Hi Can you look at the talkpages and give your opinion. Some users might have problems with WP:RS sources. Thank you.

Please cite citation of WTF this means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.164.83 ( talk) 02:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

hi we have substantial evidence from dr nicholas eastaugh that supports our contention of what we have wrote. We will be putting it back on backed up by reports. Further Christopher Newell debatingly the world authority on pre-raphaelite landscape has agreed with Eastaugh in lot 33 in sothebys 13th july victorian and edwardian,esthwaite lake and langdale pikes. If you would like to learn about him go on his wikipedia page or look in the catalogue regarding this great genius.

Regards SB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjblacklock ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

i'm afraid allan staley is far behind in modern research on pre-raphelite landscape or technique where dr Nicholas estaugh's paper on blacklock and prb backs up along with christopher newell what we have stated. Because we have back up we are putting it back on. if you take it of again we will take of all your pages. it's the truth and it's a free world. especialy regarding the wet in wet technique that has been as a tool to hype and sell paintings by the prb. it's complete lies. have you ever been face to face with a blacklock. have you even seen one or read the report. this is a sight for every one to contributeto. go on sothebys and type in blacklock in the search bar. you will see for yourself how great he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjblacklock ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

we have cited our claims 1. christopher newall wrote up on julys sothebys sale 2010 on the blacklock 2. several other writings on the same over the last several years of sothebys cataloguing 3. the fact that william bell scott, rossetti and his circle tried to copy his luminous ground technique in the barnard castle painting of 1852. 4. the ground braking report by dr nicholos estaugh possibly the leading expert on pigmentus in the world. who's done paintings by rembrandt. 5. we have letters on authoritys on pre-raphaeliteism regretting that alan staley left him out of the pre-raphaelite landscape exhibition. 6. by 1854 blacklock apears to have been the leading english landscape painter of his own country according to contemporary criticsm. it may take you and mr staley time to wake up to the truth of the importance of william james blacklock and the lies about the wet in wet technique that hunt and millais used if ever. so mr barlow were putting the truth of wjb back on the site.

regards wjblacklock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjblacklock ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

please can we have your home address to forward you Dr. Nicholas Estaugh's papers on Blacklock and the PRB, it is not for publication without permission. In Blacklock's painting the miller's homestead and landscape with a fisherman commissioned by the great Pre-raphaelite collector James Leathard are the most advanced landscapes in Europe of 1854. It set a new pathway into modernism where Cezanne and the modernists, including the surrealists are his heir. Blacklock was not as obscure as you think as alan staley has tried to hide. Blacklock's paintings are something that must be viewed in the flesh and i invite you to look at the paintings at tullie house carlisle and abott hall kendal and the one for sale in sothebys. and yes i do agree with christopher newall blacklock is an important cannon who was seen every year for sixteen years in the ra by the many and many other exhibitions in the uk and who was singled out by the kuntsplat german magazine in his day as the most authentic leading english landscape painter

SB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjblacklock ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

hi my great friend dr robert woof thought Blacklock was a critical artist of the 19th century. And had great power of truth in his works. you have not researched blacklock and you are behind time with staley. when you are in time and knowledgeable on pre-raphaelite technique you will have the right to cancel or negotiate. i think i may know you well from the wordsworth trust programs. i'm sure i have met you and we got on very well with anne bacon and co who knows ground breaking research has been done on blacklock in the last 10 years but has not been published yet. blacklock was a genious like turner and authentic. they all wanted his power of truth. if you are going to be in london go to see the blacklock. -- Wjblacklock ( talk) 12:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

hi paul give me a few weeks for the papers, my son wrote the last extract to you we have changed it. Are you looking at the steps of haddon hall at tullie house and not the haddon hall picture that sothebys sold last year. The tullie house painting 1847 seems done under the influence Frederich and also anticipates early Monet. And does have Huguenot figures in it as do several others by blacklock including a later painting by blacklock called the rookery. we have further evidence but we are not 100% sure that blacklock is the unknown figure in the painting by millais called isabella. the one next to the female on the far right of the table. we know that william bell scott is portrayed as the servant who was best friends with blacklock. blacklock has a great future. the lost genius is being found. regards -- Wjblacklock ( talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

hi paul another point i would like to make is that once alan staley in one of his books virtually claims constable as the greatest english landscape painter, it is difficult when a now obscure painter of great excellence that develops constable and the old masters for him to backtrack and accept it. Grigson in his 1973/4 article in the country life magazine claims blacklock as a critical moment with courbet between the great romantics and the great impressionists. all in all i believe he is a corner stone of modernism.

