Thank you very much indeed for your recent editings of the City of Brno page, Paul B. I was really pleased to see that you have shown interest in this city to which I have a special relationship. Have you ever been there or have you some questions in connection with Brno? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Paul Barlow. You have new messages at Bluemask's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
I didn't want to post this on the talk page to start a new round of ruckus, but I started the Redheugh Gardens War Memorial article so that I could link to it when I finish research about the connection to the two Hartlepool memorials from PJ's notes. However, it just dawned on me: 1) PJ added a lot of comments to the BLB listing for the Redheugh Gardens War Memorial - and 2) the Redheugh Garden's page isn't protected.
By the way, I'm not even 1/2 way through the previous article - I'm just about to get into the two town's business - if you want to tackle that part, though, that would be lovely.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have brought this a week ago to ANI and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken this issue to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. Since you have already involved in the Sri Lanka related issues on defense.lk and Lies Agreed Upon, I need your involvement how to tackle this user who is so adamant to listen others and pushing his Original Research aggressively without heeding the Wikipedia guidelines.Sudar123 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2012 (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 The Black Adder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Benson (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.
Hi Paul, You may have noticed that I have reverted a couple of deletions made by a unregistered editor on the Alfred Watkins article. I think the mention of The View over Atlantis is important, but this person seems to want a "edit war". If this carries-on, I will request either a block or Page Protection. I hope I would have your support in this? Best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A thanks of note
Hello Paul B., Knitwitted has said "hey" at you! Cute smiley faces promote many thank yous for taking the time to read and to re-word my addition to "Oxford's Bible", and hopefully this one has made you and your day cooler. Spread the coolness by saying "hey" back. Go on, say "hey"! You know you want to!! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ruskin
Hi Paul, thanks for your edits to Ruskin. I note you have removed a number of solid references and added a large amount of text that is entirely unreferenced. As you know additions need good references. I won't revert it but please add cites asap. Thanks. Span (talk)18:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World of A Song of Ice and Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Martin (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Purely Belter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Healy (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.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Reredos , 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. Waldhorn (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this portrait claimed to be of the 16th earl, but the bone structure, etc. seems to be consistent with the 1575 portrait. Any opinion? The file was scanned from a later edition of Looney.
Also I don't think this picture is of Oxford, because as far as I've been able to determine, holding the sword of state was not the Lord Great Chamberlain's duty. I'm trying to access a copy of A.J.M. Baker's *The Office of Lord Great Chamberlain of England: An Historical and Modern Study* (2005) to check. AFAIK, the person who identified the figure as Oxford is Dr. Michael Delahoyde, who is not a reliable authority. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this site, the Lord Great Chamberlain did hold the sword of state at the opening of Parliament, but it was not delivered to him until the Parliament opened by the Gentleman Usher to the Sword of State, so the image might be of the Usher. If it is of Oxford as the LGC, I doubt if the visage is meant to be accurate. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the Earl of Hertford is the man holding the sword and the rest of her train was just left out by the artist. Can you read the caption beneath the image? Tom Reedy (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with phone cameras is the quality. A good digital camera is as good as a scan as long as it's steady. I never had any problem with taking pictures in the archives at Kew, but the only pictures I took at the BM were in public areas, so I don't know what their policy is on archival material. Probably the same old ineffectual "copyright" claim. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your Leonardo comment on the Shroud page was exactly right. Puckett still has a book out there, but that is the nature of that topic. As stated on my user page, I am becoming less and less active on Wikipedia, and I have been asking suitable editors to see if they can watch a few pages which I will watch less and less often. After that edit I thought you may have enough interest to watch that page.
In fact the page has been very stable for such a controversial topic and if you look at the history will see that it has had very few edits since last June. It used to be utter chaos 3 years ago, but it has since reached stability, in that most perspectives have been covered. There is a user Thucyd who edits there at times and he knows 100 times more about the topic than myself, so that has been helpful. The flip-side of that coin have been many IPs that at times say they are "friends of" Vincenzo Ruello then admit to being Ruello himself, etc. They have been away for a while after they were all blocked out. So the page is quite stable, and just needs occasional watching. If you feel like doing that, it will be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bate, bots, & Garber
I also thought it was persuasively academic in tone and thus appropriate--but concluded, post-bot, I am also too new to reliably judge that sort of thing. I've been wondering if it's legitimate to add a photo to Marjorie Garber's page from her website. I can't do it yet as my account has not been confirmed? Cfsibley (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler's vegetarianism
Just following Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article lead was certainly not following NPOV, as it did not include any arguments against him being vegetarian. I disagree that the article "gives the view that Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight." If anything to me the article gives undue weight on him being a vegetarian. The article name is "Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism", not "Adolf Hitler's diet." Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the lead to NPOV by incorporating Ryan Berry and other critics instead of Robert Payne, feel free. Although please note Ryan Berry uses Robert Payne's work as a major source in his book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover. By the way, it does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines excluding Robert Payne (a renowned biographer) because you or historians disagree with him. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hence I did not call him "renowned" in the article, as that would be POV. Lets just say the book is a reliable source then, as per WP:BLPSOURCES i.e. not self-published, not primary, not original research, not libel and not tabloid. You can always add a sentence from a secondary source disagreeing with Robert Payne's assessment that Hitler's asceticism was just propaganda e.g. "Although biographer x believes Payne's view on Hitler's asceticism was incorrect because..." Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, I've reverted your modifications of my comments without permission on the talk page and I've removed the section headings you added in order to attack me. That's not how we use talk pages on Wikipedia. Please remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. Keep the discussion focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your second round of personal attacks from my talk page.[2] If there's a third time, I'm afraid I'll have to report you. Please learn to control yourself. Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your third round of angry attacks from my talk page. Please go outside and get some fresh air and sunshine and try to compose yourself. Whatever you are angry about, it has nothing to do with me, and therefore, I am unable to address it. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul Barlow, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gilbert Stuart Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Sentimental Journey (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.
