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]

Goodness, you get around! Your reversion of the cited material,that I added to an article earlier, could conceivably be viewed as vandalism. You did not take part in any discussion that I am aware of, how is it that you came to be interested in improving the article? Fred ☻ 01:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a citation for that. Fred ☻ 07:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel discussion with you would be unproductive. However, 1. the human race is has a low genetic diversity, compared with other animals. 2. Huxley wrote one paper, it was rejected. He renounced the idea. 3. Despite all the references, gaudy maps and accusations I have waded through in adderessing this article, NO substantial evidence, citation or peer-reviewed material has been provided. This article has become a way-station for racialist bunk rejected at other articles. At best it represents original research, at worst the advancing of, not only a fringe area of research, but an extremely poisonous view. Here is another quote,

standard British colonialist hegemony recast in a "poor downtrodden minority" mold

pretty well sums this sort of thing up for me. Sorry, but all the shocking things that have happened to people because of racism - there was no basis to it. We have been wrong to think so. Please do something productive. Fred ☻ 07:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, have we met before. Something indicates we have, not that it matters. Have a good day. Fred ☻ 07:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very amusing. Goodbye. Fred ☻ 07:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am totally unclear about your message. As far as my records show, we had a brief cordial exchange, you provided assistance and we were grateful. Is there something I do not understand here? Brad Hoffstetter, Communications Division, Assembly of good Christians, www.cathar.net--AGCWeb 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Agcweb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why are you repeating the same phrase all over my talk page? I have been reading the Talk page of Catharism, and will respond in more detail later. Paul B 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While no single style of formatting is either encouraged nor discouraged, [[WP:WIAGA#_note-1|Good article criteria Note 2 makes notice that "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references..." It also states that "It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting." You can debate this with me and anyone else, if you so feel the need (you wouldn't be the first), but I'm letting you know now—seriously—articles don't make it through GA/R with a favorable outcome when this issue is not addressed. You can check the archives. It's not a very time consuming task and, once it's done, the article will not only look so much better, it will be easier for readers to see exactly where the information came from. The latter being the most important reason for doing it. LaraLove 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pick a format from WP:CITE and run with it. Or take a look at some current GAs, find a format you like, and use that. Gwen Stefani uses cite web, for example. That's what I would recommend, as it's what I use and find to be the easiest. LaraLove 05:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia article on Priory of Sion again, why can't the opening paragraphs, which contain a serious error, be altered? When did Pierre Plantard or anyone associated with the Priory of Sion ever mention the name of Julius Evola? This link is made by Robert Richardson - did Richardson ever know Plantard? Has Richardson ever read all the Priory Documents? Has Richardson got any archives on Pierre Plantard? The fact is that Richardson only made educated guesses about Plantard and the Priory of Sion - and most of his guesswork was wrong. Being in contact with sources who personally knew Plantard, and who possess extensive archives on Plantard, the guesswork relating to Julius Evola is categorically wrong, can the reference to Julius Evola on the Priory of Sion Wikipedia article therefore be removed in the interest and cause of historical accuracy. Of cours, the reference can always be put back should any evidence crop up.

wfgh66

And if you require a reliable link about the Les Pontils Tomb here it is: http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id33.html

I do not know what the link to the Mark Naples website is doing on the Priory of Sion article since he's mostly guilty of repeating the myths and legends as if they were facts. One example here: http://www.maknap.com/MysteryTV/places/rennes_le_chateau/articles/ssre_06a_the_stones.htm

Mark Naples refers to the "testinony" of Antoine Verdier relating to the "discovery" of Berenger Sauniere - this "Verdier testimony" has been discredited since 1990 since his gravestone was discovered and published showing that he was only born in 1886 when Sauniere replaced his Main Altar!

wfgh66

A tag has been placed on Sonnet 115, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the tag for your original research. I have adequately disposed of your so-called references and facile argument. I have no wish to read the potty ideas af unreviewed backwater professors, uncited news filler, and other selective data. I am not required to counter it, you are required to support it. You need a reliable source for this ... stuff. Find the reliable source that says the named woman was an Australoid, bloody prove it! I suspect that improving the document is not your intention. I am an inch away from accusing you of it.

• I'm ask[ing] you, by what method would you determine if I was an Australoid? Fred ☻ 14:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about edit warring in relation to this very topic. The consensus was that Coon only be used as reference to his obsolete ideas. You are presenting it as a substantial fact and running with it for all it it worth. Fred ☻ 14:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]