User talk:Paul Bedson

Welcome! Please leave me messages below and I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can. An archive of older posts and discussions can be found here and more recent ones here.

I see that you have inserted Syria in the Template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:European_megaliths which you might want to re-edit.

(Waugh Bacon (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, yeah, I see Azerbijan, Russia, Lebanon, Armenia and other non-European megaliths are all in there too. Perhaps a title change might be more appropriate? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about European, Eurasian and Eastern Mediteranean Megaliths? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about European, Eurasian and Eastern Mediteranean Megaliths? I don't care as the culture spread from Anatolia, but if you want to change the scope of the template I suggest you mention it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:European_megaliths before making the change.

Waugh Bacon (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On thinking it over, I decided to go ahead and create a seperate Middle Eastern megaliths template to solve the problem. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed that after the discussion above you quickly return to fringe material. Your article Cuban underwater city was both pov and in a couple of cases badly sourced, eg by a self-published tourist book. There is no archaeology there, only sonar images, you didn't search enough to find any criticism, you presented it as though they actually found structures rather than images, you added a copyvio link, you didn't realise that the two main advocates are a married couple who own ADC, not employees, you gave Zelitsky the wrong qualification and her husband one he doesn't have, etc. And you added it to Atlantis without noticing it was already there. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would probably take issue with this article, hence I changed Atlantis, which I knew you'd be watchilisting. The link on Atlantis was to an Andrew Collins source, which put the site in the wrong place, plus is Collins reliable??? I suspect a Reuters/National Geographic/BBC source should be there for it,with the correct location. Sorry if some of my information was incorrect and thanks for all your work tidying it up, it was inspired by a flurry of articles in late September 2012 re-hashing the subject in Romanian magazines and online journals (not many of which are reliable, I admit, so chose the best I could). It may be fringe, but it is notable fringe and deserves an article. I'll try to pay heed to all your advice though, cut down on the POV (although I did try to balance with the Mormon article and accurate reflection of Manuel Iturralde's opinion they could have been caused naturally). It also spawned an article on him, which is good cos he's not fringe and there is a notable lack of Cuban scientists around here. I'm still skeptical about his comment on the 50,000 year coastline of Cuba and want to go read his books to see what he considers it was like pre-younger dryas. From the wording in the source, he seems to be calculating that purely on plate tectonic movements with no consideration of sea-level changes during the younger dryas event. He may be right though. I'll do more research if operating in this area again. Cheers for the heads up.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, wouldn't you kinda like to see them go back down there and find out what those structures are? Natural or not, I don't like mysteries. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [1] This paper discusses evidence from coral samples around Barbados suggesting the sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico were only 121 ± 5 metres lower during the Younger Dryas, which is far short of the 650 to 700 metres those structures are sunk at. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Divine call, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that entry into the Druze faith has been prohibited since Al-Muqtana Baha'uddin ended the Divine call in 1043 CE? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Divine call. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al-Muqtana Baha'uddin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that entry into the Druze faith has been prohibited since Al-Muqtana Baha'uddin ended the Divine call in 1043 CE? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Kharg Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Nike, Parthian and Vestibule

Aplahanda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Shamshi-Adad and Mari

Ukkin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Assembly and Council

Divine Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pantheon

Karak Nuh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Litani

List of heritage sites damaged during Syrian civil war (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hague Convention

List of scientific publications by Manuel Iturralde-Vinent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cuban

Manuel Iturralde-Vinent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cuban

Tihamah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lithic

Yatar-Ami (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mari

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’m curious about the hatnote you placed on Elias I, Count of Maine. It seems unnecessary. I did a Google search for “Elias I” and Patriarch Elias of Antioch did not come up in the first page of results while Elias I Count of Maine was the first return. I also did an internal search in Wikipedia and Count Elias I came up immediately while there was nothing to indicate any confusion with Elias of Antioch. Secondly, there is no redirect on that page for an Elias I. I don’t see any confusion over his alternate name Elias I to the point where a hatnote was necessary on Count Elias’ page. Can you help me understand why it should stay? Thanks Bearpatch (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to remove it if you like. Patriarch Elias of Antioch is known as Elias I on a pre-created template, so I inserted the hatnote on that basis. Whoever made the template presumably thought he was notable as Elias I. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and remove it for the reason given. I appreciate you getting back to me, thanks. Bearpatch (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion concerning the notability and authenticity of this supposed Druidic catechism. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Deadline barnstar
	Thanks for expanding List of heritage sites damaged during Syrian civil war. Regards. emijrp (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I really appreciate this. This is a really important area of my work and there are loads still to cover as they are blowing up monuments quicker than I can document them on here. I'll keep on working at it! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Louis Burkhalter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Trap and Stun