I noticed this comment on a user's (Jon C.) Talk page. He has vandalized my edits (all pages related to Lost Ten Tribes propaganda (British and Japanese)) and seems to be collaborating with others, often reverting my reversions and adjustments almost immediately after I address his vandalism. He's already archived a comment I left yesterday indicating that I would report him the next time he touched one of my edits without addressing it through a Talk page.
[3]
LOL
Yep, good one! Paul Barlow eats it. 15:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Can Act Like A Man (talk • contribs)[reply]
"You Can Act Like a Man" has apparently decided he's in some sort of feud with me because of a dispute about the page on Richard III of England (he's one of those people who has decided that Richard was really a nice guy, awesome ruler and loving uncle, so the page should not say bad stuff about him derived from that notorious hack Shakespeare). Unfortunately he does not seem to be living up to his user name. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jon C. has been reverting my edits, I'm now watching his Talk page and when I saw that he'd archived something and decided to check it, I saw that my edit had been removed, and noticed the cited comment. Since we collaborated in the effort that culminated with your uploading a new lead image to the BI page, I found the occurrence of your name in such a derogatory context to represent a coincidence that beckoned for investigation.
This is a list I've started of the people that would seem to be collaborating on the basis of advanced coordination with ::Jon C.:
Some of the posts in question contained elements of OR, and were posted before I was aware of Wikipedia policy. Only Jon C. has obstinately attempted to prevent my editing of the content of the pages in question in a continuous and obstructive manner, however. On the other hand, there was what appeared to be a tightly timed collaboration between Jon C. and HighKing on the Hata clan article page. If you check that page, you will see that it is directly related to the same subject matter that BI is. --Ubikwit (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]
No idea who he is or what that message on my talk what about (I don't think I've ever interacted with either of you), but I've removed it. I've also blanked the personal attack in his sandbox. Best, —Jon C.ॐ20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are, I would say, involved as one contributor to this particular discussion. Maybe you wish to say something in this case. Remember, Paul B., that you once made a proposal for cooperation. And you know that I have restricted myself very much in articles on SAQ, all the time. So it is upon you how you react. Thank you again for your attention. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We seem to have a problem here. I warned him about minor edits a few minutes ago, but there seems to be a pattern. Ironic that he added a random website while deleting other stuff because he doesn't like the source. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Éponine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germinal (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.
I saw your name in the edit history of Richard Dawkins article and you seem to have a lot of experience in history/religion/atheism related articles. I therefore invite you to join the ongoing discussion in the talk page of the article. To give you an introduction, there has been many occasions where people wanted to add a criticism section or a criticism article about Dawkins, but were told that it is a better practice to include the criticism in the main article (per WP:CRIT); only if the amount of criticism is too much one may then make allocate a separate section or article for criticism. Though, this by itself is a valid argument, there has always been a problem with choosing what to include and what not to include as due criticism in the main article which leaves the article with very little criticism relative to the huge amount of criticisms out there about Dawkins.
Hello, Paul Barlow. You have new messages at Talk:Rod (optics). Message added 07:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Civilians are being displaced in Northern Sri Lanka during the final months of the war. A review of UN action criticized the UN leadership, UN Security Council and top UN officials in Sri Lanka.
I have re-added the above image which is removed by User:Rich Farmbrough without edit summary on the Reform and criticism section on United Nations; since the image depicts one of the worst human tragedies human kind ever faced and reviewed by the UN itself its fault and found guilty.Sudar123 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scanning pictures
Paul, do you have any tips for scanning pictures from books? I've been having trouble losing the dots. Maybe I should scan at a lower resolution? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ArnaizVillena
Dear Paul,
this is in brief what happened supported by official pùblic documents.If anybody wants to add anyhing else based on reliable sources it should be done.Paul please be reasonable .If you want adding anything else , please do it.But it is based in public documents which supports the case.Not the corrupted Spanish society orPortAngeles (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC) its reflection:newspapers.PortAngeles (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Categories (++): Biography articles of living people
You may not speak Spanish as a mother tongue
Please make somebody translating the paragraph.Before taking further steps.
