User talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 4

Jesus article
I know that using the word "purportedly" kinda sounds biased, but I couldn't think of anything else to put there.. See, I believe that if we say "Jesus Christ was" just alone and by itself like that, and then there's all those other cited statements saying that there's no definite proof of his existence, it would be bad to then say something that indicates tells a person he does or does not exist.

I.. Actually, I don't want to get too involved in this whole thing. In fact, you may revert that edit if you want.. I suppose, if you still see a problem with it and/or you think this doesn't improve things, but I just wanted you to know that as you were the one that reverted that edit. I'd mention this on the talk page of the article, but like I said; I don't want to get involved. It's frustrating to be looking over this article and trying to discuss this whole thing, just try to take note of my reason for making that edit.

..I hope that what I have said here makes sense. If not, then, whatever..

Don't feel obligated to respond to this. Not that you can't but it's not really necessary since I don't think I'll be involved in the article any more unless there's like a typo or something... Well, even then I'd have to really, really want to correct that typo.. Repku (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel
If I haven't said so already, thanks for your pertinent edit re Drunkenness of Noah. Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eakins
And thanks also for the distinction made here. Best regards, JNW (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PoS
Hallo Paul, he has contacted me via e-mail too, though to complain about my calling some of his material POV. He probably mistook me for someone else as I didn't do such a thing. I agree that dealing with him is not easy but his website is a good one and blacklisting it was a major loss. The IP crusade to delete information is worrying too. The anon even went so far as to warn me of edit warring. I agree: PoS.com should be readmitted. Str1977 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Boydell Shakespeare Gallery help
Hello, Paul. I'm one of the people working on the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery article, trying to bring it up to FA level. While we seem to have come pretty close on the historical, social and literary aspects of John Boydell's venture, Johnbod points out that the article is a bit light on summarising the artistic criticism. There's the start of a discussion of this here: Talk:Boydell_Shakespeare_Gallery. Johnbod suggested your name as a possible advisor in this area. It seems the key areas to give more attention are:


 * The printmaking styles used (line engravings, stipple, mezzotint) and their effect on the folio's reception at the time and since.
 * A way to include representative criticism of the paintings and sculptures, without overloading the article. There were about 170 paintings by nearly 30 artists, so complete coverage is impossible. How do we best include some criticism without exercising our own POV?

I would be grateful if you could find the time to have a look at the article and discussion and offer a few pointers on how best to handle these issues (and anything else that strikes you as needing attention.) Rupert Clayton (talk)


 * Thanks for the quick response. I guess we'll try to muddle along in addressing these issues. (Well, more Awadewit than me, as she knows a lot more about Boydell, and is generally responsible for the article's current impressiveness. Hope you enjoy the Millais exhibit. Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?
I noticed this only now. GoodDay asked,
 * How's the dispute go about Jesus's image? Was he white with straight brown hair & blues eyes? Or was he brown, with short curly black hair & brown eyes. Interesting indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

and you replied,
 * The dispute has been archived by Slrubenstein, depite the fact that the debate was clearly not concluded. Paul B (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would you say this? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not true. In general I try never to archive ongoing discussions (and I think it was kind of bitchy for you to suggest I would; even if I had done the archiving the proper thing to do would have been for you to restore the archived material and to leave a note for me explaining your perfectly good reason for doing so). In any event, I have not archived discussion on the Jesus talk page in a long time and if you were just to take the time to look at the edit history you would see it was not me. It is fairly obvious to me that you thought I had done it. My question is, why did you think I had done it? Why would you think this lacking any evidence, and in the face of conflicting evidence? That is my question 9and I thought this was obvious). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"... It was an honest mitstake on my part. I certainly do not that can be a justification for offensive accusations. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC) at Talk:Jesus"
 * I understand that you mean an 'honest mistake' in the first sentence, although I have never known what that phrase means. There is a missing word in the second sentence, would you mind clarifying your response? I do not want to make assumptions about what you intended to say, and there is a good chance I will be quoting it again. cygnis insignis 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"An honest mistake is one which is not intended. 'Honest' is simply an intensifier. If you don't know what it means then you should. Only thoroughly reprehensible individuals collect evidence against editors, especially evidence as feeble as this. The missing word is 'think', a activity that I suggest you should occupy yourself with. It should read 'do not think that'. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)"


 * An intended mistake?! I suppose it might read as choosing the wrong person to become 'engaged to'. It is not any clearer to me, but anyway ... Who made the offensive accusations, you or Slrubenstein? Was it an act of contrition? cygnis insignis 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Read the comments. I've replied enough to your childish attempts at taunting. Paul B (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)"


 * Thanks for the reply. I simply hope that you don't intend to make any more mistakes. cygnis insignis 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a liar, although I still honestly do not understand how you could have misread the edit history. As to my position on images, I do nto call everyone who disagrees with me a troll; I persist in my argument about notability because I believe in it. That I may be the only one is irrelevant to my voicing my concerns - you will note that I never deleted the image. Since you are well aware of how strongly I feel about this, I hope you can appreciate that my never having deleted the image is a measure of my respect for the number of people who disagree with me. But you are wrong to suppose there is something specific about this image. A year or two ago there was discussion on images and I made the same points about images in the jesus article. I have also made the same point about the use of images in the Muhommed article. I have not commented on the History of Jesus article as it is not on my watchlist; I cannot watch everything. But I have taken the same position concerning images wherever they have come up in an article I am active on. My reasons are sincere and consistent. Your last comment on the issue was (unlike some of your comments) substantive and respectful and I tried to respond in kind. If you feel my final response to you on this issue (i.e. my response to your last comment) was disrespectful or insincere, well, I am sorry for that. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

racist
I've been going through some of the articles regarding AIT & OIT and every single one of your posts is in support of the "Aryan Invasion THEORY" which has been proven false and debunked for several years now.

The fact is, as Voltaire said, "Everything has come down to us from the Ganges..."! India is home to the oldest language, oldest religion, oldest civilization, and has given the world Yoga, meditation, mathematics, astronomy, astrology, linguistics, among other things. So I would STFU if I were you right away. India was highly prosperous and affluent with many kingdoms when the rest of the world, especially your ancestors from Europe, were running around naked and killing each other.

You are NO scholar, have NO credibility, and show a desire to perpetuate racist ideas such as AIT etc. You have no business commenting/editing things on Wikipedia although this doesn't matter much as it is just a stupid website but regardless of that, go back to your bible-thumping ways and continue to believe that the world is only 6000 years old! Remember, jeebus, I mean jesus himself came to India to study Vedanta & Yoga.

Idiots like you, and that kike Witzel who are anti-Hindu/anti-Indian will never understand due to your stupid Eurocentric approach.