Riha Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Typology

Saraain El Faouqa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Typology

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tell Sabi Abyad, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 6th-millennium BC settlement of Tell Sabi Abyad in northern Syria featured multi-room rectangular buildings with round structures called tholoi that were probably used for storage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tell Sabi Abyad. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Traveler's Library, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (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) 12:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that your recent addition: Saint Paul in Britain seems to be essentially the same article and kind of goes against the spirit of the AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to change it if necessary, or advise me how you'd like it edited, I'm always up for ideas. Similar material is also on the Barddas page, which is where it probably belongs. Seems to me that AfD was a narrow 4 to 3 vote where Mangoe as the proposer suggested the merge and the verdict was decided primarily on some rule about the aging of secondary sources I was not too familiar with and am still having a hard time tying to find. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying hard to understand all the POVs involved. There is definite evidence of a POV in Elizabethan era English writers of the 1500s that "if only these pesky Welsh would let us write what their history and culture is for them, and stop trying to write it themselves." In this 1500s POV, any Welsh author or historian automatically becomes DANGEROUS. Anyone who quotes an unapproved Welsh author automatically becomes DANGEROUS and SUSPECT. Most dangerous of all, some of them say their name CYMRI comes from GOMER, and this belief must be stopped and not ever, ever mentioned again, except in ridicule.

It's hard to say if this 1500s Elizabethan attitude has left any survival in the 21st century thinking of some. Probably safest to say nobody in the world today thinks this way any more. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Til. I think I know what you are trying to say. I am extremely grateful of your understanding and wise opinions, thanks again my friend. You may want to check out some of my other recent articles on subject such as the Ancient British Church and Neo-Celtic Christianity. These articles have faced no real opposition and are a testament to what you say about us leaving such archaic POV's in the past. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Thomas Simpson (engineer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Carlisle, Socket and Blackwell

Barddas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Celtic and Fairyland

Coelbren y Beirdd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Coelbren

Phoxinellus libani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Orontes

Saint Paul in Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Britain

Welsh Manuscripts Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Britain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Yammoune, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/simple/Asyut.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)Template:Z119 MadmanBot (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, MadmanBot, seems a good name for a mad bot that adds mad tags to pages. I'll await the Madbot's return to sanity when the page is reviewed and this tag is shown to be in error. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Yammoune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mortar, Shell and Lamb

Healers of the Dead Sea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Magic

Middle chronology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Old Babylonian

Pseudophoxinus libani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Orontes

Qasr al-Banat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nur ad-Din

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian myth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian myth until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rafy talk 15:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Saint Paul in Britain, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saint Paul in Britain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Paul in Britain until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are at 3RR at Saint Paul in Britain, I note that you also removed a source, claiming it was a duplicate source, but as it was for a different page it was hardly a duplicate. The appearance of the source at the top of the page where it didn't belong is apparently a Firefox problem that I thought was fixed - when using the dropdown citation plate with Firefox it sometimes places the citation at the top of the edit window. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry about the removal of the different page source. I didn't realise. I reverted that, but won't go touching the page again for a little while considering your advice. I really don't like reverting any of your edits Doug and would much prefer to talk and reach consensus. I think you did a really nice job on that page by the way.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul. I'm having voter's remorse due to the many points others are bringing up. 1. The lack of sourcing as President; 2. The SAS membership needing only two recommendations to get in (ie. selectivity not based on merit, primary rather on connection - an old boys club); 3. The obscurity of the documentary and books and theory 4. "Mayor" not being an elected position ie. based on who you know (old boys club). I think the position of University President is the strongest point. Is there a solid source? Serbian language is OK. I'll check back here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already noted (and repeated) multiple regional and local newspaper sources in the deletion discussion, along with a Cambridge University journal [2] that quote him as president of a respectable, up and coming, University. The deletion discussion seems to be setting the precedent that all regional and local newspaper sources and Cambridge Journals are unreliable sources on Wikipedia nowadays and should be deleted. All a bit concerning if you ask me. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 10:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And hold up. Hugh was elected, twice. By around 700 to 800 people in Uttoxeter, a prominent regional market town. Mayor is listed as a notable position if given extensive other coverage in the notability guidelines, which he has, so he happily qualifies there. All these arguments are all just poppycock because everyone's assumed he's merely a fringe writer when his scholarly reviewed publications containing unique material show this is not the case. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those newspapers, etc are simply not enough for a BLP as they are all just copying other similar sources. And that is not a 'Cambridge Journal' in the sense of a peer reviewed academic journal. I didn't go to Cambridge but I went to Yale and we had similar newsletters, etc.