Thank you
Sincerely
PAPortAngeles (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William 'Bill' Corbett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mob (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.
Paul that article should be deleted. There's no notability, and the only RS source, the NYT "interview", is not in fact an interview or even about that guy. It looks to me like this is a case of promotion. Thoughts? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically fringe, based on self-published work by A. Nyland. Maryannu Press, "Smith and Sterling Publishers" and Kikkuli Press all seem to publish only her stuff - she also uses Amazon's self-publishing CreateSpace. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reverted - I've explained on the talk page that all her books are self-published, and I can't see an exemption for her. Even her qualifications aren't for Hittite. I'll have to take this to RSN if you both disagree, sorry. I feel strongly about self-published books by non-notable people. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hernando de Acuña, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diego Hurtado de Mendoza (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.
response to your message regarding my edit request
I got your message (pasted below). The Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA) does not publish up-to-date national statitics and we never have -- this was simply listed on our website along with a number of other statistics that were not from our own research. This was apparently then linked by whoever posted the info on wikipedia originally. If you need another national statistic, please use the one below and take the link to our very old and outdated site off of wikipedia (it is incredibly misleading, both in terms of the statistic and that it appears to be our current website, we get angry emails about it daily):
Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.
[1]
Hi, you wrote on the Rape statistics page "I deleted the statistic that's sourced back to the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. I am the director of that organization and the link is outdated and that statistic is no longer accurate." As I am sure you understand, we cannot just accept the word of an anonymous editor that you you are who you say you are - not that I have any reason to doubt you. However, if you are the director then presumably you can tell ius what the most up to date statistics published by the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault are, and provide the proper reference. That would help to improve the article. Paul B (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I just caught your reply - I presume the IP is wanting to add something like this:
The Holy Quran with English Translation and Commentary Page 1807 Bashīruddīn Maḥmūd Aḥmad, Tahir Ahmad - 1988 "He replied, 'it is love, truth and purity of heart and on account of this I am called 'Isa Masih.' (Sutta. Bhavishya Maha Purana, P. 282, translated by Dr. Shiv Nath Shastri and quoted by Robert Graves and Joshua Podro in "Jesus in Rome")."
Many thanks - if you can only add a hard sourced date to the Purana Isa-Masih material that will already fix the main problem. Unfortunately Günter Grönbold's academic response to this stuff isn't on Google Books or database. Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Oh FOR Freaks sake, just stop this silliness will you???
Here's an example of the high academic standards of her supporters: "A big THANK YOU to Philippa Langley for keeping her believes and continuing so straightforward on her way to find and honour King Richard III." (Got that off the "King Richard Armitage" Support Network website.) Deb (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I found the draping of the Royal Standard over the cardboard box of Royal Remains very touching. And quite churlish of Jo Appleby to refuse, so brutishly, to be a part of that historic occasion. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"William Barlow (1563-1613) Bishop of Rochester and then Lincoln, died Buckden, buried there (St. Mary’s church). His monument was destroyed by ‘rabid fanatics’ and he now has a joint monument with his successor, Bishop Thomas Barlow (d.1691), which incorporates some portions of his original tomb." Only the most rabid maniac imaginable could do that to a Barlow. Paul B (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. At least not in detail. One of my old tutors Nigel Llewellyn wrote about early modern funeral imagery, but there's no reference to the cushion torsos in his Art of Death. Scuplture is really rather neglected by art historians. There's the comprehensive series of books on public sculptures created by the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, but I'm pretty sure that funerary monuments are not normally included as 'public' works. Peter Sherlock's Monuments and Memory in Early Modern England is more interested in epitaphs and theology than iconography. I'm pretty sure there's no mention of cushioned torsos. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strike 2. Using patronizing language towards me, saying I am going to call "mummy". There is a policy called Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your attack was ad hominem. Your language sounded like you were denying that the Nazis persecuted Slavs, if I was mistaken then I was mistaken. Please desist from ad hominem insults such as referring to me with words such as "stupidity".--R-41 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to have respect for relatives of Slavic people, I have known such people who survived the Nazi rampage in Eastern Europe who were persecuted because they were Slavic. So yes when someone appears to indicate that they were not persecuted because of that, or that the Nazis just wanted to assimilate them, I get angry. Call what I'm doing, threats, whatever. We are both angry at each other, but you do not have the right to violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you need to be more careful with what you say. Because if a survivor of the Nazi rampage on the Eastern Front saw that talk page section, they would be enraged with the language used there.--R-41 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lime Street, Liverpool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Kitchener (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.