 * "modicum of civility"? You mean as in the posts you make? Great joke, but I'll take a pass. Regardless, I never said there were no migrations that happened in ancient times.  However, Vedic culture and Aryan civilization is Indian.  It did NOT come from a foreign land as many clowns like Witzel propose. Arya itself is Sanskrit and to suggest that Vedic culture including Sanskrit came from outside India is appalling and incredibly racist.  It is not surprising however that the western educational system perpetuates this nonsense because if they accepted the fact that Vedic culture and Sanskrit were indigenous to India, their (Western) culture, would be null and void; as in NO culture whatsoever.  Great ideas always met with fierce resistance but the truth will prevail.--


 * "that kike Witzel" is professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University. Only a real clown could dismiss someone of such intellectal status. Have you ever read a word he has written? Why on earth would you care whether the RV was written in "India" or "Afghanistan"? In the bronze age no difference existed between these countries. Can you even conceive of the fact that to ancient peoples there were no national borders, just geographical features and tribal territories? It's laughable to say that "to suggest that Vedic culture including Sanskrit came from outside India is appalling and incredibly racist." It's no more racist than saying that English originated from outside England, or that Greek originated from outside Greece. It has nothing whatever to do with race. Only a pathological nationalist can't see that. As for the preposterous claim that Western culture "would be null and void; as in NO culture whatsoever" if IE originated in India, just how dumb is that? Is it null and void if IE originated in the Ukraine, or if it originated in Anatolia? How does the geographical origin of IE in the bronze age have any relevance at all to the validity of Western Culture, a concept that did not even exist at the time? Is Abrahamic culture invalidated if Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Ethiopia? It's a nonsensical argument. Paul B (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "such intellectal status"? Do you need a dictionary in order to help you spell? Yes, that KIKE witzel, whether he is at Harvard or po dunk community college, wallows in bigotry and misinformation. He, being a philologist, cannot comment on the historicity of a culture or civilization when HISTORIANS have provided substantial evidence that the AIT is absolute bunk.  It's hard to reason with people who believe the earth is 6000 years old... anyway, you're not going to change you're mind and neither am I.  So I suggest we leave it at that.
 * It's called a typo. Paul B (talk) 13:43, 07 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Burchett
I'd be grateful if you could take a look at this. A spin-off of South Kensington system coming soon. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops
I undid your undo thinking you had done the thing you were undoing but actually undid. My bad. Peter Deer (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger and Nazism
Paul, I see that you were none too pleased about my revisions made to the "Heidegger and Nazism" article. I expected someone to do something like that. Do you understand Heidegger's work? (Do you happen to believe that understanding Heidegger's work is not relevant to a narrative about his activity?) The neat thing about revisions is that the evidence is, then, right there for doing hermeneutical work on variance of readings, vis-a-vis available scholarship on the matter. So, I've copied your pages, and I shall have a good time with your preferences, via another venue. Gedavis (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Historical persecution by Christians
I have nominated Historical persecution by Christians, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Francesco Bartolozzi
Hi Paul, I was researching (through Google) information about the author of a hand-colored lithograph that I inherited. The artist's name is Franceso Bartolozzi. I found the Wikipedia page on Bartolozzi, and saw your detail of the stipple effect.

I was wondering if anybody would want a color photo of the lithograph, or a detail from it. (I could attempt this, although I currently have it framed and behind UV-protected glass).

I don't understand the copyright information. Would publishing a photo from my private collection violate some kind of copyright protection?

Also, I didn't see this piece listed in the lists of his works, and don't know, for example, how many of these were printed. The piece is titled "The Hours" and says "No. 1 of the British Poets", and also "Vide Gray's Ode to Spring". On the lefthand side under the edge of the lithograph it says "Maria Cosway pinx" (I believe that means it is copied from a painting by Cosway) and under the righthand side "F. Bartolozzi R.A. & Engraver to his Majesty Sculp". Across the bottom it says "London Publish'd April 4 1788 by Thos Macklin, No. 30 Fleet Street".

The lithograph shows dancing women. It is absolutely gorgeous lithograph, hand-washed I believe, of dancing ladies with gossamer wings and filmy gowns, above whom are little cupids. (The stippling is so fine that you can see the transparency of the wings and their gowns.) The hands and feet are very delicately done.

A moment ago I actually did find a reference to this under "Maria Cosway" in Wikipedia. Under the title "Works" on the page, it says "Her principal works engraved and exhibited at the Royal Academy are:", and then there is a bulleted item that says "'The Hours' by F. Bartolozzi". I'm not exactly sure what this means. The only way of showing a painting to the public was to have the Royal Engraver make a facsimile of it?

Do you know anything about the number of copies that were originally made of each lithograph, especially of the ones that were hand-washed?

This lithograph came down through my mother's side of the family. After my father was placed in a home for Alzheimer's patients, I took it home with me. I then took it down to a local frame shop. We discovered, to our horror, that the last time it had been framed, whoever had done the job had used paper and tape containing acid, and these had yellowed tremendously. Fortunately, the lithograph has spared. It is now framed using only acid-free paper, and placed behind UV-protective glass.

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to indent under here.

Thanks for the information. I mistakenly referred to this piece as a lithograph. I should have said engraving. Pardon my ignorance!

I have thought about making a separate page for "The Hours", and then making a link from where "The Hours" is mentioned on the Maria Cosway page. I left a message over there to ask their opinion.

Is there a way that I could post some photos in a temporary area for you to look at? I don't see a way to put a photo in this talk area.

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Hours", by Francesco Bartolozzi, Now Available
Hello again Paul, and thank you for all of your help! I have been working hard for the last couple of days on taking the photos and creating the page for "The Hours" by Francesco Bartolozzi.

I uploaded all of the photos to Wikipedia Commons, simply because the directions that I found prompted me in that direction. After some thought, I'm not sure whether I have them marked right or not. I did put the PD-old in the Permission area. But later I read again where you said, "Then you can add it to whatever article you wish that might seem appropriate," and I wasn't sure what that meant. Myabe you could look at one of the images on the page and tell me if there is anything I should add. (The images were all marked the same as far as the Permissions go.)

Wow, it sure took me a while (pretty much all day today!) to learn how to push the images around on the page. Unless you resort to tables, you can't make them line up right, can't control the size, and can't control how the text wraps underneath. But I finally got it in the format I want it in, using sort of a gallery layout for quite a few of the images.

I had the article in sandbox format. Then I decided to just go ahead and put it up, here. I linked it into the Bartolozzi and Cosway pages, and within five minutes --- BLAM --- someone came along and busted my photo layouts. I decided not to challenge the format change for the three large photos (which I originally had across the top), but I changed the detail area back to the way it was. The text no longer lined up.

If you want to look at the way I had it before in my sandbox, it's here. Maybe you could tell me if you like the images across the top better, or the way it has been changed? —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for you (besides looking at my work and giving any suggestions): the person who changed this also changed the title. It was 'The Hours (engraving by Francesco Bartolozzi)' and was changed to 'The Hours (engraving)'. Now you have to hunt for the artist's name in the text. Not sure I like that. But beyond that, there were three pages that this was linked into. I noticed that one of them redirected me to the new page name. So all three of the links I put in will automatically correct? Or do I need to go back and change those (or change the title back)?, because I'm not sure the person who changed this knows where to find them all.

I did put in quotes the first stanza of the poem. I actually found the full poem under the Thomas Gray archives at ThomasGray.org, but noted that they have a copyright at the bottom. I wasn't sure whether the Thomas Gray poetry is still under copyright, or whether that copyright simply applied to the format of their web page. ?? I decided that the rest of the poem didn't really add anything to the page, and so just decided to stick with the quote of the first stanza. Do I still need a reference at the bottom to some source for that though?

I made a reference under one of the photographs to the term fauxing, and discovered that Wiki didn't have a page for that. So I created one. I guess if someone doesn't like my definition, they'll edit it. :)

I wasn't sure whether to include the photos of all of the stuff at the bottom of the engraving, but you can't see it very well in any of the larger photos, so I did. Besides, I think that some people may not know the pinxit and sculpsit terminology, and so that could be informative.

Well, that's all for now!