Uttoxeter is a civil parish or "parish council", as low an administrative division as you can get.[3]. Very few powers. Mayor is the same as chair of the parish council, elected by the other councillors. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I had thought local and regional newpapers and university journals were reliable, but will delete when I see them in future. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But still, why put mayor in the guidelines if mayor doesn't count? I am very confused.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines? I can't see mayor in WP:Politician. As for deleting local and regional newspapers and 'university journals', if you do that don't be surprised if you get reverted. There is very little that is considered reliable for everything. A local newspaper would probably be considered reliable for local news. Megatrend is not a local Staffordshire institution. As for "university journals", it depends on exactly what they are and how they are used. You need to read WP:BLP. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have, but you need to look closer at WP:Politician where it says "Major local political figures" quite clearly as far as I can see. Don't worry about me deleting such things or being silly, I was only joking. I have some common sense you know! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why 'mayor' was in the guidelines. As I said, they don't mention mayors. And he doesn't seem to be a major political figure either - he's a local councilor in a tiny parish council, getting 792 votes in the last election. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has still had "major press coverage" around the county Staffordshire, which has over a million population, so I really don't see the problem here. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in Serbia I might add. Those sources I added are very respectable there. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didn't mean to start a parallel debate just wanted to discuss in private so as to not clutter up the AfD. I think you're doing an admirable job in the face of overwhelming resistance, it may not win in the end (or maybe it will), in any case the process is working well. I looked over the known sources for claims to President and they all have some problem or another with reliability. I searched google.rs using his Croatian name "Хју Монтгомери" and "Hju Montgomeri" and unable to find anything. From one source[4] pub. in 2010 it says he retired from President "about 5 years ago" meaning 2004-2005. Luckily the Wayback Machine holds copies of the University website going back further than that,[5] however one has to browse it's not possible to search Wayback. I found this notice from January 27, 2004 that a new President Jean-Jacques Chanaron had been sworn in and that he was the "third president" of the University.[6] This naturally had me wondering, who were the first two? As of a October 2002 snapshot it also lists Jean Jacques Chanaron.[7] Strange. Beyond that I am unable to determine, maybe you will have more luck, but it does suggest a contradiction between the 2010 book which says he retired about 2004-05, and who was actually President at that time (we've established Chanaron was President at least ca. late 2002-2005). He would need to be one of the first two Presidents prior to late 2002. As of a December 2002 snapshot, he is listed as a "Professor from abroad"[8] (though strangely associated with Megatrend University). BTW this[9] is a decent early history of the school est. 1989. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable sources I've got have claimed a 2003 retirement, not 2004, which would put him closer to be the first or second president as he may have stepped down into some auxilliary position for a time.[10] Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears megatrend-edu.net was first registered in March 2000 [11] which explains why Wayback Machine doesn't have earlier copies. I wonder what website the university used prior to 2000-2002 or so when the new domain became active. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His LinkedIn profile claims a september 2002 exit, and work there since 1996, tough times to set up a university in that place! [12] This all ties in nicely if Jean Jacques Chanaron was listed as 3rd president in October 2002, sworn in January 2003 when Hugh claims to have retired. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, retired just before the Wayback archive begins. I agree the timeline seems to match up with Chanaron's placement. Chanaron probably stepped in for a year provisional (September 2002-Dec 2003) then sworn in official beginning Jan 2004. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2002 still shows Chanaron..[13] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see, the Serbian sources that link Montgomery and Megatrend do not suggest he was ever president. The most likely explanation for them not mentioning it is that he never was president. But if that's the case, what does it say about Montgomery? I've emailed Megatrend it's the weekend. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good move Doug. That should settle all this. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Leon Chechemian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Martin, New College, Military Service Act and St. Stephen's Church

Hugh Montgomery (historian) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Britain, Montgomery and Conservative party

Bo Gabriel, comte de Montgomery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Britain and Swedish

Montgomery (name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Britain and Montgomery

Ancient British Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hybrid

Military history of New Zealand in Malaysia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Malaya

Neo-Celtic Christianity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Burgess

