User talk:Paul Barlow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Flag of Brittany (Gwenn ha du).svg This user is a 'Bretagnophile'.

User talk:Paul Barlow/Archive1
user talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 2
user talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 3
user talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 4
user talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 5
user talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 6
user talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 7
user talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 8
user talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 9
user talk:Paul Barlow/Archive 10
(UTC)


Why the change in format on the Andrew R. Heinze article?[edit]

Hello Paul Barlow. I see that you changed the format of the Andrew R. Heinze article... adding the white space in the center. Was the way I had it formatted a violation of some kind? Thanks. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello Paul Barlow. There is something written in Polish and English - right under my message to you. But it doesn't appear to be from you (since it makes no sense).
Here is a copy of it:
"Kręciła mnie taka moc w nim - reportaż" . Gazeta Wyborcza (paywall now). Archived from the original on 2007. "I'm beginning to understand why this country is listed as one of the most anti-Semitic countries in the world (Polish: "Zaczynam rozumieć, dlaczego ten kraj jest notowany jako jeden z najbardziej antysemickich krajów na świecie!""
When I hit "edit" the "something" disappears, so I copied it in my message here. Very creepy. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Paul Barlow. After I hit "saved" the Polish message appeared again at the bottom of this section... under both of my messages. So obviously this weird message is not from you. Is the message apparent to you too? Is it some bazaar Wiki malfunction? DimeBoxFrank (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The Polish message appears because of a "ref" tag that someone added above, in a discussion about Simon Mol, who caused controversies in Poland, hence the language. I've removed the tag. As for the issue itself, I think it's important that there should be consistent formatting across articles. If the TOCLEFT format was the norm, then I'd reveret to it. I think it's completely inappropriate to create unusual formats for articles because of a personal preference. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Paul Barlow. Thanks for your reply. I had no idea. Would you please direct me to the Wiki policy article on that subject? I couldn't find it on my own, and I would like to read about it. Thanks again. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Paul Barlow. I haven't heard back from you. I'd appreciate it very much if you would point me in the direction of that Wiki policy page on this. I have not been able to find it (and I have looked). I've seen where people discuss the issue, but that's all I could find. Thanks again. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Paul, look at this![edit]

Apparently some class has taken on some of Shakespeare's sonnets as a class project. I've left a note on what is apparently the class page about formatting and I've tagged one page for ref formatting, but do you think I should just wait until they get finished before I do anything else? There are a lot more of them than me. (It looks like they're applying for GA rating after they finish, not that that's gonna happen.) Tom Reedy (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this with one or two sonnets. I guess the best thing would be to just let it pass for a little while. Many of the sonnet articles are in poor shape - like the parent article. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hubal - the Arab-Hittite connection[edit]

Dear Paul,

I understand you are a veteran editor here, but I must assert that there IS a relationship between the Hittite Hubal and the Arabic, it is explicit in the source, and perhaps I should have stated the Arabic connection more clearly "a Hellenic double of the ARAB God Hobal" (Guirand, 1972, p.109) I would appreciate it if you actually read the citation before editing the work unthinkingly,

Yours hopefully,

Mr. Maxwell Lewis Latham Cert. H. E. (humanitas) with Classical History specialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglyn (talkcontribs) 06:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't unthinking. I thought. It seemed a rather fringy speculaton that was distracting in context. The New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology is a very generalist source for such a sweeping claim which I have not seen in any other sources. The Apollo article makes the Hittite connection, but does not link it to Hubal (or "Hobal"). Paul B (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

peeky blinders[edit]

your bad mannered comment "who the hell is Michael Lacy" is uncalled for. The edit was to replace the inaccuracy in the Peeky Blinder wikipedia. for the comment they dressed similar to the manchesters gangs, I would point out Birmingham was, and still is, more important than Manchester regardless of its inflated view of itself. or to put it another way, they dressed similar to the peeky blinders. or further, as I submitted, all cities in the UK had gangs who dressed in a similar fashion. Finally. my added comment was not from some academic work but an addition from family history handed down directly from grandparents who actually knew some of these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.1.244 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Birmingham is not "more important" than Manchester. What a silly thing to say. What relevance does this pointless my-town's-better-than-your-town assertion have in any case? And who the hell is Michael Lacy? Paul B (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


Request for Arbitration, Historicity of Jesus[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Integrity on the Fard Muhammad Page![edit]

Greetings Sir,

Sincere thanks for the revert back to the original that's been there for years now. From time to time, it becomes evident that 'certain' folks 'incline towards the dogmatic' when it comes to external/objective evidence on his life/aliases, etc prior to founding NOI ... Smh ...


