User talk:Paul Barlow

User talk:Paul Barlow Archive1
user talk:Paul Barlow Archive 2
user talk:Paul Barlow Archive 3

Jesus article

I know that using the word "purportedly" kinda sounds biased, but I couldn't think of anything else to put there.. See, I believe that if we say "Jesus Christ was" just alone and by itself like that, and then there's all those other cited statements saying that there's no definite proof of his existence, it would be bad to then say something that indicates tells a person he does or does not exist.

I.. Actually, I don't want to get too involved in this whole thing. In fact, you may revert that edit if you want.. I suppose, if you still see a problem with it and/or you think this doesn't improve things, but I just wanted you to know that as you were the one that reverted that edit. I'd mention this on the talk page of the article, but like I said; I don't want to get involved. It's frustrating to be looking over this article and trying to discuss this whole thing, just try to take note of my reason for making that edit.

..I hope that what I have said here makes sense. If not, then, whatever..

Don't feel obligated to respond to this. Not that you can't but it's not really necessary since I don't think I'll be involved in the article any more unless there's like a typo or something... Well, even then I'd have to really, really want to correct that typo.. Repku (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel

If I haven't said so already, thanks for your pertinent edit re Drunkenness of Noah. Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eakins

And thanks also for the distinction made here [1]. Best regards, JNW (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PoS

Hallo Paul, he has contacted me via e-mail too, though to complain about my calling some of his material POV. He probably mistook me for someone else as I didn't do such a thing. I agree that dealing with him is not easy but his website is a good one and blacklisting it was a major loss. The IP crusade to delete information is worrying too. The anon even went so far as to warn me of edit warring. I agree: PoS.com should be readmitted. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Boydell Shakespeare Gallery help

Hello, Paul. I'm one of the people working on the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery article, trying to bring it up to FA level. While we seem to have come pretty close on the historical, social and literary aspects of John Boydell's venture, Johnbod points out that the article is a bit light on summarising the artistic criticism. There's the start of a discussion of this here: Talk:Boydell_Shakespeare_Gallery#And_another. Johnbod suggested your name as a possible advisor in this area. It seems the key areas to give more attention are:

• The printmaking styles used (line engravings, stipple, mezzotint) and their effect on the folio's reception at the time and since.
• A way to include representative criticism of the paintings and sculptures, without overloading the article. There were about 170 paintings by nearly 30 artists, so complete coverage is impossible. How do we best include some criticism without exercising our own POV?

I would be grateful if you could find the time to have a look at the article and discussion and offer a few pointers on how best to handle these issues (and anything else that strikes you as needing attention.) Rupert Clayton (talk)

Thanks for the quick response. I guess we'll try to muddle along in addressing these issues. (Well, more Awadewit than me, as she knows a lot more about Boydell, and is generally responsible for the article's current impressiveness. Hope you enjoy the Millais exhibit. Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?

I noticed this only now. GoodDay asked,

How's the dispute go about Jesus's image? Was he white with straight brown hair & blues eyes? Or was he brown, with short curly black hair & brown eyes. Interesting indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

and you replied,

The dispute has been archived by Slrubenstein, depite the fact that the debate was clearly not concluded. Paul B (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would you say this? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not true. In general I try never to archive ongoing discussions (and I think it was kind of bitchy for you to suggest I would; even if I had done the archiving the proper thing to do would have been for you to restore the archived material and to leave a note for me explaining your perfectly good reason for doing so). In any event, I have not archived discussion on the Jesus talk page in a long time and if you were just to take the time to look at the edit history you would see it was not me. It is fairly obvious to me that you thought I had done it. My question is, why did you think I had done it? Why would you think this lacking any evidence, and in the face of conflicting evidence? That is my question 9and I thought this was obvious). Slrubenstein | Talk 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

... It was an honest mitstake on my part. I certainly do not that can be a justification for offensive accusations. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC) at Talk:Jesus#Images

I understand that you mean an 'honest mistake' in the first sentence, although I have never known what that phrase means. There is a missing word in the second sentence, would you mind clarifying your response? I do not want to make assumptions about what you intended to say, and there is a good chance I will be quoting it again. cygnis insignis 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

An honest mistake is one which is not intended. 'Honest' is simply an intensifier. If you don't know what it means then you should. Only thoroughly reprehensible individuals collect evidence against editors, especially evidence as feeble as this. The missing word is "think", a activity that I suggest you should occupy yourself with. It should read "do not think that". Paul B (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

