User talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 8

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed
An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
 * 2) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
 * 3) NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
 * 4) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on . Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Russell
Paul, I'm five years in writing the fully authorised biography of Ken Russell, and my sources are the actual day by day production records from the BBC, so congratulations for replacing my accurate corrections with guff and for continuing Wikipedia's work of peddling falsehoods and dissuading real academics from sharing their knowledge. My books include Lindsay Anderson, The Diaries (Methuen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.80.23 (talk • contribs)
 * Butting in - these changes are perfectly reasonable (what exactly are "gallery prices"?) and most of your additions remain, at this article anyway. In case you didn't see it, there was a note at your talk page explaining the main problem. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Real academics are typically aware of the need to cite sources. As Johnbod says, I left a note on your talk page. Your IP is identical to the one you used then, so you should have seen the yellow strip telling you that you had a message. Or is it the case that real academics do not engage in discussion? If you want real academics to take your views on the matter seriously, I hope you will read some real academic literature on the background to the increase in the value of Pre-Raphaelite art during the '60s. I recently read a PhD on the topic. Ken Russell, strangely, was not accorded a major role. I think my alterations of your text were fairly minor, considering the fact that they contain a number of problematic claims. I left in the following statement: "Dante's Inferno's visual style is taken mostly from the Pre-Raphaelite paintings themselves, many of which, such as Millais's Ophelia are filmed in the actual locations where the paintings were created." I'm not sure what it means to say that a painting is "filmed". Of course I did change your sentence by altering it from "Millais's Death of Ophelia", since "Death of Ophelia" is not the title of the painting. In other words, I removed what you would call "guff", written by someone who calls himself a real academic. I presume you mean that the artist is depicted working on the painting. So perhaps you can explain how exactly the painting was "filmed" in "the actual location"? Obviously, the painting of the Surrey landscape is not depicted. Millais completed the painting in London. He was living in Gower Street at the time, which would have made it feasable for Russell to pop over to film in his old studio. Is that what you meant? The scene is set in a small room. Boshier absurdly has a reproduction of The Hireling Shepherd on the wall behind him, so in one sense at least it is not very realistic! Paul B (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Derby refs
Could you add some refs to the second graf as requested by Brianboulton? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Shugborough Inscription
Paul, I've started a specific discussion on the talk page of the Shugborough inscription. I'm afraid it outlines all the reasons why we cannot trust Elephant's word. Can I ask for your mediation, or opinion, or views, because this outrageous man has made a real fool of us. I've been told to gather support, so I hope you can help. 85.179.76.167 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi 85.179.76.167, what you should be doing is asking for unbiased opinion in a neutral and open way, NOT slagging off your opponents and asking for people to back you up in the fight - let other people come along, read the opinions expressed, and decide for themselves without you telling them what you want them to say. What you are doing is called canvassing, and it can get people blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Thank you for correcting those misspellings but regarding this edit summary... I can see you have thousands of edits and have been around Wikipedia since 2002. In your opinion, is an edit summary the correct place to characterize other editors' spelling? Maybe you're just being sarcastically funny with your writtting and I'm just misssing it... Shearonink (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Gramarian? Ouch!
Leave we the unlettered plain its herd and crop

Seek we sepulture.

Nice allusion. All is 4given.Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Lesbian Article
You recently removed a template that linked to the talk page for the Lesbian article. Please do not re-engage the edit war that an administrator recently banned me (24h) for participating in. The tag is unobtrusive and I ask that you add it back until a consensus is reached. Here is a relevant quote from the NPOV FAQ (bolding by me):
 * It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

In any case, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion and I hope that we can find a resolution soon. --Elephanthunter (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, obviously I pushed the wrong button. I'll stop leaving "ridiculous" messages on your talk page since you so request. Sorry. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Frot
Hello, Paul Barlow. I am coming to you about this because I sometimes see you around on sexuality topics, LGBT topics among them (such as Lesbian). I approach you today about the Frot article, which has been a problematic article for a long time, but also one that I feel I have finally made decent; my improvements to the article have been acknowledged by others (for example, here and here). But there is one editor I cannot seem to satisfy. I have been having disputes with the editor named Mijopaalmc. This can be seen on the talk page. Basically, I feel that I am constantly improving the article (adding reliable sources, tweaking things, balancing things out, etc.) and that he is constantly hindering the article (removing reliably sourced text outright, complaining about trivial matters, nitpicking, etc.). Very recently, he has been removing the text that some frot advocates are concerned with the medical risks associated with anal sex, saying that the references don't back it up. His conclusion is false, as I explained on the talk page. The sources most definitely back up that part of the reason some frot advocates do not engage in anal sex is because of the associated health risks. Several hours ago, I reworded the bit to "diseases" instead of "health risks" and added extra reliable sources to back this up. This was done as I simultaneously fixed up the rest of the section (Debates). Mijopaalmc hasn't reverted or nitpicked again yet, but I feel that he will. If you can help out with discussions or simply watching this article, please do. I need help regarding Mijopaalmc's constant nitpicking of the article. Nothing I do ever seems to satisfy him, and I often worry of violating WP:3RR when interacting with his edits. Several hours ago, I don't feel that I violated 3RR, since I feel I was reverting vandalism; he was outright removing reliably sourced material and without a valid argument or further discussion, and I warned him of this on his talk page.

I'm just asking for help. Everything else we have tried has not truly helped, and we seriously need more editors weighing in or looking after the article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Strike outs
Could you strike out your edits on the SAQ talk page so we can keep up with them without having to hunt them down on the FAC page? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed myself it's taking a lot longer to reload after a change. That might be becasue we're all on it at the same time. I'll back off until later. I'll be out all afternoon and night tomorrow though, and won't be able to get back until Sunday. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You are required to make at least one more edit tonight
and take third place in the contributor ranks. Mind you, there's a huge gap to close before you overtake the second main contributor to this article!:) Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny
This is how it was done in 1839. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom Reedy (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Thanks for all of your hard work on SAQ and my congratulations on it making FA. I have added the article to my watchlist and am an admin, so if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
He did the same at Portraits of Shakespeare. I don't know how to unredirect (or redirect, for that matter). Tom Reedy (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ref templates, citation formats etc-.
Paul, what do you think about the idea of using the model we developed in the SAQ article for these contiguous pages? If you think it may be useful to extend it over them, I'd be quite happy to go through and begin organizing stuff.Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Tito Minniti
OK. I'll find the references you ask.--NewPangea4 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Roger Scruton
Hi Paul, I've posted an RfC at Talk:Roger Scruton—see here—to ask whether the neutrality tag should remain on the article. There are a number of issues in dispute; if you could comment even on just one of them, or your overall impression of the article's balance, that would be very helpful. I'm leaving this note because you've edited the article or talk page, but if you have no interest in commenting, please feel free to ignore the request. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Effie Gray
Nothing terribly new. The author discusses the various well-known possibilities, notably the sight of her pubic hair (per Mary Lutyens) or of menstrual blood. She tends to favour the latter on the grounds that even Ruskin (who was familiar with the female form from statues, etc) couldn't have been that naive! (It is, incidentally, a very good book, although, as some critics have commented, it quotes very little from the letters on which it is based.) Hope this helps, but let me know if you want more. I don't know how familiar you are with the background. IXIA (talk)