On 23 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marie Fox, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Marie Fox(pictured), a foundling whose parentage remains a mystery, was adopted by a nobleman and became a princess, author and translator? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Fox. 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.
You undid my revision without discussing on the TALK page (largely against WP guidelines), commenting "this list adds nothing useful and disrupts the page" -- but it indeed adds PLENTY of useful information: Remsburg's actual list! Very important and the very subject of the topic at hand. Neither did it "disrupt the page" -- it flows quite well. Moreover, if you do believe so, is "disrupting the page" (aesthetics, or form) more important than actual information? Then keep the information, the list; if "form" is your priority, simply adjust the textual flow. However I will consider a compromise: if you know of a better place on WP to provide Remsburg's list, let me know (or make the mod yourself) and I'll put it there. "Christ Myth Theory" seemed like the best place, as opposed to (for example) the article on Remsburg himself. Thanks! Geĸrίtzl (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Paul
Hello, Paul Barlow. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Hey Paul. 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.
I think you were probably right about "Trish Wilson", who said this back in 2009: "A pity isn't that my multilingual ability include French and Italian Guess what else I picked up? He wasn't just an astrolger but an astromoner as well. Check out sometime on my blogsite Dominic Mancini 'The case against the case against. Might I suggest that you and every other Ricky Groupie stop trying to undermine me? Not when I have the historical equivalent of not one landmine but several."
Wow, that's pretty lively. You aren't going to join in the great Woodville debate? Perhaps you should insist that it should by "Wydeville". Paul B (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow , that truly is impressive. It's the passion of the argument that's most exciting...and the mystery of who or what she is actually arguing about. It's obvious she still thinks you are a dyed-in-the-wool Ricardian. For some reasons she's arguing against "your" Ricardian attempt to dismiss Mancini's evidence about the Princes. Paul B (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Ward (vicar), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Restoration (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.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Adolph Hitler".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
I went ahead and uploaded the entire file of that image I placed in the article, and I did not editing whatsoever. The other Shakespeare allusions have not been found, as of 1909, anyway. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced he should be called John VI. The French Wiki calls him Jean V, the Breton Wiki calls him Yann V. His grandfather was not numbered not because of a French bias, but because there was no peace treaty in his lifetime it was a civil war and nobody was duke of all the Bretons between 1341 and 1364.
There is no reference in the Wiki article to justify the name John VI. And in the article about his father the only reference is a book from a well-known specialist who calls his father John IV: "Michael Jones, Ducal Brittany, 1364-1399: relations with England and France during the reign of Duke John IV" Patris22 (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Woman's World
Hi Paul,
We are researching The Woman's World magazine with the hope of finding one we could use in a production of Bernard Shaw's 'Mrs Warren's Profession' in the Gate Theatre, Dublin. Would there be any chance you'd be able to tell us where you got the copy you scanned for the Wikipedia page? Our email address is gatetheatre.asms@gmail.com
Hi, I'm sorry, but I don't remember where I got the Woman's World image from. I think I just downloaded it from somewhere. I don't have any copies of the magazine myself. My wife researched it years ago when she was writing an article (the "Monsters and Monstrosities" footnoted in the wikipedia article). I read it myself from the copies in the British Library. I had a quick look on ebay etc to see whether copies circulate, but they don't appear to be readily accessible. My guess would be that your best bet would be to borrow copies from a library and scan them. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The attention-seeking behaviour is getting out of hand now, with yet another threat to go to the media. What do you think, RFC or ANI or shall I just request another admin to consider a temporary block? Deb (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The threats appear to very vague. I really don't know if it's worth going to ANI yet. I doubt that an RFC would be useful because PV's comments do not make sufficient sense to coherently engage with. I think I will just stop responding to her. Paul B (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice that you seem to have had a long involvement with the Max Müller article. I get the impression that the article may have been subject to some unwittingly poor contributions of late, for which you are most likely not responsible. I have been ripping into it today, mostly removing stuff that is clear personal analysis. I have left a few notes on the talk page and I hope in due course to be able to assist in building content that enhances the thing. It will take time as my knowledge of Müller is mostly peripheral as a consequence of my extensive involvement in caste/British Raj ethnology etc articles. I hope that I am not treading on any toes. FWIW, I have access to JSTOR - if you do not but you need something for the article from that repository then just yell. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting enough of the stuff. That's the problem. I will just try reverting without discussion, but I rather doubt that that will work. The paragraph I restored was, admittedly, uncited, but it was just summarising plots which don't need to be cited. Of course it's PV who is being partizan, only deleting material perceived as "Ricardian", though sometimes it's hard to see why. Paul B (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul: Thanks so much for answering my question. Unfortunately, I'm not so smart about how to do certain things on my computer & I don't know how to set up a link. I will try to find out today & see if I can acomplish that & I will send you another message when I have done that or should I ask the same question again for others to see also??? Does it help at all that I have it listed for sale on Ebay. It has the title of 1988 AT&T Thunderbird Balloon Classic if you want to look it up there & they have the feature that you can zoom in real close to the signature for a good look at the scribble. Thanks again & Best Wishes. Barb Greer (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sartor Resartus
I wanted the picture for the Sartor Resartus article to be large first, to resemble the Tristram Shandy article's (on which Carlyle's novel is partially based, and I greatly admire that article for giving even the 'visual' idea of an unconventional text), and second, the engraving on the Sartor article looks like pure mud when reduced in size. Is there a way to make it appear larger on most screens, but shrink for not-very-ideal configurations? Artimaean (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the wikipedia article for Shandy has a specific look to it that I was trying to replicate (rather than say, having only the original title page), in the same way Sartor tries to replicate some aspects of Shandy, albiet textually; the book-within-a-book design, the frequent textual breaks, and especially the confused but opinionated narrator.
