User talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 6

Moses of Chorene
Hi Paul. I feel that it is better that I explain what has been going on lately in this e-mail, rather than on my talk page. Grab a cup of coffee and prepare yourself for the following (if it helps, place it in a Wikipedia template to view it more clearly)

First and foremost, hang on a second here Paul. What you are saying is that Jayvdb’s comment here contradicts what John claimed in the arbcom, and he wasn’t just merely interested in poetry but was rather asking a question on whether there is another source beside Khorenatsi? How interesting. Part of the answer lies here, where Grandmaster requested a citation on whether Agathangelos’ work was written in Armenian. So now who spread the conflict? This was never in doubt. D. M. Lang writes it was discovered a century ago and that the Armenian version precedes the Greek one – it’s common knowledge. The only editors who helped spread the conflict were Grandmaster and John.

And on the contrary, for the Armenian editors involved in this, NK has nothing to do with this. Sisak is related to Syunik (Zangezur), not NK. Unless we’re speaking about the House of Syunik, Syunik is part of Armenia and it was only recently that Azerbaijan began an irredentist campaign (see the map here and its accompanying edit war. Jayvdb claimed that the relation with Sisak was untrue . But an editor informed us that there indeed was a relationship after Grandmaster came with it in an e-mail from that same editor. That was few days prior to Eupator’s reply, who naturally made the obvious assumptions. The fact is that only Grandmaster and John found that so obvious; for me the issue was rather the article on Khorenatsi itself. While I had suspicions on why Grandmaster was interested (I'm not blind), my opposition to Grandmaster changes had nothing to do with any of the reasons given by Grandmaster in his reply to Dab.

Regarding John’s 0RR proposal: am I the only one honestly noticing these things? Someone out there has to be blind to not see all those suspicious accounts springing up and concentrating all their energies on Armenian terrorism, Grandmaster’s latest concern. Does John care about the edits done on those articles when he was pushing Adil Baguirov’s (banned in AA 1) POV? Out of nowhere we see this edit (Adil Baguirov’s additions) and reverting Hajji Piruz’s additions here p here to reinserts AdilBaguirov additions, or reverting here Hajji Piruz additions or redirecting Khachkar destruction to justify Adil additions etc., or when adding unreliable sites and on and on? Or his note on Carrière talkpage? It's unbelievable, but just few months after he was elected (and with all the controversy about the elections) he is already try having Armenian editors restricted.

So once again, who is spreading conflict? It’s true that for uninvolved users like you Paul, it’s difficult to grasp the whole issue when everything is out of context. You provided a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabagh#Early_history here] on the early history of NK but should to as surprise that Khorenatsi is referred to in the article because he is, after all, “the father of Armenian history.” But Sisak is not the issue here so what does his dating have to do with it? Khorenatsi is used for another purpose as is Movses Kaghankatvatsi. The conflict spread further, thanks to Grandmaster and John, when the latter created the article on the book of the author The History of the Country of Albania. Most of the article is about its authorship', and there is nothing about the actual content of the book. Eleven out of the thirteen references come from the same author in a space as little as two pages of a book. He might just as well have copied the entire text word for word from the original author.

We see again here that for Grandmaster, Charles Dowsett, an author he liked to quote is dismissed as a source, (the official translator of the book) who was a notable expert and explained quite eloquently: ''There is, however, no need to reject the name Kalankatuaci; by assuming, as Professor W. B. Henning first suggested to me, that this refers to the name of Movses monastery in Kalankatuk' while Dasxuaranci refers to his native village, we can take Movses Kalankatuaci to be one and the same person”. Note that this same author who is cited eleven out of thirteen times in John’s article, is neatly dismissed by Grandmaster on the Khorenatsi page. To have a better understanding as to why some question the author of The History of the Country of Albania’s birthplace and identity rests on the fact that he claims to be a native of the region (a region now in Azerbaijan). John created the article as a result of providing a smokescreen on the author's article Movses Kaghankatvatsi (see the lead on what was required to stop the edit war on his ethnicity). Who is spreading the conflict?

The 'conflict' on the dating for the average Armenian has little to do with a territorial dispute. Khorenatsi is not related (at least was not) with Armenia-Azerbaijan before both Grandmaster and John dragged it to its fore. The author is unanimously considered the father of Armenian history. They obviously place him before other Armenian historians. This again has nothing to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan. Eupator and I have worked on the article and on details wholly unrelated with the dating, see for example here where, before the redirect, when Grandmaster was not even involved (it was just afterward) and a conflict on another article, Grandmaster found ground for some territorial claims (see his reply to Dab).

Where was Grandmaster, when Atabek was misquoting, misusing sources on Khachen and Smbat (God sent Moreschi who finally indefinitely topic-banned Atabek for his disruptions there). Grandmaster openly supported Atabek. Did Grandmaster think then about those articles? Here is the relation with Siunik, Paul. On the article on the House of Hasan-Jalalyan, princes of Khachen (present day NK) Atabek continued his disruptions and had Moreschi not been there, he would have continued doing it (note that Atabek has been topic banned on three different occasions). Read the block quote by Hewsen on the House of Hasan-Jalalyan, In the male line, (1) the princes (who later became kings) of Siunik. Now, again, who is spreading the conflict?

It was really questionable on Jayvdb's part to question Nishkid actions, when Nishkid not only supported the inclusion of an Azeri genocide and readded the sexual harassment charges on Vahakn Dadrian’s article (shortening it to meet WP:BLP), but actually requested a checkusers for The Diamond Apex. What a difference with John, who also suspiciously knosw the moves to increase tension. Now the other arbitrators can know how legitimate we were in voicing our opposition to him. Does it not come to a surprise to anyone that this arbitration request was filed after I submitted this report? And when I deliberately posted broken links to see if the administrators would even bother reading it, they didn’t even do so (surprise? surprise?) Grandmaster’s references to Gazifikator edit warring, never fails to amaze me. How can he even talk about revert warring after several suspicious accounts inundated Wikipedia and targeted precisely the Armenian terrorism and Armenian genocide denial articles?