Peace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afiya27 (talkcontribs) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Effie poster small.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Effie poster small.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul Barstow please refrain from edit warring[edit]

We can do without the snide edit comments. Odd, also, that you don't seem to think that Hitler is controversial. WP Civility does count in edit summaries. Wikidgood (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What edit warring? One deletion isn't "warring". I wrote "The first sentence is nonsensical": The first sentence was nonsensical. There's nothing snide in that. It said "In popular culture, generates a high level of controversy". In popular culture what generates a high level of controversy? Hitler? Portrayals of Hitler? And, no, I don't really think Hitler is "controversial", nor are most portrayals of him. Controversy implies differing viewpoints, but the mainstream view of Hitler is fairly settled and uncontroversial. Other people can become controversial when they say something positive about him - e.g Louis Farrakhan. Paul B (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Paul's right. That sentence was nonsensical. I agree with him about Hitler also. And of course one revert isn't an edit war. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikigood, the fact is your addition had multiple problems. This was spelled out by Diannaa, Paul B and Nick-D. I would suggest you reflect and consider on their points made. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sophy Gray (Pre-Raphaelite muse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Caird. 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) 11:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion[edit]

A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • his 1931 book ''Shakespeare versus Shallow'' argues that Shallow is a parody of William Gardiner ((1531-97), a corrupt Justice of the Peace who had a long-running feud with the owner of the [[Swan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your refactoring of Talk:Johrei[edit]

I've gone over your changes three times now and I'm still not sure that you did it properly. Given the editing climate on the subject, this refactoring could be taken the wrong way. Please use clear and detailed edit summaries in the future. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries would have made zero difference. I simply put it in chronological order and added user names. There is in fact almost no "editing climate" on the page. There have been a tiny number of contributions in over 5 years. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Dorothy Samuelson-Sandvid''' (1902-19840, known as '''Dorfy''', was a noted dialect author and journalist<ref name="Dorfhex"/>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Shallow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicholas Rowe. 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) 13:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect assessment[edit]

Your assessment of my motivation at AN/I ("For the record I think Winkelvi's comment on your talk page was utterly stupid and they should be ashamed of themselves for sanctimoniously insinuating that you were homophobic, un-PC or whatever for removing something so obviously false and silly. Yes, it was provocative bear-poking.") is utterly and completely incorrect. I was not behaving or thinking in a sanctimonious manner and I wasn't implying Tenebrae was homophobic/un-PC/or anything remotely in the same vicinity of either. And no, I wasn't trying to provoke or engage in poke the bear behavior. My post on his talkpage was only about informing him of something I thought he wasn't aware of and that a better and appropriate revert reason/edit summary would have been that there was no reference to support the content added. As I already stated at that particular AN/I thread, I was about to unaccept that pending revision myself. I was glad it was taken care of by someone (it happened to be Tenebrae) but did not agree with the reasons why. When one operates as a reviewer (as I assume he was and as I was about to do), they need to be more precise in their reasons why a revert/unaccept is made. My comments on Tenebrae's talkpage were only meant to be informative and helpful, nothing less and nothing more. I don't go around trolling and poking. Further, as I also stated at the same AN/I thread, I didn't even remember that Tenebrae and I had tangled months ago when I posted on his talkpage. That explanation alone should assure you and anyone else who cares that my actions were completely above board and honorable. -- WV 01:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How is the edit summary "he's not married" somehow a denial of gay marriage, which is the only possible reading of your talk page comment? The edit simply removed factually incorrect information, which was no more than a bit of vandalism. He's not married - to a woman, a man or a trans-dimensional being from the Delta Quadrant. The fact that it was uncited is less important (most infoboxes contain uncited material). The fact that it is simply untrue is the crucial point. I cannot for the life of me see how your edit to his talk page helped to illuminate anything whatever. Paul B (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Animal welfare in Nazi Germany[edit]

Will you please take a look at Talk:Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany#Extreme_POV_edits. Tatlock has moved on to that article now. I don't intend to waste any more of my time on him so I don't really want to waste yours but could you add a third opinion please (even if it's just a short one), because once he reverts again I am going to raise the issue at ANI. He is clearly a SPA and I believe it's time for his account to be deactivated. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena[edit]

Paul,

I am going to mend Arnaiz-Villena biography according to your suggestions.

1st- I am going to leave title in Spanish and also translating it into English. Please, change it if you do not find appropriate 2nd- I am also uploading The Royal House photography.

Sincerely

There's no harm in giving the English translation, though I don't think it's necessary. Obviously it would be great to have a photograph of A-V, which is something that every biographical article should have where possible. It would be better to have a single image of him rather than a group photograph - or even to have both if possible. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Paul, we have followed your advice but Akerbeltz keeps removing information. Could you please have a look?

Sincerely

You clearly haven't learned a thing about Wikipedia over the last 5 years or so. What Paul said means is that it would be good to have a photo which is of Arnaiz that the user in question has copyright over that can be added to Commons to be used in the article. He does not mean you should to commit a copyright infringement as you did with the Spanish monarchy photo or to endlessly link to photos on the web. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your Recent Wallace Fard Muhammad Discussion[edit]

You made the argument to kwm1975 that Wikipedia is not for Nation of Islam dogma with regard to the Wikipedia page of its founder, Wallace Fard Muhammad. The Wikipedia page of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, states: "Smith's first recorded revelation was a rebuke from God for having let Martin Harris lose 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript, chastising him for "fearing man more than God." The revelation was given in the voice of God, and Smith, as a speaker, was absent from the revelation. Subsequent revelations would take on a similar authoritative style, often opening with words like "Hearken O ye people which profess my name, saith the Lord your God."