The problem with engravings on Wikipedia (at least in my visual experience) is that when higher-quality scans made into previews (like the one on the Sartor page) the lines tend to blur together making the smaller image seem far less distinct and darker. It might actually help to make a lower-quality scan for the page....
But yeah, I would very much appreciate your uploading more images; it would certainly make the Sartor page seem more attractive. Does the "plot" section make sense so far? Artimaean (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mosaic authorship and Miller's "logic"
Hello Paul,
This is in regard to what you wrote to me about Miller’s “logic”. You wrote that “he may consider his reasoning to be "logical", but other scholars with a great deal more expertise do not. At the most his POV can be presented as a POV, if his views are notable or representative of a particular position within Judaism.”
You say that other scholars with a great deal more expertise do not agree with the “logic” “that It is almost inconceivable that a complete nation should without a basis come to believe this about any book, let alone a book that was published only two or three centuries earlier and whose authorship at the time was known to all. It has never been contemplated about any other book whose author/s were known at the time of publication that it has been falsely held by the nation in which that book was published that the author was somebody completely different, let alone that that author wrote it 1500 years earlier. This in addition to that nation holding a clear belief that it was dictated to that earlier author by God.”
I have a PHD in Talmudic Law (civil jurisprudence) and as a result of this area of expertise i also have a very through knowledge of ancient Israelite history and have also thoroughly read the literature on biblical criticism.
The scholars “with a great deal more expertise” who theorize that the Torah has no basis in truth and was a product of later authors, do not base this theory on any evidence of ancient Israelite history, as you say, but only in all sorts of hypotheses, and do not at all address this logic that you claim they disagree with. They completely ignore this very serious question, and none of them address this issue of how did a nation come to base their complete religion, their very identity, on a book that should have had no significance at all. So your statement that “other scholars with a great deal more expertise do not” agree with this logic” should have some citation of a single scholar that address this issue at all. Because they do not.
And that is if there were still “scholars with a great deal more expertise” that have some view as to the origins of the Torah. The article on the Documentary hypothesis ends with this; "The verities enshrined in older introductions [to the subject of the origins of the Pentateuch] have disappeared, and in their place scholars are confronted by competing theories which are discouragingly numerous, exceedingly complex, and often couched in an expository style that is (to quote John van Seter's description of one seminal work) 'not for the faint-hearted.'"
That is that not only are there no scholars who claim to know the origins of the Torah, there doesn’t even exist a common theory about this issue. In short the only thing that they all agree upon is that they seek alternative theories to the one accepted by the Jewish faith.
The reason that these theories are accepted by all is because if Moses wrote the Torah then it is true, because Moses was writing to his readers about what they themselves experienced. If the Torah is true this creates a big problem in that important issues that people feel they should have the freedom to decide for themselves, such as, is there a God, and does this God demand anything of humanity etc. has an answer. As a result society must have an alternative explanation for the origins of the Torah, which understandably most people choose to believe, despite the fact that it is merely a hypothesis and should not be taken to be the factual truth. And this is all that these theories offer, an alternative explanation.
As to whether this POV is “representative of a particular position within Judaism”, there is not a single position in Judaism that agrees with the possibility that all of Judaism is based on a tradition that began to grow in the era of the 2nd Temple, and by extension that this is a logical possibility. The view that the Jewish religion is based on a book that has nothing to do with either Moses or God, and that this idea is based on a tradition that somehow grew in the 4th century BCE, and that this is a valid and logical explanation as to how the Jews came to believe this, is not a view of Miller, but is representative of every single position within Judaism.
So who are the scholars that address the issue Miller’s logic and disagree with it.
As to Miller himself and his knowledge on this issue, it seems that your assessment of him is based exclusively on the article about him on WP. It is apparent that the article was written from a parishioner’s point of view in what he saw in him as a Rabbi talking to the folk in his congregation. This is not a basis to draw conclusions about his level of knowledge and to determine that there are “other scholars with a great deal more expertise”. L69 (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if Miller’s logic was put in this context it would be obvious that no normal mind would disagree with it; Today scholars believe that the Magna Carta was not written in 1215 and has no connection to King John of England, but was written by several unknown authors beginning in the early 15th century and published some time in the 16th century. The tradition that it was written in 1215 and that it was issued by the authority of the king began to grow in the middle of the 18th century.