regards and thankyou -- Wjblacklock ( talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

christopher newall and nicholas eastaugh think blacklock is important. we think he carries the technique of the old masters into the modern world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjblacklock ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

hi please can you put the picture of crummock water, Grassmoor and Whitless pike 1853 on instead of the chapel at haddon hall. you have seen the wrong haddan hall picture the one you want to see is at tullie house and there is no pictures. it will confuse people. regards -- Wjblacklock ( talk) 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

hi paul i have integrity so don't worry i can back up what i say please wait to see dr eastaughs paper half of my writings are already from chris newals wright up in sothebys cat and he is a world authority and in fast track on wjb because he has all the new research etc its not a comp and you are more than welcome to have all my research over 15 years my son has taken the steps at hadon hall off so not to confuse with the 1847 pic of steps at hadon hall with the Huguenot figures in clear they are in the pic of haweswater mill you put up but are in the trees embracing and you need to be up close to see those iv just uncovered a lovely emmerson knitting in the lake district 1854 when he was at carlisle being taught by wjb in the stanwix studio the white ground technique they all wanted blacklock was translator from c 1844 old masters to modernism the emmerson is so like blacklock and is before waiting and autumn leaves millais must have been influenced by it and dyce later in his knitting in wales it was exh 1854 and is mentioned in the lethard letters as mrs john Sheffield and child again emmersons knitting pic was just before waiting and autumn leaves it is full of truth and poetry thought is was a blacklock you need to see the infra red reflexology of the landscape with beehives it has pentemente like giorgione and v deep mad figures of wjb in death as a boy and bessy going through his body great last old master the bit you can see in the pic is wjb in old age and bessy as a lilliputian figure telling the bees YOUR MASTER IS DEAD its much greater than millais ophilia there is a beautiful manor house and in front a skep with zillions of bees buzzing round when the beekeeper died the family had to tell the bees your master is dead i keep bees but it is much much deeper the pic was done at the end of his short life and in the chrighton mental hospital christies misses the infra red pics that were discovered later by dr eastaugh incredible brilliant painter they said it was in tandem with early barbazon school you see each of wjb s pics are of a different character and importance as he stated. i agree re cotman and constable seen in his work but its developed with a little help from the old masters and maybe the ingenious me nutter of the once famous carlisle academy 1830s many of the cumbrian and northumberland artists were already in search of italy as you know please leave my little bit on the site i thankyou and please put the crummock pic 1853 on in place of the steps at h hall look forward to conversing in the future and indeed meeting you regards -- Wjblacklock ( talk) 15:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply

While revising the page The Ashbourne portrait , I noted that the jpg is entitled

Image:Ashbourneshakespeare-lordoxford.jpg|thumb|200px|The Ashbourne portrait.

Clicking on it, I see you cleaned the picture. I am wondering why it is entitled shakespeare-lordoxford? The Folger Library certainly takes no position either way, but it dates the picture to 1612, which means it cannot be, implicitly, of Edward de Vere who died in 1604. Technically, the picture for the Folger is of Hugh Hamersley, and neither of Shakespeare nor the Earl of Oxford. I would have thought the NPOV way of presenting this would have been to upload it with the title ascribed to it by the Folger Shakespeare library, namely Hugh Hamersley. Certainly, in the discipline of art history, it was associated with Shakespeare. But I know of no qualified historian of art who has gone to press on the Oxfordian position.