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Polls
Opinion poll data from the immediate post-war years confirm the limited impact of Allied efforts. In October 1946, when the Nuremberg Trial ended, only 6 percent of Germans were willing to admit that they thought it had been 'unfair', but four years later one in three took this view. That they felt this way should come as no surprise, since throughout the years 1945-49 a consistent majority of Germans believed that 'Nazism was a good idea, badly applied'. In November 1946, 37 per cent of Germans questioned in a survey of the American zone took the view that 'the extermination of the Jews and Poles and other non-Aryans was necessary for the security of Germans'.  Tony Judt's Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 (2005; paperback, 2006, Penguin Press) Tony Judt (born 1948, London, England) is a British historian, author and professor. He specializes in European history and is the Erich Maria Remarque Professor in European Studies at New York University and Director of NYU's Erich Maria Remarque Institute. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books.

However I know them from a second source, a scholary bulletin with articles written by university researchers belonging to a joint German-Polish research group.So at least two sources can be given if needed--Molobo (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read on No Original Policy-we are not here to put forward our personal views. And what else then mas murder "extermination" means I don't know.--Molobo (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems the authors have chosen extermination as proper translation. Do you have any source disputing that ?--Molobo (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry at all, I have the second work right by me. And we already have the quote from Judt's book. Oh I forgot, I also have his article in a political weekly. Three sources. Have a nice day. --Molobo (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly known what was said in the survey. All three sources inform of this. There is no Wikipedia rule against scholary sources that have english translations.--Molobo (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC) I see you have not answered my question about your "three sources", (though they all seem to be the same person). I see you don't even read my comments. " a scholary bulletin with articles written by university researchers belonging to a joint German-Polish research group". I already informed you about this. The information is taken from the books and quite well sourced. However please do read my comments in the future, as answering them without reading them in the first place won't produce an productive discussion.--Molobo (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Since this was just a discussion there was no point for me to source it.--Molobo (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArtJournal.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ArtJournal.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Paul

I´ll reply to your concerns regarding Coon in a few days, quite busy at the moment, Be well

FYI
Given your carefully-thought-out and strong views about the use of images in relation to articles concerning religions, I thought you might be interested in this (the "warning" up top). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo / Brahmo Samaj merger
Dear Mr.Barlow.I am appending in-line the text of a message I have sent to Mr.S.L.Rubenstein (whose message to you above I have just read). Having read Mr.Rubsenstein's FYI message though I feel no need to modify my stand. I wish to formally oppose the merger of Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj articles. No doubt over a period of time cross-pollination between these 2 different pages shall be useful and strengthen the Brahmo plant, but now is not the time. Let Brahmo develop independently from Brahmo Samaj without killing it's spirit - then let there be harmonious marriage once maturity is attained and if they approve each other. Every fact / statement on Brahmo will be to WP standards and NPOV enforced- it is evolving independently of Brahmo Samaj. I request you to go through the discussion page at Brahmo for its ethos and philosophy. My text to Mr.Rubenstein follows "Dear Mr.S.L.Rubenstein. Mr.Barlow has just placed a "merge" tag on Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj. It appears to be triggered by a message you sent him to which I am not privy. This "merge" tag is quite unacceptable to me and is certain to result in edit wars. It is unfortunate (in my view) that this is being sought to be done when the Brahmo page is under expansion and development to the eventual highest standards of Wikipedia - whereas the Brahmo Samaj page is relatively stagnant / static and fails miserably to conform to WP despite passage of time. After going through certain User Talks between yourself and Mr.Barlow I gather that both have you have interacted often. I would not like our little Brahmo article to be used to settle "Abrahamic" debates nor will we take sides but we shall resolutely defend our faith in public in complete accordance with Wikipedia norms, protocols and conventions. Your point about "images" is a core issue for Brahmos - you appear to have caught the essence of it (which imho Mr. Barlow has not) but again I am not privy to what you have communicated to Mr.Barlow. Ram Mohun Roy was influenced by many things (some of which are not in the public domain nor should ever be), but as I have said (to you) the fact that he may have been influenced by Judeo (?) ideas is unproveable. You can be assured that User:Ronosen shall not make such unsubstantiated claims in WP again. The fact that Mr. Barlow uploaded an image to Protap Chunder Mozoomdar without objection is irrelevant- since Mr.Mozoomdar (in our view) is not a Brahmo. Mr.Barlow may care to re-read Mr.Sib Chunder Deb's famous 1878 reply to Mr.Mozoomdar who was then Asst. Secretary of the Brahmo Samaj of India. Had Mr. Barlow uploaded an image of Debendranath Tagore to the Brahmo Samaj page there would have been uproar. This is also not the place or time or forum to educate Mr.Barlow about all aspects of Brahmoism. I am also copying this to Mr.Barlow and formally voicing my opposition to his merger proposal and requesting him to remove the merger tag himself. If at all it is possible we should all resolve this privately on MY Talk page rather than on the Brahmo Samaj Talkpage which is like throwing a match into a pool of petrol (gasoline). My apology for any indiscretion/ lapse/ inadvertent offence. Yvantanguy (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)" Yvantanguy (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

race jesus
paul original work can be challenged and removed you must know this, second of all the artist mention is Diego Velázquez a european just like the german Albrecht Dürer diego is not a meso, saying that the spainard and german are some how paiting RACIAL different jesus is just ridiclous and makes no sence than to top it of there is niether version of there jesus on the page to make a comparsion,so i went over to  albrects article and seen a dipiction of jesus he had painted and he had brown hair not blonde like the statement i removed, but unless you think  that blonde people are "racialy" different than brown and black haired  europeans" so i guese we are still makeing racial catagories acording to adolf hitlers aryan model, the statement  is giberish and is origianl work and makes no sence--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

the times of the paintings by these two painters is from the 16th/and or 17th century not the 20th as you pointed out,so you are comparing a time when this was not thought of in 16th century but forceing this disreguarded notion which has been cast down by modern day science,than make the statement more percise and include paintings by both artist in the paragraph,and th article mentions hispanics why cant it just be left as ,thought you do know that many spainards are decended from celts just like irish are--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

okay paul maybe you are right and i am confusing at whether it is true or not maybe if we could just leave out the hispanic part and leave the meditreanean and it would still have the same meaning,would that be a problem and maybe have each of there represenation of jesus in the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert Wars
You left me a message within my Talk page which indicated that I could be at risk of having my account blocked. I trust that the same kind of message was sent to Mr. Peter Grey, as he persists upon deleting the entries that I make within the Origin of Language article. (See the History tab for that article.) What do you suggest for resolving the issue, where I insist upon making an entry that he insists upon deleting?

My personal objection with removing my entry is that my entry points out that the details entered are not facts, though otherwise, they are presented as such. Presenting hypotheses as facts is a problem. Would you not agree? Any constructive, unbiased assistance would be greatly appreciated.

--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the additional feedback. It was somewhat constructive, but unfortunately, it was not unbiased.  Oh well. Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nordic theory discussion page
You removed a valid claim. You may disagree but that doesn't mean that you can just delete it.

