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

Thank you very much indeed for your recent editings of the City of Brno page, Paul B. I was really pleased to see that you have shown interest in this city to which I have a special relationship. Have you ever been there or have you some questions in connection with Brno? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Paul B. Please look at my talk page for some comments. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul Barlow. You have new messages at Bluemask's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Effie Deans.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to post this on the talk page to start a new round of ruckus, but I started the Redheugh Gardens War Memorial article so that I could link to it when I finish research about the connection to the two Hartlepool memorials from PJ's notes. However, it just dawned on me: 1) PJ added a lot of comments to the BLB listing for the Redheugh Gardens War Memorial - and 2) the Redheugh Garden's page isn't protected.

If I add a link on the West Hartlepool War Memorial article, am I opening up a new can of worms?

By the way, I'm not even 1/2 way through the previous article - I'm just about to get into the two town's business - if you want to tackle that part, though, that would be lovely.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this a week ago to ANI and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken this issue to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. Since you have already involved in the Sri Lanka related issues on defense.lk and Lies Agreed Upon, I need your involvement how to tackle this user who is so adamant to listen others and pushing his Original Research aggressively without heeding the Wikipedia guidelines.Sudar123 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Black Adder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Benson (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) 12:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Knitwitted (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will not misbehave. Ruskin is an economist. If you have doubts, I'll sort them, but you will not mutter. .....muttering is not acceptable.:)))

Amanbir Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.111.101 (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, love your stuff on the Druids, but can you tell me if Douglas Bader appeared in episode 2 of the Prisoner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.0.124 (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was number 2 in number 2. Or half of him was. Paul B (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, You may have noticed that I have reverted a couple of deletions made by a unregistered editor on the Alfred Watkins article. I think the mention of The View over Atlantis is important, but this person seems to want a "edit war". If this carries-on, I will request either a block or Page Protection. I hope I would have your support in this? Best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, thanks for your edits to Ruskin. I note you have removed a number of solid references and added a large amount of text that is entirely unreferenced. As you know additions need good references. I won't revert it but please add cites asap. Thanks. Span (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It's been a long day. Span (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World of A Song of Ice and Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Martin (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) 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul Barlow. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Thank you. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Purely Belter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Healy (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) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Reredos , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Waldhorn (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, is there any way you could check on this file? It purports to be a portrait of John de Vere, 15th Earl of Oxford, but the artist lived too late and it appears to me to be a case of mistaken identity. Meanwhile I'm gonna replace it with an authentic portrait. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex (Lord Chamberlain} or Montagu Bertie, 2nd Earl of Lindsey, Lord Great Chamberlain. Were there other white-staff-bearing offices? Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord Chamberlain held the white staff, not the Lord Great Chamberlain. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christies just call it 'unidentified male' in a 2010 sale. The inscription that identifies it as John de Vere also attributes it to a "Gibson". It could be Henry de Vere, 18th Earl of Oxford. Paul B (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul. Do you think that the inscription was added later or is possibly being misread? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this portrait claimed to be of the 16th earl, but the bone structure, etc. seems to be consistent with the 1575 portrait. Any opinion? The file was scanned from a later edition of Looney.

Also I don't think this picture is of Oxford, because as far as I've been able to determine, holding the sword of state was not the Lord Great Chamberlain's duty. I'm trying to access a copy of A.J.M. Baker's *The Office of Lord Great Chamberlain of England: An Historical and Modern Study* (2005) to check. AFAIK, the person who identified the figure as Oxford is Dr. Michael Delahoyde, who is not a reliable authority. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, the Lord Great Chamberlain did hold the sword of state at the opening of Parliament, but it was not delivered to him until the Parliament opened by the Gentleman Usher to the Sword of State, so the image might be of the Usher. If it is of Oxford as the LGC, I doubt if the visage is meant to be accurate. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the Earl of Hertford is the man holding the sword and the rest of her train was just left out by the artist. Can you read the caption beneath the image? Tom Reedy (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to take your camera! I changed the file description on WM but not the name, that has to be requested. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with phone cameras is the quality. A good digital camera is as good as a scan as long as it's steady. I never had any problem with taking pictures in the archives at Kew, but the only pictures I took at the BM were in public areas, so I don't know what their policy is on archival material. Probably the same old ineffectual "copyright" claim. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, did you rename that file? I went to put a renaming template on it but it has disappeared. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BM don't normally allow photography of stuff not on display. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your Leonardo comment on the Shroud page was exactly right. Puckett still has a book out there, but that is the nature of that topic. As stated on my user page, I am becoming less and less active on Wikipedia, and I have been asking suitable editors to see if they can watch a few pages which I will watch less and less often. After that edit I thought you may have enough interest to watch that page.