Anyhow, what does one do here? Can the jpg upload page format be fixed to give the correct Folger title? Sorry for the trouble. Nishidani ( talk) 21:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I think Les would go for the big spit in the wild blue yonder, and chuck a cosmic kalaidoscopic yawn over wiki, à la 'Blue Poles' by Jackson Pollack which, as you know, created a huge kerfuffle when it was purchased for 3 million smackeroos for the Australian National Library.

Yes I knew you hadn't uploaded it, but not the background. It is definitely misnamed, and the matter will have to be re-examined. It is, as Dame Edna Everidge would say, definitely not 'commie ill foe'. Thanks though. Nishidani ( talk) 07:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

you have miss quoted griggson, this has been published by the country life magazine. you also have spelt Corot incorrectly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.251.235 ( talk) 22:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I didn't spell Corot at all. You wrote "Croft" by mistake, as one of your sockpuppets. Now you realise your mistake you try to blame me for it. Sad really. Paul B ( talk) 07:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

create Hindu shame amongst Indian youth

I hesitated a lot over this ostensibly awkward expression this morning, and appreciate your revision of it. My hesitation however is grounded in the fact that there is a vast literature on shame in anthropology, which distinguishes it according to culture, so that, to speak of areas I have a fair competence in, Greek shame (Αιδώς) is theorised as distinct from modern 'Western' conceptions of shame ( Gilbert Murray, E.R.Dodds, James M. Redfield, Bernard Williams etc.), as Chinese shame (恥 chǐ Wolfram Eberhard 1977), Japanese shame (haji, Ruth Benedict's The Chrysanthemum and the Sword evoked a large Japanese critique for her putative failure to understand the local nuances of 'Japanese shame'), not to speak of the use of the word in Semitic languages, are often defined with culture-specific nuances. This made me wonder whether Sanskrit lajja or trapa and the reflexes of that in Hindu culture might not in turn have an extensive differential anthropology. I would expect they do, in which case 'Hindu shame' would be perfectly comprehensible. The second point is that India has 70 million Muslims, with a distinctive shame culture, and therefore 'shame among Hindu youth' would have the advantage of specifying that Doniger's works would affect Hindu youth rather than Muslim Indians, but it steps round the problem of what local nuances are attached to the word/concept in Hindu culture. Still, faute de mieux, thanks for the correction. Nishidani ( talk) 16:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I expressed myself badly as usual. It wasn't my sentence you improved, but someone else's I didn't have the fortitude to adjust because overwhelmed by Hamletic perplexities as to the nuances, per above. You did the right edit, in any case. And of course, as for the French shame, it's appropriate given the context and shame-driven attempts to attack Doniger to remind ourselves of the cliché: 'honi soit qui mal y pense'. Nishidani ( talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC) reply

i was looking on the page about blacklock and it said sothebys sale 16th june 2010 this date is wrong. please change it to the proper date tuesday 13th july 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGBtruth ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey, I noticed you started adding to a bunch of plays. I was wondering if this had been discussed somewhere beyond Template talk:Italic title, where it was decided to not apply it to most works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The article The Scapegoat (painting) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet criteria set forth in WP:GNG for notability.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} 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 {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —  raeky T 04:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I have nominated The Scapegoat (painting), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scapegoat (painting). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —  raeky T 06:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Some comments of yours have been discussed at Talk:Mitanni. I think the issue is moot now however. Dougweller ( talk) 12:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Daniojean haas.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

" It is not ancient scripture, so references to Jesus, Mohammad... " How do you know??? This may only otherwise mean that Britishers deliberately changed Vedas to spread christianity in India. But maybe they also had some scriptural basis to do so and that is still not fake??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theismcontrib ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Theismcontrib, you are also adding links to http://www.astrojyoti.com - a site selling Hindu horoscopes. This is spam, and may result in you being blocked. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

See you in spiritual world also, no matter 'paradigms' misconceptions etc...

"‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana

If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theismcontrib ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi PaulB - I see you got one too. Did it work? -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Quack quack, It would appear Theismcontrib is a sock of HareKrishnaPortal [1] -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading File:Laing.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 07:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Same for you. 4th times revert. -- 93.82.8.124 ( talk) 18:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Once again, the same for you. It can also be applied to your action. -- 93.82.8.124 ( talk) 18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I reverted three times. Paul B ( talk) 18:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Kudos for holding the fort on the P. N. Oak article; I was amazed to find most of the text intact even after a long gap. Made some copyedits...