One out of many, Chippolona, failed to respect WP:BLP, as seen here (Chippolona and Chippolino are the same user, as evidenced by his own admission, where he devoted one third of the article on a famous genocide scholar with charge of sexual harassment when the living person never even became notable for this. Failing to adhere to both WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. He also recently created Mourad Topalian which was initially a WP:COPYVIO and violated both WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. He copied it word by word from a blog site. As the site admits, it was taken from the Review of Armenian Studies, which is a publication of the Turkish center for Eurasian Strategic Studies, see its Wikipedia article here, created recently by Jayvdb. Not only is the material copyrighted, but is also an unreliable source, as the think tank’s main role is the denial of the Armenian genocide and Armenian terrorism. He failed to adhere WP:BLP and added the same unreliable source. Armenian terrorism appears to be his only interest. A few other examples also include this and obviously his creation of Mourad Topalian. What can we say about other editors like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Deniz_Gokturk Deniz Gokturk], waking from his slumber and suddenly charging ahead on Armenian terrorism articles? Check those Armenian names he edited and you'll have a clear picture.

What are we to say about those accounts who jump out of nowhere to meatpuppet for others, as was the case for Chippolona like here, or when those meatpuppeting have gotten other editors blocked, who, in contrast to the meatpuppeter, were really engaged in discussion. See here, when both Elsanaturk and Meowy had the same number of reverts and that Meowy was the only one discussing all this on the talk page. Elsanaturk jumped out of nowhere to remove the tag. Elsanaturk got away with it, while Meowy was again blocked. Then there is Baku87 who, just like Elsanaturk, has done the same, or Baki66 (Dacy69 was indefinitely blocked by Moreschi for constantly doing the same thing, just like both users).

We've reported them multiple times, which Grandmaster replied by filing a long list of irrelevant differences, clustering and making admins lose sight of the issue at hand. And what about Parishan, who was investigated during the AA1, and was not warned once but twice but never placed under restrictions (while every other has been under restrictions; see here).

The reason why VartanM got disgusted, is visible in the section devoted to Parishan, who was edit warring just as much him. Parishan didn't even receive any warnings, see the context under which Vartan made the reverts, which concerned (see the context under which Vartan made the reverts) his fringe theory pushing. It was only then that Vartan expressed his desire to leave Wikipedia, and it was then, and only then, that I asked my roommate for some help, who registered a new account. He then created The Diamond Apex, and I feel no shame in finding an intelligent individual who devoted his attention to add and expand new articles. He only engaged in a single revert, and that on the Movses Khorenatsi article. I’d been planning for midterms and asked him to edit from school. It never crossed my mind to deliberately have someone edit from elsewhere or something. Note that all that The Diamond Apex claims about himself is true (including his being an Arsenal fan). Vartan left Wikipedia after the incident involving Sandstein, who again blocked Meowy and refused to do the same for Elsanaturk, in spite of the fact that he did the same number of reverts and that unlike Meowy, wrote nothing on the talkpage, as isrequired. Sandstein refused to review his decision. Even Eupator seems to have taken a break from Wikipedia for similar circumstances.

I can go on and on, but I know no one can do anything about all those suspicious accounts that come out of the blue and show similar interest, always corresponding with AdilBaguirov’s (banned in AA1) off-wiki activities. Nor can anyone do anything about the way users are pushed in edit wars by Baku87 (note that Moreschi gave him a good block previously for this same thing, and while Moreschi is gone, no one is willing to do anything about it), Baki66 and Elsanaturk. I have tasted arbitration, having seen AA1, AA2 and Ehud Lesar’s case, which all had very questionable decisions, the first being unfair, the second didn't even bother considering any of the evidence at all and had no pretension of adhering to the rules and the third one….I will even not bother saying what I feel about it. It seems that only Grandmaster seems to have unlimited time and energy for all this. If the arbitration committee wants to help (because obviously it cannot give us what we ask), then it can modify AA2, by placing articles on restrictions, rather than editors, and requiring those who reverted to actually engage in the discussion.

I doubt there is any use in appealing my block, is there? I know what I did, and I’m not trying to hide anything. I’ve had an enjoyable and fruitful three and a half years of editing experience so why would I throw that all away by hiding behind a sockpuppet who didn’t even engage in revert wars and made otherwise harmless and useful edits? I would have loved to have taken credit for writing articles such as “Nahapet”. The Diamond Apex was and is not me and nearly all his edits were done independently and it's unfortunate you've so brazenly appended my name to someone who is not me. Grandmaster and Atabek regularly bring in dozens of editors on Wikipedia and whatever happens to them? All I did was ask a roommate if he was interested in editing as well. I’ll stop here. Those who wonder why I opposed mediation should note what I said about Grandmaster behavior, and compare it with a past mediation already on another article, here.

Please take this message to heart.

Regards.

-- This e-mail was sent by user "MarshallBagramyan" on the English Wikipedia to user "Paul Barlow". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account, and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see .

Pay attention
Please pay attention before you undo my edit. I took off the unsourced stuff after I found the source. You put back the crap. I left the police spy in there because it was a fact.--Fire 55 (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you stupid it's not my source. The paragraph was there before I even edited it once. I found the source using google and took off all the crap except for the police spy because that's a fact. how stupid do you have to be to not understand this.--Fire 55 (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also what part of YOU ARE PUTING CRAP BACK BY UNDOING MY EDIT don't you understand.--Fire 55 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you like being an ass I'll put biography's name which calls him a political agent. Same shit nevertheless, but still fact.--Fire 55 (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Iberian inscriptions"
I see you have taken the burden to quote the linguistics theories of Arnaiz-Villena. I don't know whether it is worth the pain, as the more is said about it, the more ridiculous is seen Arnaiz. But as his supporters mixes the charitable silence with censorship I suppose it must be done.

In any case, the question is that his theory (his and by Jorge Alonso García) do not deal only with Iberian, Basque and Guanche; but that his theory is that of the usko-mediterranean languages including Sumerian, Hurrian, Minoic, Hittite, Eblait, and so on. Also his theory implies that every expert in any of this languages or in Indo-European, Semitic or Afrasian is wrong.

You can see the web of their Publishing House for their view of what is the usko-mediterranean theory (I don't recomend so you to buy any of their courses, though ;-). Especially the page "La metodología uskomediterránea", where the academics are accused of "scientific fraud" !!! ("Descubrimiento de un gran fraude científico, al comprobarse que las traducciones actuales del egipcio, hitita, púnico, eblaíta, sumerio-babilonio, son enteramente falsas"), and claim the "Desciframiento de textos y glifos del Lejano Oriente, Polinesia; el Nuevo Mundo, desde el euskera"..... "Traducción de cien tablillas de la civilización de Harappa y Mohenjo Daro en el valle del Indo (Pakistán)" and "Las semillas uskomediterráneas en la América precolombina."