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian myth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Richard Leigh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to make this formal. You have no reliable sources claiming that he was President of Megatrend and you know this is disputed. You still added it again. This is clearly against our BLP policy and it must not be restored without a clearly reliable source, nor should you be claiming it on talk pages. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reply on that e-mail then? Your judgement about the British regional press such as thisisstafforshire.co.uk as unreliable is bordering on the type of violation associated with the BNP. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I didn't even notice your reverts and consider this entrapment and bullying. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it's only a violation and not a sanction. That's not so bad. You know I do what you say on here. However I am still not really happy about the British regional press issue. This needs further discussion somewhere especially in light of the development of the www over paper based press. Judging circulation of articles by paper circulaton is obsolete nowadays if it's on a major regional website. We should take this to a discussion board somewhere... Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you also call him founder with no source. Which, by the way, suggests ownership as this is a private university. You can take the sources issue to WP:RSN but considering that you only have British local papers as a source for a Serbian university you won't get very far. And yes, no reply on the email. I'm surprised you haven't contacted Montgomery himself. And I've said that the regional press is reliable for some things but not everything. Why you associate the BNP with that comment is beyond me. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say that because I am sure I could find lots of American articles sourced to regional papers that are passing notability in the same manner happily without any bother. I would interpret everyone working for the Business School as it became University, then accredited as a founder in a contributory sense at least. Perhaps this is too broad an opinion so I'll go with you on that. Anyhow, if you don't get an e-mail from Megatrend soon, I'll chase them too. This is starting to get annoying. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You used Authorhouse at Afka - I thought you knew you can't use self-published sources except sometimes when they are about the author? In any case, the article is a mess. Afka is not the name of the temple, Afka is, so far as I can see, the location of the source of the Adonis or Abraham River and has various spelling. Our article on the location calls it Apheca although other sources call it Aphaca. It doesn't help that our article's lead doesn't mention the existence of a village there. In any case, the article tells us more about the temple than your article does, and your article needs to be redirected. Another source is [14]. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about this Doug. I can only explain this lack of diligency was due to my excitement getting George Taylor's book and finding a load of pictures in it of features like the ones I found at Aaiha. I am really sorry if my passion for that subject has caused another mistake. I hope you understand. I'll devote some time to fixing up the Apheca article over the weekend and redirecting Afka to it in order to make it up to you. Kindest Regards, Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do need to be careful about creating articles that are forks/material that belongs in another article. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the plan was to really give the Apheca page a good going over, I didn't realize it existed until after I'd made the Afka page. I will be adding maps and pictures in external links and all sorts, down to the lintel of the temple and back up to my usual standard. I'll get right on it. Shame we can't use that self-published doctor, she had some good stuff to say. I'll check on her other published work. Is there a point past which a famous or scholarly person's work will be acceptable if self published? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to pester you again Doug, but the slightest bit of geographical research into Apheca show's that Google Earth, geographic.org and the majority of modern sources are calling it Afqa, plus my 60s ones that Wikipedia has adopted the "Q" standard on as per Beqaa Valley. I think we might need to move the page and I'm not trained and worry about doing that sort of thing properly, or without someone mis-interpreting me. Any chance you could use one of your move-bots on it? I'll start adding the modern geographic sources to external links to highlight the fact and will do all the other work within the article if you can. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Done. Cheers. Still no reply from the Serbs by the way. So I've taken to e-mailing Monty directly instead. I live in Nottinghamshire now, which is only a Derbyshire away from Staffordshire. Maybe we should meet up again, although I might draw myself into a notable COI doing that I suppose. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be included in our article on Mary Magdalene which already mentions the Golden Legend. It's also a bit confusing. I suggest you integrate the content where appropriate and turn this into a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is more complicated as it isn't about the Golden Legend. It's about the manuscripts that it was compiled from. Seperate subject. I'll give your suggestion some thought though. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still about Mary Magdalene and there is stuff in that article about legends. From a quick glance it seemed pretty scattered though. And to be frank, what you've written is confusing and lacking in detail. I know it's about manuscripts but surely a section in the main article about manuscripts would be better and more likely to atract other editors who might at some point add to it? Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clever...I'm home now so I'll do some work on both.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned this up now too, expanded and linked into a new section on the Mary Magdalene page that I think looks quite nice. Could use details of more known versions of course, and perhaps oneday details of the Montgomery 1209 CE version of the Legend of Mary Magdalene will see the light of day and independent publication. It is a lot less waffly and gets straight to some hard facts. It leaves out all the Mumbo-Jumbo of the Golden Legend that has probably confused you. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason this edit wasn't in the sandbox? TortoiseWrath (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, will keep tests there in future. It was only 5 seconds. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 04:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing; just wanted to make sure. :) TortoiseWrath (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aunite. Since you had some involvement with the Aunite redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. Will do. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genealogia Lindisfarorum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogia Lindisfarorum until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ethelbald, Ecgbert, Ethelred, Eomer, Edwin and Bulla

Aaiha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Corinthian, Vault, Socle and George Taylor

Pseudo-Crato (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Saint Simon and Crato

Pseudo-Marcellus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Simon and Magician

Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Medal of Merit and Borg

Temples of the Beqaa Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to George Taylor and Minister of Works

Achaea (ancient region) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Excavation

