Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Courtkittie 21:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Anything concrete or verifiable about Juan Martin/John martin??

Please let me know - i think most of us KNOW he is from sussex, very very strange stuff indeed! Ukbn2 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told the date and place of his birth, in confidence, by a friend of his: it squares with my own recollection of him in the 1960's. I'm unaware as yet of any available documentary evidence.Paul Magnussen 18:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that response. Tis such a strange one this, and perhaps i should look at my reasons for being annoyed by this, but when some one effects a spanish accent and claims they are spanish to appear a genuine flamenco its very annoying! I often wonder how journos dont hear his accent.

Oh well,maybe one day a journalist will do some work on it.....classical guitar magazine didnt.Ukbn2 11:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul, Just the other day I was looking at an old Guitar International magazine from 1988 with an article on Paco Serrano by you - great stuff!

Thanks. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also become fed up with people who know nothing about flamenco except having been to a Juan Martin show and bought a cd of his, telling me how authentic and pure flamenco he is, and how he is the real thing etc., etc., and have started looking around the net for any hard evidence of his place of birth and nationality. It seems he has moved from the exceptionally vague "from his early days in Malaga" (in his original "Arte Flamenco" book) to "native of Andalucia" (on his current website). The Independent says he was born in Malaga, and I have had a stroppy note from a moderator on Wikipedia ("don't start this again"). I just don't understand why the world allows him to get away with it... and why no tabloid has cottoned on to a sensational expose yet! I guess all the people who actually know anything about him don't want to be seen to begrudge him his success. I would like to have read the discussion which has been "blanked" from the duscussion tab on the JM page.

Go to Juan's entry; click the Discussion tab; click History; then go down to August 2006. But I don't think you'll find it particularly enlightening. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems to "know" he is from Sussex and the accent is fake, but noone seems to be able to prove it... if he is from Sussex and his accent is put on, surely trading Standards ought to have something to say about him! What a con!

Apologies for my embarrassing username, the first thing that came into my head when trying to think of something. "zorro666" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorro666 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I found your recent comments up amongst the 2006 talkpage edits! I've moved it down to the bottom and done a hasty reply. (Don't forget - talkpages work from the bottom.) I know what you mean in that it could do with a more vivid description of exactly what the disorder entails - but that means finding a sourced description and I haven't come across one yet. Fainites ^barley 21:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do not believe that there is such a thing as Reactive Attachment Disorder have not had to deal with these kids. I have volunteered at camps and work with kids with this problem daily. They do not want the love of another caregiver or of anyone else. They manipulate the people around them and do not care about anything. I want you to tell the millions of caregivers dealing with this everyday that this disorder does not exist. Check www.attachment.org for even more and better information on this subject. E Fisk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.156.210.253 (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your question about Italian accents in the talk page of the Italian language article. Someone removed it, as that talk page should be used to discuss the article itself, rather than general questions about Italian language. So, a question like yours is more suitable, for instance, for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language.

Anyway, the short answer is that the acute or grave accents on i and u are more a typographical than a grammatical issue. Each publisher has opted for one of the two possibilities, exactly as each publisher has its conventions for, say, how to display dialogues (inverted commas, dashes and so on).

The most usual custom, however, is to use grave accents on those vowels, as shown on Italian keyboards, which have keys for ì and ù.

I hope this helps, Goochelaar (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, thanks. But it's a pity for foreign learners, because with both accents used (as I understand), you get a clue to the pronunciation, e.g. "perché" has a closed e, "è" an open e. Ah well. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, from the article on The Scots Hoose, that you have some knowledge of the 1960s folk scene in London, so how about creating an article on Bruce Dunnet? His obituary in The Independent could make a good starting point. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if rather than dwelling on their status as possible folk songs you should think of creating an article about these. There are a lot of academic references to them like the following http://books.google.com/books?id=pnAQHIkijc0C&pg=PA85&dq=%22rugby+songs%22&lr=&ei=3MXUStvQBpfCMoT-0ZoO#v=onepage&q=%22rugby%20songs%22&f=false.--SabreBD (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My I suggest that in your edit [1] with the edit summary "Grammar", the awkward construction "had been taken ill" is not a preferable substitution for the previous text? Robert K S (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you may. It’s not a big deal, I'll change it back. Should be "owing" though, not "due". Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I've been trying to improve the Paco Peña page recently and I was just wondering if you had a slightly more up-to-date photo that could be used in the main box? I'm guessing the current one is from the 70s/80s? Wondering what you think about this, cheers, James Harper (UK) 86.165.177.65 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used that one because a) it's a nice photo in a pleasant setting, and b) it's in Paco's home town. It was taken in 1984, so you're right, it's old.