But you can also see the other advertising pages of their web as that on the "usko-mediterranean translators school" in which they teach how to translate (I quote): "Cómo se traducen los textos ibérico-tartésicos. Cómo se traducen los textos etruscos. Egiptología: traducción de los textos jeroglíficos y demóticos. Cómo se traducen los textos sumerios-babilonios, hititas, púnicos: fenicio, cartaginés, ugarítico, eblaíta."

As you can see, it is such a BS that maybe is only pollution in the Wikipedia, but if it has to be quoted it should be well explained, explaining which are their claims and the many many many languages that they "translate". In the talk page of the deleted Iberian-Guanche inscriptions I added also references to reliable sources reviewing their hypothesis (of course rejecting them as absurd and crazy). Also should be quoted.

Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the main problem is how to phrase the section in a NPOV, especially when staying absolutely neutral may do the readers to believe that it is a "serious" alternative or, at least, a minority theory. I will try to add some references, but maybe I'm not the best person to do it (I thought before about creating the section, but thought it could be understood as a personal attack against Iberomesornix and friends.


 * First I should think about how the section should be (their claims and the scientific review), but it'd be better if there is a consensus. The problem is that even to simply quote their claims seems as mocking of them.  --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. As you suggested I have made an essay on the Usko-etc. I have not put it yet in the page. Take a look here and tell  me what you think. It has been difficult, but IMHO the text is reasonable. The idea is to use this text (changed as necessary) instead of what is now.  I do not remember the code for references though., but there do are notes. Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dumu ,talk to ma at the phone and we can agree in many things I believe.

I am disgusted like you about the last time wording against classical scholarsArnaiz1 (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please edit at Brittany
Paul, you are a dedicated editor at History of Brittany, so please expand that article section. Thank you! LutetiaPetuaria | 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not thanking you sooner. I believe the nature of Breton identity, betwixt English and French origins, lays better on the Breton people article, although it has been removed by User:Ghmyrtle, by tracking my edit history and extinguishing anything/everything I have done in articles, all the while claiming some other motive. In this case, Ghmyrtle is against any affiliation of Bretons or Brittany, to any other collective (e.g. England or France) than the language family-based notion of people-hood (e.g. Cornwall, Wales or the Gaelic language speakers), which is a trend among "Celtic" types as was the vogue under Wagner and remains some eccentric philia for Anglo-Saxonists like User:TharkunColl. The nationality analysis, which I attempted to "retouch" was on the Brittany article for quite some time under the history heading, but only became tagged when I altered it, on the tail of disagreements with those others in the edit history attacking my contributions. Unfortunately, a few editors who have likeminded political perspectives (Anglophobia) and edit and revert en masse with others (all Celticists; most Scots are mixed temper, but make the extra effort to temper English objection to Irish and Welsh attacks, like User:Billreid and User:Jack forbes) on articles and talk pages, make it manifestly impossible for me to edit without disruption, although I am honestly glad that the Irish lebensraum activists have not been stalking me. It's only the Welsh! I pay the price for opposing their manifesto on such pages on British Isles, British Empire, English people and Brittany as well as Breton people (leaving out all the others). I know of no way to effectively participate in Wikipedia with that kind of harrassment. I've stated a few times that I'm retiring and a few people don't want me to give up so "easily", but I'm not in this for some kind of victory through superior firepower. I'm really a eurocentric sentimentalist, focussing on England and France in particular (as being most relevant to me, rather than surrounding nations) and am really distressed when these bipolar jokers are so stodgy or stuffy in what they make a fuss about, really out for that toe to toe sort of stuff. (No, my testosterone isn't running low, it's just that endless internet soap operas seem pointless.) For opposing both aggravating sides (Celticist & Germanicist) of arguments between the British peoples, I am obviously persona non grata (as a declared Romanist, even though I don't edit from this perspective, only dispute either of the other two POVs taken for granted when they argue on the talk pages), but I have been reading encyclopedias since I was in kindergarten and it still remains an interest, especially a project where we are supposed to edit in concert, building together as a team. Instead, it's all dog-eat-dog. (Does Jimmy Wales rather believe in this, the Randian individualist free for all?) I don't know what to do, but please don't say it's my fault and I deserve it, that I need to look at it from their perspective, blah blah. Their perspective is like that, to blame their victims for stupidity and vulnerability, etc. Regards, Catterick (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