An intended mistake?! I suppose it might read as choosing the wrong person to become 'engaged to'. It is not any clearer to me, but anyway ... Who made the offensive accusations, you or Slrubenstein? Was it an act of contrition? cygnis insignis 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the comments. I've replied enough to your childish attempts at taunting. Paul B (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I simply hope that you don't intend to make any more mistakes. cygnis insignis 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a liar, although I still honestly do not understand how you could have misread the edit history. As to my position on images, I do nto call everyone who disagrees with me a troll; I persist in my argument about notability because I believe in it. That I may be the only one is irrelevant to my voicing my concerns - you will note that I never deleted the image. Since you are well aware of how strongly I feel about this, I hope you can appreciate that my never having deleted the image is a measure of my respect for the number of people who disagree with me. But you are wrong to suppose there is something specific about this image. A year or two ago there was discussion on images and I made the same points about images in the jesus article. I have also made the same point about the use of images in the Muhommed article. I have not commented on the History of Jesus article as it is not on my watchlist; I cannot watch everything. But I have taken the same position concerning images wherever they have come up in an article I am active on. My reasons are sincere and consistent. Your last comment on the issue was (unlike some of your comments) substantive and respectful and I tried to respond in kind. If you feel my final response to you on this issue (i.e. my response to your last comment) was disrespectful or insincere, well, I am sorry for that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

racist

I've been going through some of the articles regarding AIT & OIT and every single one of your posts is in support of the "Aryan Invasion THEORY" which has been proven false and debunked for several years now.

The fact is, as Voltaire said, "Everything has come down to us from the Ganges..."! India is home to the oldest language, oldest religion, oldest civilization, and has given the world Yoga, meditation, mathematics, astronomy, astrology, linguistics, among other things. So I would STFU if I were you right away. India was highly prosperous and affluent with many kingdoms when the rest of the world, especially your ancestors from Europe, were running around naked and killing each other.

You are NO scholar, have NO credibility, and show a desire to perpetuate racist ideas such as AIT etc. You have no business commenting/editing things on Wikipedia although this doesn't matter much as it is just a stupid website but regardless of that, go back to your bible-thumping ways and continue to believe that the world is only 6000 years old! Remember, jeebus, I mean jesus himself came to India to study Vedanta & Yoga.

Idiots like you, and that kike Witzel who are anti-Hindu/anti-Indian will never understand due to your stupid Eurocentric approach.

"modicum of civility"? You mean as in the posts you make? Great joke, but I'll take a pass. Regardless, I never said there were no migrations that happened in ancient times. However, Vedic culture and Aryan civilization is Indian. It did NOT come from a foreign land as many clowns like Witzel propose. Arya itself is Sanskrit and to suggest that Vedic culture including Sanskrit came from outside India is appalling and incredibly racist. It is not surprising however that the western educational system perpetuates this nonsense because if they accepted the fact that Vedic culture and Sanskrit were indigenous to India, their (Western) culture, would be null and void; as in NO culture whatsoever. Great ideas always met with fierce resistance but the truth will prevail.--

"that kike Witzel" is professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University. Only a real clown could dismiss someone of such intellectal status. Have you ever read a word he has written? Why on earth would you care whether the RV was written in "India" or "Afghanistan"? In the bronze age no difference existed between these countries. Can you even conceive of the fact that to ancient peoples there were no national borders, just geographical features and tribal territories? It's laughable to say that "to suggest that Vedic culture including Sanskrit came from outside India is appalling and incredibly racist." It's no more racist than saying that English originated from outside England, or that Greek originated from outside Greece. It has nothing whatever to do with race. Only a pathological nationalist can't see that. As for the preposterous claim that Western culture "would be null and void; as in NO culture whatsoever" if IE originated in India, just how dumb is that? Is it null and void if IE originated in the Ukraine, or if it originated in Anatolia? How does the geographical origin of IE in the bronze age have any relevance at all to the validity of Western Culture, a concept that did not even exist at the time? Is Abrahamic culture invalidated if Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Ethiopia? It's a nonsensical argument. Paul B (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"such intellectal status"? Do you need a dictionary in order to help you spell? Yes, that KIKE witzel, whether he is at Harvard or po dunk community college, wallows in bigotry and misinformation. He, being a philologist, cannot comment on the historicity of a culture or civilization when HISTORIANS have provided substantial evidence that the AIT is absolute bunk. It's hard to reason with people who believe the earth is 6000 years old... anyway, you're not going to change you're mind and neither am I. So I suggest we leave it at that.