The reason that this Wikipedia page, and the Wikipedia pages of every religious founder, contains the dogma of the group that they founded is due to the fact that the teachings and beliefs of the founder form the basis of their life's work. The Nation of Islam teaches that White people are the devil. As a result, Whites (and some Blacks) often argue that their teachings should not be repeated. But how can you have a Wikipedia page of a religious founder, like Joseph Smith for example, void of the founder's teaching simply because it makes some uncomfortable?

Your article on Wallace Fard Muhammad, which is now his Wikipedia page, presents the history of Mr. Wallace Dodd Ford as if that history is unquestionably the history of Wallace Fard Muhammad. This view, while appropriate to serve as the opinion of whoever shares the view, cannot be presented as conclusive fact in light of the FBI file's clear explanation of the origin of the Ford/Fard link.

Unquestionably anyone who challenges your approach, and the approach of your colleagues, will face a high barrier in any effort to replace your article with a new Wikipedia page containing Wallace Fard Muhammad's "dogma" given the nature of his teaching. But for the record - you are simply wrong on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B00C:E7DC:0:23:DD5E:B801 (talkcontribs)

You know perfectly well that the article on Smith makes it very clear that the "relevations" described are from his point of view. You will have had to have read half the article before coming upon that passage, by which time the context of his claims to revelation have been discussed in detail. However, I'm not defending that paricular passage. Frankly, I don't even know what is meant by "The revelation was given in the voice of God, and Smith, as a speaker, was absent from the revelation." I'm guessing it means he heard the voice of God inside his own head, but it's far from clear. Wikipedia is full of other stuff that could be improved. But that's a matter for discussion at the Joseph Smith article. In any case, you misunderstood what I said. Of course the view of the NOI should be expounded in the article - in the sense that its opinion of WFM should be explained, but the article should not propound that view. Also, from an academic pov, it's an extreme minority view. There are always going to be differences between articles, because sources differ. In the case of Smith, there is very little dispute about the facts of his life. The dispute is about interpretation. In the case of WFM the NOI view is so wholly divergent from the scholarly view that we have the problem of how to integrate it. There is also very little evidence left by WFM himself, and information about his movements has been reconstructed. Even his opinions are not clearly or fully known.
I should add that you don't help youself by edit warring, making wild accusations and sockpuppeting. This is the first time you have even tried to discuss content, despite months of attempting to alter the content of the article, which, by the way, is not "mine". I wrote very little of it. Also, this discussion should be on the article talk page, which is where I will copy it. Paul B (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Danube/Old Europe[edit]

Just found this while reading Talk:Danube civilization. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

*Reverted Edits on Shakespeare's Sonnets page[edit]

Hello. You reverted some edits on the basis they gave "undue weight". I'm trying to update some sonnets articles with information from a book my father wrote. He's a fairly accomplished Shakespeare scholar. I don't mind either way whether the information is included. I wonder though whether deleting it all outright is the best option when perhaps a much briefer version of the edit could go in. Thanks. MrMelonhead (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept that the book is legitimate scholarship, but your edit presented a point of view as if it were fact. I think if that pov is going to be included, it has to be in the context of other viewpoints that have been expressed by scholars. Most don't think that the "only begetter" passage would have been considered "outrageous", and there are disputes about who it is intended to refer to. Also Sonnet 125 does not "describe the coronation of James VI", that's just an interpretation of the reference to bearing a "canopy", one of several [1]. Nor is it new, or, I think, widely accepted (see Sonnet 125). We have to put such material in context, otherwise it's misleading. That's why I said it was 'undue weight'. It could be reintroduced if we can add other points of view to balance it. I'd suggest that you could add it to the article on the sonnet. We may be able to create a whole new page on the dedication, but I'm far too busy to do that now. The whole sonnets page really needs a complete overhaul. Paul B (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Paul. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don't have the wikipedia knowledge required to make a decent page on the dedication myself, but I would like to contribute to such a page. I have constructed the two sentences below from your own statements about the content. Perhaps they are short and neutral enough to include? One in the paragraph about "onlie begetter" and the other down in the section about Mr. W.H.? See what you think. Otherwise I will definitely edit the other Sonnets as you suggest as I am trying to touch them all up systematically and include details from this work where appropriate. Thank you for your input. MrMelonhead (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Some critics think the "only begetter" passage would have been considered "outrageous", because it could be read as a reference to the Bible. (ref:Larsen, Kenneth J. Essays on Shakesprea's Sonnets)
Also one interpretation of the word "canopy" in Sonnet 125 places the sonnet after the coronation of James I [2]. Although this theory is not widely accepted (see Sonnet 125) it would narrow the field of candidates for Mr. W.H..

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joan Sims, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Spirits. 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) 10:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)