hannibal roman pic
Thats just it Paul the original caption under the bust that stated clearly that" it may not be authenthic" was removed by the editor, who changed to wording under the bust to "support her claim". this I had been talking to about this dispute on our user pages but full the need to come on on the discus page and insult me. By calling me a sock. That is why I brougth our entire conversation from our pages, To the articles page The image you brought back does not contain the wording of the original. which had the "warning"about authenticity. You brougth back the one that she changed. What I have been suggesting from the start was the we take time to find an acurate image which wasn't surrounded with a bunch of "MAYBE'S". TruHeir (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you agree with it then no problem, your opinion is yours. But why removed the caption under the bust which let readers no it may not be authentic, because truth is we don't no whether it is or not. So why remove that and try to pass this one of as it is. When all the so-called cources seem to say the same thing which is "MAYBE".TruHeir (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am suprise that you would result to something so low as name calling; I'm an Afrocentric are you serious? what makes me an Afrocentric. if you look at the edits on that page before I came on you will see that I did not add that statment it was there already I just moved it up and let it flow with the rest of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ham_(son_of_Noah)&diff=285536671&oldid=284703587. judging from you edits you seem to have a fixation with race so I guess I can race you a racist then TruHeir (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You must be out of your mind, you call me an afro centric about the Hannibal bust when no one had even mentioned anything about race, then you pull this crap about me lying the ancient Egyptians referred to their land as "Kemet" which means "Land of the Blacks." Western historians, however, say that the word "Kemet" refers to the color of the soil of the land. ( I don’t see anywhere that I disputed that so why is the lie I told) and how does that make me an afrocentric? the word "Kemet" is actually an ethnic term being a derivative of the word "Khem" (Cham or Ham) which means "burnt" or "black." Ham, who was one of the three sons of Noah. The article is NOT about Egyptology it’s about Ham. Get your facts straight and spare me the BS, your really do have a fixation for race topic. So I guess you are a racist then. I acutally respected what you had to say when you entered the dispute about hannibal, I didn't think you would end up being this type of person. Do not waste my time with anymore foolishnessTruHeir (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn’t realize you were focusing on just those words I thought you were talking about the whole revision. Which I did move up and yes I added that statement. Like I said before this is not about Egyptology this about the Ham. And the terms Kemet" is an ethnic term being a derivative of the word "Khem" (Cham or Ham) which means "burnt" or "black." Being an ethnic term it about people isn’t it…How ironic the page is about PEOPLE a person and his descendants. To my knowledge khemet or the hieroglyphics symbol KMT can mean 3 things land of the black or land of the blacks. or black land.  It never just meant black, so I guess there is a reason why you are engaged in an edit war right now. Trying to change the meaning of Khemet, Is that going to get you another award for your work on aryan races, Its pathetic take off your eurocentric blanket. You can’t cover up or change anything. It would be best if you stated things as they were. Its quite sad really. I’m done talking to you, you can have whatever opinion of me you like it doesn’t matter.TruHeir (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Paul: If possible, it might be best to put the whole verbatim of Rosalie in the footnote, not just the author/book/page ref. That way, all users can see the what he says.
 * TruHeir: sounds like you've some knowledge in hieroglyphics, it'd be good if you put in your refs too.Catiline63 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, page Black (hieroglyphic 'km') was edited in January by an anon who added to an original statement that the etymology of the word Egypt was a reference to the black earth of the Nile Delta (i.e. that Egypt means "black earth"). The edit is: "A more likely theorized reference is to the people. The determinative used is called the niw.t (a political designate. It is a circle with a cross which represents a city intersection. A literal translation of KM.t is "Black City" or "Black Nation" since the determinative is not a reference to earth or soil". The statement is not referenced, so may be OR. This should be corrected in accordance to the sources you both adduce. Catiline63 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You come up with this nonsense and randomly accused me of being an afro-centric and brought up issues of race when no one was talking about that. It’s really pathetic; you just continue to show the type of person you are. The article is about nothing other than Ham a biblical figure and according to the bible HAM (which) means black and his children were the people who moved into Africa. Then the people who originally lived there and occupied the vast lands where descendants of Ham. So since you decided to bring up skin color, Black Africans were the first to occupy Africa weren’t they ,and they do have dark or darker skin complexions don’t they. ..This is not an Afro-centric view it is what the bible say. . You said "There is no dispute that KMT means 'black'. No-one apart from Afro centrists believes that has anything to do with skin. Well KMT does not mean black KM does. Again get your facts straight or learn about a subject before you spew rubbish I do not care about your theories of skin color, race or Afro-centricity... This is the last time I'm going to tell you this.I don't have time for your foolishness. It would be best if you stayed off my page with your nonsense.TruHeir (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It follows from your edits and seems to be the only plausible explanation for your obsession with removing the Hannibal bust. Otherwise it seems wholly unmotivated and bizarre. 12:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Usko-Mediterranean section
As you asked me to add some data on the linguistics researches made by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena I have just added a section. If this theory looks too silly, of course is not my fault (I have even deleted some ideas as that that god Amon means "good mother").

I would like to take a look at the text, and especially to watch for the edits of the Arnaiz's fans (which are suspected very, very, very close to Arnaiz). I am sure they will try to discredit the experts references. As a matter of fact I am afraid that their (or his) only reason to edit here is to advertising Arnaiz and Alonso books and courses by mail.

As a reference I would state that many of Arnaiz seems to be publications are self-published. The book on Iberia Prehistory is on a colloquium that he organized; the Complutense's books obviously have nothing to do with the Humanities section, but with the Medicine section (where Arnaiz works; that's no secret) and on the books by the FEGEL (Fundación de Estudios Genéticos y Lingüísticos) it is not only a Foundation created with the explicit aim of disseminate the ideas of Arnaiz, but he is its president.

Hope I will keep editing in more serious questions and not to be bothered by this usko-mediterranean lunacy, but as a person that has been accused by Arnaiz's fans of been the sockpuppet of three different wikipedians, and to be "virtual", maybe it is a very optimistic wish. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page and deleted ""Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions" page(Iberomesornix:Talk page)
Paul,I (and others) had a strong argument about this page,which was finally deleted by Dumu Eduba,Trigaranus and Kwami.Now,they put most of their arguments for deleting the page,expanded,in a page dedicated to a  short Biography(Arnaiz-Villena). Could you restore the page "Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions" for counter-reasoning and bibliography addition? Otherwise,can one use again material which was deleted? In any case,could you tell everybody what to do? I have deleted all about Usko-Mediterranean languages,which was also deleted in the Deletion Process and main subject of controversy. Thank you--Virginal6 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)--Virginal6 (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like somebody mixed references with arguments. As long as I know all the data I added is what the bibliography says, and there is no wrong data. All what is attributed to the Usko-Mediterranean theory has been written by its authors. All what is said in the criticism is wrote by reputed experts and it is what they say.


 * Virginal6 was told that the Usko-Mediterranean theory had no place for a separate article, and was suggested that its place was in the Arnaiz-Villena article. He agreed with the inclusion of the paragraph on "Iberian Inscriptions", which dealt with the Iberian-Guanche matter, so his argument now has no sense (is internally contradictory).


 * Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That darned Kemet
Supporting refs - all giving only "black land" (and no dodgy variants!) added. Hopefully things'll settle down now. Regards. Catiline63 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hannibal
I wonder now whether any other "editors" wade in and say 'No'...? ;o) Catiline63 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ochre
Watch out for 3RR; you're on it. However, I did report User:Jackiestud to AN3, so hopefully she gets blocked before any other warring happens. This is not the only article she has been edit warring on. MuZemike 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I never noticed the guy had written "supposing that everyone with a different nationalistic outlook to your own is a mere 'tendentious chauvinist' is in itself a prime example of chauvinism." Cheeky. I'm not from the Middle East and I don't have a dog in the fight here. Giving the common alternative name in the first line might seem a trivial thing but it's a matter of principle for me. If we can't add the most basic facts for fear of "offending" users with a dislike of, say, Arabs then Wikipedia is doomed. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Celtic article sexual practices
I responded to your comment on my talk page.

Drifter bob (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dieudo
''Please note that you may be blocked for edit warring if you continue to revert contrary to consensus. Your edits have been construed as POV by several editors. You are not allowed to make more that three reversions to your preferred version within a 24 hour period. See WP:3RR. Paul B (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)''

contrary to consensus? I have provided sources & citations to back up my edits. Your posts are bias stating un-finished facts in reverse order, leading to false assumptions to serve own personal political agenda. I edit, you erase.

I will be there. Sincerely,

Simon ...un Breton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.153.32 (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Japhetic
Hi. Was wondering if you could have a look at Talk:Japhetic since the edit history seems to indicate that you introduced the relevant material into the article?