It's called a typo. Paul B (talk) 13:43, 07 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Burchett

I'd be grateful if you could take a look at this. A spin-off of South Kensington system coming soon. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops

I undid your undo thinking you had done the thing you were undoing but actually undid. My bad. Peter Deer (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger and Nazism

Paul, I see that you were none too pleased about my revisions made to the "Heidegger and Nazism" article. I expected someone to do something like that. Do you understand Heidegger's work? (Do you happen to believe that understanding Heidegger's work is not relevant to a narrative about his activity?) The neat thing about revisions is that the evidence is, then, right there for doing hermeneutical work on variance of readings, vis-a-vis available scholarship on the matter. So, I've copied your pages, and I shall have a good time with your preferences, via another venue. Gedavis (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Historical persecution by Christians

I have nominated Historical persecution by Christians, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians (2nd nomination). 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. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Francesco Bartolozzi

Hi Paul, I was researching (through Google) information about the author of a hand-colored lithograph that I inherited. The artist's name is Franceso Bartolozzi. I found the Wikipedia page on Bartolozzi, and saw your detail of the stipple effect.

I was wondering if anybody would want a color photo of the lithograph, or a detail from it. (I could attempt this, although I currently have it framed and behind UV-protected glass).

I don't understand the copyright information. Would publishing a photo from my private collection violate some kind of copyright protection?

Also, I didn't see this piece listed in the lists of his works, and don't know, for example, how many of these were printed. The piece is titled "The Hours" and says "No. 1 of the British Poets", and also "Vide Gray's Ode to Spring". On the lefthand side under the edge of the lithograph it says "Maria Cosway pinx" (I believe that means it is copied from a painting by Cosway) and under the righthand side "F. Bartolozzi R.A. & Engraver to his Majesty Sculp". Across the bottom it says "London Publish'd April 4 1788 by Thos Macklin, No. 30 Fleet Street".

The lithograph shows dancing women. It is absolutely gorgeous lithograph, hand-washed I believe, of dancing ladies with gossamer wings and filmy gowns, above whom are little cupids. (The stippling is so fine that you can see the transparency of the wings and their gowns.) The hands and feet are very delicately done.

A moment ago I actually did find a reference to this under "Maria Cosway" in Wikipedia. Under the title "Works" on the page, it says "Her principal works engraved and exhibited at the Royal Academy are:", and then there is a bulleted item that says "'The Hours' by F. Bartolozzi". I'm not exactly sure what this means. The only way of showing a painting to the public was to have the Royal Engraver make a facsimile of it?

Do you know anything about the number of copies that were originally made of each lithograph, especially of the ones that were hand-washed?

This lithograph came down through my mother's side of the family. After my father was placed in a home for Alzheimer's patients, I took it home with me. I then took it down to a local frame shop. We discovered, to our horror, that the last time it had been framed, whoever had done the job had used paper and tape containing acid, and these had yellowed tremendously. Fortunately, the lithograph has spared. It is now framed using only acid-free paper, and placed behind UV-protective glass.

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to indent under here.

Thanks for the information. I mistakenly referred to this piece as a lithograph. I should have said engraving. Pardon my ignorance!

I have thought about making a separate page for "The Hours", and then making a link from where "The Hours" is mentioned on the Maria Cosway page. I left a message over there to ask their opinion.

Is there a way that I could post some photos in a temporary area for you to look at? I don't see a way to put a photo in this talk area.

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Hours", by Francesco Bartolozzi, Now Available

Hello again Paul, and thank you for all of your help! I have been working hard for the last couple of days on taking the photos and creating the page for "The Hours" by Francesco Bartolozzi.

I uploaded all of the photos to Wikipedia Commons, simply because the directions that I found prompted me in that direction. After some thought, I'm not sure whether I have them marked right or not. I did put the PD-old in the Permission area. But later I read again where you said, "Then you can add it to whatever article you wish that might seem appropriate," and I wasn't sure what that meant. Myabe you could look at one of the images on the page and tell me if there is anything I should add. (The images were all marked the same as far as the Permissions go.)

Wow, it sure took me a while (pretty much all day today!) to learn how to push the images around on the page. Unless you resort to tables, you can't make them line up right, can't control the size, and can't control how the text wraps underneath. But I finally got it in the format I want it in, using sort of a gallery layout for quite a few of the images.

