User talk:Paul S

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broo[edit]

Hi Paul, I have nominated a page that you wrote, for deletion. By clicking on the link above, you can see the discussion about it (which you are welcome to take part in). Thanks, pfctdayelise 04:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


I've edited it, not much to say except we know nothing about them except they were Caesar's allies.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold[edit]

I want to thank you very much for rewriting this entry. I researched heavily to find real, useful references for the "three arrows" symbol used by the German Social Democratic "Iron Front", and it seems that this entry is an important part of that. I hope more information about the fledgling early democratic republics of Germany, Spain, Russia (Provisional Government), etc can be found and placed on Wikipedia in the time to come. Radical Mallard 6:02 PM, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Much appreciated. Paul S (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Celts & human sacrifice[edit]

I would agree that the source text is biased and probably suspect.

The phrase polemic, however, has specific academic connotations that should not be used per WP:NPOV unless it is specifically *intended* as a polemic. In this case, this is simply a highly biased poem without questionable historical accuracy. Of course, if you have a citation demonstrating that the Book of Leinster was written as a polemic, my whole argument is moot.

Is there a way we can rephrase the statement so it reflects that, while staying within the WP:NPOV policy? Also, a citation disputing the Book of Leinster's claim would be helpful.


Djma12 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think tract would work fine. Cheers, Djma12 (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question[edit]

I reverted it because the statement, "it is possible that Runesocesius is not Lusitanian at all." looked like vandalism. If you can support this claim with sources, then you may add the text back to the article. If you have any issues with the article, it's a good idea to talk to other users on the article's talk page and gain a concensus before making unsourced changes. Cheers, Icestorm815Talk 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not very familiar with the subject matter so I was just basing it off the the fact that it seemed a little out of place. As an administrator I run into the wierdest types of vandalism from people changing the year of someone's birthday to adding small typos here or there, so when I read the sentance and saw there wasn't a source for it, I wasn't sure what to think of it and just reverted it thinking it was vandalism. If you could incorporate some sources into the article, for example, maybe a professor or some knowledgeable person who could support that statement that would be great! Hope that helps sort things out. If you still have any questions, feel free to drop me a line at my talk page! Icestorm815Talk 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, the statement I referenced was merely and example. I was just trying to encourage you to add references to the article, that's all. Thanks and happy editing! Icestorm815Talk 10:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Weill quotation[edit]

Hi Paul, can you please add the source (on the 'Kurt Weill' page) to the interesting thing you wrote about the Lost in the Stars quotation from Maxwell Anderson on Weill's gravestone, which you say is attributed to a text by Venerable Bede? I've searched a long time with Google, but I can't find the original Venerable Bede text. I'm curious for the Bede text but also for prove that Maxwell Anderson didn't make it up himself but took it from one of Venerable Bede's writings. Thanks, Majesteit (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Britons and Celts[edit]

I agree that "Britons" is better. As to "contempt", while I do still think it can be justified it isn't so important given we seem to have found a way to a compromize.Dejvid (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for your correction (it certainly was in 1848 that things happened) but due to my faint knowledge of english i believe that I may expect more from you! As for me I have a professional knowledge of danish and I am willing to correct your faults in that language.-- (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Celtic warfare rewrite[edit]

Hello i started a rewrite of Celtic warfare in the same format as Thracian warfare, Dacian warfare and Illyrian warfare.You in the mood to help out?Megistias (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You think its hopeless? I hope it can be take a respectable form....Is it impossible?Megistias (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I hoped that some proper rearranging of data and a cleanup will allow editors, including myself to fill up the voids and add any unique sections needed just like there are some unique section in the other warfare articles.Megistias (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have faith lets do it!Megistias (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi Paul, if we claim that T is generally considered unclassified, it's entirely appropriate for someone to ask for a citation. Deleting citations is not appropriate, unless they're obvious or in the lede and supported by the text. We don't have to find s.o. who actually says it's the majority view, if alternatives are not considered worthy of mention. A general ref or two should be enough. — kwami (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Easily done. I fear I'm letting this crank get to me a bit. Paul S (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Paul, the two of you need to stop edit warring at Belgae. Please try to sort out your differences at the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you are well over the limit of the three-revert rule. Please revert yourself immediately or you are going to face a block for edit warring.--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Paul S. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cúchullain t/c 15:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Thanks for your edits on Siward and Strathclyde articles. In this case they have been reverted. Please do not edit war , but rather please take concerns you have to the talk page and they can be discussed, per our policy Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK violation[edit]

Hi, I want to draw your attention to WP:BLPTALK. While you are entitled to a strongly negative opinion on Stephen Oppenheimer, I believe with this edit (3 weeks ago) you clearly crossed the line towards defamation, given that he is not usually referred to with any descriptions that are even remotely as strong as what you used. It may not be necessary to redact that comment, but given that you appear still interested in further escalation, I think you deserve a warning not to repeat this behaviour. Hans Adler 18:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody, a veiled threat carrying no authority whatsoever. Paul S (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This was no threat whatsoever. It was a warning, as I said, given with the authority of an experienced and moderately influential Wikipedia user with no formal privileges worth mentioning and no desire to accumulate such. My hope was that you simply don't do it again, but of course if you do you can't plausibly claim now that you didn't know about the policy. Hans Adler 20:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania[edit]

Flag map of Romania.svg
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited River Brent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brigantia (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) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up. Hopefully fixed now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Paul S. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
Message added 11:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ mazca talk 11:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


Stop icon

Your recent editing history at England shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi! What's Your source for this? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember now. It was a long time ago. Paul S (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


There's a discussion that you might be interested in here. GregKaye 20:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Der Rebbe Elimelech[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Der Rebbe Elimelech has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

wikipedia is not a lyrics site

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — kikichugirl speak up! 09:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scordisci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellona (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) 09:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


Dyeus is connected to Zeus and the name Zeus is known (and my citation supports) to have started as a name for the egyptian god Ammon. The name Zeus Ammon was introduced by Egyptians to early Hellenic culture and is etymologically connected to the Greek deity Zeus Piter. This is common knowledge and there are thousands of places you can see that fact reiterated in. If Zeus is connected to Dyeus, then so is Zeus Ammon. The only problem is it is not a later figure connected with Dyeus. Reverting with the note "obviously not connected" seems like you didn't take the time to understand the edit. Ptah however is only connected to the Piter (father) aspect of the name from the common PIE root for father, but I didn't have a citation yet.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)