User talk:Paul Barlow

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
(UTC)

DYK for Woman with Flowered Hat

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

114 17th Earl of Oxford

Paul, if you could point me to the title of the book I'd be grateful. And if you think that the film deserves a brief mention why did you do a wholesale revert? Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do a wholesale revert. That's why I explained that the film should be mentioned. I actually corrected the link, because you were linking to the word "anonymous", not the film. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I got confused (it's after 11 here in Moscow) and yes I found Blakemore. That quote definitely needs to be balanced, wikipedia has to show all points of view. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Welles, 8th Baron Willoughby de Eresby

Hello. I have reinstated a comma after you removed it here because a non-restrictive appositive should be set off by commas. Please see some of the earlier conversations on my talk page if you're uncertain about this. Thanks. Inglok (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typos in Elizabeth Woodville! (Old age doesn't come alone.) Deb (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

An entire army would be required to fix the typos I typically make. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual coercion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red howler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Bot, I was expecting your message. This one was intended. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI (Wagner talk page)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion

In the Name of God the Beneficent, The Merciful.

Peace and Blessings be upon His Last and final Messenger, Prophet Muhammad, Peace and Blessings be upon he and his noble family and companions. Ameen

Peace be upon you. I read the MOS and that is understandable and fine, but I will not stop making changes.

Allah says in the Holy Quran in Surah Ahzab ( Chapter of the Confederates) in Ayah 56

إنّ الله و ملاءكته يصلّون على النّبيّ, يا ايْها الذّين آمنوا صلّوا عليه و ساّلمو ا تسليماً Inna Allaha wa Malaaikatahu Yusalluna alannabiyy, yaa ayyuhalladhina aamanu Sallu alayhi wa sallimu tasleemaa Surely Allah and His angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe! call for (Divine) blessings on him and salute him with a (becoming) salutation. اللهم صلّي على سيّدي و حبيبي محمّد و على اليه و اصحابه و سلْم تسليما امين

Oh My Lord! send peace and blessings upon my Master and my beloved Messenger Muhammad and his family and his companions and send salaams on them with much zeal. Ameen.

I cannot stop making changes ,as it is disrespectful to my beloved Prophet, to just call him by his first name without any title before it, and it is a sin not to send peace and blessings upon him once his Holy Name is uttered,

It is related by Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam said,

“The miser is the one in whose presence I am mentioned but he does not supplicate for me.”

[At-Tirmidhi, Saheeh Al-Albani]

To say his name without a title or Salaams( Peace) afterwards is disrespectful and sinful, its like calling some common person by their first name, and he is not,by any means a common person. He is the reason for creation, and a Mercy to all the worlds. He was not only sent to the Muslims you know. His ways have benefited all of mankind since the day he was born uptil today, and he is not dead.

Do you not call the Pope or someone that is important to you in some name by his proper title? The same goes for any of the prophet's of God Almighty. I have a question. Are you a Christian? If you believe that Jesus ( Upon him be peace) is your Creator then why do you disrespect him? Are you a Jew? Do you call your Lord YHVH? Do you believ in His Prophets? would you call them by their first name if you were in their presence? Whatever you are, Whoever you are, whether or not you follow a religion or Believe in the One-ness of God almighty, you have to have some respect in your heart. Would you call your mother by her name, or would you call her Mom, mother , or some term of endearment? Would you try to show her the utmost respect? Do you fear God? Do you fear His punishment ? Do you LOVE God? well if you love Him, you should try to please him. I would like you to take the time out of your day and read these few lines from the Holy Quran and Hadith, just to show why I made the changes I did to the Wiki article on Prophet Muhammad Peace and Blessing be upon him.