In fact the page has been very stable for such a controversial topic and if you look at the history will see that it has had very few edits since last June. It used to be utter chaos 3 years ago, but it has since reached stability, in that most perspectives have been covered. There is a user Thucyd who edits there at times and he knows 100 times more about the topic than myself, so that has been helpful. The flip-side of that coin have been many IPs that at times say they are "friends of" Vincenzo Ruello then admit to being Ruello himself, etc. They have been away for a while after they were all blocked out. So the page is quite stable, and just needs occasional watching. If you feel like doing that, it will be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought it was persuasively academic in tone and thus appropriate--but concluded, post-bot, I am also too new to reliably judge that sort of thing. I've been wondering if it's legitimate to add a photo to Marjorie Garber's page from her website. I can't do it yet as my account has not been confirmed? Cfsibley (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just following Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article lead was certainly not following NPOV, as it did not include any arguments against him being vegetarian. I disagree that the article "gives the view that Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight." If anything to me the article gives undue weight on him being a vegetarian. The article name is "Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism", not "Adolf Hitler's diet." Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the lead to NPOV by incorporating Ryan Berry and other critics instead of Robert Payne, feel free. Although please note Ryan Berry uses Robert Payne's work as a major source in his book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover. By the way, it does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines excluding Robert Payne (a renowned biographer) because you or historians disagree with him. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I did not call him "renowned" in the article, as that would be POV. Lets just say the book is a reliable source then, as per WP:BLPSOURCES i.e. not self-published, not primary, not original research, not libel and not tabloid. You can always add a sentence from a secondary source disagreeing with Robert Payne's assessment that Hitler's asceticism was just propaganda e.g. "Although biographer x believes Payne's view on Hitler's asceticism was incorrect because..." Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved (now lengthy) discussion to Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Robert_Payne for the record and for other editors to view. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In thanks for your spotting and fixing the one wikilink I seem not to have checked for disambigs - although I think the foreigners would still have worked it out from its position at the top of the list! Thanks though. (Baklava first attested in English in 1650 apparently, so maybe Shakespeare knew of it) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [1]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello user talk:Paul Barlow how are you today?Bratanna95(talk)November9,2012 11:23a.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bratanna95 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 17:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, I've reverted your modifications of my comments without permission on the talk page and I've removed the section headings you added in order to attack me. That's not how we use talk pages on Wikipedia. Please remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. Keep the discussion focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your second round of personal attacks from my talk page.[2] If there's a third time, I'm afraid I'll have to report you. Please learn to control yourself. Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your third round of angry attacks from my talk page. Please go outside and get some fresh air and sunshine and try to compose yourself. Whatever you are angry about, it has nothing to do with me, and therefore, I am unable to address it. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question on a cite for the age of Diviciacus. I will look into it as soon as I get a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunterkap (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a sub section here on "UN admits Sri Lanka civil war failure"; Please review.Sudar123 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gilbert Stuart Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Sentimental Journey (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) 11:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HenryVIIIyes. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this comment on a user's (Jon C.) Talk page. He has vandalized my edits (all pages related to Lost Ten Tribes propaganda (British and Japanese)) and seems to be collaborating with others, often reverting my reversions and adjustments almost immediately after I address his vandalism. He's already archived a comment I left yesterday indicating that I would report him the next time he touched one of my edits without addressing it through a Talk page.

[3] LOL Yep, good one! Paul Barlow eats it. 15:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Can Act Like A Man (talk • contribs)[reply]

I noticed something similar on You Can Act Like A Man's sandbox as well as the correlative user talk page. It does indeed smack of agenda. Cfsibley (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You Can Act Like a Man" has apparently decided he's in some sort of feud with me because of a dispute about the page on Richard III of England (he's one of those people who has decided that Richard was really a nice guy, awesome ruler and loving uncle, so the page should not say bad stuff about him derived from that notorious hack Shakespeare). Unfortunately he does not seem to be living up to his user name. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you for your two-dimensionalism. You have the nerve to even USE the word 'childish'!!!

Oops, I'm on the right page now.

Jon C. has been reverting my edits, I'm now watching his Talk page and when I saw that he'd archived something and decided to check it, I saw that my edit had been removed, and noticed the cited comment. Since we collaborated in the effort that culminated with your uploading a new lead image to the BI page, I found the occurrence of your name in such a derogatory context to represent a coincidence that beckoned for investigation.

This is a list I've started of the people that would seem to be collaborating on the basis of advanced coordination with ::Jon C.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HighKing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayjg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scotstarvit

Some of the posts in question contained elements of OR, and were posted before I was aware of Wikipedia policy. Only Jon C. has obstinately attempted to prevent my editing of the content of the pages in question in a continuous and obstructive manner, however. On the other hand, there was what appeared to be a tightly timed collaboration between Jon C. and HighKing on the Hata clan article page. If you check that page, you will see that it is directly related to the same subject matter that BI is. --Ubikwit (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

No idea who he is or what that message on my talk what about (I don't think I've ever interacted with either of you), but I've removed it. I've also blanked the personal attack in his sandbox. Best, — Jon C.^ॐ 20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You are, I would say, involved as one contributor to this particular discussion. Maybe you wish to say something in this case. Remember, Paul B., that you once made a proposal for cooperation. And you know that I have restricted myself very much in articles on SAQ, all the time. So it is upon you how you react. Thank you again for your attention. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qwyrxian, an Administrator, I think in a border line violation of his Admin tools. He reverted the disputed content and then protecting the page with his own explanation on the talk page. Since I also once reverted the disputed content, I think, your opinion would be helpful on the talk page Sri Lanka.Sudar123 (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We seem to have a problem here. I warned him about minor edits a few minutes ago, but there seems to be a pattern. Ironic that he added a random website while deleting other stuff because he doesn't like the source. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just have a quick look at the history of the Lady Eleanor Talbot article and tell me what you think. Deb (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go - looks like your edits have approval from a proper historian, LOL! Deb (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was oblivious to what had been going on with that other contributor until I just glanced at his talk page! Deb (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Éponine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germinal (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) 12:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]