 * Well, I'm pretty familiar, having written this book . I find the menstural blood argument odd, since anyone as familiar with the Bible as Ruskin was would be very well aware of the concept of menstrual cycles. We also know he consulted a medical expert and that there was a medical statement concerning Effie's lack of deformities, which suggests to me that something about the shape of her body was the issue rather than its fluids. Still, that's very helpful, thanks. Paul B (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I shall read with great interest. IXIA (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If Ruskin wrote or spoke words regarding his aversion, we would have some insight into his way of thinking. Without Ruskin's own words, we have no way of knowing his thought processes. By observing his behavior, we can speculate about what he thought. Speculation can provide probable guesses, but never certainties. This applies to other aspects of Ruskin's behavior which have been topics of speculation. We can't make dogmatic statements about the inner thoughts of a man who never spoke or wrote about his own conscious thoughts regarding these matters. Any unconscious mental activity can only be pure guessing, but may, unknown to us, approach the truth asymptotically.Lestrade (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 23, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 02:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him. Proponents (called "anti-Stratfordians") say that Shakespeare was a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for some reason did not want or could not accept public credit. Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims. Despite the scholarly consensus, the controversy has spawned a vast body of literature, and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed, including Francis Bacon, the 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the 17th Earl of Oxford. In 2010 James S. Shapiro surveyed the topic in Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, in which he criticised academia for ignoring the topic and effectively surrendering the field to anti-Stratfordians, marking the first time a recognised Shakespeare scholar has devoted a book to the topic. Filmmaker Roland Emmerich's next movie, Anonymous, starring Rhys Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave, portrays Oxford as the real author. (more...)

Shakespeare's sonnets
Hi Paul, I wonder if you know about the sonnet template as used in the inset boxes in all the articles on Shakespeare's sonnets, for example Sonnet 116. Given the template as is, many of the line breaks are off. I would like to widen the box (to allow for accurate line breaks) and left align the text, to reflect how they were written. Do you know how the template might be tweaked? Many of the editors who set it up seem to be inactive these days. Thanks and best wishes 16:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Userpage protected
Hi. I've semiprotected your userpage, which was under attack by IP's and socks. See the history and this ANI post. Please let me know if you object to the protection. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC).

Tancred Borenius
Nice to see this (Category:Art historians involved in espionage anyone?). I always do a search like this to winkle out further links. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Durning-Lawrence
Congratulations re Edwin Durning-Lawrence! I take it that my information about him on the talkpage of the Shakespeare authorship question piqued your curiosity. You may like to use my notes here. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments on DYK nom for Spelling of Shakespeare's name
Hook and article length OK. But 2 issues must be resolved: no citation specifically for "most importantly Samuel Taylor Coleridge" in the article; and many uncited paras. Please respond at Template_talk:Did_you_know. --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Stockhausen
If a 5-year-old can find a reference in a minute, why don't you have the politeness to add it? This would be helpful to any future reader of the article. This is what I found in a minute. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon, English is not my first language, I don't understand all you wrote. Also please keep the discussion here, I will watch. - If what you claim and what contradicts the source I found, is in one of the existing sources why don't you simply point out which one and double it??? I would consider that constructive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what you added, doesn't show, my happiness is not the question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote from my talk page:
 * It seems that you are so happy to behave in this manner that you didn't even bother to look to see that I did add it. Paul B (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow what you are saying. I added the souce before you left me a message. What contradicts what source? Paul B (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by your happiness. I might be better if you write in German. I don't know what you mean when you say "what you added, doesn't show", nor do I understand what "contradicts the source" you found. Paul B (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You referred to my happiness. The source I found says he died in Kürten. The source you claim to have added doesn't show, but instead: "Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a Reflist template or a references tag; see the help page." It seems that you need help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is no reflist tag on the page that is due to the incompetence of people who have been maintaining it. All pages should have reflist tags. That is not my mistake. I will add the appropriate reflist template. I do not claim to have added a source, I did add a source. If you cannot see it is the diff, then you seriously do need help. I never referred to your "happiness". I said you were "happy to behave" in a particular way. In English that means you are willing to behave in a way without being emotionally disturbed by it. I cannot believe that you can really be so incompetent that you do not know that the "he" referred to in my addition is Stockhausen's father. Stockhausen died in Kurten. His father certainly did not. Paul B (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adjusting, please correct spelling and, if possible, be conform with the referencing style of the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you correct the typo. I'm sick of this. If you think a different referencing style is appropriate you adjust it. Make the effort to do something useful instead of something useless and negative. Paul B (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Spelling of Shakespeare's name
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Matiene under siege
I note you have been involved in the dispute over trying to label the Indo-Aryan element in Mitanni. The same thing is being done at Matiene. Can you help? Mike Nassau (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Authorship of Titus
Very nice intro on the Authorship of Titus Andronicus page; brief, but sets up the article very well. Thanks. And thanks for the move too. And the wikilinks! Bertaut (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Titus title page.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Titus title page.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

M.F. Hussain
I appreciate your efforts with the M.F. Husain page and for fighting the good fight. Unfortunately, it still looks a bit shoddy and bereft of any actual examples of his art. Since he died just today, I expect that the trolls will be out in full force but perhaps eventually the page can get to the status of a respectable reference.--Innerproduct (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Woman's World
Mr Barlow, As you may have noticed I've begun expanding on your work on the above article. I feel it could be quickly brought to a good standard, though I have access to only a single reliable source. If you are interested in working on the subject again your knowledge of the period would be most welcome. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

hummm
Good edit on Deuteronomy. I had no idea you took an interest in OT scholarship - not a bit dry after General Macdonald? PiCo (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't remember now why or when I put Macdonald on my watch-list. It's an interesting story, and I guess that's why. Also a tragic one. PiCo (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Please help out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboardThigle (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bronzino
I just casually noted an obvious mess while browsing the Bronzino pages, and tried a quick redraft off the top of the head. As it stands the page is thick with examples of his work but comes up, at least on my screen, with a long blank space before the text which looks extremely ugly. Any way that can be fixed? I know fuck all about formatting, let alone much else, and naturally thought of your professional expertise. Forget it if it is complicated or a bother. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'dead, dead flesh'. Cripes! Whaddya expect from a butcher's son? I like 'zombie lust', even googled it. Sounds so kitschly Freudian in its fond connubium between thanatos and eros. Thanks in any case. It's nice to be able to count of experts round here. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed de Vere
Deal with it accordingly, then. Many specialists in the field flatly refuse to consider alterative authorship theories. Alan Nelson's book is not a high quality source. The other thing we have supported the theory that the grain dealer from Stratford wrote these plays is a name similar to his on the dedication page to some of his plays. Based on this flimsy connection, scores of "specialists" in the field have unwaveringly supported the Straford line. How can we put these specialists at the top of some pyramid? Is there any room for reason here? Finally, I'd like to know what the implication of your threat is in the final line of your rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.155 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is vastly more evidence than that, and you must surely know it. And I have already pointed out that the name is not "similar". It is spelled "Shakespeare" on the very same legal documents signed by the man from Stratford which proves that it is the same person with variant spellings, just as there are many variant spellings used in publications. The implication of Peter's final line is spelled out in the section above on the Ed de V talk page. Paul B (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

