pushes the Kurgan-as-Turkic? Vigilant editorial censorship by the militant proponents of the IE-Kurgan concept makes the subject totally devoid of the substance. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Thanks for your comments at the fringe noticeboard. I'm also confused a bit by the anger and frankly, hate displayed in the discussion, both by the editor we were speaking with and others at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men. In your edit you said you weren't necessarily convinced this was useful as a category - I'm wondering why you think this is the case. There are sources (a great many have been posted to the CFD discussion) that actually group such instances of violence together, e.g. sexual violence, forced conscription, gender-specific killing, etc. While I those are is still different than domestic violence against men, we're talking about a category, not (yet) an article, so issues of synth don't really seem to apply. Just wondering what your views are on those thoughts...best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decimus Brutus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cyril of Alexandria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Cyril would require Orestes' acquiescence in the bishop's policy. <ref> name="wessel35">Wessel, p. 35.</ref> Nevertheless, Orestes remained unmoved by such gestures.
• *Artemi, Eirini , « The one entity of the Word Incarnate. α). Apollinarius' explanation, β)Cyril's explanation », Ecclesiastic Faros of Alexandria, τ. ΟΔ (2003), 293–304.http://independent.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bogud may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] taken from [[Juba I of Numidia|Juba]]. During [[Quintus Cassius Longinus]]'s governorship of [[[[Hispania Ulterior]], a rebellion occurred. Cassius asked for support, which Bogud provided.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are.

The article regarding Adolf Hitler's diet.

Yes, citations are needed. The article cannot claim...

"Towards the end of his life Adolf Hitler followed a vegetarian diet. It is not clear when he adopted it, since accounts of his dietary habits prior to the Second World War indicate that he still consumed meat."

Without any sources to confirm this statement. It is contradictory. 'We know that he followed a certain diet, but, we are not sure when or if he did.' 'We have some writings from 1941, when he was absolute leader of Germany, so therefore this is when he must have become a vegetarian.'

Not good. Not good enough for an encyclopaedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't bother to read the Talk page or the edit summary it seems. Please check WP:LEDE. Also, there is nothing contradictory about it, for reasons that have already been explained. You are confused. The article does not say anywhere that "we are not sure when or if he did". We are sure that he did, just not the exact date. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proctor states that he was mostly Vegetarian by the time he was 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Careful when editing high traffic talk pages

In this edit, you managed to remove my comment on WP:ANI. I realise it's a mistake, but do be careful when editing pages like ANI. Next time you might accidentally remove a comment from a drama queen with a very short fuse. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caratacus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in Cassius Dio (60.19.5-21.2)", ''[[Britannia (journal)|Britannia]]'' Vol. 38 (2007), pp. 93-106)</ref> and the Catuvellauni's territories were conquered.
• Echegaray, ''The Cantabrians'', 1997; Eduardo Peralta Labrador ''Cantabrians before Rome'' 2000)</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rock sculpture of Decebalus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2010, p.237.</ref> According to Drăgan's website The final cost was over one million dollars.} Drăgan was a leading figure in the [[protochronism]] movement, a nationalist ideology which

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dailey

You might want to see the note/warning I left on his talk page. Really pretty bad editing. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Your personal attacks have no place on wiki. Please refrain from using personal attacks and reread the wiki personal attack page.Rod (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from inane messages like this. Paul B (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:EdJohnston#User Dailey78 has broken his restriction again. EdJohnston has invited him to respond there and has asked me if a topic ban would be appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I responded, as well. Paul, you should check my contribution history (if possible). I've been citing "the Making of Egypt" by Petrie since 2011. In one of your Talk page rants, you accuse me of making up my citations, but it is groundless, irresponsible, and inaccurate.Rod (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't go through your entire contribution history without losing whole days off my life, but I can check the talk page archives, which I did. You've never once mentioned it. Ever. Talk: Ancient Egyptian race controversy: one mention, not by you: [7]; Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis: no mentions at all [8]. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the Talk page of the Black Egyptian article (the section on Gallery of Photos), I mentioned Petrie. This was in January of 2014. Just admit when you are wrong. You are just making yourself look ridiculous. Here is the excerpt. It's still on the page. See it there or below:

You ask, how are the pics relevant:

In the early 20th century, Flinders Petrie continued the discussion of Black Egyptians. Petrie, Professor of Egyptology at the Univ. of London, spoke of the "black queen" :::::::that was the divine ancestress of the XVIIIth dynasty. Petrie indicated that "southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani IIIrd dynasty and the Galla XIIth dynasty." :::::::[20]

The aforementioned quotes only come to life with the aid of pictures, ...Rod (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The endRod (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a third opinion on the matter of the good faith edits using "the Making of Egypt" on the wikipedia third opinion page.Rod (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned Petrie numerous times. You never mentioned the book. This is all rather silly. Paul B (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Feb. 9, 2013 I edited the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy article and added a full citation from "the Making of Egypt" by Petrie. This is about the third or fourth example that I have given of fully citing this book on wikipedia and should definitely end the user misconduct and groundless allegations.Rod (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who says another editor is on a witch-hunt and then complains about personal attacks is living in a glass house. I've deleted his request for a third opinion as I see it as a violation of his topic ban, but I've told the Admin who imposed the ban that if I'm wrong I'll replace it. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3O is not intended for opinions about whether or not someone is acting in good faith. It's for content issues. Paul B (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and Dailey's been told that he violated his ban. Hopefully he will heed that warning. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated the ban. Your interpretation is inaccurate. The third opinion concerns Paul Barrow's user conduct and is not about the topic. I am excerpting the help text from the third opinion page, where it clearly states that third opinion can be used for user conduct issues:

Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue.Rod (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's for where conduct is inseparable from content, which is entirely inapplicable in this case. It's really for cases where probems are long term, not some personal obsession about being "proved right" over a trivial point. The very fact that you are making a mountainous drama out of something that's fundamentally irrelevant to real issues of content is the real conduct problem here. It destroys meaningful debate. Having said that, I don't care whether you leave a report or not. It's a exercise in futility. Paul B (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say...

...this comment made my morning. Thank you.--Jezebel'sPonyo^bons mots 16:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service! Paul B (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical wit is not usually found at ANI; it's certainly a welcome change.--Jezebel'sPonyo^bons mots 16:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable critics?

'Notable' usually means they have articles. We already decided Rima Laibow isn't notable. And I'd say we need independent sources showing that these individuals are 'significant' views. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decebalus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarmizegetusa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Chevauchée

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chevauchée , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game shows

What is wrong with using game shows as sources? I'd say they are reliable as they are set by a team of professional question-masters (e.g. Olav Bjortomt, David J. Bodycombe), are published by major networks and, in the unlikely event of errors, are quickly chastised in the press.--Launchballer 17:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS. If you want to make an issue out of it, go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In any case, the fact was already sourced. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not listed on that page, and frankly as you are not the first person to complain about use of them (see User_talk:Launchballer/archive/2014/401-500#Elvis_Presley) I will be visiting that noticeboard.--Launchballer 17:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible decision. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shakespeare's life may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• emerged that William had been poisoned by oldest son, but the sale was confirmed by the new heir [[Hercules Underhill] in 1602.<ref>Schoenbaum, Samuel, ''Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life'',

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare parents cousins

No evidence? According to the family tree we show at the bottom, Sir John Alexander Webb was John Shakespeare's grandfather and was also Mary Arden's grandfather. Unless John and Mary were siblings, they can only have been first cousins. No? -- Jack of Oz ^[pleasantries] 13:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that we can't reconstruct the family trees with any certainty. Even the connection of Mary Arden to other Ardens is uncertain. As Sam Schoenbaum says "the precise branch [of the family] to which Robert Arden [Mary's father] belonged remains obscure, despite intense genealogical zeal". (CDL: p.19) Agnes Webb (the link John Alexander Webb) was indeed married to Robert, but there is no evidence she was Mary's mother. In fact the general view is that Mary was the daughter of a previous deceased wife whose identity is unknown. All of Robert's eight daughters were born before he married Mary. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kemp edit warrior

I've given him a 3RR warning, but maybe it's time to ask for a topic ban, have you seen his talk page? Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took him to AN3. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical eye needed