Thanks, TimNelson (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Riverside Shakespeare
Paul, I just clarified (reordered) your correction to the Riverside Shakespeare Company Wiki page, concerning the actors and the roles they played in Midsummer. Weimar03 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

Desperate Romantics
odd, i meant desperate. I pasted the thing and just glossed over the error! I'm also sure it's not the only portrayal; if you have the time to include some others, that would be great :) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He was the most purely preraphaelite; that probably sours him to contemporary audiences. I'll look into a few of the dramas and add them. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Better late than never! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman salute
Paul, if you remember you were an original contributor to the article on the roman salute. The two of us had some disagreements on citing sources. I've spent quite some time researching sources, and I think I have a reasonably cited restructuring of the article. It's generally along the lines you first felt was appropriate, but very sourced. What do you think?--Work permit (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit
Which part of my argument was unitelligable for you ? Or in other words, what kind of relation do you see between that necklace and the word "Aryan" (or even between that picture and Wilson's old statement about Swastica that was cited in its caption)? And what is your source for that presumptive relation? Alefbe (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fanelli/Alkan
Sorry, didn't mean to be aggressive. As I'm active in the Alkan Society in London (edit the website and the Bulletin), I am I auppose unresaonably irritated by the various fantasies that people attach to Alkan. It is the case that there is no evidence that he took any pupils after the 1860s. It is also the case (whatever Grove says) that there is not a scrap of evidence linking Fanelli presonally with Alkan. Any link can only be an opinion of the Grove writer, and should be cited, if at all, as such, making it clear that no 'hard' source exists for it. I'm afraid that, here as elsewhere, just because it's in Grove doesn't make it 'encyclopaedic'. Best regards - --Smerus (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see now you've done exacly that in the Fanelli article. Thanks - --Smerus (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Further research; Grove is definitely wrong. Fanelli studied at the Conservatoire from 1876. CV Alkan did not teach at the Conservatoire after 1848, indeed he was at war with the conservatoire after this date (seearticle). Fanelli may therefore have studied under Alkan's brother, Napoleon Alkan, who was professor of solfege. The writer of the Grove article is evidenly not aware of this. The article does not claim that F's music was influenced by Alkan. In short - nothing connects Fanelli with C-V Alkam I will correct both articles accordingly presently. Now I have to go to work. --Smerus (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now made these corrections, with the help of an additonal source. It's interesting that the Grove piece draws a lot of its information from Calvocoressi's article (which incidentally doesn't mention Alkan). Moreover note that Calvocoressi's article is dated 1st April. And Antheil was also known as a joker. I get the feeling that a lot of the Fanelli farrago was stitched up, maybe by Pierne who envied Debussy and co.--Smerus (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Siberian American Aborigines
The more I look at this the less sense it makes as an article. Anything before Clovis is 'pre-Siberian'? I'm not sure what to do about it though, suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

???
Would you be interested in writing an article on wikipedia for me? www.myspace.com/wisdommoney


 * About? Paul B (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tutankhamun
You might want to keep an eye on this page. User:Deeceevoice is making many edits trying to assert King Tut's "Blackness" and trying to reason with her on the talk page does no good.--KatelynJohann (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration?
Hello, Paul. As a keen student of Victoriana I was wondering if you'd be interested in developing a page I've set up? One of my little pet subjects is Dennis Potter, and I've just set up a page related to his play Where Adam Stood: his free adaptation of Edmund Gosse's Father and Son. There's just the bare bones of a plot outline at the moment and a few production details, but these are very scant and veering into original research. Any input you may have would be most valuable. Yours, Absurdtrousers (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (AKA. Richard)
 * Thanks for the reply. As I say, any input would be totally appreciated. You're quite right that the play has a rather unusual shape. It does seem, though, that despite Omphalos predating Origin, Darwin was intent on "trying out" his theories with several eminent naturalists and geologists before publishing them &mdash; this may explain the odd resequencing of events Potter employs.

Absurdtrousers (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Paul - sorry about the late reply, I've been offline for a couple of days. Thank you so much for the Historical Background section: great work! Ah, Double Dare... I know what you mean about the Flake. I found myself unable to stay in a Holiday Inn afterwards, I must say.

Absurdtrousers (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Orpheus

 * Try this but its heavy and sometimes slows down my pc The-Odrysian-Kingdom-of-Thrace.Its a pdf of sorts from scrbd.Megistias (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unicorn in "Language of flowers"?
Sir, you added information to the article Language of flowers referring to symbols of virginity documented by Liana DeGirolami Cheney, including a string of flowers and plants, and culminating in the unicorn. This unfortunate phrasing, within an article concerning flowers, set me off to discover if there was a plant called the unicorn; I conclude there is none, and that Cheney was referring to the mythical beast. Perhaps a parenthetic note could be appended to indicate that Cheney was referring to the animal, to avoid misleading ambiguity. Thank you. 174.16.37.93 (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you check the diff you will see that I did not add any such material. I merely moved it from one part of the article to another to improve the logic and flow. The sentence is a quotation which refers to a list of symbols of virginity, most of which are flowers, but also happens to mention that the unicorn was also used as a symbol. I hardly think anyone will imagine that the unicorn is a flower. Since it forms part of a quotation it cannot be rewritten. I really think a parenthetical addition such as you propose would be unnecessary and patronising to the reader. Paul B (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon for misidentifying you as the contributor who added that quotation; I did look at the article history, but apparently incorrectly. Anyway, your point that it would patronise the reader overlooks my experience where the way the word unicorn ended a list of flowers, within an article about flowers, made me think a flower had been named after the mythical beast, so I spent time searching for references to that flower, only to conclude, as I described, that there probably wasn't one, so I would not have been patronised, therefore, had the distinction been pointed out. In its original context, the quotation may very well have been devoid of ambiguity, but in the context in which it has been inserted, it acquires a new shade of sense, an unfortunate suggestion accrues. 174.16.37.93 (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Race of Jesus
You said ''The whole passage is irrelevant to any common-sense view because it is a passage about a supernatural being who is appearing in the clouds! However since commentators have raised this point then it is worth mentioning the claims that have been made. In any case Jesus died at the age of 33. The white hair of old age has nothing to do with this. Your argument is both OR and makes no sense.''