Keep up the good work. I think we should name a medal after you!! mukerjee ( talk) 08:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I have recently add my arguments & refs. Someone is telling these are original research, do not fit with wiki standards,etc. Can you please give your opinion on this. Thank you. Rajkris ( talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Is this you?

blacklsited rexcurry.net link removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.53.77 ( talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Yep, that would be me, as envisaged by the deranged mind of Rex Curry. Paul B ( talk) 15:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I have been working on an expansion of Dante Gabriel Rossetti. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have to make it better - it's still a bit ragged. - PKM ( talk) 01:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Can you help me out on something? I noticed in the Armeno-Aryan page, which is also the Graeco-Aryan page, you and Dbachmann had added the Armenian and Indo-Iranian link with the subgroup Armeno-Aryan. This grouping is also excluding Greek, but in the main Armenian language page where it use to always have on the LEAD, Greek and Indo-Iranian families, they remove the Indo-Iranian link and distort it. The augment that they even provide as the example of this, says Armenian not Phyrgian where they put the Phrygian and Indo-Iranian higher level subgrouping. What I need your help on is to correct some of the POV, of not including Indo-Iranian, which as I just pointed out with the sources also you added from the IE chart Handbook of Formal languages, and I noticed Dbachmann realized to the linguistic term. There is a modivation to disclude the links with Indo-Iranian, when there appears to be equally linked as Greek is, if not more. Armenian is also a Satem language like Indo-Iranian. So please can you correct the minor changes I just made that Taivo reverted. Thanks for your help. Aryamahasattva ( talk) 16:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Paul. Would you please take a look? Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

You have a penchant for sticking up for "hitler". I advise you against this... it will not get you anywhere on wikipedia, did you really think you would earn brownie points for sticking up for he who stood against and KILLED 6 million of GODS CHOSEN FOLK??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.136.97 ( talk) 10:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Do I? It's news to me. Where exactly have I ever "stuck up for" Hitler???? Frankly, I do not believe there is any such thing as "God's chosen folk" any more than there is a "master race". Killing millions of people wouldn't be somehow a lesser crime because they are not "God's chosen". There's an implicit racism in that very viewpoint. Paul B ( talk) 11:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I added Colin Groves' claim to have disproved the cretinism hypothesis to this article, giving a reference to his article in HOMO, cited in New Scientist. An anonymous editor at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Homo_floresiensis&diff=prev&oldid=389644384 has added that the article is unpublished apart from an abstract, and commented that readers are "misled by what is presented here". However, the brief New Scientist article cites William Jungers as agreeing that the study puts the idea to rest, and the full text is available at ScienceDirect for $24.95. I am sceptical that the editor has checked out the article - and reluctant to pay $24.95 to do so myself. Is there a Wikipedia protocol for dealing with this situation? Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help. I have had confirmation that it is an abstract - which makes the price of $24.95 seem even more excessive! Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Paul, you're not replying to warshy. Smatprt copied that comment from his RfC and pasted it at the AN/I for some reason. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC) reply

As to the above, I'm referring to the comment you left here. The editor you are replying to didn't put that there; Smatprt did (check the edit history). Why he put an RfC comment in the AN/I space is a mystery, to me anyway.

As to the DYK nom, I created the article by taking it out of the SAQ page, and I also nominated it for DYK. I haven't looked at the nom lately, God knows what's there. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Paul, thanks for expanding the article, it's a great job of adaptation, but the references need to be imported from the bottom of the SAQ page. As it is, when you click on the ref names in the notes, it goes nowhere. I would do it, but . . . Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I would have found it helpful if you had written more edit summaries on the recently vandalised page about Ann Hathaway; see your recent user contributions. Snowman ( talk) 18:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Paul, would you look at this? I'm not sure how to go about it, and in any case I'm banned from editing the article. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• We made it! (That's tomorrow or the next day's page.) Thanks very much for your help. I wonder if it's the first DYK from a topic-banned editor! Cheers Paul. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