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. You know very well I have only reverted you once today, as one among many other editors. Paul B (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "24 hour period." Besides, you were tag-teaming with Peter, so the two of you count together.  He's reverted me four times and you did it three times. --Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's within the rules, isn't it? I'd never even heard of Peter before yesterday, so the idea that I am working in a "tag team" with him is absurd. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This warning is groundless. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul, I would like to offer an apology for having been such a nuisance within the Origin of Language article. I do not consent that my intentions were inappropriate, but I wholeheartedly admit that my methods were.  I was wrong in the way I handled the situation, and I apologize.  (It has been an invaluable learning experience for me.) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

re Masculinity
I'm copying this from the reliable sources board in case you miss it in the sea of recent postings. It a reply to your question:


 * Masculinity is convinced that there is an International Gay Conspiracy, which is really, to confuse matters more, an unwitting part of a wider "heterosexual" conspiracy to construct rigid separation of gay and straight identities in both Western and non-Western cultures. It is therefore 'dangerous' for those who promote this ideology on Wikipedia to have this fact revealed. Supporters of this gay/hetero ideology therefore have to 'suppress' the evidence. In fact there are many genuinely good sources that do discuss the legitimate aspects of the issues to which he is referring, but in a balanced and measured way, without resorting to wild hypoerbole and conspiracy theory. We have already included these here and it would be good to be able to progress on this without having efforts at NPOV destroyed by the promotion of fringe theories. I wonder if this issue would be worth raising on the Fringe Theories noticeboard? Paul B (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this gets more and more interesting. Thanks for filling me in. I've not tried to figure out what's going on in Non-western concepts of male sexuality (tho it's a subject in which I would be interested) and have had no dealings with Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but a scan of their current TOC suggests they favor "hard science", so the more concrete User:Masculinity makes the "conspiracy", the more appropriate WP:FT/N seems. If User:Masculinity is not really proposing an explicit conspiracy (like I said, still haven't read the stuff) but merely personalizing the actions of what User:Masculinity considers a pernicious influence of outsiders' perspectives, then a re-write describing that influence (as can be documented) without the ad hominem might be a compromise agreeable to all, at least once User:Masculinity lets go of Masculinity for boys.

My ignorant $0.02.

I'll try and read thru the Non-western concepts article some time in the next day or two. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My prayers have been answered
Read this. The gay mafia is a powerful force, apparently. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jodha Akbar
Thanks Paul. Hope you will watch the page and help me keep the vandalism of ShShShSh out of it. Itihaaskar (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL Paul, it will be very funny if you collaborate with this sockpuppeter. But it's up to you. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well this is another case Paul. It is not a fact, many people on television disagree with that. The director himself states he has consulted historians, and at the beginning of the film there is a disclaimer about the name. I've made a copyedit on the page, and it was based on my analysis on the talk page. Nobody known whether Jodhaa was or wasn't his wife, and two other editors agreed that their views cannot be regarded as facts. My suggestion was to write it in a neutral way, "historians claim, disagree etc.,..." but not - that's like that! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Caldwell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Caldwell.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

?
Origin of the Nilotic peoples that article is so biased i dont know where to start its a mess check it out--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Judah_tamar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Judah_tamar.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU ≈ talk 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:MariaCosway.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MariaCosway.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU ≈ talk 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You just reversed my edit and deleted my discussion without giving any reason.
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.56 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No I didn't. See edit summaries and Talk: William Blake. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1066
I'm sorry if I snapped, I shouldn't have. I was just aghast at someone else I've otherwise seen removing such nonsense from similar articles saying something that appeared to be completely off-base; and had just spent a good couple of hours reading through the literature to come to my conclusions, so when you seemed to ignore it I reacted badly. Of course, I still think you're wrong, but I expressed myself too strongly. Its also true that one forgets people have different levels of tolerance for that sort of thing. In general, I suggest you read the Mark Cohen piece I quote again, because it demonstrates why this is part of a politically motivated revisionism that we need to avoid giving undue legitimacy, as we try to do for all such politically-motivated revisionisms. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine.
According to Wikipedia, the Picts were in Scotland in the time period of the article. What's the point by Celtic Harper in inserting eschewed information? 78.19.160.11 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what point you are making. Are you saying that we should not use the name "Scotland" for this period, because the Gaelic "Scots" were not present? That's true, but its an unresolvable problem with national names. For example there is an article on Prehistoric France, even though the Franks had not yet arrived, and so the name 'France' is anachronistic. In this case the name is just the most useful way of identifying a location. Paul B (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yups, generally agree, but from what I read elsewhere on Wikipedia, and my own private readings, there were in fact more Celts in "England and Wales" than there were in Scotland, where the Picts ruled until Irish Gaels invaded in about 500 AD. Are the Picts the same as Celts? I know that history analysis is evolving all of the time, but I believe that the two groups are still being classed as distinct cultures. 78.19.160.11 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a theory that some Picts were not Celts (in the sense that they did not speak a Brythonic language), but I think that's fairly fringy these days. Picts is just a generic term for non-Romanised Britons of the north. See Picts. I'm sure there were more Celts in what we now call England and Wales, because the highlands does not sustain a large population. Paul B (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Abanindranath.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Abanindranath.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Zoroaster
Hey man, why did you remove the birthplace as well? Mallerd (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I did, Clorumia. Can you explain why Clorumia is not mentioned anywhere in en:wikipedia at all? Mallerd (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to say that even though myths are not facts per sé, they are still mentioned in Wikipedia. However, when I searh for Clorumia in Wikipedia, there is nothing. It seems that there are enough references to Clorumia as the birthplace. Mallerd (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but Heraclius paid a visit to Clorumia with the intention of desecrating a Zoroastrian temple as retribution for the Persians taking the Holy Cross. Doesn't a Roman emperor make Clorumia noteworthy? Mallerd (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Noel Pemberton Billing
You left the comment "no he was not campaigning against "the risks of homosexual behaviour in a time of war". There are no such "risks". Allow me to disagree.

Of course there are risks, the number one risk was blackmail. The time period was 70 years ago, and homosexuals were a serious security risk. Regardless of your personal proclivities, homosexuals were a security problem during WWII because of the prevalence of homosexual behaviour in German and Nazi culture, and the use of homosexuals to entrap opponents.

BTW, it's not appropriate to make changes to other's contributions without asking first. I don't mind discussing complex topics like homosexuals in high places, but I'm not inclined to countenance errors. I plan to revert your changes for this reason. Please discuss first. Bushcutter (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is entirely normal to make changes without asking other editors - especially when they are manifestly motivated by prejudice. You clearly know so little about this that you seem to think that Billing was concerned with events 70 years ago in WW2. You even talk nonsense about Nazis being homosexual. You are aware are you not that they eliminated homosexual members in 1934, strengthened anti-homosexual legislation and imprisoned homosexuals? No that this matters a jot, since Billing's campaign was in 1918, during WW1. As for blackmail, it's true that homosexuality can be a reason for it, so can heterosexuality. Never heard of Mata Hari? Unrestrained heterosexual behaviour is far more commonly associated with such problems than homosexuality. Honeytraps are easier in times of war when people are likely to act recklessly. Prostitution, promiscuity and rape are far more common in wartime. Spread of venereal disease was one of the main physical dangers that threatened the health of troops. You think homosexuality led to that? Nope. It was heterosexual prostitution. Pemberton Billing's campaign was based on an irrational fear of 'abnorality', which he associated with non-Anglo culture and social decay. He wasn't alone. You find the same prejudices, myths and fantasies in other writers of the era such as John Buchan. Paul B (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who in this case is being belligerent and accusing others of prejudice? Who is rampaging about, getting his drawers in a knot about perceived prejudices?  The fact that homosexuals are a security threat is not in the least mitigated by soldiers getting the clap.  There's plenty of research material about to support the wide security concerns about homosexuals in wartime. Billing's career spanned two wars, and he was active through to WWII.  Please stifle your rage, and tend to what you're best at, rather than acting like a fool trying to persuade others of the value of foolishness. Bushcutter (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you cannot reply coherently, but only offer bluster, I don't think there is much point responding. I suggest you read some of the scholarly literature on the topic, of which there is a great deal. Paul B (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