Focusing on that you believe that claims have been made about his hair color in relation to his race. Firstly, I have never seen, heard, no learned of in any institution of how white hair can be of any clue to anyone's race. White hair comes from every race. Even though Jesus was 33, again, it does not lead then, to speculate that Jesus race would be less likely to be black because he has white hair at 33. Again, this is possible at any race. Maybe claims have been made, but incoherent, insubstantial, and as far as I have ever known, unsupported claims do not get includeded into Wikipedia articles. Even if it is, the comment "hair color is not indicative of race" should and will be added to any comments relating or disassociating him from any race due to his having white hair. But all of this would require a citation of some sort. Wikipedia policy. --Panehesy (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Monier Monier-Williams
this diff is your addition. Do you have a source for that addition? It is controversial to use his writings as sources on Hindu subjects so it would be very helpful to have the source. Alatari (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

John Gano
Kudos for your excellent handling of the Washington baptism which was much better than what I thought about doing. I always thought it was pretty apocraphal. My interest is William Jewell College which has the painting (and signature Gano Chapel) and the college won't even vouchsafe for baptism story. Thanks again.Americasroof (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock accusations
This is why we (some of the more responsible black contributors) use our screen names very sparingly to edit race/religion articles. You and others are so so obsessed with blocking modern evidence that dispels those antiquated semi-racist views that you will try to shoot the messenger to prevent the cited message from being published on here. Also, it is brought to my attention that the order of the outline of an article impacts the way it is viewed. The first in the order is usually taken to be the most factual. We already know in advance that other contributors will try to sock us when we successfully change articles away from the acccepted Eurocentric view. In fact, you should assume that any black contributor to any race/religion article is expecting that reaction. So we use our screen names when it is an air tight contribution. But we don't do sock anything. There's a lot of techniques used that aren't even addressed that are designed to prop up Eurocentric beliefs despite the evidence. We are handling them all, successfully. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lies about what? You're acting like a clown. There's nothing racist about pointing out accurately that Fair is not "white", adam was not "white", ruddy is not "white", Jesus was not "white".. in other words standing up against the racist notion that everything in history was white. The bias in articles about skin color, race, middle eastern history, and so forth are based on the Carleton Coon mentality. Just think about it, where did you get the notion that "ruddy" meant white? From a 16th century commentary on the Bible or on a Carleton Coon type pseudoscientific article from 1954. Paul it's too late, a couple of years ago this was brought to our attention and I watched over a span of months while good references in a few articles were overtaken by the very racism you pretend to rail against. It's like going to a Tea Party, where they display nazi symbols comparing Obama to hitler, but knowing only 20 years ago many those same people were holding up nazi symbols because they were neo-nazis themselves. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul, you keep generally stating that my comments are stupid, but you're not specific as to what it is. Yes, Ruddy and Fair are both misrepresented as meaning lightskinned. How though do you draw a parallel that the basis for people believing in a black jesus being in part due to the content we provided... how is that nonsense? --68.41.101.63 (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Rays a Laugh.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rays a Laugh.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.

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 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Romulus and Remus
Ahem, that would be me. I thought it was far too long and unsourced (well, almost unsourced, the statement "He named the city Roma after himself" has a source - which says the city wasn't named after himself - now that's bizarre). But what we seem to have here is someone copying and pasting a translation of Plutarch into the article, and I don't think that's appropriate. The article shouldn't just be regurgitating Plutarch or even completely retelling the legend, should it? Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Found the original edit: Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with dispute?
Paul, could you help me appeal a dispute I'm having with Stephen Moorer (smatprt) over on the Shakespeare authorship question page? He inserted a list of prominent anti-stratfordians, living and dead, into the article along with quotations. I contend that it is promotion that adds nothing to the article beyond what a simple list of names would do. He of course, disagrees, in his usual passive/aggressive way. I reverted the edit and started a discussion, and he said he would appeal. He then reverted and said I would have to appeal. I know nothing about how to go about this and in looking up the procedure it is very unfamiliar and confusing. Could you walk me through the process? I'd appreciate it very much. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian verdict
It turns out that "Egyptian" was a common 19th C. description for dark and impenetrable. IOW Emerson couldn't understand why the Shakespeare societies thought he was a jovial actor manager. Or at least that's how I understand it now. And thanks for the help on the authorship page. It needs lots of work. I don't know how it ever got a B quality rating. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but your first thought was essentially correct: Emerson believed that "The Bard must have had a Higher Purpose in mind than mere public entertainment," which is why he couldn't understand their verdict. In any case, Roger's idea that Emerson was an authorship questioner is nuts. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Emerson made frequent statements throughout his life to the effect that the anti-Stratfordians had a case. More importantly, he supported a position you seem incapable of understanding; that doubters like Delia Bacon should be treated with respect. He supported the publication and dissemination of writing, and was personally responsible for insuring the publication of her first article on the authorship question. Your suggestion that the idea of his tolerance for the debate(which is hardly just mine) is "nuts" is wrong, and substitutes a personal insult for the truth. Please see Hope and Holston for further details. Whether or not Emerson can be classified as an anti-Stratfordian is not the point, according to Wikipedia guidelines. What matters is what he said and did on the subject, which deserves to be included in the article. Please cease your personal attacks and abuse. If you persist, I will file a complaint against you.--BenJonson (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Davinici Code
I have added a new section to The Davinci Code Talk for you to review before I re-edit the page after your undo. Please discuss it if you don't believe the changes should be made.--Krezyle (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor opining on piece he edited
"It might be better to raise the matter at the Reliable Sources noticeboard;"

How exactly do I do that? It takes me an inordinate amount of time figuring out the Wikipedia process, which seems to me extremely complex. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:201.9.217.31
You and I both seem to have run across the odd edits of User:201.9.217.31 and his less than useful edit summaries. I reverted his edits at Friedrich Olbricht with the following description: ''“Significant content change w/out explanation. Pls use edit summaries.”'' I didn’t think it was exactly vandalism since the edit was so subtle and not blatant. Nonetheless I templated him with uw-unsourced2 since he failed to provide a source supporting the changes. I also placed a Welcome-anon message on his anonymous talk page hoping he might read what it offers and become a useful contributor. Then I reviewed all of his edits over the past two days and noticed several other less bone fide edits and templated him accordingly for some of them. I left him at a Level 3 warning. Since you seem to edit virtually all of the articles that he was “editing”, you will most likely see if he returns to this pattern of editing before I would. If he persists, perhaps you might report him to WP:AIV to get him blocked, perhaps even a block requiring that he create an account. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  06:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Georges Ernest Boulanger
The article on Georges Ernest Boulanger generally lacks citations. The suggestion in the article about a coup is completely unbacked up by anything. He isn't alleged to have attempted a coup. It is bizarre. My guess is that it was just propaganda by his opponents. Whatever it is, it needs justifying or removing.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilmot
Paul, send me your e-mail again. I don't have access to my home computer, which has your e-mail address on it. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was just composing and saw the red wavy lines and absent-mindedly right clicked on them while I was thinking. Thanks for the heads-up. I don't want to get into any more trouble than I have. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Paul I've been clicking on preview before posting. That cuts down on my re-edits because of typos, but it doesn't eliminate them cos I'm always rewriting. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What?.... "The Puck"
Thanks for recognising the picture Paul, any ideas `about other objects in the room? Victuallers (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Orpheus

 * Could you give your opinion to Orpheus talk? Its a repetition of past events.Megistias (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Using the pic of King Josiah
G day Paul

Great work! I wanted to check with you if I could use the pic of King Josiah in this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Josiah.gif) When I checked the copyright status, it stated that it has expired and can be used but I also noted that you have uploaded the pic.