Koinonos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Companion

Langfedgetal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Danish

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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ancestry of the kings of Britain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you're making on the articles up for deletion will all be lost when the articles are deleted, as now seems very likely. It's really a waste of your time to make these edits before the decision on deletion is taken. It's up to you, but I think there are more productive things you could be doing than adding text that will be destroyed in a couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that the closing admin will show some common sense, but thanks for the advice. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just so you realize, if it closes on notability grounds, there is always the Ancestry of the Kings of Europe to consider a merge into. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard closing decisions are keep, merge, or delete. Delete is not an invitation to merge. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well most of the material has now been written after the vote. Can I presumptually make Ancestry of the Vikings as more notable and merge it into that already? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is deletion, and when your edits took place doesn't matter if the decision is to delete. Merging a deleted article into another one is just trying to get around deletion. Not a good idea to build up a track record of doing that. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but as long as you understand. I'm also trying to merge the best bits of Agricolae's Ancestry of the kings of Wessex, to save that from deletion too on similar grounds and show how this should proceed sensibly. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd suggest starting by agreeing with some other editors experienced in this area (such as several who are commenting at the AfDs) on what sources can be used. If you can avoid using sources that are going to be discarded as unreliable, and make sure everything you say is sourced to a reliable source, then you'll find it a lot easier to avoid controversy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, comments like "I'll get on to destroying your bogus genealogies with it now" are not the sort of thing I would expect from someone intent on improving the encyclopedia. If you want to improve articles while working with editors you don't agree with, comment on the talk pages and try to get a consensus of other editors. If you start editing in a way you know will be disagreed with it is likely to lead to an edit war and complaints about your behaviour. If you really want to improve these articles, talk, don't edit, until you have a consensus. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do try Mike, but the House of Icel needs to go back into the world of make-beleive. Godulf Geoting needs to come back as the earliest possible dynast and all the different references to Crida need exploring to get our information right. That's what I'll be working on with full discussion given as needed. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Full discussion" is fine, but please make sure you have that discussion before you make the relevant edits, since it's apparent you are not currently in agreement with many of the editors working in this area. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good point, well noted. I'll shoot all my holes with Agricolae's theories on talk pages. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my axe of the House of Icel nonsense at List of the kings of Mercia, that has been discussed on the AfD for List of the kings of Britain, where Agricolae has consented to the removal of legendary kings on that page. Cearl is mentioned by Bede, thats the first reference I can find. Feel free to comment or improve. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly referring to your future edits. At List of monarchs of Mercia you would have done better to post a note on the talk page suggesting the changes you made; it never hurts to ensure everyone agrees ahead of time. I haven't looked at those edits of yours yet but might be able to later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a better note and summarise there to save your bother. Gimme an hour or so. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider that repeated personal attacks (such as accusations of cover up, with [15] or without [16] running around in the process), and declarations of war like the above, are the kinds of behaviors that tend to attract the notice of administrators. Agricolae (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I hope they have a thorough look into it all. I can't remember any personal attacks and if I did make any I apologise immediately. This is not a war Agricolae, I am only hoping to use my experience and knowledge to teach.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Edit summary and make sure your edit summaries conform to the guideline. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll be less creative. Sorry. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Godulf Geoting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godulf Geoting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Agricolae (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Almagest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Brigantium

Ancestry of the kings of Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eomer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Progonoplexia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progonoplexia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Agricolae (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the personal attacks - and the cutesy and obscure comments. And just to make it clear here, reminding you about the ArbCom warning. I think you are lucky you haven't been topic banned, but that could still happen. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any personal attacks. I have just attacked fraudulent and false information such as the House of Icel and other ridiculous, made-up innaccuracies. I have beaten every argument hands down, fully referenced. I will continue to do this in order to uphold the pillars of Wikipedia. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Paul, I consider your references to a campaign of harassment in this post a personal attack, as well as the implication in the same post that Agricolae has been forging king lists. So please watch your language; presumably you don't truly mean to say that your fellow editors are acting out of spite. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said "some sort of harrassment", please don't misquote me. There is enough of that being done on the king list pages. I have asked Agricolae for a properly referenced argument half a dozen (six or seven) times now and he just keeps on making up stories to annoy me. This is a form of harrassment - he's being a nuisance making up all these OR, unsourced arguments all the time and deleting the original text as 'misleading'. Then trying to delete an article on Progonoplexia - "interest in history", which as a writer of history articles, I would expect some degree of knowledge about to be competent enough to write on topic. He has continued to delete Oxford and Cambridge university sources, along with the original names in the Langfedgetal and Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies for no reason or as misleading. Please feel free to examine my edits and the history of those pages to see exactly what is going on. He is getting my articles deleted by proposing them, and then completely changing them and covering them in factual innaccuracies. His deletion of original text and replacement with OR fancifications and constant refusal to source any one single argument or statement (for whatever reason) is annoying, hence sort of harrassment. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example; writing "You have self-confessed your mission to make Wikipedia's history section an unreliable source of information as possible, and to that intention, I can only remark that you are the disease, I am the cure" is both insulting and an accusation that Agricolae is deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia, i.e. an accusation of editing in bad faith. Your post above is another example of such accusations; while this is probably not a blockable offense, it's not making other editors well-disposed toward you and your editing. I would suggest that you restrain your language. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can source the reasoning behind that statement back to the Fringe noticeboard where Agricolae stated "For starters, though, I would suggest that you not use Wikipedia as a source for scholarly knowledge." His intention to prevent people studying his articles and distort the facts is apparent from this sentence. That's what got me riled up in the first place. It is precisely that sort of opinion why I decided to jump from Archaeology to do a bit of work on History. Everyone in Britain, especially in scholarship has the same view, because we talk about Kings of Wessex during the West Saxon era, etc. I will restrain my language when remarking about his opinions about what our history section should look like. I have made them very plain. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were pointing to a couple of articles and he told you it wasn't a good idea to use Wikipedia articles as a source for scholarly knowledge. That seems a reasonable statement and doesn't justify your claiming that he is a disease. As for suggesting that you are a cure, words fail me. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I considered it a general statement that perhaps I have exaggerated, but hasn't been assisted by his behaviour. Why can't we find a cure and make a nice page about what the majority of scholarly sources and the original manuscripts state as the name on Ancient genealogies, or even on the manuscripts themselves, and provide comprehensive coverage? Use Agricolae's format if you like, whatever, I can compromise! This is the best solution for all. We have a bunch of missing semi-kings at the moment, little on Iclingas and it won't be long before I (or someone) has to get a Cobra ^{[citation needed]} gun out and take potshots at Genealogy of the British Royal Family, etc. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit anything in my userspace. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Sorry. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. . . duplicates the existing Wuffingas page. Ref 2 is even a printed-on-demand copy of the Wuffingas Wikipedia page. Therefore --