NOGE
I would like to know why you undid my recent edit of the NOGE lede page and other edits. you posted nothing on the talk page and i had to search around even find out who deleted my edits. The NOGE was not founded by clarence 13X. Clarence 13X has only a 31/2 year history. from the time Clarence entered the mosque and recieved the 13x to the day he was excommunicated out the mosque 3 1/2 years later and dropped the X. i dont know what wikipedia's policy is in regard to the name Allah. Mayor lindsey called him Allah and gave him a scholl that still exists at 2122 7th ave. Everyone called him Allah because that is his name and not a title for him or for the NOGe. The family name or surname for the NOGE is Allah. Wikipedia has simply been mis informed and and has bought into the false paradigm that Clarence 13x is somehow the true identity and Allah is a non existent entity or simply a nickname of sorts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornking7 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian race controversy
I'm just summarizing the "non-black" positions described later in the article. Is that a problem? 24.22.217.162 (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please add a brief description of the "outside race" thesis in the intro that you find acceptable? Or even better, summarize the nature of the controversy and its range of views, and move the details of Afrocentrism into the body. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your recent change (which appears to be based on text deleted earlier) addresses the problem. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Seamus Blake
Hi Paul,

Firstly, let me apologize for the delay in responding to your kind efforts on my behalf. My apology is especially heartfelt as I was anxious to compliment you on the speedy manner in which you answered my inquiry.

I also want to thank you for your offer of help. It would be nice to have a photograph of my son in his Wikipedia entry. The offer of mentorship is also appealing, especially as it's my plan to expand my son's entry in the near future.

Dan Blake--207.216.88.72 (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Tristan Banon POV Talk page
Hi Paul,

I see you removed the POV tag, which I support for the reasons you gave.

Unfortunately I accidentally added it back in dealing with content deletion following a fork someone introduced (up for deletion). I assume the template was part of the content removed.

I'll delete it directly. Didn't mean to step on your toes. FightingMac (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Venus of Hohle Fels
Paul, considering your interest in the entry for the Venus of Hohle Fels, I wanted to notify you that I just added a link to a paper I recently wrote that interprets the figurine much differently than specialists previously have. If, after reading the paper, you have a problem with anything I wrote, I'd appreciate your discussing it with me before you redact my entry. Thanks in advance. Berlant (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Berlant

Hakim Jamal
Hello. I wanted to thank you for writing this article. Have you considered nominating it at WP:Did you know? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Interest in Afghan Pashtun tribes and tribal history
Dear Paul,

I noticed on the Wikipedia link to Pashtun People your name is shown in the reference section. May I ask you if this was because you contributed the photos of Afghan kings and previous prominent Afghans, or because you posted other information on this topic?

I travel to Afghanistan annually as part of our small humanitarian effort with women and children in Afghanistan and have become acquainted with a number of Afghans, particularly Pashtuns, who have extensive knowledge about their tribes and family history. I am developing a journal of information I continue to glean about these Pashtun tribes and have decided to begin compiling it into a format that will eventually probably become a book. May I ask you if you are the person who compiled the list of Pashtun kings in the Wikipedia section about Pashtun peoples, or was this accomplished by someone else?

I am at the moment closely associated with individuals who have extensive knowledge and family histories about the Kharoti tribe, the Arsala Khan tribe and the Wafiullah tribe, plus several others who are also interested in sharing this kind of historical information with me.

I recently returned from my 10th humanitarian trip to Afghanistan, we usually bring a small travel team of highly skilled volunteers and work with girls schools, women's prisons and Rotary International projects in Afghanistan.

Any thoughts you might have on this subject would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Diana Tacey, Executive Director ChildLight Foundation for Afghan Children Mesa, Arizona, USA (480) 964-5484 www.childlightfoundation.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtacey (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala
Dieudonné never said "Isra-heil" he said "Israël" as we pronunce it in french. Look at the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi1O713Irv8

I don't care what the source said if the source lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.14.147 (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:V and WP:RS. Find a source - in French or English - which agrees with your interpretation. If Dieudonné himself says that is what he was saying, he can be quoted. Again, you need to find a source. Paul B (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I found a source http://soutiendieudo.free.fr/breve.php3?id_breve=22 "A ce sujet, un article du 23 février 2004 rapporte le propos suivant de Dieudonné : " Non, c'était juste 'Israel !' " ( document )" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.14.147 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I understood, wikipedia is full of lies, even with a video of proof it's never enough for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi1O713Irv8 I put an interview where he said taht he just said israël in the show "on ne peut pas plaire à tout le monde" but it's not enough for you. For you what people said in news paper is a better proof than the facts and interviews.

You said that my changes are partials but they are based on the most important belgian news paper. Be more respectful for "Le soir", or I will think that you don't like Belgium. Are you racist?

Paul Barlow stop with your lies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.183.136 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.liberation.fr/portrait/0109478926-la-ou-la-blague-blesse take a look at this, you need more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.183.136 (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Mrs Ruskin.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mrs Ruskin.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of India theory
Why did you removed my edit for Hindu Nationalist Arguments? I have researched on this topic for 6 years and then it is added by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leodescal (talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

BFI
Perhaps.

In my, admittedly limited, dealings with the BFI, I found them to be rather lily-livered.

I was a big wheel at the IMDb a decade ago where I established some of their conventions.

IMDb standards are very strict, but it is dependent on the context. To make certain changes, the IMDb data manager needs to know your reputation as a researcher personally.

What makes BFI standards so good? Who is providing that data?

Since there is a known discrepancy with the IMDb, as indicated, then that article should be more explicit in its sourcing than it is at present.

And my greatest interest was, Is this Prebble Prebble or not? But you've deleted that part.

Varlaam (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My biggest beef with the BFI:
 * Welsh POV pushers assert that films made in England or Scotland are "British", but films made in Wales are "Welsh" and not British, and then cite the BFI.
 * At the IMDb, British is British is British. The IMDb does not humour Welsh nationalists.
 * So much for the theoretical reliability of the BFI.
 * Varlaam (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

over
Are you unable to read? Discussion is over. Stop editing. YOu;ve made three edits about Roland's page after discussion about SOMETHING ELSE is over. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kinda funny that he feels the need to remind me I'm not an admin when he's the one trying to close a discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

please, can you answer my question
it's in the " moors " discussion section ( the one about " black ,berber ,arab ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.166.246 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

" dark skinned " africans and other things
nobody is trying to deny anything. you just didn't explain when was the term " moor " used to describe any black person that didn't practice islam or spoke arabic and berber. having a darker skin dosen't exclude you from being berber or arab. the term " negro " was always used to refer to non-muslim niger-congo speaking people from west africa, not "moor".

the editors changed it because it's misleading, people can get the wrong idea that the indigenous north africans are some mix of negro / arab / berber when in fact they are genetically berber. and the " some of them conquered and ruled spain for 800 years ......" is also misleading because :

1-the people who led the conquest were algerian and moroccan berbers under berber leader tariq ibn zyad. putting that sentence after you defined moors as " black, berber, arab " leads the average joe into thinking that the conquest was done by " blacks, arabs and berbers " when in fact it was berbers under their leader tarek who was acting under moussa ibn noussair. you need to explain that the conquest of the iberian peninsula was done by berbers from coastal north africa through northern morocco. trust me, your first definition is quoted everywhere by afrocentrists and arabists everywhere as " proof " that " arabs "  and " blacks " ruled spain for 800 years. it's hilariously misleading.