However it is very implausible that the whole of the English people, including its great scholars would 1. not have known of this tradition and 2. would have taken some insignificant paper that some person had published and somehow all come to believe that this document is the bedrock of English laws and rights, and that the Magna Carta was authorized by the king of England and signed in 1215, and that the rights enshrined in that document are sacred.
The centuries in regard to the theory about the Torah are considerable less than those in regard to the Magna Carta, in when the Torah is documented in the Mishnah 100 BCE-100CE, as being dictated to Moses. L69 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"; Today scholars believe that the Magna Carta was not written in 1215 and has no connection to King John of England, but was written by several unknown authors beginning in the early 15th century and published some time in the 16th century. The tradition that it was written in 1215 and that it was issued by the authority of the king began to grow in the middle of the 18th century"; gotny' reasonably reliable secondary sourced-but-still-decent-coves on that? And while you're searching, can I rack up what you're rolling?! Basket Feudalist21:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's L69's attempt at a reductio ad absurdam, though it's very confusingly expressed. It's also completely illogical, if that is indeed what is being suggested, since, of course, we have detailed historical records of the Magna Carta, the existence of which does not depend on some sort of "memory" of the English people, for which there is absolutely no evidence at all in the case of the Torah. Relying on folk memory is a completely different issue - for that the British people have King Arthur, for example. Paul B (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HOW VERY DARE YOU HAVE MINE AND ERINS NAMES ON HERE I HAVE TAKEN THEM OF PLUS MUMS AND IF I FIND THEM ON THERE AGAIN I WILL REPORT IT AS YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO HAVE THEM ON THIS SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.237.233 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, you removed cited material that I contributed to the Shakespeare article about merchant activity. You called it false; however, you supplied no evidence that it, in fact, is false. You appeared to remove it merely because you don't agree with it. Can you supply a citation as well? How do you know they are wrong? Otherwise, removing material this way is not appropriate and disrespectful of other contributors. Raryel (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine recently had an experience in which a minor discovery about William Blake was blown up out of all proportion by the publicity department of the university where he works. They claimed he had discovered numerous lost masterpieces by the artist/poet. In fact one of his students had found an uncatalogued copy of one of Blake's books (his Job engravings). These non-existent discoveries were then picked up by the press, causing him considerable embarrassment. This may be another example of a publicity department getting out of hand, not uncommon these days as universities get more "commercial". It seems that the principal scholar involved in this is a legitimate figure, and there is a reference to Jonathan Bate having commented positively on the paper (though it seems a distinctly luke-warm endorsement). It may be that she has made some discoveries beyond what is well-known, and the press have picked it up on a slow news day. My principal worry is the line about the monument. I am getting used to literary scholars saying remarkably dumb things about art. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christine Quinn edit
Could you tell me why you think none of the editors are close to Quinn? That note was there only a few days ago and there are a lot of areas that may have been written by that person which doesn't have references yet. thanks--Aichik (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea whether the editors are close to Quinn or not. As I remember, I said there is no obvious evidence of that. Frankly, it would be astounding if an article on a politician were not often edited by supporters, and sometimes staffers etc. I simply removed the tag because old tags with no evidence of continuing discussion or obvious bias should normally be removed. Paul B (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no idea, you probably shouldn't then. The photo is one of the nicest pictures of her I've ever seen, for example.--Aichik (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I shouldn't ... what? We don't keep tags up endlessly when discussion is non-existent. And we don't just assume things on the basis of speculation. Are you saying we should tag the article because the photo is nice!!!! Paul B (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SHOULDN'T TAKE OUT THE EDIT MESSAGE. Don't be sarcastic. The whole section on her early career is completely unreferenced! Is there a tag I could PUT UP FOR THE PHOTO.--Aichik (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have an odd definition of sarcasm. Are you aware of the definition of shouting? If it is unreferenced use the..."unreferenced" tag! Paul B (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RS/N Discussion
Hi Paul! I started a discussion on Ultimas Noticias and I noticed that you have been involved in discussing sources before. Would you be able to help contribute to the conversation that I started so we can have a more thorough discussion? Thanks for any help! :) Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--or tea if you insist.
Coffee on me.