François-Taldir Jaffrenou
The article you have created, François-Taldir Jaffrenou, contains a section entitled "Exile" which is mostly in French. Please understand that this is the English Wikipedia site and that section would be useless to people unless they spoke French. Please fully translate the section or delete it. Thank you, Mazeau (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Breton Nationalist Party
Can you please use some references in the article Breton Nationalist Party?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about an article titled List massacre by Christians or something like that. Do you have any research in this field?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My message is not related to any previous message. I have no idea how you related this message with the previous. I was searching google and found many information about this. I am asking you since you have some major contribution in the field of Christianity, persecution by Christians. I found several hits that many Jews were massacred by Christians. But the problem is that I have not find the particular incidents of massacres.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See, , , .  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Abanindranath.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Abanindranath.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

your editings on page Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya
Couple of months ago you gave this page a clean-up and a format.Then forgot it? --Sudhirbhargava (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Master race
Well, yes, until you have provided source it is unsubstantiated. It's *correct*, but you should dig up some sources supporting you. Then it's harder to remove your additions. --Regebro (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billing.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Billing.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blake room.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Blake room.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Michael Fuller
Dear Paul, I noticed that you did the last update on my late husband Peter Michael Fuller. I have just updated the page and taken out Charles Harison, I don't know who this person is and don't think he was an ally of Peter's. Peter 'fell out' with many people during his life but most forgave him when he died. If you look at www.artinfluence.com you will see that our son and I are publishing articles by scholars and his old allies on Peter and his ideas. Thank you for your input to date. Sincerely Stephanie Burns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.188.137 (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Stephanie, Thank you for your comments. Charles Harrison is the professor of Art History at the Open University, who, with Paul Wood was the leading theorist in Art & Language. The disputes between them are detailed in literature published in the journal Visual Culture in Britain. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Riothamus, my edit
Thanks for catching the apostrophe. I wondered about the capital letters, but decided to go with the way the author used lower and upper case even though it looked odd. Doug Weller (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kalki
Stop removing Univeristy information that leads to Vandalism. It was already discussed earlier you cannot go into an article and remove information. Wikipedia is not an opinion its for research claims. --NanaKesh17 (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Brittany
As the person who closed the Bretagne/Brittany nomination at CFD, I just wanted to fill you in on what I did since I did something a little bit different than a literal merge. I kept Bretagne as the category for the French administrative region proper, since those really do need to be named by their proper name, but I recategorized the people in it to their départements or cities whenever possible. I then created a département category for Loire-Atlantique as well. I then moved most people in the Brittany category to their individual département category, and finally kept the Brittany category as a parent for the Bretagne and Loire-Atlantique categories, as well as the few people who couldn't be subcategorized by département because either the article doesn't currently contain that information or they lived too long ago historically to really have a home département at all. So, to summarize, I've kept the categories themselves separate, but have (a) reorganized their structure to be clearer and less ambiguous, and (b) refiled everybody as specifically as possible to eliminate the duplication. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a language issue so much as an ambiguity one: because the name Brittany has two different meanings, depending on whether it's being used in its cultural Bretagne-plus-Nantes or geopolitical Bretagne-only sense, the category has to be named in an unambiguous way so that it doesn't get used for two different purposes simultaneously. (Frex, the occupational "Chess players from Bretagne" category, which I've now deleted, contained just one person — and he was from Nantes.) As important as WP:ENGLISH is, it does specifically state that exceptions are occasionally necessary — and situations where the English name carries an ambiguity that can't easily be resolved otherwise are certainly one of those necessary exceptions. (Also, please note that I'm a Canadian of Franco-Ontarian background, so needless to say I'm rather intimately familiar with the nuances of English-vs.-French naming conflicts...)
 * You're absolutely right that the occupational subcategories should reflect Breton cultural identification rather than Bretagne/Brittany geographic identification, but they weren't part of the CFD discussion as it stood, so they needed to be dealt with separately. I've now dealt with that issue. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way
I appreciated your attempt to clear the air at pederasty, though I was concerned that the interlopers were taking advantage of your good graces. Sad to say, there is no reasoning with these people, not that I have not tried myself. Haiduc (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Time is the issue for me too, but strangely not for this crowd. As for my cooking, I strive to nuance what most take to be black and white, which must jar expectations. I am completely open to feedback, however, if you think something is amiss. Haiduc (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bhavishya Purana
You seem to have problems with the text from Bhavishya Purana, perhaps you have not noticed in the top the first line of the article

"The Bhavishya Purana (Sanskrit: Bhaviṣyat Purāṇa) is a Hindu religious text[1] and one of the eighteen major Puranas.[2] It is written in Sanskrit and attributed to Rishi Vyasa, the compiler of the Vedas. "

Keep in your mind that Bhavishya Purana is an religious text you can go search for sources as well.

You can keep your opinions to yourself, these puranas are all the time being updated, please study more about hinduism before you go around deleting information.--RajivLal (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the text about Jesus is from an Purana please tell me the meaning of Purana and then discuss. Just beacuse its an recent Purana it still is an sacred text. You can go and search for sources if you do not believe. The jesus article holds information about Satgurugs, movements etc.. Nothing is wrong with adding an religious text that defines Jesus in an Purana. --RajivLal (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on some information you introduced. Keep in mind that there are Two summaries done in the Bhavishya Purana that talk about Muhammad. One was done by Rishi Vyas and one was attributed. The one that is listed is an summary of the Rishi Vyas, the second summary could be mentioned as well. I've got the second text about Muhammad as well.--RajivLal (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Note
If you had problems with the way the content was mentioned you should discuss it into the talk page not go off and edit the article without any notice or discussion. --RajivLal (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RajivLal has no case. Unless and until he presents a case (appreciating and respecting WP:RS, WP:DUE), there is nothing to discuss here. You cannot make up for having no case by pure WP:WL, although it is of course a traditionally popular pastime to try anyway). dab (𒁳) 10:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Kashmiri people
I don't know if you can help with this, but edit warring has meant that the lead and the rest of the article no longer agree (so far as I can tell). Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No rush, have a good day. Doug Weller (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

DWhiskaZ Returns - as Padan/Rajivlal
hi - I saw your sockpuppetry evidence against user "Padan" aka User Rajivlal(regarding his edit wars, and his obsession with linking Mohammad to the Bhavisya Purana). As you know he has a long history as DWhiskaz, for instance, here. I reported Padan to wp:aiav last night, as he has inserted his Bhavisya Purana statement in nearly two dozen wikipedia articles this month. I also cleaned them up only to find he is hard at work undoing my reverts. Since he has such a long history of extremely prolific sockpuppetry and vandalism, isnt there any way to make a ban more permanent? I dont know what it takes to have some action taken. I'm also leaving a note with Users Thatcher and Abecedare who helped ban this user before. -jak68 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak68 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He's raised a complaint at ANI Doug Weller (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded to his ANI here. I also tried to consolidate the discussion of his fringe theory in one place on the fringe theories noticeboard here (where User:Padan's activities were already being discussed).Jak68 (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Db-blanktalk and Db-talk
Db-talk reads: "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as a talk page of a page which does not exist, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion."

Db-blanktalk reads:"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it is a blank talk page with no substantial edit history."