2- muslims didn't rule the iberian peninsula for 800 years. in fact, they kept losing territory year after year because of the reconquista and only ruled a tiny part of spain for the later centuries

and finaly, the pictures here are not very helpful at all , check some self-depiction from moors and other authentic non fictional art done by the spaniards from the islamic era http://hukam.net/family.php?fam=119 http://hukam.net/family.php?fam=101 http://hukam.net/family.php?fam=211

all of this is found in museums across spain, i can provide sources of this too ( for people who can't read arabic ). but for some reason someone kept deleting them, and thought that othello and saint james were more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.229.94 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We are not here to promote Berber nationalism. Everything you say is pure assertion, unsupported by any evidence. "Negro" is just Spanish for "black", that's all. It's application to a concept of "a race" emerged in the 18th-19th centuries, long after the use of "moor" to mean black. in Othello, for example, there is no distinction between "moor" and "negro" in the racial sense. Read it. The fact that Berbers are obviously not "Negroes" in modern usage is irrelevant to the issue as discussed in the article. Paul B (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

i'm not here to promote berber nationalism, why did you get to that conclusion ?
i'm here to promote facts. evrything i say is pure ansetion and unsupported by any evidence ? i don't think so. you haven't shown any example where a non fictional  black person outside of north africa is being referred to as " moor ". how can the term aplly to black africans when in fact it was used to refer to north africans regardless of their skin color ? even othello was based on Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud ,the moroccan ambassador to elizabeth I.

you keep talking about oveerwhelming and undeniable evidence ...i'd like to see it please. all i see know is that moor is a generic term that was used to describe any berber/arabic speaker, including the very dark haratin and gnaoua ...who are still arabs and berbers and should be classified with them and not as " black african ".

spaniards and portguese never called their slaves " moors " even though they were black, simply because they didn't speak arabic or berber , and didn't practice islam. it's as simple as that.

definition in the spanish wikipedia : "Moro is a term of popular usage, colloquial and pejorative connotations, it defines no clear distinction between religion, ethnicity or culture, the natives of north Africa and the Maghreb (Arabic expression which includes all of western Africa north of Sahara: today's Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and even Libya), and generically to any Muslim, regardless of their origin."

i just want to see some proof that the term moor was used to describe any dark skinned person outside  the arabo-islamo-berber sphere in north africa.

i can assure you that i have no agenda whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.229.94 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "you haven't shown any example where a non fictional black person outside of north africa is being referred to as "moor". I have no idea what you mean by that. It depends how you define a "black person", a concept which has no rigid definition. This language, as I said, is dominant in the Early modern period. Do you understand what that means? I don't think named "black people" can be easily identified in Europe at this period. Othello, may have been based on Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud, but there is no direct evidence of that. However, the point I was making is that the term "moor" is used in that play to define someone as dark skinned. The expression "thick lips" is also used, which implies a connection to what we normally mean by "negro" appearance. In other words, for Shakespeare, there was probably no clear distinction between North Africans and "negroes". The "overwhelming evidence" is alredy detailed in the article. It concerns the way the word became incorporated into the languages of various European countries and was used to mean a dark-skinned person. "spaniards and portguese never called their slaves " moors " even though they were black" I've no idea whether this is true or notr, it's just assertion, but I suspect you are again confusing the language of the 18th-19th centuries with the language of the Early Modern period (16th-17th centuries). Paul B (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this illustration depicts Aaron, who is referred to as a moor in Titus Andronicus. He is clearly portrayed as black. He is called the "coal-black Moor" in the play. The term "blackamoor" was also used in English at this time, and is codified in legal documents from the period, clearly referring to actual people, not just characters on stage. . . Paul B (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For a discussion of the various uses of the term "moor" you can read this book, Speaking of the Moor: from Alcazar to Othello (google books ). Paul B (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

i will read it
but here is something i found in the othello page :

"There is no consensus over Othello's race. E.A.J. Honigmann, the editor of the Arden Shakespeare edition, concluded that Othello's race is ambiguous. "Renaissance representations of the Moor were vague, varied, inconsistent, and contradictory. As critics have established, the term 'Moor' referred to dark-skinned people in general, used interchangeably with similarly ambiguous terms as 'African', "Ethiopian', 'Negro', and even 'Indian' to designate a figure from Africa (or beyond)."[12][13] Various uses of the word 'black' (for example, "Haply for I am black") are insufficient evidence for any accurate racial classification, Honigmann argues, since 'black' could simply mean 'swarthy' to Elizabethans. Iago twice uses the word 'Barbary' or 'Barbarian' to refer to Othello, seemingly referring to the Barbary coast inhabited by the "tawny" Moors. Roderigo calls Othello 'the thicklips', which seems to refer to European conceptions of Sub-Saharan African physiognomy, but Honigmann counters that, as these comments are all intended as insults by the characters, they need not be taken literally.[14]"

so the verdict is not out yet on othello's race

i will read the book to understand the use of the term moor, i'll talk to you later when i'm done.

ps : who keeps removing the pictures i post ? http://hukam.net/images/family_rulers/211.gif http://hukam.net/images/family_arms/211.gif, these are authentic illustrations from the museum of barcelona dating back to the reconquista. are non registered users not allowed to post pictures or something ?

Montgomery Clift
I noticed you changed the quote from philip french - I haven't seen judgment at nuremburg, so i don't know if philip french is right or not, but I just think if you change the words, the quote has been altered, but left in quotation marks. maybe the quote should be restored - or else if you are sure he wasn't a concentation camp victim in the film, break the quote up, write your words, then restore the quote marks when the Philip French quote resumes. Otherwise you've put words in Philip French's mouth and I'm not sure if that's right etiquette - theres a link to his exact words. 92.4.57.5 (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quotation is wrong about the facts, but of course exact words of quotations should not be changed. It was simply a mistake on my part. I had not noticed that it was part of a quotation. Paul B (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Tigers
Don't know why you thought my citation on the Tamil Tigers was preposterous.

The other references mention the secularity and atheism of the Tanil Tigers. That is why I said sacular AND atheist since other people from different beliefs were members of the Tamil Tigers. Even the other references such as

Bermana, Eli; David D. Laitin (2008). "Religion, terrorism and public goods: Testing the club model". Journal of Public Economics 92 (10-11): 1942-1967.