A thought occurred to me that we could submit the same article 36 times without repeating the hook. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

WOould you mind taking a look at the article Latin America especially in relation to the table of Racial demographics? I am really not liking the way it synthesize data from many different sources without giving clarity about the proveniences of individual numbers or the degree to which they are comparable. Maybe I'm just fussing. If you have a little time please take a look. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Bardauthor navbox needed Is it? Do you agree, Paul? I see you've edited the template. Don't you think the box dignifies the "theories" and "theorists" too much? Note that Smatprt has asked on the template talkpage to have it in three columns, which IMO would make it ten times more in-your-face. (I guess the risk that somebody complies is minimal, though, since he made the request in 2007, and nobody has replied yet...) Bishonen | talk 21:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC). reply

The User:Tajik has mentioned something about you at the admins notice board here, can you go there clarify your position. Thanks.-- Jrkso ( talk) 21:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure why you decided to make it personal, but it was uncalled for. I didn't call you a moron because you didn't understand the problems with the removal of the text. I calmly, politely explained why it was wrong., No pretensions of higher intelligence - though I am fairly convinced that you are a jerk. If that was your goal, mission accomplished. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 04:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

There was nothing calm or polite about any of your responses. Throughout you adopted a sneering self-aggrandising tone in response to every editor who disagreed with you. The tone persists. So either they are all morons or the term more properly belongs elsewhere. I suggest that it is you who need to consider how you interact with others. Paul B (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, Paul, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find posts that used that same sort of language. I don't see myself as self-aggrandizing, as the term means boastful, or bragging; in fact, I don't think I'm like that at all. I know policy and guidelines extremely well, and take a dim view of people who think they are dispensable. Yes, i may talk down to people who refuse to get the point, but that's mostly because I hate repeating myself to people who refuse to get the point and use the discussion like a battlefield. Maybe terming people who don't see policy as narrowly as I do as morons is indeed unkind, but I wouldn't direct it at any individual editor. I still think the consensus is dead wrong, and I will absolutely revisit the issue in the future, since consensus can change. However, i will try to find ways to remain pleasant with those who disagree with me. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, I think *I*'m dispensable, but then I suspect you're dispensable, too. Maybe not Paul. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC). reply

Lol! Damned spellcheck - I must have mis-typed "disposable" and spell check word sub must have put "dispensable"!

I was referring to folk who thought the our policies were disposable when inconvenient (beyond those instances of IAR). I don't think of anyone as dispensable; the encyclopedia needs everyone in order for it to be collaborative - even those who disagree about the application of rules, if for no other reason than to strengthen or change those rules in questioning them. I'm terribly sorry for the implication arising from the typo. Thanks for catching it, Bishonen. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 21:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Paul I noticed you've been editing the Shakespeare memorials page. There's a graf in there about the Shakespeare £20 note. I've got an image of that, but I can't seem to find the Wikipedia policy on uploading money images. Do you know what it is? Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I think it would be best to be bold and put the flags back in, it is such a disgrace, the flag of Ireland is the Tricolour and does not apply to the whole island, just the nation. Have you noticed who has the problem and is throwing out all these statements that question my integretity, "BritishWatcher",and quite frankly the name says it all, he has started controversial arguements in adding such terms that are controversial in Ireland, such as British Isles, the other editors were happy with just Ireland and Britain as the geographical reference, but he had to have it his way, and he did, on numerous articles about Ireland,and this will be just another example. Sheodred ( talk) 14:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

We do not need a flag for Northern Ireland, it is only Ireland (Republic) that is being represented. Sheodred ( talk) 14:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

"The opinion Ghmytle referred to was Dab's, not yours." Sorry, you lost me there. I was referring to Sheodred's opinion. Dab asked him to provide references - he didn't, he just provided a statement of his own opinion. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah - no, I think we're confusing each other. The words "Each flag displayed is used to express each of the respective nationalisms" originated from Dab's post, but they are words that Sheodred then inserted into the article text, rather than doing what he was asked to do which (as I read it) was to provide a reference for his assertion that flags should be used to represent national aspirations. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello,

You undid my edit, labeling it as "baloney", without giving any reasons, references etc. Respectfully, did you actually read my entry with some consideration, or is this just a knee-jerk response?! I have cited 18 references. Did you bother to look them up?