An article that you have been involved in editing, Uffingas , 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. Agricolae (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's nice. All records of the Uffingas wiped off the map again. I'll be back later to discuss what they are called by people who live in the country and why Uffington isn't called Wuffington. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary to merge, I've redirected it as it is clearly a duplicate article. A Google books search shows Wuffingas as the most common name. How could you be so careless as to create an article we already have? Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Clan McDUff were also part of the Uffingas. The Bedsons are descendants of Clan McDuff didn't you know? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't mean to be disruptive, apologies if this looks apparent. Apart from my underlying local philological knowledge of the name, it was the name I was taught in school, and more importantly, the name in the original manuscripts. I didn't intend to be disruptive and would have taken this to merge discussion if I had known it existed instead. But to be honest, I go for what is written in the original, historical sources to maintain the maximum NPOV possible. I further suggest that this is the way the history section should be written, and opposition against using original sources, when cited in secondaries is no longer persecuted this way, merged fairly and not just deleted. This is a very fundamental concept for Wikipedia to be a historical information source. With regards Google book searches. You are correct on Uffingas only getting 359 hits to Wuffingas with 877. I took a more comprehensive look at the subject, did a few searches, and found that the singular form Uffinga gets 1220 hits compared to only 432 for Wuffinga. The Google Books search on King Uffa comes up 1490 in favour against 1410 for King Wuffa. Uffa gets 169,000 compared to Wuffa only 3,090. I had originally thought to create King Uffa, but thought people would scowl at me for creating an article similar to Godulf Geoting. These sort of stats could drag Wuffa into a rename discussion and at least show that the descendants of Uffa deserve a fair mention. Hopefully some of the info about the Uffington White Horse and Beowulf origins you would find interesting. Some professors would suggest all this bogus naming business is something to do with Ataulf, but I'll await your suggestions on this issue before proceeding in a similar fashion. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the original historical source (others in the history of the redirect at Uffingas) for your info - in Textus Roffensis, blatantly with no "W". (Uffa is in the middle, with what looks to me like the shadow of where a "P" has been erased next to it).