Please let me know your thoughts. The pic used will not be exact but will be influencial in what will be designed through it.

Thanks Alwyn alwynmatthomas@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.30.166 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Article in the Illustrated Exhibitor Magazine dated 1852
Dear Paul Barlow,

You might like to know, there is a request about an article about the investiture of early medieval kings, in the Illustrated Exhibitor Magazine dated 1852, that some people would like to see on wikimedia. Please see here Many thanks!

Yours, Mootros (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ARYAN wiki
Thanks for not vandalising this wiki page, else I will request an admin to resolve this issue. Aryan derivating from the sanskrit arya is shared by most (independant) scholars. Persian ref is more a propaganda. Arya wiki page contains many mistakes. I will do some changes. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Check any dictionnary, encyclopedia, they will tell you: aryan derives from the sanskrit word arya, someone has provided ref. There are similar words like ariya and (above all) airya in persian but they do not occur more than 10 times in the whole ancient persian litterature. the story of self designator among persians is more a propaganda; the Parsi (the real descendants of the ancient persians) never user used it. Thanks. The word started being used in the western world only after the conquest and discovery of India.Rajkris (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The most authoritive dictionary is the OED (Oxford English Dictionary)..." --> this is your POV. Most of books tell this: aryan derives from sanskrit arya.Rajkris (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Herodotus uses the word Hdt. 1.1.0, "Μῆδοι δὲ τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην ἐσταλμένοι ἐστρατεύοντο: Μηδικὴ γὰρ αὕτη ἡ σκευή ἐστι καὶ οὐ Περσική. οἱ δὲ Μῆδοι ἄρχοντα μὲν παρείχοντο Τιγράνην ἄνδρα Ἀχαιμενίδην, ἐκαλέοντο δὲ πάλαι πρὸς πάντων Ἄριοι, ἀπικομένης δὲ Μηδείης τῆς Κολχίδος ἐξ Ἀθηνέων ἐς τοὺς Ἀρίους τούτους μετέβαλον καὶ οὗτοι τὸ οὔνομα. αὐτοὶ περὶ σφέων ὧδε λέγουσι Μῆδοι. " in the 5th century BC to describe the Medes, so the word existed in the western world as an ethnonym prior to India being conquered or discovered. This does not show how much they used it themselves but the term and word existed.Megistias (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was adressing Rajkris :)Megistias (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ¨Provide inline, clear citations. Medes were called medes, persians, persians (...) by greeks... If it was a self designator why others never called them 'airya', 'ariya'.Rajkris (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Aryan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My theory on Indo-Aryan migration
Hi Paul.

How are you doing??

please find my complete and comprehensive solution for the so called Aryan problem it is one of the longest research papers published in the history of india in a peerreview journal

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two Mirror: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two

- Part one is just a high level overview with proof

- Part two is a detailed century by century model (This is the most important part) with methods to reconstruct the languages of the indus

journal

Part one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506

Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822

now that it has been published in a journal, is there any place where my ideas can be added.

sujayrao2000@yahoo.com,sujay.rao@in.ibm.com

Sujay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.91 (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
for mentioning your name in a threesome on EdJohnson's page, without asking your opinion. It was an act of rather bossy arrogance for me to assume thoughtlessly that you might be tilted one way or another, instead of exemplifying, as one sees in most edits, a maverick independence of rigorous equanimity before the empirical facts. I did so for the usual Baconian-Elizabethan reason, numerological balancing of trinities, in making a fair proposal. But, since I am not a Trinitarian. . Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoi! un beau coup de veine! Alors, bon voyage et bon appétit!Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:JWW TheLadyOfShallot 1888.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:JWW TheLadyOfShallot 1888.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. R12056 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare’s Sonnets section titled “Principal Audio and Audio-Visual Interpretations"
Limoux, France, 27/3/10

Dear Mr Barlow,

I have been asked to contact you and hope for some guidance on a section that was included in Shakespeare’s Sonnets in Wikipedia a short while ago. Many people have said the section added greatly to the entry and we would like to see it returned in the correct and acceptable way, I am writing to ask your help in helping me see its return in due course.

Mr Willby has many citations and appreciation of his work in bringing the sonnets to greater light and understanding for worldly figures as HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales as President of the Royal Shakespeare Company, President Bill Clinton and many more as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Yours sincerely

Steffan Scurfield

Dear Steffan

Shakespeare’s Sonnets section titled “Principal Audio and Audio-Visual Interpretations”.

I am having a great deal of communications from academic colleagues about the loss of this section in Wikipedia. They have been using it to aide teaching and further understanding of the works to students whose first language is not always English or to help other students articulate, hear the rises and falls, pauses and enunciation, etc. of English at time in the language’s history when it was in a far different form than it is today.

I cannot think of any other way of doing this entry other than by giving the reader a guide to the principal audio and audio-visual interpretations that are available to them.

Perhaps Mr Barlow knows a better way?

I believe this entry to be valid for this reason and also as in Elizabethan times, literacy was limited and the oral/aural tradition was far stronger than it is today: the only way for the majority of people to accede to the Sonnets would have been by the spoken word. Even today many people, including the elderly and the blind can only experience this great body of verse through recordings. The purpose of this entry is to serve as a guide to some of the main source material.