I am happy to accept a substantiated rejection but would really appreciate reasons rather than a rather unprofessional "baloney".

Sincerely,

Peter ("Ashwinushas") Ashwinushas ( talk) 23:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, but I have also reverted your edit; I explained in my edit summary. Let's please move the discussion to the article's talk page. Drmies ( talk) 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Have you seen my post at FTN? You may recognise something if you look at the edit history. Dougweller ( talk) 15:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Or a clone. But I think you're right. Dougweller ( talk) 15:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I think your reversion was too harsh. Aparts from mis-spelling "fistula", the text added by User:Kory58 was correct, although misplaced and redundant. "UTTER RUBBISH" is not a helpful way to describe a new editor's first effort! Groomtech ( talk) 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm trying to upgrade what was a desperate "start", and am slugging my way through the 18th century, Waterhouse in hand. Any additions on the 19th century, & anything else, would be great. Johnbod ( talk) 03:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC) reply

on the fringe theories noticeboard. Feel free to remove this request when you have done so. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 11:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 13:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

See WP:DTR. Paul B ( talk) 14:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

DTR is an essay. NPA is a policy. The one is opinion, freely ignored. The other is a policy, not to be ignored. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 14:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Nor is it being ignored. You, as I say, you are the editor who acting in a disruptive fashion, not me. It is entirely proper to draw attention to violations of both policies and guidelines. It was you who began by misrepresenting issues. Paul B ( talk) 14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

"She started it!" is not an acceptable defense for making personal attacks. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 14:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually it is. You have misused Wikipedia's procedures. I drew attention to the fact, without any personal comments. You decided to make it a personal issue. Paul B ( talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. I used the noticeboard precisely as it is intended to be used - to raise a question. If you found that I was mistaken, you should post that. But claiming I deliberately lied to waste peoples time is a personal attack. I am now done explaining to you; I sincerely hope you are done insulting me, which you have now done on three separate pages. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 16:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

you titled the section "evolution" to get people to support you in a debate that was not about evolution and you misrepresented the position of users in that debate. I am not the only one who has pointed this out to you. Paul B ( talk) 17:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, KillerChihuahua. Paul B is an arrogant user who thinks that he belongs to a superior kind of people. He will frequently revert your sourced edits without explanation, and if you ask him questions about his behaviour, you will have no answer, just a condescendant silence... A pity that such pretentious users can still post on wiki. -- 109.212.120.109 ( talk) 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Silly child has a tantrum. Paul B ( talk) 17:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Confirmation of what I've said...-- 109.212.120.109 ( talk) 17:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Not really. You appear to be too much of a coward to even create a user identity or say what sin I'm supposed to have committed against you. Paul B ( talk) 17:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, Paul. Hope all's well. I've been absent from Wikipedia for some time for one reason and another (you know how it is); cheers for the edits and contributions to the Potter/Play for Today pages.

Being a keen student of Victoriana I wondered if you'd be interested in editing a page I'm hoping to construct about the 1968 Potter Play A Beast With Two Backs — historical accuracy, that sort of thing. I hope to get the page up and running soon. Yours, Absurdtrousers ( talk) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Nordic race for GA reassessment, an article you have previously shown interest in. The criteria have tightened quite a lot since it was last reviewed more than two years ago, and it currently fails on several criteria, some of which are serious. I hope you'll participate in the discussion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