I see you have an interest in racial theories: the cite to Madison Grant caught my eye. I write to let you know that you have an unknown twin across the Atlantic. He is like you an erudite fellow, a voracious reader. You are English; he is an Anglophile--an American Tory to the point of treason. He lives in Madison Grant's former summer home in Maine, and claims to be working on a Madison Grant biography--though he's threatened such a biography for a decade with little evidence he will carry it out. The Madison Grant article seems to me to need of improvement. Maybe I can persuade the two of you to shoulder your shovels and get to work. ElijahBosley(talk ☞)14:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that we require greater amounts of anesthetic - I had to have a biopsy a while ago and the nurse thought it would only take 5 minutes so she had time to do it there and then. It took longer than that to get enough anesthetic into me! Ditto at dentists. It was nice to find there was a reason for it. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be a super-blond as a child. Now my hair is just nondescript colour. I don't want to think of dentists at the moment. A check-up is due. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - clicked the wrong link and didn't notice I was on the wrong User's talk page. Mea culpa. (But if a sigh applies to anything you have been dealing with, feel free to make it your own.) Agricolae (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Montague William Douglas
Dear Paul, I must appreciate your efforts and love for precision and details. I placed the Article with a few line only yesterday, and Lo ! it has grown into an exquisite work in 24 hours! Great!
I have a picture of him with Maulvi Sher Ali in the London mosque (1936) can I place it in the article?
Sincerely , ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul, I believe Montagu William Douglas was known (I read about him) as SIR Montagu William Douglas ? Was he ever Knighted as well ? thank you. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The letter written by Montagu William Douglas on 29 July 1939 is here [6].
I reproduce the letter in typed English:
29th July 1939
United Service Club
Pall Mall S W 1
Dear Imam sahib,
The case against Mirza Ghulam Ahmad might have been tried, either in Amritsar or Gurdaspur District. It was transferred to Gurdaspur; and I tried it at Batala in 1897.
The evidence was false; and thus I acquitted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
(*******Signed*******)
[Montagu William Douglas]
(I have received this letter on 31th July 1939 by post)
(signed J.D.Shams)
Thank you for bringing some much needed common sense into the discussion about Hitler's religion. As you can see the edit warring has gotten a little carried away and we have both (me an ozzy) been given citations. I hope more people get involved in this highly controversial and highly important discussion Greengrounds (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
June Revolution
Hello
Could you please provide a source for the statement that "anyone who continued to fight was shot immediately" in the final stages of the rising. I have not been able to find any suggestion in serious histories that repression on this scale occurred (note the relative casualties of Government forces and rioters) and it does seem to be derived from the dramatic finale of the musical. By the way my editing out of references to the death of Eponine and the rather self-evident last sentence that "the forces of the insurrection were spent" were not intended as "vandalism". Just an attempt to get an article on a significant event in early 19th century French history back on track. Thank you. Buistr (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS- I have received a "Dis-ambiguation" notice on my Talk Page. I could not understand what is required of me to do? Will you help. Thanks.
--ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul, I was wondering what the deal was with all that about the deletion of Spelling of Shakespeare's name and was on the point of inquiring. But now I see what has happened. And it's all for the good. I was never very happy with the move to Spelling of William Shakespeare's name. But I figured that if you, as the article's creator and major contributor, were happy with the move, or could at least accept it, I could live with it too. Now I see that, quite the contrary, you were not happy with it. Glad that you and Tom saw this through. If I had known that the discussion forum was the talk page of Shakespeare's influence, I would have been glad to go there and register my Support. Great that this worked out. Thanks! --Alan W (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good work
Thanks for that. As an aside, the other interesting thing about 7:157 is that it's the basis for claiming that Muhammad was illiterate, although as you can see from the disparate translations, even if this verse were meant to refer to Muhammad (as I think it wasn't, read the preceding verses which are about Moses who is similarly called prophet and messenger) this isn't clear either, as al-ummi can be interpreted in a number of ways. I'm reminded of "seal of the prophets," a hugely important doctrinal point found in the Qur'an only in an ambiguous aside about a different subject (33:40.) Whereas otherwise the central doctrines of the Qur'an aren't ambiguous at all, but are stated clearly and repeated at every opportunity. Call it my original research, but if Muhammad – who didn't shy away from grand claims – had meant to say that his coming was predicted in the Torah and the Gospels, this would have been a very big deal and would have formed a central component of his pitch.
Huh, this article is quite a mess.Stenen Bijl (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your invaluable service, as exemplified here. Mootros (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC
Sadness...
The predetermined, accusatory group-mind here is dead-set against me, Lord Barlow -- for some reason my IP is labelled as a "spammer", God knows why. In any case, I am a scholar who has written peer-reviewed articles on many things, but it seems the editorial satraps simply want to destroy me and I am seriously downcast I cannot share valid, fascinating information on Wikipedia due to these factors...