Claimed:

"The Tamil Tigers, who carried out the most suicide attacks in the 1980s, are nominally atheists."

Read it if you like.

Ramos1990 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your understanding of "nominally", but how else would you interpret the phrase? The authors could have chosen to say "nominally secularists" or something like that, but they are emphasizing the identity of atheism which many members ascribed themselves of.


 * What would you think and how would you interpret if the authors spoke of a "nominally Muslim" or "nominally Islamic" group? I think you are stretching the word on this.


 * Don't know why you took off "Irrational Atheist" citation either. It is a good one that has good citations also.


 * The members of the Tamil Tigers were secular which included everyone, but many of them were atheists.


 * Ramos1990 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I copied our discussion on the Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam since I think it is relevant for others to see.
 * Ramos1990 (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice
nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Max Muller
Hey Paul - just a quick note to be a bit nicer in your replies. I know, Ashishsinghal74 has absolutely cross the line as well. I'm heading there next. But stay cool, keep the focus on the edits and if he continues along his current path, there will probably be a WP:WQA post about him. I'd hate to see any of that that possibly WP:BOMMERANG around and hit you because of his provoking though. So just laugh at his antics, stay above it and keep going. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

new
If you have the time and the inclination, take a look. Thanks for your assistance on Tamil Tigress earler.Gettingthere (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Titian laocoon.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Titian laocoon.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hear the Silence
Hi Paul,

No need for vindication - the film was provocative. But the description of it was misleading on the page about me and so was the description of the way it was received. A little balance needed to be applied. Thanks for your comment, however. Tprager (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on Talk:Timothy Prager; there are still issues with your desired edits. It is possible experienced editors can help find compromise wording which satisfies both parties, as well as policy; your current edits do not. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

your article on Han Günther
I have an interest in the german occupation of Prague. Your article on Hans Günther, it is quite good, but have you an idea about some other sources and archives sources on the german occupation of tchekoslovakia ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre Rongellion (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Synergetik approach
Hi Paul,

I looked into and fixed broken links. It seems like all okay. Wedanta (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Johst-rosenberg.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Johst-rosenberg.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nigromancy
Hey, I should've been more clear in my summary: "Is it the same thing?" was a rhetorical question. Nigromancy is black magic, necromancy is summoning the dead or otherwise divining answers from the dead. I'm going to try find sources and such for the nigromancy article, and will recreate the article after I've done so. — Jean Calleo (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Talk:Jesus Fruitloop"
He's actually been posting all kinda of ridiculous crap in various articles for a half-decade. I've created an entry at Edit filter/Requested which may make it harder for him to post if approved. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oy guv,
If ya kant stand spieling missteaks, how cum you've held out so long on wikipeedia? Sourt is correct of course, compare 'sought' :)Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2chez! I wuz kunfused, or as they say in Paris con-fusée.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Wilmot.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Wilmot.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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Drivel?
Regarding your edit comment ''drivel. In fact it's quite likely he would have seen him and he most likely worked from a drawing or painting''. Try to be more civil and being objective might help as well. The British Museum website says that it is "unlikely" (adjective: has little chance of being the case) that Droeshout would have seen him and that he probably worked from a description or drawing supplied by Heminges and Condell. I used the word doubtful (adjective: open to doubt or suspicion) instead of "unlikely" as it is probably more appropriate that the museums term. Wayne (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Kennard
Paul, it appears you added a large quote to the Peter Kennard article, citing it to an exhibition of prints in 2004. Was this quote from a published source, gallery brochure ...or pinned on the wall? It is not clear how this quote can be verified using the given information. Could you clarify? Sionk (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I find your question difficult to understand. The citation is clearly to an exhibition catalogue, the publication details of which are given. It can be verified in exactly the same way that any other publication can be verified, by obtaining a copy and looking at it. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The citation obviously isn't clear, or I wouldn't have asked the question :) It says "Award, series of pigment prints with an essay by John Berger", no mention of a catalogue. It sounds like Award is the name of the exhibition, or the series of prints. Can we change it to "Award, exhibition catalogue with an essay by John Berger" ? Sionk (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that you asked the question does not prove that there is any ambiguity. It's possible to be mistaken! What it was was a kind of pack with reproductions of photomontages along with an essay, which is essentially a catalogue, though unusually presented. By all means edit it for clarity as you think fit.


 * You seem to be implying that I am stupid. Surely you must appreciate that in order that I was not mistaken, I asked the question to you directly as you were the person that added the quote. Non-standard citations are likely to raise queries. After all, there are thousands of other WP editors apart from yourself. Fortunately I've found the publication catalogued online by Google Books and it seems it has been on sale at ABE Books in the recent past aswell. I've edited the citation to describe it as a book. Sionk (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi paul-- actually, he has an agenda... and is editorially leaving a one sided argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkero (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul-- more to the point, as the author of the film Anonymous, I disagree.

For example, I attempted to add my full response to a lengthy quote attacking the film by Professor Shapiro. My response was deleted. I attempted to remove paragraphs of only negative reviews. That too was re-edited. I attempted to remove INCORRECT "errors" in the historical errors (that is to say, errors that were the errors of the "error-catcher" and those too were re-edited.

This seems like censorship to me, but you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkero (talk • contribs) 13:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So just to be clear-- if I start to source Ogburn and Anderson against Shapiro-- you will leave the historical "error" section as I edit it? Since they will be sourced? Or if I mention the fact that Marlowe's death COULDN'T have shown a dagger in the eye because it needed a PG 13 rating, will that stay in? Seems to me you just change out back to the way you like the article.

Please-- how many other movie wiki entries have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of words of negative reviews?

Objective?

So if I add an equal amount of positive reviews.... will they stay in?

And why, pray tell, do you have the honor of deciding what stays in or out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkero (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume you have read my thoughts on the Prince Tudor theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkero (talk • contribs) 13:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry-- why do I need to debate with you to fix the page? you have errors, I am attempting to fix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkero (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah... love the google. I do indeed know who you are, and realize this is all a rather moot point. You are welcome to contact my publicist via my IMDB page.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkero (talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your info too! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkero (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You guys rock! AWESOME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkero (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Fanelli
Hi there,

This probably sounds a bit odd but I'm currently doing my third year music degree essay on Ernest Fanelli and I was just wondering where you got all your sources from? I've managed to track down articles from the Musical Times and references in various books but I'm hoping you might have a few more sources hidden up your sleeve. Any information you have or where to find it would be absolutely brilliant. I'm a bit new to this so sorry if I've posted this in the wrong place. Many thanks,