In the second one it doesn't say anything about article that doesn't exist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the wording on the template is irrelevant. It is the wording of the criteria that matter. Please read the actual Criteria for speedy deletion  Paul B (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanktalk is under G6 and not G8! Read it more carefully. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion in the Administrators' noticeboard. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please not that in Administrators' noticeboard under the "Empty talk pages and speedy deletion" section, two administrators agree that the talk pages can be deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noticed I didn't make any edits until the dispute is solved. I am trying to make a centralised discussion instead of using three talk pages. I find your comments very useful but I think there is somewhere a misunderstanding. G8 was extended in order to save time from cases like these. Imagine If i go and create blank talk pages for all articles. None could stop me! Db-blanktalk dies the job. Friendly, 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the problem is that I am not a native English speaker, but I really try to be as polite as possible. I claim that the line you are reffering to is for G6 (talk pages that the article was deleted) and not for G8. Under some circumstances talk pages can be deleted. This is when they are blank and have insignificant edit history. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Do you agree with this revert? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion as well. Maybe, we solve the mystery. Friendly, -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hourglass
How did you determine that the hourglass symbolism has nothing to do with the hourglass in the symbolism section? Its aboriginal symbolism of the hourglass... and this is relevant.Marburg72 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Marburg72
I have just filed an RfC about user Marburg72, whose edit you recently reverted. If you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view" or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so. David Trochos (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pauls request for endorsement of the RFC is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy listed as "Sock Puppetry" or possibly Meat Puppetry. As stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:

1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices, or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned. 2. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. 3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity. 00:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Trochos, I see that you are recruiting your friends to comment on your complaints against me - this is against wikipedia policy, and severely weakens your argument. Please stop.Marburg72 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Oldbedford.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Oldbedford.jpg, has been listed at because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the licensing on the image to reflect "fair use". Please add a fair use rationale. -- Robocoder ( t|c ) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Ewell_Church_Hunt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ewell_Church_Hunt.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Akhenaten_(realistic).jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Akhenaten_(realistic).jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: To The Willie (or William) Lynch letter
First of all you are seriously full of SHIT! The Willie Lynch psychological mind incaration method. Has indeed caused great harm to us Afrikan-Descendants. It was created to keep Afrikan-Descendants from consciously being aware. Of what you white (or evil ignorant Aryans) people have been and/or trying to do psychologicaly. To advance your so-called superiority over us and the world. This psychological method is still being used today. But more on a encomic social level. Its like still having a slave without physically bondage. If, i could find out where you are located. "I would indeed KILL you"!!! And i would like to also kill other people like you, as well. One day we people of color (Afrikans, Afrikans-Descendants, Native-Americans, Middle-Easterners; etc.) will finally get rid of you Aryans forgood. And the world wiil then be filled with absolute PEACE! You fucking moron! "THE WILLIE LYNCH DOES EXIST"!!! You bitch ass moronic devil!!!

Could you comment
on the criteria for notability of accademic books? If you have time could you comment here Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

William Shakespeare article
Why? Felsommerfeld (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bye bye
See my talk page! Puzzle Master (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mahound
Please refrain from adding non-biblical content into the Mahound article as you did here []. Mahound is based on the biblical literature that describes the Christian view. --Alley30 (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you were misled, however now it may come to your sense that the term Mahound is found only in the bible and is based on a biblical christian text. --Alley30 (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Further i have done a book search on the ISBN 0791413829 and never found the term Muhammad in the book. If you keep inserting non sense into wikipedia articles, an adminstrator will be contacted. Your edits do not seem to be in place, if you would like help please contact an admin and consult on creating a page Mahamada with sources and refs for the alternate term in your view. The biblical Mahound term is of Christian Biblical view not other. Goodbye, Paul Barlow --Alley30 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain this revert please. Do you have any sources for the term being used in non Christian writings? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Hello, Paul Barlow. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any chance you might submit a new sock puppet report? This looks fairly clear-cut from what you describe. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No need, I've already disposed of the latest batch with CU. Feel free to ping me if anything odd turns up. I inadvertentyl came across this guy because one of his hundreds of socks was making unusual edits on a few articles I look out for.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hitler
Well, thank you for your compliment, for a minute I really thought I was utterly wrong in doing what I do! 

Lars 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. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Holocaust
I see. But surely the brackets should enclose the entire word (One) as opposed to just the first letter? I can understand the word being inserted to the quotation to make better sense, but just the letter on it's own? A Prodigy Talk 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the explanation you left on the talk page about the race of Ancient Egyptians. It brought clarity to the subject. LuxNevada (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

irrelevant ?
I'm sorry, but this is wholly relevant and makes meaningful point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is raely hard to understand what you are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yann_goulet.jpg
Hello,

Sorry but I had to delete Image:Yann_goulet.jpg because the rational for its belonging to the public domain was just too dodgy:

PD-because|: * Copyright has expired; image is over 67 years old and published before 1964 (one subject died'' in 1946). * See also Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags/archive1

Actually,
 * The fact that the subject died in 1946 does in no way prove that the photograph was published before 1964; for what we know, it could as well have been lying in a drawer all that time.
 * "image is over 67 years old and published before 1964" is something relevant to the United States of America, not to France
 * Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags/archive1 does not in any way establish that images taken by officials of the Third Reich are now in the public domain.
 * Nothing on the image say that it was taken by officials of the Third Reich.

Rama (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

On Ali Tajvidi
Dear Paul Barlow, just wish to point out that your recent edit of the above-mentioned entry has introduced a number of serious spelling errors (such as "norted" for "noted"). Could you please remove these shortcomings? Thank you. --BF 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For your information, I am not there to clean up someone else's acts! Rather than thanking me for pointing out your blatant errors, you write as though I must be apologizing from you! --BF 18:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Block notice
You have been blocked for 24 hours for making personal attacks at User talk:BehnamFarid. Please feel free to continue contributing when the block expires, but please comment on content, not contributors. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How very sad. I have been editing for many years without ever being blocked. If you check my edit history for today yoyu will see that I have spent hours improviing prose and correcting spelling. User talk:BehnamFarid's comments were totally out of order and, yes, I completely lost my rag with this individual, but in the circumstances I think that is understandable. Paul B (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sad indeed. I'd think it would take more than one instance of losing your rag to justify a block. So many people get away with veiled insult (or even not so veiled) after insult, what you said was wrong but it isn't part of a pattern (unless I've missed something, and I don't think I have. Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My reaction was also partly a result of my distaste for BehnamFarid's quite shocking comments elsewhere - accusing another editor of being a "racist" simply for disagreeing with him . Paul B (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And he gets away with that? In any case, maybe you should appeal. I did read somewhere that every good editor should expect to be blocked at some time. Doug Weller (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Undone, and the autoblock cleared. Moreschi (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Source for Assumptiongirdle.jpg
I am curious to discover what the source for this image is. I am an Orthodox Christian and while I am well aware that Thomas received the girdle from the Theotokos, I have never seen it depicted in an icon before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJKotalik (talk • contribs) 07:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits reveal ...
Your edits reveal ...

Do you relay believe that somebody was lived in Norway 12000 ago? If so under or over the ice sheet desert. Did you really checked the source?

You reverted to nonsense the Kurgan art. Do you think that edition of something what claim to be a knowledge base requires a more reading around?