I don't have an equally nice more recent photo, but if you like I can contact Paco and ask him to supply one. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great- I'm just thinking that it would be good to have a current one because it would reflect the fact that he's still very much active. Hard to find one as nice as that Alcázar one though I agree. James 86.165.177.65 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably get consensus on the talk page before adding new recommendations to Manual of style. Most new additions are reverted if they have not been extensively discussed, bedcause MOS needs to be as stable as possible. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK — This was my first time. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul M. -

Good catch and thanks! Someone went into the article early in December and made a number of minor edits, of which the ncorrect birth name was the first - so I missed it. You're absolutely right - he was born Robert Castle Schoen, changed it to the phonetic Shane for the KT, and then legally changed it. His children are all Shanes, not Schoens. Thanks!

regards, Sensei48 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do please edit this article. I tidied it up generally a few weeks ago but have no expertise on Spanish music per se. Many of the comments in the article seem to me to be contentious and/or WP:OR.--Smerus (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul, I discovered just after my edit that you undid that I had a partial text (from Appendix B of Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen by Frank Miele) of the Wall Street Journal editorial "Mainstream Science on Intelligence." Sorry about not checking other texts of that document before starting my edit, but I presumed Miele had quoted the complete text of the editorial, as his whole Appendix B is only that editorial with its list of signers. By looking at Linda Gottfredson's website

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

I found the two lead paragraphs that Miele omitted. (I made a photocopy of that editorial and have kept it in my files since the year it was first published, but that is buried under other papers in my office at the moment, so Miele's book came to hand first.)

Now as to the factual matter, I am pretty sure that Eysenck is on record as being largely (if perhaps not entirely) in agreement with many of the statements in the book The Bell Curve, but to establish that factual point the best source would be one of Eysenck's own statements specifically about the book itself. In light of how Miele quoted the joint statement in his book about his interviews with Jensen, and in light of the process that Gottfredson describes about how the joint statement was distributed, it appears that the document the signers signed did NOT commit any of the signers to agreement with the book, but rather with the twenty-five numbered propositions in the joint statement. (Yeah, I know, a subtle point, but of such subtle points edits are made.) The sentence I edited, which I first discovered on the page Alan S. Kaufman, raises biography of living persons issues for every signer who is still living and is NOT on record otherwise as having "defended the findings on race and intelligence in The Bell Curve." By the way, I have the support of the original author of that sentence, Wikipedian Jokestress, on this, as you can see from my user talk page.

So I agree with you entirely that I was mistaken in saying in my edit summary that the twenty-five point editorial, AS PUBLISHED, didn't mention the book. It did. (But I am still not sure if the signers saw those two paragraphs at the very beginning when they were signing, or not.) I am certain, knowing the writings of Alan S. Kaufman, Julian C. Stanley, and other signers, that not all signers signed to be known as persons who "defended the findings on race and intelligence in The Bell Curve." I think a rewrite pf the article text is warranted, as Jokestress did when I pointed this out. If you have more writings of Eysenck at hand than Intelligence: A New Look (which I have at hand), I invite you to edit the Eysenck article in a manner that makes Eysenck's personal views clear. After I've given you a chance to digest this, I will make an edit that distinguishes Eysenck's opinion--whatever it is--from the opinions of the other signers, in something like the manner of the text you saw earlier from my keyboard.

Thanks for your sharp eye. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on Simon Templar. You might want to check it again, as some of the changes appear not to have taken. The infobox still says "Simon Templebaum" for example. As an unregistered IP I'm steering clear since the vandalism is being done by another IP and I don't want to confuse the issue. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm on it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think "Charteris's" is both ugly and ungrammatical; but the WP manual of style does permit it as long as it's consistently applied within an article, and I will forbear reverting it. That does not make the more standard "Charteris'" incorrect. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have to disagree with your changes to Sophie Germain. It is her perceived gender that brought discrimination, i.e., her gender role; a man passing as a woman would be subject to the same. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting point, and I wouldn't argue that she wasn't perceived as infringing a man's gender rôle. But she wasn't (as far as I know) a transsexuual, nor did she feel that she was a man trapped in a woman's body.

However, if you want to revert it, I won't object. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that she saw herself as any other than a woman doing work that was unusual for a woman at that time. Sexist is certainly a common term, and I think it fits, so I've just reverted one instance. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Regime" without the diacritical mark is standard English spelling. "Régime" is listed in several dictionaries as an alternate spelling. Since this is the English Wikipedia standard English spellings are preferred. Therefore I have reverted your good faith edits to Burma. If you'd like to discuss this further, please do so on the Burma talk page so we can get consensus from all the interested editors. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 18:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul. I undid your edit here as I believe you are mistaken. In the subjunctive mood, we would use "were" only to indicate a counterfactual or irrealis statement. The example you changed is not counterfactual but merely indicates uncertainty. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, yes I understand. That's fine. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --John (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul and thank you for your message. This is my first use of Talk and I may not be doing it right so apologies if I screw up...