Stephanie Reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schteffhay (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Stephanie, much of my information comes from a booklet written by the conductor "Adriano" (he calls himself by one name) which is in the CD of his performance of the Tableaux. That's what's footnoted as "Adriano, Ernest Fanelli (1860-1917), Symphonic Pictures, Marco Polo, p.1-4" Other information comes from following up references by using Google Books and the Internet Archive. One can then follow through on the footnotes there. Some of the content of the page was added by user:Smerus. I don't know where he obtained his sources, but he is a specialist scholar of music from the period. I am not! Good luck with your essay. Paul B (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Ntate.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ntate.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr Bot. I did not upload the image, just edited it, machine dude. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Safa Khulusi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Safa Khulusi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have to do this, but you are edit-warring, and you must not do that even if you are right. There seems to be a content dispute here - one side apparently sees censorship while the other sees undue weight - and it will not be solved by edit-warring. You first need to try to obtain consensus on the article Talk page (but you need to give it time), and if that doesn't work then you should follow the further steps in WP:DR, or seek assistance at a relevant project if there is one. If you agree to do that and to stop the edit-war, then I will be happy to unblock you (or for anyone else to unblock you) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add a new unblock template, below - don't edit the existing block template please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if you think you are dealing with a sockpuppet, please report the case at WP:SPI rather than edit-warring with them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * sockpuppeting is not the issue. The editor appears to have abandoned one account and created another. Paul B (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

{{{unblock reviewed | 1=''I am deeply offended by this block. I think it is an utter outrage. I am reverting vandalism, nothing, more nothing less. The other editor, who is almost certainly a sock of user:Simon Salousy has refused to engage in conversation. This is despite the fact that I left a long a detailed message on his (Salousy's) page. This kind of attempted censorship must be stamped on. All the editor is doing is deleting text written by a notable scholar because it makes Khalusi (possibly a relative of the editor) look bad. This block merely validates the behaviour of an abusive editor whose sole interest is censorship. Congratulations. All my edits are designed to improve Wikipedia by making the content as fully representative of the facts as possible. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC) | decline=Unfortunately, the rules against edit-warring are very firm and clear, and they apply even in cases when we are sure'' that our edits are the best ones. There are better ways to deal with a problem like this than breaking the edit-warring rules, which inevitably leads simply to a block. When your block expires, if a similar problem happens, check out WP:DR for some good ideas that work in dealing with disagreements over content. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)}}
 * It's only vandalism if it's deliberate damage, but even if the other editor is wrong about the content, it's not clear they deliberately want to cause damage here - it seems far more likely to me that they think their version is better (even if they may be mistaken). And even if you are correct in this dispute, you must not edit-war about it. You need to follow the steps outlined at WP:DR, or if you think there is more urgent action needed, try WP:AIV if you think it's vandalism (though, as I say, I don't see clear-cut vandalism), WP:SPI if you suspect sockpuppetry, or perhaps WP:ANI if it's more complex and/or a combination of these things. And no, the block does not legitimize either side in the dispute - you are the one blocked, simply because you are the one who carried on the edit-war after I had warned both parties - should the other editor continue, they will be blocked too. Anyway, if you agree to stop warring and seek assistance at one of the venues I have outlined, I'll be happy to unblock you immediately (or for someone else to) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Utterly idiotic block. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a school for jobsworths. It's the troll Simon Salusy (and/or whatever he's calling himself nowadays) who should have been perma-banned per WP:DUCK if we cared about encyclopaedic content rather than playing at being policemen and lawyers. --Folantin (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Have you read WP:EW? And have you considered WP:SPI if you suspect a sock? Those who deal with socks (eg Checkusers) can hardly act on sock suspicions if nobody actually reports them, can they? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Safa Khulusi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As soon as your block expired, you went straight back to edit-warring over the same content on the same article - even if you're right, edit-warring is NOT the way to solve this dispute -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Paul, maybe you need to take a break before you end up indef'd. I don't know what's going on with you, but the busy holiday season deserves a lot more of your focus, and you are clearly splitting your attention here; otherwise, you'd never do the very same thing that saw you blocked earlier this week. This is just some friendly advice: take a break and we'll see you after the New Year's, when you can give your whole attention to the Project. Have a good one, :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I, unblock
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Safa Khulusi - a review of my actions please. Thank you.


 * I have unblocked you, so you can take part in the discussion, and I have also temporarily protected the article to prevent further warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Prince Tudor Theory
Dear Mr. Barlow,

I am a student from Germany and I have to write a term paper about Elizabethan England. I'm rather interested in the Prince Tudor Theory, and whether Queen Elizabeth has had any children or whether she had not. As far as I can tell, you are the main autor of the wikipedia text about the Prince Tudor Theory, so I was wondering if you could recommend some books or essays about the Tudor Rose Theory, or may tell me from which sources you took the information with which you wrote this article.

I would be very obliged to you for answering my question, for which purpose I'll sign with my mail address.

Yours sincerely, theredcoat@hotmail.de

88.65.84.48 (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the history of Prince Tudor theory and the real history of the Elizabethan era have very little in common. If you want to find out about the theory, I will send you an article I wrote. If you want to find out about the changing image of Elizabeth, I suggest that you read Michael Dobson & Nicola J. Watson, England's Elizabeth: An Afterlife in Fame and Fantasy, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Beatles
It would have far been better for me to have said the Beatles lacked formal musical training and education, rather than to say they were "illiterate". Thanks for the correction.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47520020@N04/4403472387/ Tom Reedy (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just learned that the image is that of the monument to the Rev. Dr. Robert Hovenden, died 1614. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See the page Robert Hovenden. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Sue Carroll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chocolate soldier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet using variant of your name is in violation of WP policy
I have given him notice at User_talk:Paul_Barlow_Jr.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I would say that since you and Tom Reedy are editing under your real names, here there is a more blatant obvious of WP policy than in the other cases. All simultaneously entertaining and annoying.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Addendum and especially in your case, since the username implies relationship.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

lawyers and Scholarship
I'm intrigued by your observation that "Half of anti-Strat literature is wriiten by lawyers for some reason". This also seems to be true of the more (generically) reputable creationists. Phillip Johnson, Ben Stein, Ann Coulter, William Jennings Bryant- all lawyers. Most likable of all, not a strict creationist, but a doubt-raiser in the area, Vincent Bugliosi, also a lawyer. Do they have a fundamentally different criterion of truth, or what?--WickerGuy (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your very interesting reply.


 * I noted something about Mr. Sams that raises further questions. He pushes the idea that Edward III is a lost Shakespeare play.


 * Now when the DeVere Society put up some funding to sponsor a four-year production of the entire history cycle by Carmel's Pacific Repertory from 2001 to 2004, they started off with some "lost" plays "Thomas of Woodstock" and "Edward III". Is their possible Shakespeare attribution believed beyond the circles of Oxfordians, or is that just an Oxfordian idea???