Thank you and Peace be upon you. May Allah guide you to the light of truth, and make your way easy for you in guiding others to His light. Ameen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.58.34 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. If you wish to dispute the guidelines, do so at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Paul B (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When you do that remember to change every reference to the judao christian god to God. And that's why we don't do it. Britmax (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Valention2013 taken to ANI

Took him to ANI for copyvio a couple of hours ago. I also gave him a 3RR warning which he obviously ignored. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Carlyle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Psych

Saw your revert of my revert of your "boyfriend" note on Psych. Since this appears to be a big deal to you, I'm not going to fight it. However, my point, which seems to be pretty obvious, is your use of the term "boyfriend". Since the show doesn't follow a day to day, week to week chronology, we have no idea how long Juliette and Declan were "seeing eachother", dating, going out. Thus, calling Declan her "boyfriend" which in my mind implies a stable, long-term relationship (unless you are 5th grade of course where simply holding hands = boyfriend), when they could have just gone on a few dates (or it could have been many many more - we have no idea), seems a little much - thus my "non-NPOV" statement for the revert. Oh and you'd get around the "Juliette and Declan breaking up" later sentence by simply modifying the second sentence - not hard at all. So not a huge deal, but since I rarely get reverted (unless its on one of the more contentius Christian-oriented pages where everyone has to be "right"), I thought I'd at least explain myself. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

It seems to be a big deal for you. Boy oh boy it does. I added the passage, as I explained, because there was a reference to a "breakup" of their relationship in the next sentences. You can't have a "breakup" unless you are "together" to start with. I added the sentence so that the reader does not get a sudden jarring experience of confusion, as I did when I first read it. I've no idea whether they just went on a few dates or not. They aren't real people after all. The character of Declan/"Shawn 2.0" was, I assume, introduced to create a (somewhat absurd) crisis to resolve the will-they-won't-they plotline typical of this type of comedy-drama. As for the definition of "girlfriend", that seems to me to be a very minor issue. If there is some other phase that helps you sleep better then use it. Here are some suggestions: "they become involved"; "they date"; "they have a brief relationship". If you'd wanted to resolve this by "modifying the second sentence" you could have done, but you didn't. As far as I'm concerned the function of these plot-and-character summaries is to help the reader/. If you suddenly start watching a show like this mid-season it can be very confusing. These segements of articles on TV shows serve to help viewers read up up on the backstories and the characters (if they want to), and thus help to "slot themselves in" to the show. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow... That's one way to react. Holy cow - the arrogance... I guess an honest attempt at discussion to work through what I thought was a simple misunderstanding is out of the question.

BTW, I've watched the entire series from the start, not that that matters at this point. Ckruschke (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Let me be Frank (nudge, nudge), it doesn't matter whether or not you are the the founder of the Psych fan club. What matters is the function of the summaries for readers who may not be coversant with every plot twist or in-joke, as I explained. That's the whole point. By the way, when you sign, you just add the four tildes. Typing your name as well is redundant. Paul B (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

House of Brutus articles

Hi, I noticed your edits to the legendary kings of Britain, specifically related to family tree of the house of Brutus. I hadn't realised it at the time, but someone edited the family tree template to stop it from floating to the right of the article text (much like an infobox or picture would). This seems to have broken the articles, which then started with the family tree centred, followed by the text, and I can see why you would then make changes, or revert my edits to try to put them at the bottom of the article.

The size of the family tree is frankly ridiculous compared to the rest of the article, which was why I wanted to try to put it to the right of the text (incidentally also making the article seem longer by making it go further down the screen), and I've now restored the template to allow this again (and fixing the other articles again that you didn't get around to changing in the process, like Camber (legendary king); which is now as it was when I made the edits); if you disagree with this, let's discuss and come to a consensus. --xensyria^T 16:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got the impression that you thought it would "hang" at the right, like an inbox. Unfortunately it just appeared as a long bunch of boxes, pushing the article itself off the screen. Even the alteration you have now made creates a very odd looking text. Im afraid I'm no good at the creation of these things. I can't do the coding. Ideally, I guess, it should look something like the "Six Islamic Prophets" I've appended to this section. Paul B (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I should have kept an eye on the templates, though I agree it still looked only slightly less monstrous. I hadn't seen any other similar templates, like the Islamic Prophets one, which is much better styled. I've copied the style over, only changing the colour for kings to that of the succession box "Legendary titles", and I reckon it looks better now; thanks! Let me know what you think, and whether you think we should move the tree back to the top of some of the articles. --xensyria^T 17:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks a lot better. It still seems really big for many articles that are so tiny, but that may bve a reason to expand some of them if possible. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully so. I'll restore the trees in the meantime, when I get round to it. --xensyria^T 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Last revert

