Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:15, 6 February 2015

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?

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!

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages: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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

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

Thanks for Your Integrity on the Fard Muhammad Page!

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 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Effie poster small.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Effie poster small.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul Barstow please refrain from edit warring

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)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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

You made the argument to kwm1975 that Misplaced Pages is not for Nation of Islam dogma with regard to the Misplaced Pages page of its founder, Wallace Fard Muhammad. The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page, and the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (talk • contribs)

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. Misplaced Pages 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

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

*Reverted Edits on Shakespeare's Sonnets page

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 . 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 . 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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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)

Works of Jean Boucher

I notice that you have carried out several amendments to this article and would like to thank you for your efforts which are much appreciatedWeglinde (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

peter khoury incident

Thanks for improving article I hope that article does not get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Scroogie hoax?

Can you show me the link or article that claims it was a hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.49 (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There never was a grave of Ebenezer Scroggie. Read any academic book on Dickens and you will find no mention whatever of this story. It was a hoax created in the 1990s that circulated in the press in the early 2000s. If you read the original article from which the story derives it is an obvious hoax (it identifies his mother as Annie Lennox and makes other absurd statements). It claimed that Dickens had "dyslexia" (!) and the grave marker has a caption ("meal man") that is unknown on any grave at all. The story as presented was just about plausible enough to appear in the press for a few years on and off and then circulate on the internet. But it has NEVER EVER appeared in any academic literature on Dickens. BTW, Find A Grave has other grave sites of people who never existed. Paul B (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a long-term-abuse IP editor. Just looks like another one of their hobby-horses. DrKiernan (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

edit

Why did you remove my comment on the holocaust talk page? You hook nosed cunt.

Your grasp of biology is poor. Cunts have no noses. Go play somewhere else meshugenah. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but hook-nosed kikes like yourself do. Massive ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.60.68 (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

My "utterly pointless prolixity"?

Mr. Barlow,

Did you think I had no reason or mind or brain? Can you please respond to my points before you attack me surreptitiously? The ENTIRE point is that the Nordic race is not the same thing as the term Nordic race. Nordics are living and breathing people. The article is about an ideology (one that died out long ago). That ideology had a name. A name is a term. In this case, because of a twist in history, the term does not refer to the people, only to the ideology.

I won't bother getting into an edit war with you. Sigh ... you just have so much more power than I do on Misplaced Pages. Or perhaps you could just engage in a conversation?Dynasteria (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be daft. There is nothing "surreptitious" about an edit summary. It's an explanation. What do you expect? A personal email after every edit? Your tiresome claim to be victimised is deeply unhelpful. And no, Nordics are not a "living and breathing people". It's a word. People from northern Europe are, guess what?, people. There is no such "people" as "Nodrics", any more than "red heads" are a people. There are just individuals who happen to come from northern Europe, or have blue eyes, just as, it so happens, I do. Paul B (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. There are no racial differences in your world? Or how do you describe those differences if they exist? Very few redheads or blue eyes among native populations in East Asia or Africa. Very few people with curly hair in Asia, etc. How do you explain that?Dynasteria (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr. B, I added this somewhat conciliatory comment to the Nordic race talk page:

The article makes it fairly clear that any single definition of "Nordic race" is a snapshot in time of the development from circa 1855 to today. There apparently has never been one consistent definition. It seems to vary between meaning generally the people who originate in Northern Europe to the concept of a "pure" Nordic or a Nordic "ideal", which I will leave to anyone's imagination. Does this study define its terms? Of course a lot of this kind of discussion was in reaction to the Nazis, of which Hans F. K. Günther was one. The more I think about this term the more I agree with others (perhaps including Paul B) that this is a pretty useless and antiquated term. I started out just thinking it meant "people from the north" but it has been misused over the years, not unlike the term "Negro".

Since I mention you by name I thought you should know.

I would point out that the Negro article has this as the first sentence: "The word "Negro" is used in the English-speaking world to refer to a person of black ancestry or appearance." It does not seem terribly prolix and perhaps the idea of "white ancestry or appearance" should be interjected into the lead of the Nordic race article. Dynasteria (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone altered your comments at an AfD

...here. I just wanted to check if you were agreeable to having another editor change your vote from Delete to Keep. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, just checking. It still reads "Keep" by the way. I assume you have not reverted the change because you want to keep the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to close the AfD. Just advising you that could be closed by an admin anytime within the next few days with your vote counted as a Keep, since you have not elected to revert the other user's changes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hannah Pritchard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages All for Love, Arthur Murphy and Charles Shadwell. 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) 11:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus arbitration case - proposed decision posted

This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).

Blithe Spirit (play)