Do you know when the ice melted there? When? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.177 (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, thanks, you elaborated answer:
 * ==Gibberish==
 * Your edits are just as much gibberish as your comments on my talk page ("Do you relay believe that somebody was lived in Norway 12000 ago"). Either you don't understand how nonsensical this comment is, in which case you have no place editing articles, or you have an agenda about which you are not being honest, in which case you have no place editing articles. Paul B (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And again you inserting (rv) uncommented sentence about peopling of Norway over glacier desert as in: Investigations suggest the Hg R1a1 ... and reached Scandinavia 12 000 years ago


 * However the source contain string at 12,308 I do not believe you can just round it to 12,000 years. If you will again call my objection original research i'll LOL again.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.177 (talk • contribs)

this chap is cracking me up ...  this edit summaryn alone made my day:  ... reminds me of good old Dr. Boubouleix :) --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of bodies
He is responding here in case you are interested. I'll begin the response...Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He is attempting an edit war under his IP today. Mary Jane Kelly, Catherine Eddowes are two articles he's deleting the photos. I'm now close to 3RR, so I back away. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 15:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating Systems.
The Policy WP:SEASON states, "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other (see WP:BCE for past debates on this)." The Congress of Malastare (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, noone replied- I think you are wrong, clearly it means choose one or the other. However, I will ask on the MOS page. The Congress of Malastare (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have raised the question on the MOS page- I personally think it looks very clumsy and is utterly needless. However, I will abide by the consensus- for now though I believe the MOS is clear- use one or the other. The Congress of Malastare (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What was consensus a week ago may not be consensus now. The Congress of Malastare (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits re: Race, Ethnicity & Historocity (re: Egypt)
1) As a "critique" is quite obviously, an attempted re-assessment, re-interpretation or, a rebuke, of an argument or bit of information existent within an epistemological sphere, by what measure is the position of those who contest the historic categorization of the "race" of the ancient Egyptian not a "critique"? I can only fathom two explanations for your proposition of the above:

1) Either you pose the two critical positions as something other than a critique because you do not concur with the proposition -- or

2) Because you do not value the discordant propositions themselves.

Both explanations lack encyclopedic merit.

I neither agree nor, in any substantive manner, value, the prattle of the presumptuous and the ethnocentric; yet I recognize the varied positions of those who maintain such sentiments within an information/dialogue-based forum as "critiques", given the meaning of the word.

Further, this entire encyclopedia entry is premised on the examination/definition of critiques of the understood "race" of the ancient Egyptian as prescribed by traditional (or mainstream) Western scholarship. If you have an issue with the notion of divergent opinions (or those who opine -- Bernal, James, etc. -- on this matter) as "critiques", I suggest you call into question the very propriety of this entry in and of itself, rather than issuing arguments poorly grounded in semantics.

As to your later comment re: the original use of the term "stole" (which you link to a reference to George G.M. James' text); the passage itself was not referring to James' work, but I'll humor your preference for the more visceral term: as per the history of ancient Egypt (as chronicled in Stolen Legacy and in preceding and succeeding textual documents), the Macedonians indeed conquered Persia's holdings in North Africa and thereby gained access to Egypt's well of knowledge and culture. From a logistic standpoint, does the fact that the ancient conquering of Egyptian lands took place in "third-party" fashion mean that the well of information was acquired by means other than conquest? Obviously not, no more than we could/should discount the term "commerce" had the Greeks acquired this knowledge through "third-party" trade and barter (which they very well may have; the Persians, the Nubians, the Hebrews and the Bedouins certainly did).

In an overriding fashion, your suggested edits seem an attempt to deprecate positions on matters at hand within these encyclopedic entries (here and on the Race of Jesus). Such a discernibly skewed position on a defined/examined matter reveals an obvious Point-of-View that evidences disdain not only for the treated subject matter, but for the understood intellectual, heuristic, and epistemological purpose of an encyclopedia itself. Hence, I am undoing your recent counter edits in this entry forthwith. If you are able to generate some revision of the passages in question that you believe better expresses substantive meaning within these entries in a manner that is adherent to the encyclopedic construct, then please suggest them. Until then, my response will remain posted here at your talk page, & at the discussion section for the Ancient Egyptian race controversy entry. Best,

sewot_fred (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to your post at my talk page':

Now, I at least know with certainty the juvenile station from which you issue your positions. If you truly believe that the edits that you have recently suggested are indicative of the ethic embodied by the Encyclopedia Brittanica, then there is nothing resembling purpose in engaging further dialogue with you. Do remain blissfully wedded to your limitations. Very best,

sewot_fred (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your post
... has a reply. FT2 (Talk 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with User:Nocturnalsleeper? Apart from he might be a sock, I don't give a tinker's about that. Peter Damian (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Oxfordian theory by the way is a crank theory that the writer we call Shakespeare was in fact Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. It rather founders on the rock of De Vere dying in 1604, whereas the author of the Tempest clearly did not. PPA's like the theory because De Vere seems to have been a pedophile, ergo Shakespeare was a pedophile. Surprisingly though the Edward de Vere article doesn't even mention the pedophilia bit. Peter Damian (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Husain.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Husain.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

question
thank you very much ,


 * ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshinori (talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed in the Hindu Scriptures: Your assistance required
Hi Paul,

I wouldn't mind removing the sub-topic "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Muhammad#Views_according_to_Hindu_Scriptures".

A few clarifications:


 * 1) Why can't we lock the article with a "Creation protection" (blue) or "Permanent Protection" (red)?


 * 1) A few days ago I changed the article to just one line which said "There have been claims that Mohammed has been predicted in the Hindu scriptures. However these claims have been proved to be wrong". Another user, JForget said that it was against "Wikipedia's policy of Neutrality" though he eventually understood.

Now if I delete the sub-section, will I get warned/banned/anything like that?

Thanks for your patience! 122.164.249.237 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I've deleted the section. freewit (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot go around Wikipedia and deleting information than promote the removal. Just for your information you seem to be an older member on Wikipedia who should have more common sense, supporting a removal of a paragraph that had been placed almost 1 year ago that had been revised and is a popular watched article is not needed. Watch what you are doing especially in the Islamic related articles. Thank you, Happy Ramadan --.alchin007 (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

swastika
I was using a previous edit summary for consistency. But maybe its best to take it to the talk page? Lihaas (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given, you have a good point too. That's why talk is best to decide which. Lihaas (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hindu scriptures
You seem to be lost in the Hindu scriptures. Sometimes you remove information from Muhammad article and say Muhammad is not mentioned in Hindu scriptures than you goto Bhavishya Purana and vandalise the article. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia you will be informed to authorities. --CMJTHY (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, yea. I've heard it all before from you. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

why we not write [PBUH] its not a common name ok if jesus [pbum] then mohammad [pbuh] understand we r not Christian but we love jesus [pbuh] and u r non muslim but why hate mohammad[pbuh]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tester.me (talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread
You may want to chime in here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or at least review it. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment and persecution by undo addicts.
Talk:Aditya has my posts on my views on what is going on on Wikipedia. If you follow some other religion, I respect that. But please do not go on wild reverts and trample over other people's hard work. Take care! VedicScience (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see all his forum shopping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Paul, I see that many responsible ones here also seem to have turned a blind eye to admin Dougweller's recent misgivings. Apparently, someone else also ran into his disruptive editing. He really needs to work on NPOV. He continues to dabble in with his own POV on the Henotheism page after the recent Adityas debacle. Let me remind here that “civility” is best understood as rational commentary. So he should really go debate on the Talk:Henotheism instead of engaging in edit reversals pushing his own POV, without paying attention to references added by others (in this case ADvaitaFan) for verifiability. Why not talk to him about “civility” and "wikiquette"? It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating his original position ad nauseam through rvs in the face of questionable verifiability of rvs – is not civil, but merely tendentious. In his case, clear abuse of admin privileges! Be well. VedicScience (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Taj reverts
Thanks. I told Balvinder that unless cited, they'd be reverted, but when I looked in to do the necessary, you'd saved me the trouble.--nemonoman (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Immediate help needed with "Mohammed in Hinduism" (again!)
Hello Paul,

Same problem. More "Mohammed in Hinduism" stuff has reappeared with a vengeance. All seem to be fringe views. Please help me out in "deleting" the article. Cannot understand why people want "Mohammed" to be accepted in Hinduism!!!