 * For the record, the plays performed were
 * 2001- Edward III, Thomas of Woodstock, "Hollow Crown" R2
 * 2002- The "Henriad" H4/1, H4/2, and "Once more unto the breach" H5
 * 2003 - H6/1 H6/2
 * 2004 - H6/3, and "Now is the winter of our discontent" R3


 * Tom of WS had one love scene that seemed highly Shakespearean to me.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Wilbur G. Zeigler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctor Faustus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Rowland Whyte
Nice. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

See Hinduism talk page
I compromised. CO2Northeast (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning DocKino
As for the behavior of DocKino on the Elvis talk page and elsewhere, you should consult this page. See also this edit. Onefortyone (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Stanislaus Stange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oscar Straus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

HOW TO FAST-TRACK SUCCESS
Dear Paul, Experts have shown that if you mix the ancient wisdom of Isaiah Berlin and the modern dynamism of  Aldous Huxley anything is possible. Harnessing the limitless energy hidden inside Huxley's little-known theory of 'goodness politics' we have devised a revolutionary mystic diet that reboots the karmic metabolism and turns you into a theocentric saint. All this in about three minutes --- or thereabout. In two easy lessons we will show you how, by concentrating on the phrase 'food for thought', it is possible to vitalise alternative therapies that grow into the building-blocks of pure gold. And that's not all. We can can help you form that all-too-elusive critical field that will bankroll the ideas that unlock the gates of emo17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)86.147.98.198 (talk)tion leading to the equilibriumation of liquidity and success. All for £18,000 --- or thereabouts.

86.147.98.198 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You get a better class of vandal in academia. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Moon-God Allah
Sir, what would your vote be if this article is nominated for deletion. Your opinion is appreciated.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.220.104 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Dido, Queen of Carthage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

19 (number) Page - Quran is characterized by an extraordinary 19 based Mathematical phenomenon.......
Peace, would it be possible sir for you to let me understand the reason why the article was taken down when it has been through arguments on the talk page of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:19_(number), under section "The first Statement of Quran having 19 Arabic letters.". Would appreciate your response. Peace (AlphaOmega19 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Hubal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evening star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr Bot, before you tell me that I've added a link to a disambiguation page on My Heart Belongs to Daddy, yes, I know; and no, it is not unintended. Paul B (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edward Matthew Ward
Please see Talk:Edward Matthew Ward. -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Would You like to Help?
Hi, I am starting WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the []. McKinseies (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited My Heart Belongs to Daddy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sugar daddy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now then Mr Bot, you didn't read the message earlier, did you? You fail the Turing test. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's religion
Got it now, at last—thanks! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles Dickens' article.
Hi Paul. As a Victorianist who would know more on the subject than pretty much anyone on here, as well as your experience of wikipedia, your expertise and knowledge would be most welcome on Talk:Charles_Dickens, one of the great literary figures, and social reformers, of the era. It concerns one editors sweeping allegations of racism and anti semitism, and claims of non white/christian bias in his work. Paul, the article itself is rated class C, and content unchecked, which given the standing of Dickens is a shame. Thanks. Harrison 1979 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul, both these themes you would know well. My concerns were raised when this discussion was brought to my attention with the users view that 'imperialism, slavery and anti-semitism' are White Christian discoveries. This was after i brought up the users Non White/Christian angle on Dickens. Another editor posited that the article was being used as a soapbox to advance a personally held political position (for example the 'Franklin incident' section is longer tnan 'Later Years', and has a lot content that reads like a history of the event with nothing to do with Dickens), plus an excessive non white emphasis throughout the article which is way out of proportion than what you would find in a book on him. I'm pretty sure no other wikipedia literary article has had politicizing to this extent. On talk, WickerGuy pointed out that his racism was not overt, nor was it the driving force of his literary output, plus you added his views were the norm for the time, therefore a section in proportion (for example Thomas Jefferson has 12 lines on Slavery) should reflect this.Harrison 1979 (talk) 08:37 23 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a pattern of disruptive editing that references an engagement you have had with the editor. You may wish to add your thoughts.. The thread is Year-long a pattern of disruptive editing by User:Lung salad needs to be addressed.. Thank you. —Eusebeus (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Japhetic
You've been involved in this, looking at the talk page there seems to be serious problems (which I saw only after I tagged the article). Also, if is now editing as someone else, why is the old account still being used? I got to this via Japheth where I'd reverted some material unsourced since 2010, only to have it replaced. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy
Regardless of how right you may be, Sir, it would be nicer if you didn't refer to an editor who speaks six languages as an "ignorant Italian kid". Amandajm (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will give you the benefit of believing that when you left your last message on my talk page, you had perhaps not been back to the Mona Lisa talk page. If you have not, then I suggest that you do.  Amandajm (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanity
I'm hoping it will return soon so I can get back to work. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Larger version of portrait of John Fielding
Hi there Paul:

I just finished watching the first five episodes of "City of Vice" and became interested in John Fieldings "headband," and found your entry in Wikepedia.

For what it's worth, here's a link to a higher def version of the Nathaniel Hone portrait.

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw02215/Sir-John-Fielding?search=ap&npgno=3834

Thanks for your contributions.

Best,

Frank Poliat Nehalem Oregon quickcard@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.192.68 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

For your role
in digging me out of a frustrating situation in and around List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield you have been awarded the seldom coveted THUMBS UP AWARD, an award I occasionally pass out. Wear it with pride, or if you don't want it, please re-cycle. Thanks again for your help, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Physical factors affecting microbial life
Would you mind explaining why you think that referring to allopathic and homeopathic drugs is irrelevant in an introduction that attempts to sketch the historical background to current therapy procedures? Paul venter (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mr. W.H.
Hi Paul, Why did you cut my Mr. W.H. contribution? Please answer to petter@amundsen.gs

Best wishes, Petter Amundsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boteswaine (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

John Wilson Ross
Please give details which scholars have even addressed John Wilson Ross, Tacitus and Bracciolini: The Annals Forged In The XVth Century Kill censorship (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What you get in scholarly books is a formulated refrain "The Annals are genuine" without any one of those scholars addressing the issues and points raised by John Wilson Ross, the statement is a dogmatic article of faith written in stone for the sake of it. The Annals were unknown in Antiquity and this cannot be called a "fringe theory" if it is a fact. Kill censorship (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

When Tertullian cited Tacitus he did so from his Histories but there was a deafening silence from him relating to the Annals and Terullian would certainly have cited the passage about Christ because that pertained to the theme of his arguments but the passage was unknown to him. No fringe theory. Kill censorship (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:V AND WP:RS. You cannot argue against the professional experts on the basis of your personal views. The fact that the Annals are not quoted in surviving sources does not mean that they were "unknown". 13:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hector Macd.
Just out of curiosity, why do you take such an interest in Sir Hector? It surely can't be because of his seminal role in British imperial history. PiCo (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do I take an interest in Hector? Because his story is tragic. A man of great gifts, with a fatal flaw - and also a victim of the English class system. PiCo (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

One Major Single Source & POV
Reference to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 120(Defence.lk), I have added the Tags "Single Source" and "POV" on Lies Agreed Upon.

Since you are involved on the above discussion, please discuss further on regarding the Tags added and the reliability of the content on Wikipedia based on the single major source.Sudar123 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernardino de Mendoza
Hi Paul. I'm going to translate the Spanish article into English. This is the captain general who was born 25 years earlier than the diplomat. Please give me some time. It should be ready by sunday. Regards, Filiep.