Hi Paul. I clarified that the broadcast is part of an episode of The Archers. Please note that (1) the ref that you added was already in the article; (2) the ref does not support the statement that more than one episode of The Archers involves Lynda Snell organising a Christmas production of the play; and (3) even if you can find a reference that states that more than one episode of "The Archers" was involved, those episodes would be merely pop culture references to the play, and therefore, arguably "trivia". Please do not edit war! Instead, use the Talk page to explain if you think that more needs to be said than that the one episode of the series included a broadcast of an adaptation of the play, and give a reference that verifies if any other episodes discuss the play, and in what way it was discussed in each such episode. If a substantial part of another episode of The Archers was devoted to the organisation of the performance of Blithe Spirit, I would agree that it can be mentioned somewhere in the article, as long as the reference shows clearly that this was the case. All the best, and happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a strange idea of what "edit warring" is. Reverting once is not edit warring. Please do not make inappropriate accusations, Secondly, the citation I added was not in the article, though a citation to the BBC website was, this was to a different page within it. If you had troubled to read the first reverter's edit summary you would have seen that he claimed that the edit was not supported by the existing citation (even though the information is all within the BBC website). Hence the fact that I added a separate cite to the relevant page within it. As for trivia, again you misunderstand. The term "trivia" typically refers to passing, trivial mentions within popular culture (e.g. "Blithe Spirit" was mentioned in an episode of Friends, when Joey auditions for a role.." etc). In this case the situation is very very different. Firstly, The Archers is the longest running soap opera in the world. Of course that does not in itself make it culturally important, but it has had a long history of self-reflexive commentary on acting and dramatic convention, and its target demographic is people who are literature-history literate. What happened this year was that the standard narrative (involving the character "Lynda Snell" creating an amateur production of some play at Christmas) was extended over many weeks, culminating in her production of Blithe Spirit, which was dramatised within the soap opera. Her "fictional" production was then broadcast separately as an independent radio version of the play, with the actors credited as both the "real" actors and also the fictional "actors" - the characters they play in the soap opera. The performance was unique because the actors were playing their characters playing the roles.

Ironically the mere fact that there was a radio production of the play might be said to be "trivia" (so what? there was production of Antony and Cleopatra on BBC radio a few days ago. It's not worth listing all productions of every classic play on Misplaced Pages). What made this non-trivial was the long-prepared tie-in to The Archers, and the connection of the play itself to the target demographic of The Archers, which has always drawn on dramatic conventions derived from Coward himself, including the tradition of characters who are themselves actors being exaggeratedly theatrical in "real" life.

Of course much of what I am saying here constitutes OR, but that's unimportant, because that's not what was added to the article. What I objected to was the deeply obtuse and frankly ignorant assertion that merely listing a production is fine, but that indicating what made it worth mentioning in a wider cultural context is "trivia". Paul B (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

6) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.

7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus. It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Catch 22

There's no catch-22.

If they post somewhere else, just say 'Please discuss on <article talk page link>'.

If they don't/won't, do the edit. If they undo the edit, discuss (on the article talk), get consensus, and do it again. If they undo that, you can cite the consensus and report it as disruptive editing. Igor the bunny (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"Pimpernel" Smith

See revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Henry Lorimer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Lister. 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) 09:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Roger O'Connor

Forgot to say that's fine. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Mike hayes edit

Absolutely no malice or disrespect intended with my edit, I was being sincere with my Edit summary... "Wanna paraphrase this? There's valid point in there somewhere..." Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southampton Plot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Kenrick (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) 09:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Erpingham query

The simple answer is I didn't write it and hadn't noticed it (so thank you for drawing attention to it). If you look at the Nestroque passage in Waurin or Lefevre, it says nothing about the archers shooting - the next thing the army does is advance, which implies that Erpingham's action belongs to the earlier part of the battle, before the shooting starts. However, since at least Hardy's book longbow "Nestroque" has been interpreted as a shooting signal for the archers. We could put it back in - it is a common interpretation - but would somehow need to refer to it as a modern idea and would need to source that. Or we could take the lazy route and leave it out. Happy to work with you on wording on the article talk page if you want to go back to including itMonstrelet (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Map

I'm getting the bigger picture ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Paul B (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

York Museum Roman images

Hi Paul, sorry to have replaced the image you worked so hard on in Legio IX Hispana. Of all the images from York Museums Trust's online collections, that was the only one where the existing Misplaced Pages image seemed better than the official collection one! I replaced in the hope that editors might find the extra meta-data useful - did it interest you? I see that you've clicked through to the image on Commons though and done some categorisation. That's much appreciated! I wondered whether their might be other images from the collection or items that you would find useful for your editing? Let me know if I can help at all! Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's not that I worked on the image, though of course everyone hates to see their work lost. But I think I can overcome that twinge of pain. It was just that the image you added was rather "weird" to look at, as it had some very odd visual 'artefacts', especially at the right (streaks of unreadable shapes); and the base of the sculpture seemed to floating in a void, which gave it a distinctly eerie look. Yes the image was in one sense more useful. It had more visual information in it, but of course that's not the principal purpose it served in the article. Thanks for the information on other images. Paul B (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Bryant

Where did Joshua Jonathan provide quotes saying that Bryant thinks Indo-Aryan Migrations are more likely than OIT? Bryant says nothing of the sort, let alone repeatedly.VictoriaGrayson 21:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Williams (soldier), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (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) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Indigenous Aryans

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Starburst (confectionary)

Hi,

Can you explain why you consider my contributions "absurd"? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Starburst_(confectionary)&curid=996943&diff=645499170&oldid=645370941 Matma Rex talk 21:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That pesky plural 's' in my question was entirely unnecessary, sorry. There are plenty of good uses for {{multiple image}}, usually when the intent is to compare several images, or connect them with a common description; or even for purely aesthetic purpose such as in Penalty card#White card. But here it neither looks good (in my opinion, at least) nor relates to the images meaningfully, so I would like to remove the overhead of the template.

Out of curiosity I ran a CatScan query to find more like these in related articles and found only List of candies#Africa (which is quite neat) and Spree (candy) (which I would also rather kill). Thoughts? Matma Rex talk 12:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ITT Technical Institute Whitewashing

Dear Mr. Barlow, the list is not "ridiculous." More than 50 ITT Tech campuses have default rates that exceed their graduation rates. If you look at the USA story. Readers use Misplaced Pages to learn more about prosepective colleges.

You may be an intelligent person, but I'm not sure you are qualified to edit this (in terms of judging what's important).

Please undo what you have edited. Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)