I had the article in sandbox format. Then I decided to just go ahead and put it up, here. I linked it into the Bartolozzi and Cosway pages, and within five minutes --- BLAM --- someone came along and busted my photo layouts. I decided not to challenge the format change for the three large photos (which I originally had across the top), but I changed the detail area back to the way it was. The text no longer lined up.

If you want to look at the way I had it before in my sandbox, it's here. Maybe you could tell me if you like the images across the top better, or the way it has been changed? —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for you (besides looking at my work and giving any suggestions): the person who changed this also changed the title. It was 'The Hours (engraving by Francesco Bartolozzi)' and was changed to 'The Hours (engraving)'. Now you have to hunt for the artist's name in the text. Not sure I like that. But beyond that, there were three pages that this was linked into. I noticed that one of them redirected me to the new page name. So all three of the links I put in will automatically correct? Or do I need to go back and change those (or change the title back)?, because I'm not sure the person who changed this knows where to find them all.

I did put in quotes the first stanza of the poem. I actually found the full poem under the Thomas Gray archives at ThomasGray.org, but noted that they have a copyright at the bottom. I wasn't sure whether the Thomas Gray poetry is still under copyright, or whether that copyright simply applied to the format of their web page. ?? I decided that the rest of the poem didn't really add anything to the page, and so just decided to stick with the quote of the first stanza. Do I still need a reference at the bottom to some source for that though?

I made a reference under one of the photographs to the term fauxing, and discovered that Wiki didn't have a page for that. So I created one. I guess if someone doesn't like my definition, they'll edit it. :)

I wasn't sure whether to include the photos of all of the stuff at the bottom of the engraving, but you can't see it very well in any of the larger photos, so I did. Besides, I think that some people may not know the pinxit and sculpsit terminology, and so that could be informative.

Well, that's all for now!

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Polls

Opinion poll data from the immediate post-war years confirm the limited impact of Allied efforts. In October 1946, when the Nuremberg Trial ended, only 6 percent of Germans were willing to admit that they thought it had been 'unfair', but four years later one in three took this view. That they felt this way should come as no surprise, since throughout the years 1945-49 a consistent majority of Germans believed that 'Nazism was a good idea, badly applied'. In November 1946, 37 per cent of Germans questioned in a survey of the American zone took the view that 'the extermination of the Jews and Poles and other non-Aryans was necessary for the security of Germans'. [2] Tony Judt's Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 (2005; paperback, 2006, Penguin Press) Tony Judt (born 1948, London, England) is a British historian, author and professor. He specializes in European history and is the Erich Maria Remarque Professor in European Studies at New York University and Director of NYU's Erich Maria Remarque Institute. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books.

However I know them from a second source, a scholary bulletin with articles written by university researchers belonging to a joint German-Polish research group.So at least two sources can be given if needed--Molobo (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read on No Original Policy-we are not here to put forward our personal views. And what else then mas murder "extermination" means I don't know.--Molobo (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems the authors have chosen extermination as proper translation. Do you have any source disputing that ?--Molobo (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry at all, I have the second work right by me. And we already have the quote from Judt's book. Oh I forgot, I also have his article in a political weekly. Three sources. Have a nice day. --Molobo (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly known what was said in the survey. All three sources inform of this. There is no Wikipedia rule against scholary sources that have english translations.--Molobo (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC) I see you have not answered my question about your "three sources", (though they all seem to be the same person). I see you don't even read my comments. " a scholary bulletin with articles written by university researchers belonging to a joint German-Polish research group". I already informed you about this. The information is taken from the books and quite well sourced. However please do read my comments in the future, as answering them without reading them in the first place won't produce an productive discussion.--Molobo (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Since this was just a discussion there was no point for me to source it.--Molobo (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArtJournal.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ArtJournal.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Paul

I´ll reply to your concerns regarding Coon in a few days, quite busy at the moment, Be well

FYI

Given your carefully-thought-out and strong views about the use of images in relation to articles concerning religions, I thought you might be interested in this (the "warning" up top). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo / Brahmo Samaj merger