Paolo De Vita
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Paolo De Vita. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paolo De Vita


The article Paolo De Vita has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me 01:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Monier Monier-Williams
Hi, I wonder whether you might be able to assist. Way back in the mists of time (2009) you added some meat to the Monier Monier-Williams article using "Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Scholar Extraordinary, The Life of Professor the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Muller, P.C., Chatto and Windus, 1974, pp 221-231" as your reference. I wondered whether you still had access to the book. I've recently written Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860 (and the Boden Professor of Sanskrit list) and I'd be interested to see if there's anything else in the Chaudhuri book that I could use. If you don't have it, don't worry, but do let me know if you do and we'll see what we can sort out. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 20:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I own a copy of the book, which is somewhere on my bookshelves at home. However, I'm currently doing some decorating, so many books are piled up chaotically; I am not sure how easy it will be to find. I do have feeling I've seen it recently though. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that feeling when it comes to books! If you should happen across it by chance, think of me but don't go to any trouble on my account to find it. Hope the decorating goes well. BencherliteTalk 21:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I've got it. Now what? Paul B (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! If you could scan in those ten pages or so at some point, I'd be delighted.  I've just sent you an email to give you a reply address.  No rush, of course.  BencherliteTalk 11:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice page
Remembering Shakespeare. Lots of images and commentary. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Feminazi is under discussion
As a courtesy, I must of course let you know. See Neutral point of view/Noticeboard so that your point of view may be heard as well. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  00:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Edith Anna Somerville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Heyerdahl
See Talk:Thor Heyerdahl/Alleged racist content. I've got Wauchope so will be adding him. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Lizzie Siddal
Hi Paul, per your edit yesterday, I noticed you've been an editor on this article. I've always had an interest in her and love the Pre-Raphaelite period in painting and the painters, but don't really have a lot of source material on Siddal or Rossetti. I've read library books on them mostly. Back to the article: I notice there's books referenced but not many inline citations for the material - which was not unusual a few years ago. What I'd like to know is, do you have the books to source the article? It really needs to be and if not, should be rewritten with material that can be sourced thoroughly. It's interesting and informative as it is though, so would be good to get it all referenced on a line by line basis. Or paragraph, whichever applies! What are your thoughts on this? Agadant (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Paul. Do you have time to put citations in the article for as much of the material as you can? I have one book only on hand: Essential Pre-Raphaelites and already have come across a discrepancy there when the book says that Beata Beatrix was commissioned by William Graham and is referring to the original in the Tate. But in doing research online, I find that it was a replica that is in the Art Institute of Chicago that was commissioned by him. source. I uploaded an image to illustrate the unsourced entry in the Elizabeth Siddal article which discusses The First Anniversary of the Death of Beatrice as Siddal's first appearance in Rossetti's work and then find that actually it was Beatrice Meeting Dante at a Marriage Feast in 1852., . I'll remove the image I put to illustrate that. I'm discouraged already. Agadant (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then... you must be too busy - that's understandable - so I'll start working on sourcing as soon as I can and see what is left unsourced that needs to be changed or deleted. Cheers, Agadant (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway Shakespeare Portrait
Hi Paul,

I am relatively new to wikipedia and debated about whether or not to establish a separate article for this so I support your doing so. However, in terms of discoverability and the title being clustered along with the other article if someone is doing a keyword search for Anne Hathaway, I wonder if it would be more productive for the title to be "Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) - Portrait?" If you don't agree then what about adding (Shakespeare) after her name? Also, I have recently had a professional photographer take higher resolution images of the portrait and intend to upload the best one soon. I am currently in Washington, D.C., for the Wikimania Conference and will do this when I return next week.

JschneiderWiki (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Joanne (jschneiderwiki)

Triple Goddess
Thank you for your recent work on the Triple Goddess article, both the reinstatement of the due criticism and the great tidy-up of the text have really helped improve the article. Cheers! --Davémon (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Portrait of Anne Hathaway
Hello! Your submission of Portrait of Anne Hathaway at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Portrait of Anne Hathaway
Orlady (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare edition
Paul, I want to begin standardizing the Shakespeare edition used for the Shakespeare pages as I work on them. So far I see Internet Shakespeare Editions and PlayShakespeare.com. Do you have any thoughts about this? (It appears that the WP:WikiProject Shakespeare is moribund.) Tom Reedy (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Curse of Ham
This article is being absolutely wrecked by a pair of dogmatic editors. I saw your reasoned and thoughtful argument about why it is not a misnomer. I absolutely agree. Please don't give up - it's important that intelligent debate overcomes ignorance. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 August 2012
 * I removed the report from WP:AN3 as a mistake, and let them know at User talk:Jsharpminor (the imposter account is now blocked). Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Merchant of Venice
For Paul Barlow: With his editings, Cengime expresses his belief that a book translated and published in England in 1599 might have had an impact on Shakespeare´s "Merchant of Venice". However, this play was conceived between 1596 and 1598, so the whole dispute between Cengime and me was nonsensical. I only belatedly realized this, and my deleting of Cengime´s last sentence was correct. Please check it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages must be free for decent discussion by everybody
For Paul Barlow: I have copied whar ArbCom said to talk pages. Talk pages 8) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks. (End)

What does it mean "should not be used as platforms for personal views"? First, this is practically impossible. Everybody is a person, and he or she expresses somehow his personal views on a subject. Tom Reedy does, you do, I do. So, just this is very problematical - it makes a talk page to be a non-talk page. Then it is also legally problematical what ArbCom said in this respect.

Second, there is no mention of "mainstream" and "Oxfordian" or "anti-Stratfordian" in the "verdict". So there is no, literally no, basis to punish any Oxfordian view on talk pages, and this is valid for all talk pages. If you or somebody else would interprete the above "verdict" of ArbCom on talk pages as a basis for reprimands etc., so he would totally misinterprete. Every good lawyer would confirm this. Unfortunately, this has been already several times the case. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean when you wrote on my talk page "Then it is also legally problematical what ArbCom said in this respect." Take note of WP:NLT. I don't think that was a "legal threat", but you do seem to imply that Arbcom was acting illegally. I rather doubt that. You have no legal right to freedom of speech on a forum that is not owned by you. That of course is not the same as a moral right. You might feel morally outraged at being forced to shut up, if you believe that a single "party line" is being unfairly enforced on Communistopedia or Fascistopedia, but there's not much you can do about it in law as far as I know. After all Fascistopedia has the freedom to be fascist! Equally you have the right to delete any comments you don't like from your own website, blog or whatever. The ban on what is known as "soapboxing" is essentially to stop people using the talk page to write essays putting forward their personal theories. It has happened quite often on the Oxfordian theory page. The long rants by user:NinaGreen were what led to the restrictions. It does not apply only to Oxfordians (actually Marlovians are almost as bad!). If a "Statfordian" started pasting long comments unrelated to debate about content, repeatedly denouncing Oxfordians it should also apply. As for collaboration with Oxfordians. I meant what I said. We need to have someone who will be able to say "these are the important arguments" for such-and-suxch aspects of Oxfordian theory, or "this is just one person's eccentric view and we don't need it". My own view is that we should have a balance of arguments made over the years, and a sense of how they have evolved. But we also need to have the mainstream/Stratfordian responses to these points. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)