Regarding the page of P N. Oak, i think we had agreed to not repeat the theoretical review about him, in more than one section. Kindly remove the text from any one of the section. Capitals00 (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Aryan

I was wondering why the paragraph suggesting Tara as a root word of Aryan with valid references keeps getting deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.237.242 (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it isn't "a root word of Aryan" (whatever you may mean by that) and no remotely respectable scholar says it is. 11:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paon de Roet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margaret Beaufort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul have you checked your e-mail lately?

Please do. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

3O

I might take on the pending WP:3. (It is refreshing to see such a polite conversation, so I hope I can help out!) While you are on your sojourn to SoA, I've asked Doc to lay out exactly what the dispute is. If I can get something like "I think blah-blah-blah (giving the exact language) should be/not be included." I've posted a similar message on Doc's page. In the meantime, don't be surprised if another 3O volunteer takes on the question. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Princes in the Tower

I've reverted User:Rushton2010's latest edits, which include only a blanket reference to Philippa Gregory's documentary to back them up. Perhaps you could also keep an eye on this situation. Deb (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The piece you reverted was actually referenced to [BBC History Website], thank you very much. Only the line "The theory that Prince Richard survived is supported by novelist and historian Dr. Philippa Gregory" was referenced to the BBC documentary "The Real White Queen and Her Rivals", BBC2, 4 Aug 2013". A documentary that featured several historians, not just Gregory. And would have been thoroughly fact-checked by the BBC before they broadcast it. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"false assertions and unsupported misleading claims"? Everything in that section you deleted was fully referenced from the BBC History website. The BBC is the British National TV Broadcaster and is a trusted and reputable source. Calling them false and misleading is frankly ridiculous and suggests you haven't even read the website before deleting the information.

I am currently re-writing the section to make it clearer. The information comes from a reputable and trustworthy source and is fully referenced. If you're not happy with how that information is presented; feel free to rework it. But to flat out delete information when it has a reputable source could be seen by some as vandalism. If an IP user deleted a referenced section like that, they'd be warned for vandalism no questions asked.

I'm sticking to Wikipedia's policy of civility. Perhaps you should do the same --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

He knows what the BBC is, and also how variably reliable their website is. Gregory is certainly not an RS, whatever channel she is on, and her views really don't need mentioning. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

She's a cretin,as are those who cite her. Skol! Basket _Feudalist 12:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Blake Update 1

Naomi entreating Ruth and Orpah to return to the land of Moab.

William Blake Archive GLAM Update #1 Check out the first update on the GLAM-Wiki cooperation with William Blake Archive and the William Blake Task Force, Sadads (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC) This is a transclusion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry/William Blake/Updates/Update 1. If you would not like to receive future messages about Blake GLAM-Wiki, please remove yourself from Wikipedia:Blake#Members. This update was distributed by User:Sadads

Blake's illustration from For Children The Gates of Paradise

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Council of the North, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margaret Beaufort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahem.

The was no call for this edit. The word really was misspelled. StAnselm (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory

You just erased 64,213 characters of information on Christ myth theories, which citations are fringe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 09:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that Paul Barlow, I would appreciate it if you could also look at Greenground's contributions to the article Historicity of Jesus. I have opened a thread at AN/I about his activities, Anti -religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits.Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Feedback/Thoughts on Spectre (Blake) or Visionary Heads

Hey Paul, would you mind giving some feedback/thoughts/help expanding on Spectre (Blake) or Visionary Heads? The first is on the way through DYK, and the other just finished it's stint, and it would be nice to have another set of eyes on them as part of WP:Blake, Sadads (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad day?