However the discussion goes here, after an editor ignored this discussion, and a follow up note on my page (no need to get involved), I remain technically intrigued by that photo. I spend 25 years every summer in the company of an extremely accomplished painter, who taught me much about fakes and angles of light and what you could deduce from photos, works of art. It was a visual extension of the training one gets in close textual reading. So I don't think my instinctive reaction to the photo in question ('Fake!') far off the mark. It turns out that it was, even if within a context of a siren alert, posed, as I immediately thought. I thought now of you because of your background and expertise. I'd appreciate it if you could just drop a comment on my page in the relevant section telling me your way of reading it, or even an email. I once caught out William Safire for using a prose account of an attack on the American Embassy in Syria that was, closely parsed, self-contradictory. He admitted grudgingly I had a point, but that was prose, this is another medium. Forget it if it's too much bother.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kemp

He's taken me to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. Looks like a high velocity boomerang. Paul B (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaiz-Villena Biography

Dear Paul Barlow,

I think that some indication that updated requested by Wikipdia has been done should be shown at Article page. However, you may find a better way to do it.

Philly93 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mol

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your input there. Would you care to edit the article itself? I have massively updated its English sources - see the version history. I am afraid it will get censored yet again.... Zezen (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul,

You accused me of lying. "Stop lying about what sources say"

It is a grave accusation.

You have also reverted this edit. and antisemitism {{cite web|title=Kręciła mnie taka moc w nim - reportaż|url=http://wyborcza.pl/duzyformat/1,127291,3846291.html?as=4%7Cwebsite=Gazeta Wyborcza (paywall now)|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140831222945/http://forum.e-kwidzyn.pl/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=1002&start=0%7Carchivedate=2007 |quote=I'm beginning to understand why this country is listed as one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world (Polish: "Zaczynam rozumieć, dlaczego ten kraj jest notowany jako jeden z najbardziej antysemickich krajów na świecie!".

Please tell me why this quote from a Gazeta Wyborcza article: "Zaczynam rozumieć, dlaczego ten kraj jest notowany jako jeden z najbardziej antysemickich krajów na świecie!" does not mean in English: "I'm beginning to understand why this country is listed as one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world "

I want to understand where I lied so as to learn to tell the truth better. Zezen (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a grave accusation, it's a decent assessment. That statement does not specifically implicate one of Mol's former girlfriends as being anti-Semitic, and even if she was, it's not exactly relevant to the article since Mol doesn't appear to be Semitic. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mol, Aids at RSN

I've taken his latest edit at Criminal transmission of HIV to WP:RSN - I think he's misrepresenting his sources, at least one isn't an RS anyway, and that's not even getting into other issue. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mol again

Do you think he's an example of Racism in Poland? Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blockquote

Thanks, I was going to go back and do that but I appreciate your beating me to it! Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelio

I don't like "Reception" either, so why not put it under "Performance history" with a sub-heading such as "Performance to celebrate fall of Nazi Germany" rather than separate it out by itself. It was really a performance with a purpose. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Zoroaster article

Hi Paul, if you have time, could have a look at the Zoroaster article? A new editor keeps changing the birth date of Zoroaster to 5000 BCE, which isn't remotely credible. The editor has provided a source supposedly in support of this date, however the source actually supports "the tradition of placing Zoroaster at about seventh to sixth centuries BCE". Anyway, I'd appreciate your input if you have time. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tito Minniti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• time.<ref>Colloredo Pierluigi. ''I Pilastri del Romano Impero'', p. 78</ref><ref name = "rain"/>) Kamel Hamed and Labib Salamah, two other members of El Uisci's paramedic team in Ethiopia,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yellow Peril may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• by [[Princess Aura]]) by Charles Middleton in ''[[Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe]]'')]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dance of the Seven Veils may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The '''Dance of the Seven Veils''' is a term used to refer to the dance performed by [[Salome]]) before [[Herod Antipas]]. It is an elaboration on the [[Bible|biblical]] tale of the execution of [

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Paul Barlow. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmond Rostand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hernani. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dance of the Seven Veils, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tammuz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]