Dear Mr.Barlow.I am appending in-line the text of a message I have sent to Mr.S.L.Rubenstein (whose message to you above I have just read). Having read Mr.Rubsenstein's FYI message though I feel no need to modify my stand. I wish to formally oppose the merger of Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj articles. No doubt over a period of time cross-pollination between these 2 different pages shall be useful and strengthen the Brahmo plant, but now is not the time. Let Brahmo develop independently from Brahmo Samaj without killing it's spirit - then let there be harmonious marriage once maturity is attained and if they approve each other. Every fact / statement on Brahmo will be to WP standards and NPOV enforced- it is evolving independently of Brahmo Samaj. I request you to go through the discussion page at Brahmo for its ethos and philosophy. My text to Mr.Rubenstein follows "Dear Mr.S.L.Rubenstein. Mr.Barlow has just placed a "merge" tag on Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj. It appears to be triggered by a message you sent him to which I am not privy. This "merge" tag is quite unacceptable to me and is certain to result in edit wars. It is unfortunate (in my view) that this is being sought to be done when the Brahmo page is under expansion and development to the eventual highest standards of Wikipedia - whereas the Brahmo Samaj page is relatively stagnant / static and fails miserably to conform to WP despite passage of time. After going through certain User Talks between yourself and Mr.Barlow I gather that both have you have interacted often. I would not like our little Brahmo article to be used to settle "Abrahamic" debates nor will we take sides but we shall resolutely defend our faith in public in complete accordance with Wikipedia norms, protocols and conventions. Your point about "images" is a core issue for Brahmos - you appear to have caught the essence of it (which imho Mr. Barlow has not) but again I am not privy to what you have communicated to Mr.Barlow. Ram Mohun Roy was influenced by many things (some of which are not in the public domain nor should ever be), but as I have said (to you) the fact that he may have been influenced by Judeo (?) ideas is unproveable. You can be assured that User:Ronosen shall not make such unsubstantiated claims in WP again. The fact that Mr. Barlow uploaded an image to Protap Chunder Mozoomdar without objection is irrelevant- since Mr.Mozoomdar (in our view) is not a Brahmo. Mr.Barlow may care to re-read Mr.Sib Chunder Deb's famous 1878 reply to Mr.Mozoomdar who was then Asst. Secretary of the Brahmo Samaj of India. Had Mr. Barlow uploaded an image of Debendranath Tagore to the Brahmo Samaj page there would have been uproar. This is also not the place or time or forum to educate Mr.Barlow about all aspects of Brahmoism. I am also copying this to Mr.Barlow and formally voicing my opposition to his merger proposal and requesting him to remove the merger tag himself. If at all it is possible we should all resolve this privately on MY Talk page rather than on the Brahmo Samaj Talkpage which is like throwing a match into a pool of petrol (gasoline). My apology for any indiscretion/ lapse/ inadvertent offence. Yvantanguy (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)" Yvantanguy (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

race jesus

paul original work can be challenged and removed you must know this, second of all the artist mention is Diego Velázquez a european just like the german Albrecht Dürer diego is not a meso, saying that the spainard and german are some how paiting RACIAL different jesus is just ridiclous and makes no sence than to top it of there is niether version of there jesus on the page to make a comparsion,so i went over to albrects article and seen a dipiction of jesus he had painted and he had brown hair not blonde like the statement i removed, but unless you think that blonde people are "racialy" different than brown and black haired europeans" so i guese we are still makeing racial catagories acording to adolf hitlers aryan model, the statement is giberish and is origianl work and makes no sence--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

the times of the paintings by these two painters is from the 16th/and or 17th century not the 20th as you pointed out,so you are comparing a time when this was not thought of in 16th century but forceing this disreguarded notion which has been cast down by modern day science,than make the statement more percise and include paintings by both artist in the paragraph,and th article mentions hispanics why cant it just be left as ,thought you do know that many spainards are decended from celts just like irish are--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

okay paul maybe you are right and i am confusing at whether it is true or not maybe if we could just leave out the hispanic part and leave the meditreanean and it would still have the same meaning,would that be a problem and maybe have each of there represenation of jesus in the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert Wars

You left me a message within my Talk page which indicated that I could be at risk of having my account blocked. I trust that the same kind of message was sent to Mr. Peter Grey, as he persists upon deleting the entries that I make within the Origin of Language article. (See the History tab for that article.) What do you suggest for resolving the issue, where I insist upon making an entry that he insists upon deleting?

My personal objection with removing my entry is that my entry points out that the details entered are not facts, though otherwise, they are presented as such. Presenting hypotheses as facts is a problem. Would you not agree? Any constructive, unbiased assistance would be greatly appreciated.

--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional feedback. It was somewhat constructive, but unfortunately, it was not unbiased. Oh well. Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nordic theory discussion page

You removed a valid claim. You may disagree but that doesn't mean that you can just delete it.

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Origin of language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)