Kind regards

Jonathan Willby

Copy of revised entry for Wikipedia, Shakespeare’s Sonnets, please advise.. (Mr Barlow, please do not worry that this is not shown as the correct way of showing links, people, for Wikipedia, I will do that, this i just for content   SS)

Principal Audio and Audio-Visual Interpretations

Complete audio recordings of all the 154 Sonnets by individual readers are quite scarce. Probably the best-known purely audio interpretation of a near-complete collection is that by the legendary British actor, Sir John Gielgud (Caedmon 1963). Another memorable version is that by the English-born screen actor Ronald Colman(multi LP set, date unreported). More recent unabridged recordings have been made by the British actor Simon Callow (HighBridge Co. Oct 2005). The American film actor Stacy Keach has also recently offered his interpretation in a 2 cd set (label unspecified). Other individual complete readings include those by Jack Edwards (Helios/Hyperion, 1988-1991), and by David Butler (In Audio 2005) and Alex Jennings (Naxos 2006). Audio versions of selected Sonnets by individual readers has been recorded by the actor Anthony Quayle 24 Sonnets, (1956) and by Dame Edith Evans, 20 Sonnets (EMI, early 1960s). The best known "combined cast" audio versions of all the 154 Sonnets are those made by Dame Judi Dench, Ian McKellen, Michael Williams, Peter Egan, Peter Orrand Bob Peck (Penguin Classics 1995), and by Patrick Stewart, Natasha Richardson, Ossie Davis, Al Pacino, Claire Bloom, Kathleen Turner, Alfred Molina, Eli Wallach and others (AirplayAudio Publishing 2000). Another complete version exists by a cast of various mainly North American readers, emphasized as being 'in the public domain'. (Librivox 2005/6). An impressive cast of some 40 former alumni, young and old, of London's Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts perform on an audio rendition of 47 Sonnets, entitled 'When Love Speaks'. (EMI, released 4 February 2003). The British actor Alan Rickman has recorded his version of Sonnet 130. An interesting offering for linguists is a disc entitled 'Accents for Actors--Accents of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England which provides "A Shakespeare Sonnet read in 20 different accents of the British Isles" (Clo-lar-Chonnachta, Eire: SAC 1027). Complete audio-visual interpretations are also scarce and include a version with musical preludes by Jonathan Willby (2006). Filmed readings of selected Sonnets include a video film entitled: "Shakespeare on Screen: selected Sonnets by Shakespeare" and described as "an educational program that gives an in-depth analysis of fifteen of Shakespeare's Sonnets". The cast of readers comprises the actors Ben Kingsley, Roger Rees, Claire Bloom andJane Lapotaire with critical commentaries by A. L. Rowse, Leslie Fiedler, Stephen Spender, Gore Vidal, Arnold Wesker, Nicholas Humphrey and Roy Strong. (Kenneth S Rothwell and Annabelle Henkin Melzer, 1984). A video version of 29 of the Sonnets was made, with a commentary, in various pastoral settings: at the breakfast table, over the telephone and as a standup comedy routine (Princeton, N.J-Films for the Humanities and Sciences, 2000) In the arthouse drama film 'The Angelic Conversion', directed by Derek Jarman, Dame Judi Dench recites a number of the Sonnets (1985). Musical settings of the sonnets are rare. Igor Stravinsky set Sonnet 8, "Music to hear", in his Three Songs From William Shakespeare. Benjamin Britten also set only one sonnet by Shakespeare, Sonnet 43, as the last part of his Nocturne. Andrzej Czajkowski set seven sonnets. Maurice Johnston set Sonnet 75 "So are you to my thoughts". In 2007 the RSC ran Nothing Like the Sun, a project to set the sonnets to music.[20] Zehnder recorded Sonnet 30 on their CD Broken Train of Thought listed in the liner notes as '30'.

Jwssbarlow (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare’s Sonnets section titled “Principal Audio and Audio-Visual Interpretations"
Hello Paul,

Jonathan who wrote the section lives in Midi Pyrénées so it's a pity you couldn't have met up over a "petit noir" to discuss your proposal of shortening the section.

I know he spent absolutely ages paring it down to the bare minimum in order not to waste valuable Wikipedia space.

Half the trouble seems to be that other people have 'hitched a ride' on his original wording !

Any guidance please as to what you think could be chopped without losing useful reader-information?

Have a great séjour in Brittany

Kind regards

Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwssbarlow (talk • contribs) 12:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey hey
Hi Paul - long time no hear (though I'm in touch with Colin every so often). Drop me a line sometime (jasonw@falmouth.ac.uk).

Best wishes - Jason Jason Whittaker (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Gordondeath.jpg
Hi Paul. I just uploaded a higher quality image of the painting you uploaded here. I switched the two places it was used with the new one, and put it up for deletion. Just letting ya know.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sickert
"To my shame I used to include discussion of the Jack the Ripper conspiracy theory to get students interested in Walter Sickert. So does one of my colleagues. That does not mean that the theory that Sickert was Jack the Ripper is legitimate revisionist art history 'taught in universities'."
 * What about showing them a video of Barry Humphries doing a Sir Les Patterson Minister fa the Yartz skit, followed on by a reminder that Humphreys is a keen collector of Walter Sickert's work?Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Europe
Beat me to the reversion by a nanosecond. Sixty six cites and a long history of said topic, and notability is an issue? JNW (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hilarius Gilges


The article Hilarius Gilges has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable? . on the other hand this is DYK material.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WHY?
Dear Paul, I thought Dumu Eduba was a linguist who was against our work. No ,I can see he is just after me. When a sentence is cancelled by a superior court,nobody can reproduce it. But it is a shock to me you support such a libelagainst Arnaiz-Villena. If you are upset by the paper we wrote about Palestinians I am very sorry and I have not made any further comment.

However,if you are interested in this topic some Jewish authors (at least 2 of them,the most senior ones,friend of mine) have published online today that Palestinians and Jews are genetically very similar (type Nature,Jewish genetics,today).

I do not know why then somebody got that upset and now Nature publishes the same thing (with a weaker methodology to my view)

I must tell you I heve never visited a Mislim country since I was student in Spain (Morocco). except Bali and Java,which are mostly for Hinduism (Bali).I have many reasons.

I have some friend Jews (from Middle East);you told I had to live with our Palestinian paper. I live,but I do not have an agenda in favour (Israel has the means of knowing it after so much time.

Please,dont follow Dumu Eduba or tell me WHY you want to,

Why do not you call me and I can talk more.?

I am really sorry to distress you. Best regards AntonioArnaiz1 (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mitanni
I restored to a more stable version (Indo-European origin), favored by you and User:Dbachmann. See Talk:Mitanni, regarding the linguistic terms/sources I provided and explained as best as I could. Its not my responsibility if someone doesnt understand it. In Graeco-Aryan, I also clarified what Armeno-Aryan is referring to, exclusion of Greek, and subgroup with Armenian and Indo-Iranian. I added additional sources of the family tree (also type in "Indo-European" in google every search has that tree), when I saw your discussions in your contribs regarding the IE tree etc etc. Forsts23 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Your recent edits on my edits on articles discussed recently, are pleasing for the moment. Thank you for the input.WillBildUnion (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)