User talk:Paul Barlow Archive1 user talk:Paul Barlow Archive 2

I have requested an unlock on the basis that fan was doing the edit warriong and is an abusive sock. Sayiong an admin locked to the wrong version tends to annoy admins so best nmot to mention this just the fact that with the abusive sock indefinitely blocked there is no reason to keep it locked. I have made sure all his other main space edits were reverted, SqueakBox 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could point out that the edits of banned users should be reverted regardless of content rather than because of the poor quality of the content, SqueakBox 22:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, SqueakBox 01:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the discussion Mr. Barlow! I think you are confused both by what I wrote and American law. The difference between sex and rape in most jurisdictions is a lack of consent; others still require a showing of continual resistance or the use of force. Others require sexual contact, while others require penetration or intercourse. The legal defense would be tailored to the specific jurisdiction. The defense given by the perpetrator on the police report in a date rape case is "yes we had sex but it was sex, it wasn't rape." A police report typically does not give a legal defense such as "Perp stated that sexual penetrative genital contact did occur and he was not mistaken as to belief of informed consent and circumstances from the perspective of a reasonably objective standard were such that he was not recklessly mistaken as to alleged lack of informed consent." But, from your familiarity with American law classes and police reports you already know this. I think you are confused about the legal definition of "carnal knowledge". I refer you to the article, where I give the legal definition and cite the criminal law treatise in which it may be found. I believe that your dictionary or sense of the English language may not coincide exactly with 17th century legal definitions of the word. Such a topic rarely comes up in an American criminal law class, so the confusion is understandable. It would be nigh impossible to find in a google search, so I would not refer you there, and I sincerely doubt you have an interest in researching the usage of "archaic terms" through the centuries. I took the rest of your comment as a little muddled. "Conflating sex as an act with sensuality?" Not sure where you got that one. I took such quotes as "you are the one who is sustaining a dangerous myth" as an attempt at provocation. Regardless, thanks for your sudden contribution to the discussion on interpreting my previous posts. This string of comments is becoming less about rape and more about my previous posts, in which case I believe it is time for a moderator to get involved. Legis Nuntius 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit to the Thutmose (sculptor) article, rightly pointing out that the bust of Nefertiti is currently on display in the Altes Museum. I should know, as I saw it there back in November of last year! However, it and all of the other Egyptian items are part of the Ägyptisches Museum collection, which is destined to go into its own building (I think the Neues Museum when work on it is completed). So while you are right and it all of the other items on that page are currently residing in the Altes Museum, am just wondering whether or not the object should be identified as to where it is located now, or which collection it is a part of. Is there a Wikipedia policy statement on this sort of thing that you know of?

Cheers! Captmondo 19:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its very straight forward and simple,the swastika's original source was the hindu-buddhist tradition. which shows hitler's partial adoption of these beliefs(at least). the remaining paragraph is a direct quote from this bbc article.if you personally disagree with it that doesn't mean that it should be removed per your request...thank youGrandia01 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification.hope you're not exhausting yourself over this.i see your point now,i think that's the main point of disagreement.but you obviously know that not everyone will see things from your perspective.others may still agree about this article's explanation of the source of the swastika and its analysis about the nature of Aryanist religious ideology(contrary to your opinion of it).it's not fair to omit the info from this article just because someone disagrees with it.i will include your view as well to be fair.hope that's ok with you.Grandia01 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.this section could definitely use some expansions.Grandia01 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for this excellent edit and the fitting edit summary! --Stephan Schulz 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a report on the Administrator's page against Smatprt arguing for a ban. You are welcome to contribute testimony. [[1]] (Felsommerfeld 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your messages and your views on the alleged sockpuppetry! (Felsommerfeld 09:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Template:New Seven Wonders has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Joopercoopers 11:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, would you mind signing? [2] cheers. --Joopercoopers 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're mentioned here. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please don't Troll on pages, and vandalizing other user's edit it you won't show any CURRENT SOURCES (last 5-7 years). Sources from 10-20 years ago are consider obsolete in these topics. Cosmos416 18:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]