I don't want to exile myself. Do you know how I can separate myself from the apparent weirdo who advocated pedophilia apparently sharing my IP? I am not in need of being watched by agents of enforcement here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My undercover Hawaiian activities in search of the Lost Rossetti must remain, for the moment, untold. I see myself as a combination of Jack Nicholson in Chinatown and Alec Guinness in Our Man in Havana. Paul B (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that you review the sources a bit more closely per your !vote.
by my count, I see
Indian Country Today - possibly rs
National Catholic Reporter blog - possibly rs
futureprimitive podcast - self published podcast, primary source interview with subject
futureprimitive podcast (x2) - self published podcast, primary source interview with subject
own site
primary interview with subject
WP - WP is certainly a reliable source, but the article is written by one of the 13 grandmothers per the attribution at the bottom
book - consisting of essays written by subjects (primary)
out of babylon podcast - self published primary interview with subject
out of babylon podcast (x2)- self published primary interview with subject
documentary, but not independent, as the "Center for Sacred Studies" that made the documentary is closely associated with the grandmothers and has many members in common
Have you seen what's on TV tonight? What's the betting it brings a lot of the loonies misguided contributors out of the woodwork? Deb (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, There's a bit of an argie-bargie here over whether the terms are completely interchangeable or not. One of the refs is "The Death of History Painting in Nineteenth-Century Art?" PDF, Visual Culture in Britain, Volume 6, Number 1, Summer 2005, pp. 1–13(13) which does use them rather interchangably, but perhaps you agree this is not good usage outside C19 art? There's stuff on talk. I'm with Ruskin: "What do you at present mean by historical painting? Now-a-days it means the endeavour, by the power of imagination, to portray some historical event of past days." Unfortunately I can't find an equally clear definition more recently than 1853, or one that specifically contrasts the two terms from any date. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you (et al) talk of "History Painting" and "historical subjects" for the most part, which is fine. But I'm short of a ref saying clearly that (say) Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne is history painting but not, in modern usage, "historical painting". Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that might be hard to find. Part of the problem is that these usages are contextual not rigid. I doubt anyone will say it's not an "historical painting", because it would be redundant unless there are Bacchic fundamentalists out there who think these events really happened as the Scriptures described them. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. This all blew up when I objected to the name of Fram's new Category:Historical painters, which he now says is intended to cover all painters of History Painting - far too wide a group imo anyway, and ambiguously named. Thanks for your comments anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I saw a reference to a "category" in the discussion but was rather confused by it. That would be a pretty useless category. I just noticed this [7] discussion, indicative of the confusion of some editors concerning the term. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best i can come up at short notice: [8]. or Freedman, Classical Myths in Italian Renaissance Painting p.132 "in the 15th and 16th cvenury paintings on historical and mthological subjects were both subumed under the category of historia". Paul B (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the websites of the National Galleries of both London & DC have handy definitions (ref 1 in article) emphasizing that history painting covers myth & the bible etc. That was an earlier battle on the talk page, complaining about the Titian poesie for the lead image. It's combatting Fram's new assertion that "historical painting" is just a synonym that's tricky. I may have added more to the article on this since you saw it. It may be under control now. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Staff of Moses 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(Click show ⇨)
jew">http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5-aaron-s-rod "Aaron's rod" The Jewish Encyclopedia]</ref></blockquote>
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Christopher Sly 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:
Shakespeare: The Comedies'', edited by [[Charles Cowden Clarke]] and [[Mary Cowden Clarke]] (1830)]]
I had a rather short time to write what I wrote at this AfD, to which you responded, and although I thought my meaning was clear I realize in retrospect it might not have been. Since it's not really relevant to the AfD I'm clarifying here. I wasn't referring to child-protection legislation generally, which of course every civilized country has, but rather a specific law the U.S. Congress passed, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which apparently Tony Blair liked when he heard about and wanted to emulate. Parliament obliged him with the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (I think), on which we don't yet have an article.
One of the provisions of the ASFA was to provide local child-protection agencies with cash bonuses if they were able to get children out of foster care and back into a permanent home within a certain period of time. The good intention was to prevent children from spending most if not all of their childhood floating from foster home to foster home; the hell it paved the road to was some local agencies just putting kids into foster care, no matter how bad their homes weren't, just to score an easy, quick adoption and get the money. It was a perverse incentive—the old "I'm gonna write me a minivan!" problem.
The UK law included the same provision, and as I remember saying to myself when I read that, it would create the same problem. Based on the articles I read online and the article at issue in the AfD, it did. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for the details. I was unaware that there was a direct influence. Sorry if I cam over a bit "sniffy". Paul B (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FAC run invitation
You seem to be quite a good art researcher and editor. You are welcome to help the upcoming WP:FAC runs for Drowning Girl and Whaam!. I had thought that September 28th was the 50th anniversary of both of their first exhibitions. After getting Drowning Girl all built up for its FA run, I figured out it actually exhibited in April 1963 as well. Since I have done so much work on it, I am still going to put it through FAC as soon as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1 passes. However, I am also going to start building up Whaam! in hopes of getting it to FA before its 50th anniversary and in time for a WP:TFA appearance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do my best to help with them. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2013
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:._Montagu_William_Douglas.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Montagu_William_Douglas_Letter_dated_29th_July_1939.jpg){kind=link}