A few typos in your latest contribution, methinks. :-) Deb (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I constantly make typos. Often I have to retype contributions six or seven times. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The not-so-great "debate"

You may or may not have noticed that I've opted out. I have my reasons, and I don't expect anyone else to fight my battles for me. Being an admin makes me less free than others to say what I'm really thinking. Let's just get on with making things, and let others preoccupy themselves with breaking things. Deb (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Paul,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 12:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A favour

Hey Paul, the way you mediated the situation here at Cox-Forbes theory, i think, you should perform the same kind of mediation in Bhavishya Purana, i actually agree with this suggestion[1], you should really contribute. Thanks Bladesmulti (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

zionist propaganda.

The curse has been mentioned in the Talmud which is the holy book of the jews (it is even regarded by some as more important than the Torah itself) and the bible, but it has never been mentioned in the Qur'an or the Books of Hadith, and if it has been mentioned by some muslim historian like Ibn Khaldūn (born about 7 centuries after the death of the prophet Mohammad) that does not make it ingrained in the Muslim tradition, unlike the jews who still look down at black as manifested by the quotes of Rabi Ofadia Yosef (former chief rabbi of israel) about Hurricane Katrina:

"There was a tsunami and there are terrible natural disasters, because there isn’t enough Torah study... Black people reside there [New Orleans]. Blacks will study the Torah? [God said], Let’s bring a tsunami and drown them... Hundreds of thousands remained homeless. Tens of thousands have been killed. All of this because they have no God... Bush was behind the [expulsion of] Gush Katif, he encouraged Sharon to expel Gush Katif... We had 15,000 people expelled here [in Israel], and there [in America] 150,000 [were expelled]. It was God’s retribution... God does not short-change anyone"

Another wild claim made by the writer was a quote from Goldenberg's book, that Islam is a religion with long history of slave trade, which is a false claim, as a matter of fact, there are certain penalties imposed on muslims who sin, one of them is freeing a slave as mentioned in the quran chapter 58 verse 3:

"And those who make unlawful to them (their wives) (by Az-Zihar) and wish to free themselves from what they uttered, (the penalty) in that case (is) the freeing of a slave before they touch each other. That is an admonition to you (so that you may not return to such an ill thing). And Allah is All-Aware of what you do".

On the other hand, it is common knowledge (among historians at least) that the slave trade throughout history has been dominated by the jews. not least the atlantic slave trade.

and having books published by big names like Oxford or others, does not mean that Goldberg is not a die hard Zionist and clearly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingEyes (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The full documented list of Muslim authors who wrote that blacks were cursed to slavery by Noah's "Curse of Ham" actually does go all the way to the time of the prophet (Ibn Ata), according to the sources present in the article so far. You don't dispute that it is a documented teaching of Mediaeval Muslim scholars, you seem to be arguing that we all have an obligation not to report this fact because it doesn't fit in with your teaching. But the way wikipedia works is, if Mediaeval Muslim scholars taught such a thing, and it is documented, then we are allowed to say that Mediaeval Muslim scholars taught such a thing and that it is documented. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

stopfuckingrevertwarringtheCurse of Hampage.IamapersonalfriendofAnna Gunnandsheisaskingmetoeditwaronthisarticlesheispayingme$2000todoso.

Well that was her money down the drain then, wasn't it, since it's not going to alter the content in the least...! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Anna Gunn is paying you $2000 to edit war? Awesome. That's money for nothing. If she pays me the same amount I might consider digitally removing that uinsightly mole from her arm in the picture on her page. on second thoughts, make that $4000. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Effie Gray

"That's an utterly silly theory" re observation in recent (by no means convincing) Brownwell book. It is however a suggestion that has been made. I won't put the words back in because you'll only delete them again, but please try to refrain from using that patronising tone! IXIA (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yakub (Nation of Islam), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eden and Public Enemy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Umm...

Can you pull your head out of your arse for a second and admit that the belief that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible is the very definition of pseudoarchaeology? It's only believed by a few to push their agenda. It's physically impossible. Its arguments fall flat. Get a grip Indiasummer95 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)