That 'shadow of where a "P" has been erased' is neither an erased letter, nor is it a P. Note how the lines alternate, beginning with elaborate red and gold initial letters (then toward the bottom, red and green). It is obviously intended to be there, as the name above him (that of his son) calls the lad ƿuffing not uffing. However, while it is intended to be there, it is not a P either - it is a Wynn (Ƿ,ƿ), the Old English letter that replaced and then was again replaced by 'uu' and came to be replaced with, you guessed it, the Modern English W. See above where the first name in the list is Aldƿold aldƿulfing - which is Aldwold Aldwulfing (where Aldwulfing is made up of Ald- ('old', Eald in the Wessex dialect), -wulf- ('wolf', as in Godulf) and -ing ('son of'). And note, there, at the bottom of the list, Ƿoden - you know, Uuoden, and I think I have seen another spelling of his name too. This is why the Mercian Pybba also appears as Wybba, confusion between p and wynn. Without doubt, this illustration that was used to show the name being Uffa in the primary source actually shows the source to have blatantly used the form Wuffa.Agricolae (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your info about the usage of the Chi Rho after the time of Constantine the Great, interesting stuff. I cannot see how you continue to imagine there is any distinguishable letter before Uffa though. There is nothing there, like there is nothing above Godwulf Geating in the genealogies in the history of Langfedgetal. Whatever was there has been forged out. It could have been a "D" for all I can tell, which would make more sense with my McDuff theories. When Bede, Henry of Huntingdon and the author of Flores Historiarum saw it, they wrote Uffa too. It is a little like the issue over Stenton's five or six kings. I am beginning to be concerned about the general state of history, so sorry if I have taken that out on you in particular. You didn't delete that letter, or come up with these explanations for the forgeries that have so annoyed me, so I really hope you know nothing I have said is meant to be in any way personal. That there are two versions of texts like his out there has highly concerned me about the religious bias involved in production of modern history scholarship. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until the time of John of Garland (really until the publication of the King James Bible), Old English was very variable and imprecise in usage. Plus it had a load of Chritian monks scribbling all over everything old. This text shows is the importance of using the -ing ending and full surnames, at least as alternates in ledes and also in genealogical tables trying to appear original. Wuffa, Puffa or Uffa here (debatably) has a son called Tytla Puffing, which if we apply the linguistic theories you are pushing leaves him as the son of Puff, Wuff or Uff, and that's no good is it? It's like calling Geata Geat. OK if the WP:COMMMONNAME suggests that, but I still call for full names to be used as a viable alternative, especially when recreating historical genealogies for accurate and NPOV comprehension of the subject matter. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis whatsoever for calling him Puffa or his son Puffing. The names begin with a wynn. Ridiculous straw-man arguments that only serve to demonstrate one's own misunderstanding of the material tend to boomerang. Agricolae (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is perfectly clear. It is perfectly clear there is no P, Wynn, D, R or any letter. There is just a shadow. All these theories, including mine obscure what is on the original parchment. It is good we have the image so people can see for themselves. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just a shadow, a shadow that happens to be in gold, just like the shadow two lines above it, and two lines above that. The scribe of this manuscript just decided to leave off the first letter of every other name, and then golden shadows miraculously appear on the velum in exactly those places, looking just like the letter that would be expected to be there based on the patronymic in the line before. This particular gold shadow happens to look just like the red wynn on the next line (or is that a red shadow), and the gold wynn shadow on the line after that, exactly where we would expect each to begin with the letter wynn, given that in each case the patronymic in the line before (which are definitively not preceded by shadows), contain a wynn. This is exactly why Wikipedia doesn't want editors reaching their own conclusion about primary sources. There is no telling what an editor may convince themselves of. Agricolae (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't interpret it that way. Bede, Henry of Huntingdon, Flores Historiarum and other original secondary sources describing it did on to Tom Brown's Schooldays. How all these tertiary sources and google books results have distorted it from original and secondary sources is a mystery to me. I can't see any gold, I just see shadows. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have argued that Bede saw this and interpreted it differently. You might want to reevaluate that argument given that Bede died in 735 and the manuscript in question dates from the 12th century. Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, obviously Bede had access to an earlier copy that hadn't been subjected to Literary forgery. Hence he called them Uffingas. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Bede had access to an earlier copy of a document that hadn't been created yet? What is obvious about that? Why must we so blatantly violate Occam's Razor by inventing an early form of the document, a half-century before scholarly consensus agrees the earliest version of it was compiled, just because Bede called them Uffingas? It is perfectly acceptable to conclude that Bede, Henry and the Flores used a different form of the name than that given in this manuscript, rather than trying to force the conclusion that this manuscript says something different than it clearly does just so it will match that used by Bede. And since when does using a perfectly equivalent way of spelling the same name constitute literary forgery? When performing proper scholarship, it is critical that one derive their conclusions from the data, not interpret the data based on a strongly desired conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what copies of what documents he had access to, but his earliest historical source records the name as Uffingas, the terminology I suggest that was most popular up until the middle of the last century. Bede probably had much older, orginal sources and access to documents without shadows, where the gold hadn't all been rubbed off and scribbled over my meddling monks. Bede was however a meddling monk, so his bias must also be questioned. That's why it is important to look and at least mention the original sources in history before jumping the gun and reading only innaccurate, summarising, tertiary sources for terminology. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If what Bede was looking at was a different document, how does that have any bearing on the supposed shadows on this manuscript? If you think that is a shadow, why invoke meddling monks when you claim there is nothing there to have been meddled with? This doesn't even make coherent sense. Agricolae (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, your analysis is original research, as surely you must know by now. You would need to find a secondary source discussing these points for you to be able to use them in an article. If, in order to make an argument, you find yourself referring to primary sources and not to secondary sources, you need to stop and consider whether what you're doing is OR. As an aside, my copies of Bede do not show him using "Uffingas"; the Latin in the Colgrave edition is "Uuffingas", and Plummer has the same. Plummer does not provide a translation; Colgrave does, and makes it "Wuffings". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have my own POV and have done research. I am not arguing for any of this to be entered into the articles. Tom Brown's Schooldays is enough to show adequate reflection of national coverage in Britain for me. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Agricolae's confusion and Mike's Colgrave edition in Latin. The Latin prefix "Uu" is pronounced as an extended "U", with no Wynn involved as this is a Latin and not Old English source. Please see this reference for explanation of the pronunciation of "Uu" and it's development from "Uo" - W. Sidney Allen (17 August 1989). Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin. Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–. ISBN 978-0-521-37936-6. Retrieved 2 December 2012.