I have a few copies of that 1st edition and know exactly what you mean. I'm sure that the lozenge you mention is the root cause of this long-standing confusion. To get the full picture you also need the original dustjacket in fact. If your copy has its jacket missing you can see a complete restored example on my site, www.reprojackets.co.uk

If you look at the cover of your book /sans/ jacket the lozenge is present between 'MEET' and 'THE' as you point out, and you will also notice a slightly larger lozenge below which separates title and author. If you look at the spine there are lozenges above and below author, but none within the title. This is the first evidence of inconsistency.

Now if you open the book and look at the half-title (which is the first printed page with the adverts on the reverse) the title is simply "MEET THE TIGER", and if you now turn on to the title page itself (opposite the adverts) it's again shown as "MEET THE TIGER". And once more on the opening page (numbered 7 at the foot) it is again unhyphenated. At the very top of the next page the running header starts, showing the title "MEET THE TIGER". The lozenge/hyphen on the front cover is looking a bit lonely!

Turning to the dustjacket, the front cover shows the title "MEET <> THE <>\ TIGER" where the "<>" are lozenges again rather than textual hyphens, and my '\' represents a linebreak. The jacket spine shows the title without lozenges, the lozenges instead being purely decorations above and below the author.

I think the obvious conclusion from all this evidence is that the front cover of the book erroneously carried over one of the lozenges from the dustjacket design, which has been interpreted as a hyphen. It was presumably the inspiration of one of the early American editions which was entitled "Meet - the Tiger! / The Saint is in Danger".

Cheers, John.Whythe (talk)

Hi Paul,

Yes I will double-check all those edits, as soon as time permits. In relation to that particular change of wording, I hadn't realized it was a quote and had reworded it slightly to enhance readability. However, immediately upon noticing that it was a quote I undid the change. As far as I can see the wording is now exactly as it was originally stated by Buchanan. If you find any inconsistency please feel free to correct any such error(s). I have been warned repeatedly that apparently I have a COI because I happened to have Hans Eysenck and Ray Cattell among my circle of academic colleagues from whom I occasionally sought advice on research matters (at some considerable distance though) -- no different from any of the hundreds of other academic contacts I have had over a period of more than 40 years. Since my own research career has been in the area of personality and individual differences, both intellectual giants of the 20th century were my mentors and friends - but in an intellectual sense only - not in real life. On a personal level, I have very little knowledge about either. I remain puzzled as to how corresponding every few years with an academic colleague on occasional research/writing matters constitutes a COI. This would rule me out of editing hundreds of biographies on Wikipedia in that case. It seems like the revisionist historians are "having a field day" on Wikipedia! Gjboyle (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I take it this notice is related to my recent edits on Lara Logan's page, of which I made two.

The first was an attempted correction (now reverted) of the statement that she "compared NIAID director Anthony Fauci to the Nazi Josef Mengele." As the next sentence admits, she did not herself make this comparison, but merely stated that the comparison had been made to her; so the former statement is incorrect (unless she herself made such a comparison elsewhere, which I have not seen alleged).

The second was a modification of the term "scientific consensus"; but I leave this aside for the moment, since if you can't agree with me on the first point, there seems little reason to argue the second.

I hope we can come to a compatible view.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 10:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yss, it's true, the "Black Lightning" did not and could not have keys, due to the design of the mag and also that it would be totally useless. Does ChaCha Muldowney's dragster have keys ?

Factually, that song is crap. The differences between a Shadow and a Lightning were internal (polished rods, different cams, nothing too special in today's world) and the removal of all electrics (head and tail lights, brake light), changed seat, no toolkit, no muffler and different pipes. Due to the shape of the pipes and the rearsets the kickstarter was also removed, so you had to bump start it. This would be close to impossible to ride on the street, bumping a 380 lb bike at the bottom of a hill would be miserable - but even considering this for a getaway bike if you did bank robberies and so on would be worse than ridiculous. And where was Red Molly supposed to sit ? No rear footpegs, no place for her ass, okay teenagers will put up with that but taken with the rest of the situation, it's ridiculous. Beneath ridiculous. Richard Thompson could sing but he didn't know a damn thing about motorcycles, particularly Vincents and double particularly the black lightning (which name only became famous because of the song, before that it was a footnote to the Black Shadow, which is the one that was known when people actually rode Vincents. Collectors are gushing breathless idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.86.40 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]