By all your contributions and your reverts, you want to make us believe some biased things. Why ? Yes, why ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.138.32.165 ( talk) 18:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, I guess we all have a point of view, but I try to be as neutral as possible and to follow policy while promoting what I consider to be a reasonable position in the articles I edit. What edits do you have in mind? Paul B ( talk) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh I see, it's user:sleeping water. Well, the real mystery is what your agenda is. It would be nice to know why you are obsessed with denying that there were ever any Celts in Zimbabwe. Paul B ( talk) 19:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Because there are no source which indicates that Zimbabwe was of Celtic culture. And since you think that you are a clever manipulator, read the archives. Celts were not the dominant culture in Spain. Despite a lot of academic sources, you and your friends have succeded to revert them several times and to push your agenda. WHICH AGENDA ?-- 90.9.174.65 ( talk) 13:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Zimbabwe???? What planet are you on? You change the word 'Spain' to 'Zimbabwe' in my post [2] and then imagine no-one will notice, while still replying about Spain. No one says Celts were the "dominant" culture. The "agenda" is the truth, that's all. I really doubt that any of the editors who revert you care whether there were Celts in Spain or not. It just so happens that there were, so that's what we say in the article. Paul B ( talk) 15:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your edit. "Claim" is the right word. As I just wrote on the page of the person who added it as "confirmed by new technology" (a magnifying glass), that if I looked at Monet's "Waterlilies" at the Orangerie, I could find the whole of Psalm 23 in Icelandic Runes, if that was what I was looking for! Amandajm ( talk) 01:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC) reply

P.S. Why don't you take a look at the Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci page.... and it's lengthy discussion page. Amandajm ( talk) 13:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The article George McCoy is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George McCoy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. The Celestial City ( talk) 02:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, that one! Seasons Greetings too! Johnbod ( talk) 22:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Cheers! Tom Reedy ( talk) 05:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC) reply

On 20 April 2009, Paul Barlow deleted the page “ Blackamoors (sculpture)” and replaced it with a redirect to “ Blackamoors (decorative arts)”. This maneuver fails to transfer the History and Discussion associated with the page.

However, Wikipedia does have a mechanism for MOVING a page to a new title. This procedure also moves the History and Discussion associated with the page, and leaves a Redirect. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_move for a further explanation.

I have no strong feelings about whether the page is titled “Blackamoors (sculpture)” or “Blackamoors (decorative arts)”. However, I do feel strongly that if the title is changed, it should be done by moving the page, and not by deleting and recreating. Wmpearl ( talk) 22:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply

You appear to have now done exactly the same yourself, and worse by cutting and pasting the much more substantial article of the two. There was nothing on the "sculpture" talk page, and the "article" was only two lines or so. Since the decorative arts article had at that point already existed for several years, a move would not have helped. "Decorative arts" is clearly the better title as the lead shows: "Blackamoor figures (Italian moretto, moretti) are stylised depictions of black Africans used in sculpture, jewelry, armorial designs and decorative art." I think it's best just to revert your changes. Johnbod ( talk) 01:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I am at a loss to understand your argument. When two pages exist to be merged, a merger will inevitably leave the page history of the merged article at the redirect. That does not eliminate it. It can still be found at the redirect. That is not a cut-and-paste move to a new title. It's a merger. I suggest you read WP:merger. I know of no procedure to merge two distinct page revision histories. I can only assume that you did not check that the decorative arts page pre-existed the merger, nor did you read the contents of the page. So you now criticise me for not using the move button, which would not have been possible, while cuttuing and pasting yourself! Paul B ( talk) 11:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Savita Apte wrote this sentence in the catalogue "Indian Highway" (2008), in the page dedicated to Husain's work:

"[...]wished to break with the nationalist traditions established by the Bengal school of art and to encourage an Indian avant-garde, engaged at an international level."