We don't go by what the historical sources called something. We go by WP:COMMONNAME which by the way is a policy not a guideline. There was a discussion at Talk:Wuffingas last year which resulted in a rename. No one seems to have suggested your spelling. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment and have given that a good read through to remind myself. It doesn't say much about historical sources specifically outside of POV does it? Shame. Lots of room for alternative names though and I really hope you don't mind if I continue my expression of concern in the area of NPOV within the limits of those guidelines by possibly suggesting a name change at Wuffa of East Anglia, with all due civility of course. Thanks again. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not sure why you don't want to expand Wikipedia correctly." is a clear personal attack. There is a limit as to how many times you can get away with this without being taken to ANI, and you may have reached this now. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack there, I am just wondering why we can't wikilink appropriate alternate words as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking where it says "Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. Interwiki links bind the project to sister projects such as Wikisource, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia in other languages; and external links bind Wikipedia to the external World Wide Web." That's all. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul Bedson. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson, where you may want to participate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Chuldu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Queen

Laurence Waddell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sumerian

Legendary progenitor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Syzygy

Ollamh Érenn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rampart

Paljor Dorje Shatra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chinese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Langfeðgatal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Icelandic (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) 11:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently disruptive conduct as detailed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson#Summary. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Sandstein  21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Paul Bedson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is for no good reason and demonstrates a systemic anti-European, anti-British and anti-Lebanese racism sadly inherrent within Wikipedia. I am quite willing to change, if there was anything required to change and have never been resistant to it, take all the advice suggested and edit according to guidance. I am also quite happy to be limited to translation work if you can give me a chance and trial me. My recent edits should show this beneficial at Prose Edda, Manuscripts of the Prose Edda and various other translations I have been working on. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have just read all through the RfC. The outcome is spot on, Wikipedia is anti-palming off your theories as fact, anti-bad sourcing, anti-bad scholarship and anti-continuing to shoehorn nonsense into the project despite the best efforts of editors who use reliable, academic sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is pure hate-speak and Christian-biased censorship. I write on such a wide variety of theories, with so many sources and so much scholarship that it is unconsidered to make such an argument. Please examine any of my 330+ articles, they have all been well reviewed. Latest pieces include Simon son of Boethus, Legend of Mary Magdalene, Jesus, son of Fabus, MacDuff's Cross, Eleazar (High Priest), Paljor Dorje Shatra, Hermuthruda, Thane of Calder, Thane of Fife, Yammoune, Manuscripts of the Prose Edda (highlighting the weakness of English language Wikipedia at European history). I was in the middle of a massive expansion of Prose Edda from the French (which is where I guess I'll have to take my efforts now). I am quite shocked that you are also refusing to even allow me translation work from European Wikipedias. That type of prejudice makes me disgusted with the project. At least this language version anyway. I suggest you reconsider that decision because it is blatantly racist. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reconsideration? If that is your final judgement, with no discussion, no negotiation. Well, if you are incapable or unwilling to collaborate constructively and collegially with others, I guess I have no choice, you will need the time and expense to employ more than that numpty Agricolae, who doesn't even have a grasp of basic English, yet alone know the sources of history of correct king lists, to stop me fighting this hate-mongering, Wikipedia:WikiBullying goon-squad. You will need telecomunications professionals, like me. (what did you think I did as a day-job in those two years after going to Lebanon). ;-) Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not removed my tp access yet? Doug is right, I am watching your discussions. He is wrong that I do not accept his advice though, and act on it accordingly. That is just hate-speak. I have always greatly appreciated it. It will make my productive editing of pages that challenge the racist-POV that threatens the Wikipedia:Five pillars almost impossible to detect. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some comments regarding the indef block at WP:AN. dci | TALK 21:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can read my comments oneday when archaeologists eventually get some proper excavations going at the Tells of the Beqaa Valley. Hopefully my articles will help guide those explorers of the future to put our history back into place. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]