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Muhammad#Views_in_Hinduism

and I see the same thing here too:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dashavatara_of_Vishnu#In_other_religions

Thanks,

freewit (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As an update, deleted the "Hindu" section in the Muhammad page. Hoping (one more time) it stays that way! Thanks again

freewit (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

and double sigh:(....I've been accused of being "ignorant" and I've also been told that I must "accept a variety of views"!!! If you do have the time, I'd be grateful if you stepped in and helped me out (once again:(groan!).https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Hindu_scripture_section freewit (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page where I have told Freewit that I think he has a valid point, and that you seem to the Smartest Guy in the Room. I will follow your leader. --nemonoman (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Guys! However, things look pretty depressing. Obviously many people are damn stubborn and want to see Mohammed as part of the Hindu Pantheon. I'm feeling really tired and down right now....I'm hoping that Wikipedia does not become some kind of "personalized anti-religious blog":( I'm beginning to feel that this article needs to have some kind of extreme protection say a "full protection" or something like that?freewit (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What's happening here with the "Mohammed in Hinduism" section? Groan...one more time.....
Sigh...deeper sigh.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad

What to say except that this sub-section seems to spring back with a vengeance. I'm doing what I can....But obviously I'll be needing your expertise.

Please note that the user "Wikidas" has also included "Islamic stuff" in the "Dasavatar" article. I tried to talk it out with him and was able to remove it from the main article. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da%C5%9B%C4%81vat%C4%81ra

The presence of a few more senior wikipedians is always welcome to bring about neutrality to any article. I'm also assuming that you're a very busy guy, so advance apologies for bothering you (yet again:). As a sidenote, anyone is welcome to join the discussion here and help me out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad freewit (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A huge thank you!

Very grateful that you could drop in:)...It's been a hell of an argument I've been having with that guy, Wikidas!

Please note that Wikidas has also included this in the main Dashavatara article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasavatara_of_Vishnu):

Theologically some Muslims went quite far to accommodate Hinduism: Pir Sadruddin of Ucch in the early fifteenth century is believed to have adopted the Dasavatara scheme of the Vaishnavas and declared that one of the close associates in this tradition, Ali, was the tenth avatara of Vishnu. In 1926, Siddiq Hussain's two-volume Kannada book, Ja at Guru Sarwar-i 'Alam, argued that the Muhammad was actually Kalki Avatar whose arrival had been predicted in the Hindu scriptures. While Mirza Ghulani Ahmad argued that avataras Rama and Krishna were prophets of God who had foretold the arrival of Muhammad as God's last law-bearing prophet.

I seriously fail to see how this could have been the contribution of a senior wiki editor. Yes, more views are necessary, but what has Mohammed and Vishnu have in common? However, Wikidas agreed to remove it and another wikipedian, nemonoman also aired similar views to remove it. Using the same rationale, I would say remove the "Narashan rishi" stuff.

After reading up this link:http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1913 I would put my hand on that edit button and remove the "Narashan Rishi" stuff. However, I trust your judgment and will wait for your views. Thank you!freewit (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Snippy
Aftermath of dealing with a non-native English speaking PoV warrior. Sorry, thanks for the nudge! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hitler buried in Germany?
Hi Paul. And where might Hitler be buried in Germany? I suppose it's a question of tense. They remains were once buried there, but no longer are. Bytwerk (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian
Just 2 q's: 1. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=248017358&oldid=248016285) In this edit you say "...always still directly linked to the women of Lesbos" but the quote doesn't end up "always" linking the word to Lesbos. Perhaps it would be better to say, "dominant meaning...rather than any sexual identity. Despite this, Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, the French 17th century writer on sexuality..." 2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=247954066&oldid=247953903) With this your edit summary says "there was no 'corresponding conventional orientation.' Ancient writers have virtually no concept of sexual orientation." But this is precisely why the phrase is correct. Simply because they didn't have these terms, that is why it is the corresponding convention and not the sexual orientation. Lihaas (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
...for starting the Memorials to William Shakespeare article. It's very interesting and good read - and an excellent, constructive solution to the out-of-proportion argument that was started on the main Shakespeare discussion page. Thank you for finding a place for this information and doing something useful - unlike some other people I could mention! Cnbrb (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Stratford memorial
Send me your e-mail address and I'll send you a picture of the Stratford memorial I took last time I visited. I don't know how to load it to Wikipedia and I'm too busy to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Reedy (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Hope2.jpg
Image:Hope2.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Watts-Hope2.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

request for a second opinion
Paul, if you have a chance, could you comment on this thread? My understanding of the conflict is that it hinges on whether the views of Crompton, a professor emeritus of English at the University of Nebraska, expressed in a book published by the University of Michigan Press (he is well-known for another book published by Harvard University Press), are significant (the view of Haiduc) or fringe (the view of Ottava). I know you and I have disagreed several times in the past but I have always respected your extertise and knowledge of different theories and modes of academic criticism, and I think that expertise and experience may be very constructive here. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, when you pamphlet for support, you are only allowed to do so in an unbiased manner. The fact that you pushed a view that I somehow removed Crompton from the article is 100% false. The view is a fringe view because he holds a minority view. That is the definition of fringe. His statement about Byron being a pederast does not justify allowing the Giraud page be categorized under "history of pederasty". Furthermore, as critiques of his work point out, his facts and premises are wrong, which de-legitimizes his evidence, meaning that his view cannot be used to justify the inclusion of the page under a controversial category. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottava, are you stalking me? You shouldn't.  I have reread my message to Paul three times and nowhere do I see myself suggesting you have removed or argued to remove Crompton's view.  I do see that I have said that the dispute hinges on his significance, and you seem to be agreeing with me.  As far as being unbiased, well, Paul knows how often he and I have disagreed and been in conflict; it is because he and I have often disagreed that I value his views on this conflict, I trust his integrity even when I disagree with him. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Stalking? It is perfectly legitimate to follow someone to a page in which they try to draw in support, especially when that violates standard procedures on Wikipedia and do not include an announcement that you were looking for "a second opinion", especially when it deals with me. Furthermore, you pushed the view on the linked page, so it doesn't matter if you have reemphasized it here. Your characterization was completely biased, and that is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
Hey Paul B... I haven't heard from you in awhile as I have been busy traveling and haven't been on Wikipedia as much. I just wanted to stop by and say hello. I hope all is well... Keep up the good editing!--Gnosis (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian Health Concerns
Agreed? Chrisrus (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning
Please avoid personal attacks like "you promoted extremist anti-German Polish nationalist views... don't pretend you are just anti-Nazi, the most cursory review of your edits shows that's not true". You should be aware of this general arbcom sanction. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions
Under the terms of Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)