I think you wrote this sentence before her in Bombay Progressive Artists' Group

M 84.220.167.207 ( talk) 10:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, you are right. Still, I have no copyright on the text! Thanks for the info. Paul B ( talk) 16:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question 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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please list them etc. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC) reply

You have repeatedly reverted my edits to Modernism. In the interests of avoiding an edit war I will not make my change again today, but I am not going to give up on this while the definition for modernism begins with the uncited statement that what follows is its broadest definition. I believe articles should not make that claim. And, by the way, I agree with your comment on the Modernism discussion page that Modernism is a movement. If so, why do you support a definition which equates modernism with modern culture. ′Modern′ is an attribute of culture, applicable to something thought of as modern. Adding ′-ism′ gives it a meaning of preference, belief, advocacy or something which makes it, as you said, a movement. dpw ( talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

About my criticism of something as being uncited. As I said elsewhere, I can provide citations for my definition -- for goodness sake, let us all cite everything. But what I was really objecting to was not the lack for citation for your definition, I know of those, too, no problem, it was a complaint about you calling it ″the broadest definition″. I have never seen and never expect to see any definition (other than those tracing back to the Wikipedia itself) which claims yours is the broadest definition. It is one thing to produce a definition, another to claim that it is the broadest. Had you merely given your definition, with no citation, I might have passed it by, since it is one definition of modernism, but to make such an exaggerated claim for it, without citing a source for THAT PREPOSTEROUS CLAIM is much worse than leaving your definition uncited. Yes, I should have cited mine, can do, and will do, if mine stays up long enough, and you should have cited yours, too, surely we can agree on that. dpw ( talk) 21:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I have removed the above editors talkpage privileges, and most of the content from the page except the block notice and ArbCom notices - and a comment by User:Fut.Perf - and noted my actions, mentioning they should contact ArbCom by email if they desire unblock or contributing to the case. If you wish to continue communications with the editor I strongly suggest you do so off site. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

http://politicworm.com/blog/

Your comment here towards me is uncivil and constitutes a personal attack. I would ask that you remove it, and seek to conduct yourself in discussions with more courtesy. I will wait a very short time before reporting the personal attack. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

That's no attack. Slightly snarky, maybe...but not enough to escalate to reporting. Try settling it, first.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 22:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I disagree. Suggesting that a problem won't be resolved until "Jack disappears into the space-time contunuum from which he came" is pretty much an uncivil thing to say. There's already a lot of heat there. Barlow doesn't need to be tossing sterno on the fire. It was a personal attack, acting with the presumption that I am some wacko that believes in time travel. He appears to be offline. If it isn't removed (or stricken, in the event that someone comments on it - whch of course they will), I'll have little choice. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

In that case, I'd watch out for the boomerang. Your accusations concerning the canvassing of ScottyBerg might be taken in the same way unless you have evidence. I see enough to think your behavior may also come under fire; I have no dog in this fight and not taking sides. I'm recommending de-escalation for all involved. I don't think others will see this as an attack as you do so the outcome may not be what you expect.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 22:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Fine, so it's pick on the little guy. Thanks for the 411. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 23:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

No picking about it. Just saying what I think would be best. Water is better than gas for putting out fires.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 23:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, I am thinking in retrospect. I added a bit of levity, and will let the instance go. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 04:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{ Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{ User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, “ disinterested” can be used in both senses. Since we're being pedantic and all… — Xover ( talk) 16:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, I've not much opinion on the phrasing of the finding, but both senses of the word date to the 17th-century according to the OED, and the sense of “not interested” (1631) antedates the sense “unbiased” (1659) by 28 years. So there! ;D — Xover ( talk) 16:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

heh heh. I stand corrected, sir. Touché! — Xover ( talk) 17:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I have begun an article and thought it might interest you as you uploaded the photograph of the monkeys. Moonraker2 ( talk) 08:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC) reply

At the SAQ workshop, your Don Foster link should be Donald Wayne Foster (or wikitext [[Donald Wayne Foster|Don Foster]]). I would normally just dab it myself but I don't want to mess with other people's comments at arbcom, and thought you might want to know. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I've uploaded a couple of denser files for your pig article and I wonder if you might want to enlarge the feature image of move it down so it can be enlarged for better viewing. Also the comic Latin image really should be on the left instead of looking off the page. Great article, BTW. Are you going to nominate it for DYN? Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I nominated your article. I used a cropped version of your featured image. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Too bad, Paul. I nominated it 14 days after you created it and the rules say 5 days in the limit. Next time write it off-line and just drop it in. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

And thanks. Very pleased you improved it, didn't just do (as I did) remove the unreliable sources. Dougweller ( talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply