text:
Wikipedia:User pages

User pages are pages for organizing the work users do on Wikipedia, as well as speaking to other users. User pages are mainly for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content. Pages in the User and User talk namespaces are considered to be user pages.

User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies. Users believed to be in violation of these policies should first be advised on their talk page using  when immediate action is not otherwise necessary.

Terminology and page locations
Your in this context means associated with you, not belonging to you.

 * User page
 * Your user page has a name like this: User:Example. (This link is to yours.) Its normal use is to give basic information, if you wish, about yourself or your Wikimedia-related activities. If you prefer to put nothing here, then you can redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors. You may also wish to create a global user page that will display on all Wikimedia projects where you have not created a local user page.

 * User talk page
 * Your user talk page (sometimes abbreviated to "your talk page" or "your user talk") has a name like this: User talk:Example. (This link is to yours.) Its normal use is for messages from, and discussion with, other editors. The only editing tool you can use with user talk pages is Source Editor, and not Visual Editor. For more information see Help:Using talk pages.

 * Subpages
 * Subpages in user space can be used to store sandboxes, essays about Wikipedia, and drafts of Wikipedia articles, among other things. You can create these subpages yourself.

 * User pages or user space
 * All of these pages are your user pages or user space. While you do not "own" them, by custom you may manage them as you wish, so long as you do so reasonably and within these guidelines.
 * You also have subpages ending in and to store any user scripts and skin customizations that you may wish to have when you edit Wikipedia. Only you and interface administrators can edit such pages, although anyone can view them.

Creating a subpage
You can create subpages of your User page and your Talk page. To create a subpage, type the following into the Wikipedia search box and press the Enter key, replacing "Your_Wikipedia_Name" with your username: User:Your_Wikipedia_Name/subpage_name This will bring you to a page with the title User:Your_Wikipedia_Name/subpage_name. Now click the "Create" button next to the Wikipedia search box and the editing window will open. Enter a few test words and save the new page. You will notice that different from your user page, a subpage contains a backlink to your user page, which looks like this: <User:Your_Wikipedia_Name Clicking on the backlink will bring you to your user page. But, contrary to what you might expect, no new tab has been created for "subpages", for example, containing a list of all of your subpages; everything on your user page'' is unchanged. So how do you navigate to your subpage? As a method of last resort, you can always go back to your subpage by adding the title of your subpage to the URL of your user page: If your home page URL is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Your_Wikipedia_Name just add the name of your subpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Your_Wikipedia_Name/subpage_name There is, of course, an easier method, but it has to be done manually. Copy and modify the following text and put it on your user page: Special:Prefixindex/User:Your_Wikipedia_Name After saving your user page, clicking on this link will provide you with a list of all pages containing the string "User:Your_Wikipedia_Name", which in our case includes the sandbox, the user page and, of course, the newly created subpage.

User talk notification
Users will be notified when someone else edits their user talk page. Since 30 April 2013, registered users receive a notification through the new Notifications system (see image right); unregistered users still receive notifications with the old-style Orange Bar. Registered users wishing to add back the functionality of the Orange Bar notification may do so through this script.

For users not editing with an account (unregistered users), the alert below is automatically displayed on all pages until they view their user talk page. If they click "new message," it will direct them to the bottom of their talk page. If they click "last change," it will show them the last edit done to their talk page. Creating a fake message banner that misleads readers into thinking they have new messages is prohibited.

You have a new message from another user. ( last change ).

The links Special:MyPage and Special:MyTalk are shortcuts that take any user to their own user and user talk pages. If someone is to visit your (or someone else's) user or user talk pages, a proper page link will be needed (e.g., User talk:Example ). In practice, user and user talk pages are mostly visited by clicking on user signatures in discussions, and links shown in page histories and diffs.

Options available from user pages
In addition to the usual information accessible from an article page such as page history, "Discuss this page" and the like, users visiting user and user talk pages can also click "User contributions" (in the sidebar or at the bottom of the page) to see what contributions you have made at Wikipedia over time, and "Logs" to see records of other events related to your editorship, done by yourself and by others. (Note that having your user page deleted does not delete any list of your wider contributions.)

Visitors to your user page can also click "Email this user" if you have opted in your user preferences to be able to send and receive email. Your email address will remain private unless you reveal it yourself, select the option to reveal it (in preferences), or reply using an email system outside Wikipedia.

 What may I have in my user pages?
There is no fixed use for user pages, except that usually one's user page has something about oneself, and one's talk page is used for messaging. Provided other users can quickly and easily find the pages they need, users may, within reason, freely organize their user pages as they choose.

Users may include a user page notice on their own user pages, user talk pages, or both. Placing the template  at the start of a user page clearly identifies the nature of the page for readers, and also helps if people find the labeled page in copies of Wikipedia elsewhere (more about this below) and want to locate the original.

Contributions can also be given a wider license – for example releasing them into the public domain or multi-licensing them – by putting a notice to this effect on one's user page, or on a subpage linked from it. Note that it is not possible to give them narrower licensing: all edits on Wikipedia, including all userspace edits, are licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License and in most cases the GNU Free Documentation License as part of Wikipedia.

User pages may be mirrored by other sites. If there is material you do not want copied, reposted, or reused, do not post it on the site.

Certain kinds of material must not linger indefinitely in user space; see below for details.

Besides communication, other legitimate uses of user space include (but are not limited to):

You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language. However, if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage, this may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion.

User pages are also used for administrative purposes, to make users aware of blocks, warnings, or other sanctions if they happen, and to notify of matters that may affect articles you have worked on or editorial issues you have been involved with. Others may also edit your user pages, for instance awarding you a barnstar or leaving notes and images for you, or adding comments and questions. Although you have wide leeway to edit your user pages, a few of these matters should not be removed (see below).

Userspace and mainspace
Details about yourself should not normally go in the main encyclopedia namespace (reserved for encyclopedia articles only), and encyclopedia articles should never link to or transclude any userspace pages.

In the rare case that you or something closely connected to you may have an article in the encyclopedia, that is always treated as completely separate from you as an editor. You should very carefully read the guidance on conflict of interest and generally avoid editing about yourself or matters closely related to you in any article.

If you would like to draft a new article, Help:Userspace draft provides a standard template and useful guidance to help you create a draft in your userspace, and the Article Wizard can walk you through all stages of creating an article with the option to save as a userspace draft too. You can use the template userspace draft to tag a userspace draft if it is not automatically done for you.

Personal and privacy-breaching material
Some people add personal information such as contact details (email, instant messaging, etc.), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, etc. Once added, this information is unlikely to ever become private again. It could be copied elsewhere or even used to harass you in the future. You are cautioned to think carefully before adding non-public information to your user page, because you are highly unlikely to be able to completely retract it later, even if you change your mind and no longer wish for the information to be public.

Privacy-breaching non-public material, whether added by yourself or others, may be removed from any page upon request, either by administrators or (unless impractical) by purging from the page history and any logs by oversighters (see requests for oversight).

Userboxes
Userboxes are fun little boxes you can put in your user page to express yourself. They are rectangular and usually contain a picture and text. Here is an example:

 What may I not have in my user pages?
Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project.

In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor.

The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption.

Excessive unrelated content
Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to:

In general, if you have material that you do not wish others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site. Many free and low-cost web hosting, email, and weblog services are widely available, and are a proper place for content unrelated to Wikipedia. For wiki-style community collaboration, you can download the MediaWiki software and install it on your own server if you want full control, or use one of many online wiki farms.

Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit
Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.)

These may be removed, redacted or collapsed by any user to avoid the appearance of acceptability for Wikipedia, and existing speedy deletion criteria may apply. To preserve traditional leeway over userspace, other kinds of material should be handled as described below unless otherwise agreed by consensus.

Categories, templates that add categories, and redirects
Do not put your userpage or subpages, including draft articles, into content categories. Userpages and subpages may be placed in appropriate administrative categories, such as Category:User essays.

Especially note that templates often add categories themselves. You can prevent this while the article is being drafted, by putting   between the {{ and the template name, like this: {{tlx|tlx|stub|any parameters}}.

You can also force a portion of text to be ignored by adding  in front of it and   after it, or by adding a colon before "Category", like this:   to force a category link to act like a plain wikilink.

User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user. However, redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable. Soft redirects are allowed on userpages.

User pages that look like project pages
Userspace is also not a substitute for project space (Wikipedia:...), nor should a userspace page be used as primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or established concept. If your user page related to the project becomes widely used or linked in project space, or has functional use similar to a project page, consider moving it into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there.

Content copied from mainspace
Old copies of mainspace articles should be deleted. Mainspace material may be copied to userspace for short-term, active drafting or experimental purposes (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these). Note the requirements of Copying within Wikipedia. Satisfactory edits should be promptly incorporated into the mainspace article and the userspace copy deleted (use db-u1), as content forking represents an attribution hazard.

User pages that look like articles
Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Pages that look like articles outside of mainspace, such as draft articles still being prepared, should not be indexed for search engines.

When a userspace page reaches a point where it can be included as an article, consider moving it into mainspace or using its content appropriately in other relevant articles. Userpage blanked may be added to such pages that have not been edited for a considerable amount of time.

Actual fake articles should be deleted as incompatible with the purpose of the project. Pages that egregiously present false information may be tagged with db-hoax. Blatant promotional content may qualify for db-g11 tagging. Clearly inappropriate content created by non-genuine contributors should be tagged with db-u5. Pages that preserve material previously deleted, without an active attempt to address the reasons for deletion, if left live, may be deleted by tagging with db-g4. Less blatant cases are routinely deleted at WP:MfD.

Old unfinished draft articles
Unfinished userspace drafts may be ignored, moved to draft namespace or listed at WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption by other editors if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing.

Old drafting pages in the userspace of inactive users: ''Note: Redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable. Soft redirect is an alternative considered preferable by some.''
 * 1) If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace;
 * 2) if the draft is not problematic (e.g. no BLP, reliability, promotional issues) but not ready for mainspace, let it be;
 * 3) if of some potential but problematic, then blank during periods of inactivity using Userpage blanked;
 * 4) if the draft is an old copy from mainspace, consider nominating it for deletion;
 * 5) if an actual draft version of a copy-pasted article, redirect if it was copied by the sole contributor, otherwise request a history merge; and finally,
 * 6) if the draft has no potential and is problematic even if blanked, seek deletion.

User space drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone. Furthermore:
 * GNG does not apply to drafts.
 * User space drafts prevented from being moved to the main space only because of the GNG are not to be kept indefinitely.
 * Drafts deemed fit to be articles can be moved across namespaces or submitted for AfC without the author's explicit permission if and only if the draft creator is reasonably inactive.
 * Userspace drafts which do not meet article content standards should not be moved to mainspace in order to seek deletion.
 * In case a userspace draft was moved to mainspace but is found not fit to be in mainspace, it must be returned to the previous location in userspace.
 * Any editor who intends to improve old userspace drafts can move them provided the creator of said draft is "reasonably" inactive.

Non-free files
Do not include non-free files (copyrighted files lacking a free content license) on your user page or on any subpage thereof, per the non-free content policy. Non-free files found on user or user talk pages will be removed without warning and, if unused in a Wikipedia article, will be deleted entirely. Links to non-free files are acceptable—place a colon before the word "File" as in.

Images that would bring the project into disrepute
There is broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review. Context should be taken into account. Simple personal disclosures of a non-provocative nature (such as userboxes or statements about sexuality and relationship status) are unaffected.

Copyright violations
The same rules for copyright apply on userpages as in article space. Text must be either freely licensed or out of copyright; otherwise only a short quote can be used. If you use text from another source on your userpage, it should still be credited to the author, whether or not it is currently copyrighted.

Simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface
The Wikipedia community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes. Fake user talk notification banners that mislead readers into thinking they have new messages are also prohibited.

CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the MediaWiki interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable (other than by way of commenting out), or replacing the expected interface with a disruptive simulation, may be removed or remedied by any user. Inappropriate internal or external links that unexpectedly direct the reader to unreasonable locations or violate prohibitions on linking may also be removed or remedied by any user. Text, images, and non-disruptive formatting should be left as intact as possible. Users of such code should consider possible disruption to other skins, diffs, and old revisions.

Ownership and editing of user pages
Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier.

You can alter your user page with either Source editor or Visual Editor, but you can only edit user talk pages with Source Editor or the reply tool.

Bots and other users may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags. Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users. Most community policies including No personal attacks and Biographies of living persons will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere. (Purely content policies such as original research and neutral point of view generally do not apply unless the material is moved into mainspace.)

As with all other edits, user space contributions are irrevocably licensed for copying and reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License and GNU Free Documentation License.

Finally, a few specific notices and tags, if placed, may not be moved to a less visible subpage or deleted without discussion.

 Removal of comments, notices, and warnings
Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user and  of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters.

A number of important matters may be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:
 * Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block.
 * Miscellany for deletion tags for the user talk page itself (while the discussion is in progress).
 * Speedy deletion tags for the user talk page itself and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do just remove the tag).
 * For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses. Very old content on these pages may be removed.

Note: Restoring talk page notices, even if they should not be removed, is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule.

Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages
In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask.

If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. However, editors should not make such requests lightly, especially concerning their talk pages, as doing so can impede the ordinary communication which is important for the improvement and smooth running of the project. Also, a user cannot avoid administrator attention or notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to. Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or a similar kind of disruptive behavior. When in doubt, ask for help from another experienced editor or uninvolved administrator. See also Dispute resolution for tips on resolving disputes.

On your user pages
If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so—such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it.

Although other editors will aim to respect your user space, if corrective action is needed and not undertaken, the inappropriate content will eventually be removed, either by editing the page (if only part is inappropriate), by redirecting the page to your main user page (if entirely inappropriate), by community discussion at Miscellany for deletion, or possibly by the application of WP:CSD. Inappropriate content may be removed from any page in your user space, including your user talk page.

On others' user pages
The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable. In some cases a more experienced editor may make substantive edits to another user's user space, in which case that editor should leave a note explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons. If the user does not agree, or does not effectively remedy the concerns, or the matter is unsure or controversial, then other steps in this section can be taken including uninvolved user opinions or proposing the page for deletion.

If the material must be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, your edit appears unlikely to cause problems, and you are quite sure the material is inappropriate, then remove or fix the problem material minimally and leave a note explaining what you have done, why you have done so, and inviting the user to discuss if needed. If the entire page is inappropriate, consider it, or  the subpage to the userpage, or to the most relevant existing mainspace or project space page.

Unsuitable pages, media and images in userspace may also be nominated for deletion or (if appropriate) speedy deleted, but special care should be taken, as the user may be expecting leeway and take it personally, and there are a few exceptions. Users with a strong editing record and/or most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given a little more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits or promotional-style activity. See Deleting user pages below.

User pages and leaving Wikipedia
When a user leaves Wikipedia, their user and user talk pages are usually unaffected and may be edited again at any future time. Some users place the retired template on their user and talk page to let others know that they are away for an extended period or permanently. A user may blank their user and user talk pages (i.e. overwriting with a blank page) provided non-removable notices (if any) are left intact.

Courtesy vanishing
Wikipedia's community traditionally offers a courtesy vanishing to users who are.

Summary of key points: While some help can be given, it is possible for your edits to be removed entirely, and account deletion would potentially violate copyrights by allowing for inaccurate attribution and authorship claims. Certain important templates may need to be retained on user and user talk pages. Also, pages that may be of value to the wider community or whose deletion is opposed by other users might be undeleted during a deletion discussion. Pages remain licensed for reuse even after deletion, and may occasionally be cited or deemed to contain useful content. If a "vanished" user returns, old pages associated with them may be undeleted or unblanked, and could be linked to any new account they create and disclosed at RFA; if this would be a problem, consult ArbCom by email. Of course, the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind.

Users who have left Wikipedia may be added to Missing Wikipedians after a certain amount of time, usually one year without an edit.

Protection of user pages
As with article pages, user pages are occasionally the targets of vandalism, or, more rarely, edit wars. When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing.

Most user page vandalism occurs in retaliation for a contributor's efforts to deal with vandalism. Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate, and are permitted to edit protected pages in user space. Sometimes a non-administrator's user page may be targeted for vandalism. Some of this vandalism is prevented through a filter, as unregistered and unconfirmed editors are not permitted to modify other editors' primary user pages.

In cases in which the filter is insufficient in preventing vandalism to a non-administrator's user page, an editor may create a .css suffixed sub-page containing their user page content within their user space, transclude the sub-page into their main user page, then request that an administrator fully protect their user page. (For instance, create User:Example User as .) This method will completely prevent further vandalism by limiting user page editing to yourself, and interface administrators, since ".js" and ".css" pages in userspace can only be edited by them. Note that the addition of inappropriate content to your user page after locking other editors out is considered a serious offense.

Repeatedly inserting copyrighted content or other inappropriate material on your own user pages after being notified not to do so, or misusing user space following a block (e.g., for personal attacks or tendentious editing) are both considered disruptive and may lead to the pages being protected to prevent further disruption. User pages may also routinely be protected in the event of a ban.

Vandalism of talk pages is less common. Usually such vandalism should merely be reverted. Blocks should be used for repeated vandalism of talk pages, where policy permits. In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project.

Deletion of user pages

 * If you wish to delete your own page, tag the top of the page with db-u1, and an administrator will delete it for you. However, note that user talk pages are normally not deleted.

Deleting others' user pages
In general, other users' user pages are managed by that user. Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion (see above). However, unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted using a suitable template, such as db-attack, db-copyvio or db-spamuser; other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion.

Take special care to speak appropriately and explain the concern; many users will take it as a personal affront or attack if an unknown user announces they are going to delete a userspace image or page, and an uncivil or heavy duty approach can discourage new users who are unaware of expectations and might enjoy contributing. Remember that a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed tasteful personal photograph or two are usually allowed if the page reasonably complies with other requirements.

Use of a user page as a personal web page unconnected with Wikipedia's mission may be a speedy deletion criterion, as is clear advertising and promotional use. A user's contributions that consist solely of a lone edit to their user page should not normally be speedy deleted unless it consists solely of spam or other speedy deletable material. Test edits and the re-creation of deleted material (within limits) are permitted in user space.

Deleting your user page or subpages
You can request the deletion of your user page or subpages, by adding db-user to the top of the page. User space pages tagged for deletion will be deleted if there is no overriding reason the page must be kept. For reasons explained in, your talk page and user talk archives created by page move may not be deleted in this way.

Pages which were moved into your user space from somewhere else may also not be deleted upon your request: These must be listed at Articles for deletion if they originated as articles, or Miscellany for deletion for anything else. If you want to move such pages back to where they came from but are unable to complete the move for technical reasons, you can request technical help at Requested moves/Technical requests.

You can also blank any pages in your user space (other than the few items that must not be removed). Note that blanking one of your user pages is not interpreted as a request to delete that page—see the G7 speedy deletion criterion. If you want it deleted, use db-user. While blanking your talk page is generally allowed, there may be specific circumstances that disallow you from exactly blanking it, i.e. you may only remove some but not all of the content—see for content which may not be removed.

Alternatively, you might consider simply making the page redirect to your user page or your talk page. This is normally sufficient for most people's needs. Note that while you may redirect your user page and its subpages to your talk page, you may not redirect your talk page to another page in your user space.

Deletion of user talk pages
User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users. Individual revisions, log entries, and other user space material may be deleted or redacted for privacy reasons or because of harassment, threats, gross offensiveness, and other serious violations. Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason. In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libelous information posted to a user talk page may be removed as described above.

User special pages
The Special namespace contains many personal pages generated by software on demand. The virtual content of some special pages depends on preferences that have been set by the user, e.g. classic or enhanced Recent Changes, the number of titles in Recent Changes and the watchlist, etc.
 * Special:UserLogin (Log in): to log in to Wikipedia. Special:UserLogin/signup (Create account) to create an account. See Help:Logging in.
 * Special:UserLogout (Log out): to log out of your account.
 * Special:CentralLogin (Central user log in)
 * Special:ChangePassword, Special:ChangeEmail (Change or remove email address), Special:ConfirmEmail (Confirm email address) and Special:ResetTokens
 * Special:Preferences: allows you to view and modify your personal settings. See Help:Preferences.
 * Special:Contributions (User contributions)
 * Special:MyContributions: links to your contributions page. See Help:User contributions.
 * Special:MyUploads (File list): lists files you have uploaded.
 * Special:MyPage: links to your user page.
 * Special:Notifications: links to your notifications page
 * Special:MyTalk: links to your user talk page.
 * Special:Watchlist: shows recent changes to the pages you are watching. See Help:Watching pages.
 * Special:EditWatchlist and Special:EditWatchlist/raw: To edit your watchlist.
 * Special:MergeAccount (Login unification status): to create a unified account to log on to any Wikimedia project. See Help:Unified login.

User page search
By default, Wikipedia's search engine is restricted to the Article namespace. Typing the project page prefix  (User followed by a colon) will provide search results for the "User namespace". You can also use the Special:Search box below to locate User pages. See Help:Searching for more information.

Templates

 * For user pages:
 * User info
 * User page
 * Userpageblue%26round, i.e., Userpageblue&round
 * User page mini
 * Userpage bar for not mentioning a mirror
 * For user talk pages:
 * User info talk
 * Usertalk bar for not mentioning a mirror
 * For drafts in the user namespace:
 * Userspace draft

title: Wikipedia:User pages


text:
The Hacker

Michel Amato, better known by his stage name The Hacker, is a French electroclash and techno producer who has worked extensively with Miss Kittin. His work has been influenced by electronic artists like Kraftwerk, new wave artists such as the Cure and Depeche Mode, as well as the French rave scene of the early 1990s. His artist name comes from the Jeff Mills track of the same name.

Career
The Hacker started making music in 1989 at the age of 17 in Grenoble, France. At the time, Duran Duran was an early influence, but he later discovered the darker side of electro through electronic body music groups like Cabaret Voltaire and D.A.F. In 1993, The Hacker took on the hardcore side of electro and released a few 12”s with Benoit Bollini under the name XMF.

In 1995, he made his own music in classic Detroit styled after Jeff Mills. His first tracks were released on the Ozone and Interface labels. Three years later, The Hacker founded his own label, Goodlife Records (named from a classic track from Inner City), with his friends Oxia and Alex Reynaud. However, he also released tracks on other labels such as "A Strange Day" on UMF and "Method of Force" on Sativae. His debut album Mélodies En Sous-Sol (spring 2000) echoes New Order and Dopplereffekt.

In the mid-1990s, The Hacker began producing electro-pop with his friend, Caroline Hervé (aka Miss Kittin). DJ Hell loved their first track "Gratin Dauphinois" and signed them to his new label International DJ Gigolo in 1997. In Germany, their success was immediate owing to the releases of the EPs Champagne in 1998 and Intimités in 1999. The Champagne EP included the tracks "1982" and "Frank Sinatra", which immediately became anthems of the electroclash scene. After the release of their First Album in 2001 they became popular worldwide. The Hacker is also sought-after as a producer, and has done remixes for Marc Almond, Fischerspooner, Air, and Nitzer Ebb.

In 2002, after their U.S. tour, The Hacker and Miss Kittin decided to take a break from their collaborative projects. The Hacker took this opportunity to produce many new tracks released on vinyl, such as "The Beach" on Mental Groove and "Dance Industria" on Tiga's label Turbo. He collaborated with Kiko, Alexander Robotnick, millimetric and David Carretta, touring all over the globe as a DJ and started work on his next album.

The Hacker released his second album, Rêves Mécaniques in 2004. It became his first album to chart on the French Albums Chart, peaking at #130 and spending a total of four weeks on the chart.

In 2007, he rejoined with Miss Kittin to release the double A-side "Hometown"/"Dimanche". To celebrate his tenth anniversary as a recording artist, The Hacker released the CD/DVD set X in 2008. The compilation contains live recordings, singles and some new studio tracks.

Miss Kittin & The Hacker reunited as a duo in 2008, after a short tour of European clubs at the end of 2007, and the Hometown EP was released in June that year. Further touring followed throughout America and around the world in 2008, before they both started recording new songs, some of which were performed whilst touring. In March 2009, they released their second album Two, 8 years after their first and only full LP as a duo. The first single "1000 Dreams" was also released in March, alongside a new club single "PPPO - People Pleasure Power Objects", both taken from the new album. The reformed duo embarked on a new European tour all summer in 2008, kicking off in France in early April.

Albums

 * Champagne (with Miss Kittin) (1998)
 * Intimités (with Miss Kittin) (1999)
 * Mélodies en sous-sol (1999)
 * First Album (with Miss Kittin) (2001)
 * Rêves Mécaniques (2004) #130 FRA
 * Two (with Miss Kittin) (2009) #102 FRA

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: The Hacker


text:
Talk:Vaccine

Definition of a vaccine
Article states "A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease." which is correct depending on the source. However many organisations and professionals use the CDC or Merriam-Webster definition, so a brief summary of their changes to the definition could be a good addition.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.iflscience.com/fact-check-why-did-the-cdc-change-its-definition-of-vaccination-62577 Sarka9000 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Both those organisations are from the one country. This is a global encyclopaedia. Why should they influence what we say? HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because many countries and professionals in them also use those definitions, at least in the EU. So not only one country. This is not to say I agree with that definition, but that it is used a lot today. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Here in Australia we don't use the CDC definitions for things, and we have our own dictionary. Anything we add would need to somehow demonstrate that the Americans definitions are used extensively outside that country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples:
 * Macmillan dictionary has British definition "a substance put into the body, usually by injection, in order to provide protection against a disease".
 * https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/vaccine
 * Australian government defines vaccine as "A product often made from extracts of killed viruses or bacteria, or from live, weakened strains of viruses or bacteria. A vaccine can stimulate an immune response that protects against natural infection."
 * https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/technical-terms
 * Up till 2021, Finnish THL defined it as "a preparation that stimulates the immune system to produce immunity to a specific infectious disease, providing protection against the disease." but now it is defined as "an effective and safe way to combat infectious diseases. A vaccine provides protection to the vaccinated person and also indirectly to other people by reducing the spread of pathogens in the population."
 * https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/information-about-vaccinations/why-are-vaccinations-needed-
 * You can see how vaccines by todays definition do not provide immunity, but protection against infection. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing as our article links to acquired immunity, which is still what the COVID vaccine provides, I see no reason to change our definition. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the differences in definition should be discussed. Even the experts seem to somewhat disagree about whether you should be talking about immunity or just protection. The traditional definition gives the impression of almost perfect resistance to disease, while the new one may include less potent inoculations.
 * Also this article isn't about Covid, it's about vaccines. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm open to a suggestion for wording in the body text. But otherwise I'm not sure what we're arguing over. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could something like this work:
 * Traditionally a vaccine has been defined in literature as a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease.[1] Since 2021, many organisations have adopted a wider definition of a vaccine. These newer definitions try to dispel the misconception that vaccines always give almost perfect resistance to disease replacing wording regarding immunity as producing some level of protection against a disease or infection. In some cases, vaccines are also said to give indirect protection to other people by reducing the spread of pathogens in the population. Both definitions are still in use depending on the country or organisation.
 * The safety and effectiveness of vaccines has been widely studied and verified. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate. Forty years ago, my toddler daughter caught measles after having been vaccinated against it as a baby. The doctor explained to us then that the vaccine did not provide total protection, but significantly reduced symptoms. The 2021 date is simply wrong. And I'm not convinced that it's accurate today to say "often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe". My impression is that most are not. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe change that a bit then, "originally vaccines were made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, but today other technologies are more common"?
 * The comment about the protection level is from that earlier source regarding the changes made to the definition. Of course there must have been some doctors and people who have known they are not 100%, but it is a common misunderstanding that vaccines were 100%. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an article about vaccines, not common misunderstandings about vaccines. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So it is OK in a global encyclopaedia that we present a definition from Iowa, but not the definition used by CDC and a bunch of other organisations & countries and do not explain it in any way? 91.156.95.220 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's not OK that we present a definition from Iowa. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, so how about this:
 * Traditionally a vaccine has been defined in literature as a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease.[1] Since 2021, many organisations have adopted a wider definition of a vaccine. These newer definitions try to dispel the misconception that vaccines always give almost perfect resistance to disease by replacing wording regarding immunity as producing some level of protection against a disease or infection. In some cases, vaccines are also said to give indirect protection to other people by reducing the spread of pathogens in the population. Both definitions are still in use depending on the country or organisation.
 * The safety and effectiveness of vaccines has been widely studied and verified. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and was originally made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins but today other technologies are more common. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future. 91.156.95.220 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that, at least in the US, medical literature described the “action” of a vaccine as a solution introduced into the body and the body responding to “that solution.” It wasn’t until SARS-CoV-2 emerged that it changed. And millions received mRNA-based solutions before agencies under Health and Human Services changed the definition of vaccine/inoculation to include gene-based therapies.
 * I know this because I was a vocal opponent to mRNA shots being called a vaccine before the change, precisely because the body is not reacting to the solution but to what the cells at the injection site are instructed to produce. A new step had been introduced in the process! Until the body’s cells follow the mRNA instructions and begin making the virus spike protein, no antibodies are produced.
 * This is a vastly different sequence of events from traditional vaccines in which antibodies are produced against the contents of the shot. ChloeMS (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your cells are part of your body. If they do something different as a result of the solution being administered, the definition is still accurate. Your activism doesn't change the definition. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Overall this seems like a change in search of a reason. I think the current article wording is excellent, and doesn't need further complication. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's reason enough that it isn't accurate 91.156.95.220 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Which part is not accurate? 22:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023
I want to modify the following sentence: "A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins."

I have three changes to this sentence:

1. change the word "an agent" to "a substance". 2. add phrase "or its components" after the word "microorganism" 3. include polysaccharide vaccines.

So the new sentence will read as "A vaccine typically contains a substance that resembles a disease-causing microorganism or its components and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, one or more of its surface proteins or polysaccharides"

See this web page for importance of polysaccharide vaccines. https://www.immunize.org/askexperts/experts_pneumococcal_vaccines.asp Bondsubb (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please provide a better reliable source.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  07:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023 (2)
Add the following citation after the first sentence. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm Bondsubb (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  07:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

History section
Can the following (naturally without the nowiki formatting) be added to the top of the History section on this article?

It would look like this:

I think this would be useful to tie-in the Vaccine section into these related section in other pertinent articles, especially since we don't have a standalone article about the "History of Vaccines" nor "History of Vaccination". -- 97.124.47.226 (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lightoil (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023
Add the citation below to this section: Interactions When two or more vaccines are mixed in the same formulation, the two vaccines can interfere. This most frequently occurs with live attenuated vaccines, where one of the vaccine components is more robust than the others and suppresses the growth and immune response to the other components. Gizurarson S. Clinically relevant vaccine-vaccine interactions: a guide for practitioners. BioDrugs. 1998 Jun;9(6):443-53. doi: 10.2165/00063030-199809060-00002. PMID: 18020577. Karenjuliechristine (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

✅ PianoDan (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2024
In the "History" section there's mention of waiting for a malaria vaccine, however, 2 have been authorized by the WHO:

https://ir.novavax.com/press-releases/R21-Matrix-M-TM-Malaria-Vaccine-with-Novavaxs-Adjuvant-Technology-Receives-WHO-Recommendation

https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/who-grants-prequalification-to-gsk-s-mosquirix-the-first-and-only-approved-malaria-vaccine/ Roybucks (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vaccine


text:
Automatic rifle

An automatic rifle is a type of autoloading rifle that is capable of fully automatic fire. Automatic rifles are generally select-fire weapons capable of firing in semi-automatic and automatic firing modes (some automatic rifles are capable of burst-fire as well). Automatic rifles are distinguished from semi-automatic rifles in their ability to fire more than one shot in succession once the trigger is pulled. Most automatic rifles are further subcategorized as battle rifles or assault rifles.

Maxim
In June 1883 Hiram Maxim filed his first patent to do with automatic firearms covering semi-automatic and fully automatic Winchester and Martini-Henry rifles as well as an original automatic rifle and blowback- and recoil-operated machine guns, both single and multi-barrelled.

Mannlicher
In 1885 Ferdinand Mannlicher made an experimental self-loader based on work begun in 1883 in both semi-automatic and fully automatic modes. It was an impractical failure due to fouling by its black powder ammunition, but it influenced later designs. Furthermore, Mannlicher produced smokeless powder automatic rifles from the early 1890s onwards until his death in 1904.

Cei-Rigotti
One of the world's first automatic rifles was the Italian Cei-Rigotti. This rifle started out as an 1891 gas-operated conversion of the Vetterli rifle, which received positive approval and was even adopted after further refinements in 1895 for the Royal Italian Navy, but although up to 2000 rifles were ordered, the order never came through for as yet unknown reasons. Another version of the Cei-Rigotti was presented in 1900, these 6.5mm Carcano or 7.65×53mm gas-operated, selective-fire carbines attracted considerable attention at the time. They used 10-, 20- and 50-round box magazines. The Cei-Rigotti had several failings, including frequent jams and erratic shooting. In the end, no Army took an interest in the design and the rifle was abandoned before it could be further developed. Although the rifle was never officially adopted by any military, aside from the 1895 variant which never came through, it was tested extensively by the Italian Army during the lead-up to the First World War.

Chauchat

The Chauchat, designed in 1907, was one of the first automatic rifles to be adopted by a military. Its official design was the Fusil Mitrailleur Modele 1915 CSRG. It was placed into French Infantry in 1916, and was used by the French army in the First World War. The Chauchat in 8mm Lebel was also extensively used in 1917–18 by the American Expeditionary Forces (A.E.F.), where it was officially designated as the "Automatic Rifle, Model 1915 (Chauchat)".

Lewis Gun
The Lewis Gun was invented in 1911 by Isaac Newton Lewis and first mass-produced in Belgium in 1913 for the .303 British cartridge, and widely used by the British army in the First World War, both by infantry and fitted to aircraft. Pan magazines are secured above the breech, holding either 47 or 97 rounds. Cooling fins surround the barrel. The weapon is gas operated and fires automatically at 500-600 rounds per minute.

More than 50,000 Lewis guns were produced during WW1, becoming the most common automatic weapon used by British and American troops. Although superseded by the Bren gun by 1939, nearly 60,000 Lewis guns were refurbished and reissued to British forces after the Dunkirk evacuation of 1940.

Fedorov Avtomat
The Fedorov Avtomat (also anglicized as Federov, Russian: Автомат Фёдорова) or FA was a select-fire, crew-served automatic rifle and was one of the first practical automatic rifles, designed by Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov in 1915 and produced in the Russian Empire and later in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. A total of 3,200 Fedorov rifles were manufactured between 1915 and 1924 in the city of Kovrov; the vast majority of them were made after 1920. The weapon saw limited combat in World War I, but was used more substantially in the Russian Civil War and in the Winter War. In 1916, the Weapons Committee of the Russian Army made a decision to order no less than 25,000 Fedorov automatic rifles. In the summer of 1916, a company from the 189th Izmail Regiment was equipped with 8 Fedorov Avtomats. Trained in tactics with the new weapon, they concluded that the Fedorov worked best as a crew served weapon. The gunner armed with the Fedorov and an ammo bearer armed with an Arisaka rifle. As both weapons used the same ammo and same 5 round stripper clips, this allowed for the greatest flexibility. It also allowed for the ammo bearer to fire defensively, while the gunner reloaded. It was also recommended that the primary mode of fire be in semi-automatic, as the Fedorov's would rapidly overheat in full-auto. Some consider it to be an "early predecessor" or "ancestor" to the modern assault rifle,  while others believe that the Fedorov Avtomat was the world's first assault rifle.

Browning Automatic Rifle
The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was one of the first practical automatic rifles. The BAR made its successful combat debut in World War I, and approximately 50,000 were made before the war came to an end. The BAR arose from the concept of "walking fire", an idea urged upon the Americans by the French who used the Chauchat light machine gun to fulfill that role. The BAR never entirely lived up to the designer's hopes; being neither a rifle nor a machinegun. "For its day, though, it was a brilliant design produced in record time by John Browning, and it was bought and used by many countries around the world. It was the standard squad light automatic of the U.S. infantry during World War II and saw use in every theater of war." The BAR was praised for its reliability and stopping power. "The US forces abandoned the BAR in the middle 1950s, though it was retained in reserve stocks for several years; it survived in smaller countries until the late 1970s."

AVS-36
The AVS-36 (from Avtomaticheskaya Vintovka Simonova 1936 model; (АВС-36)) was a Soviet automatic rifle which saw service in the early years of World War II. It was among the early selective fire infantry rifles (capable of both single and full-automatic fire) formally adopted for military service. The designer, Sergei Simonov, began his work with a gas-operated self-loading rifle in 1930. The first prototype was ready in 1931 and appeared promising, and three years later a trial batch of an improved design was made. In 1935, a competition between Simonov's design and a rifle made by Fedor Tokarev was held. The Simonov rifle emerged as a winner and was accepted into service as the AVS-36. The AVS-36 was first seen in public in the 1938 May Day parade in Moscow, when it was displayed by the marching 1st Rifle Division. The American public became aware when it was covered in an August 1942 issue of the American Infantry Journal, in an article by John Garrett Underhill Jr. Simonov would later design an anti-tank rifle, the PTRS-41, and the SKS carbine, which employed simpler tilting bolt operation.

FG 42
The FG 42 is a selective fire automatic rifle or battle rifle  produced in Germany during World War II. The weapon was developed specifically for the use of the Fallschirmjäger airborne infantry in 1942 and was used in limited numbers until the end of the war. It served as a squad automatic rifle in much the same role as the Browning BAR. It combined the firepower of a light machine gun in a lightweight package no larger than the standard-issue Kar 98k bolt-action rifle. It was considered one of the most advanced weapon designs of World War II. The FG 42 influenced post-war small arms development and most of its design was copied by the US Army when they developed the M60 machine gun.

Sturmgewehr 44
The Germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept, during World War II, based upon research that showed that most firefights happen within 400 meters and that contemporary rifles were over-powered for most small arms combat. The Germans sought to develop a select-fire intermediate powered rifle combining the firepower of a submachine gun with the accuracy and range of a rifle. This was done by shortening the standard 7.92×57mm cartridge to 7.92×33mm and giving it a lighter 125-grain bullet, that limited range but allowed for more controllable automatic fire. The result was the Sturmgewehr 44.

AK-47
Like the Germans, the Soviets were influenced by experience showing most combat happens within 400 meters and that their soldiers were consistently outgunned by heavily armed German troops, especially those armed with the Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifles. The Soviets were so impressed with the Sturmgewehr 44, that after World War II, they held a design competition to develop an assault rifle of their own. The winner was the AK-47. It was finalized, adopted and entered widespread service in the Soviet army in the early 1950s. Its firepower, ease of use, low production costs, and reliability was perfectly suited for the Red Army's new mobile warfare doctrines. The AK-47 was widely supplied or sold to nations allied with the USSR and the blueprints were shared with several friendly nations (the People's Republic of China standing out among these with the Type 56). The AK-47 and AKM type rifles are the most produced firearms in history.

M14 rifle (battle rifle)

The U.S. Army was influenced by combat experience with semi-automatic weapons such as the M1 Garand and M1 carbine, which enjoyed a significant advantage over enemies armed primarily with bolt-action rifles. Although U.S. Army studies of World War II combat accounts had very similar results to that of the Germans and Soviets, the U.S. Army maintained its traditional views and preference for high-powered semi-automatic rifles.

After World War II, the United States military started looking for a single automatic rifle to replace the M1 Garand, M1/M2 Carbines, M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, M3 "Grease Gun" and Thompson submachine gun. However, early experiments with select-fire versions of the M1 Garand proved disappointing. During the Korean War, the select-fire M2 Carbine largely replaced submachine guns in US service. However, combat experience suggested that the .30 Carbine round was underpowered. American weapons designers reached the same conclusion as the Germans and Soviets: an intermediate round was necessary, and recommended a small caliber, high velocity-cartridge. However, senior American commanders, having faced fanatical enemies and experienced major logistical problems during World War II and the Korean War,    insisted that a single powerful .30 caliber cartridge be developed, that could not only be used by the new automatic rifle, but by the new general purpose machine gun (GPMG) in concurrent development. This culminated in the development of the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge and the M14 rifle which was basically an improved select-fire M1 Garand with a 20-round magazine. The U.S. also adopted the M60 GPMG. Its NATO partners adopted the FN FAL and HK G3 rifles, as well as the FN MAG and Rheinmetall MG3 GPMGs.

FN FAL
The FN FAL is a 7.62×51mm NATO, selective fire, automatic rifle produced by the Belgian armaments manufacturer Fabrique Nationale de Herstal (FN). During the Cold War, it was adopted by many North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, most notably with the British Commonwealth as the L1A1. It is one of the most widely used rifles in history, having been used by more than 90 countries. The FAL was predominantly chambered for the 7.62mm NATO round, and because of its prevalence and widespread use among the armed forces of many western nations during the Cold War it was nicknamed "The right arm of the Free World".

H&K G3
The H&K G3 is a 7.62×51mm NATO, selective fire, automatic rifle produced by the German armament manufacturer Heckler & Koch GmbH (H&K) in collaboration with the Spanish state-owned design and development agency CETME (Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales). The rifle proved successful in the export market, being adopted by the armed forces of over 60 countries. After World War II, German technicians involved in developing the Sturmgewehr 45, continued their research in France at CEAM. The StG45 mechanism was modified by Ludwig Vorgrimler and Theodor Löffler at the Mulhouse facility between 1946 and 1949. Vorgrimler later went to work at CETME in Spain and developed the line of CETME automatic rifles based on his improved Stg45 design. Germany eventually purchased the license for the CETME design and manufactured the Heckler & Koch G3 as well as an entire line of weapons built on the same system, one of the most famous being the MP5 SMG.

M16 rifle
The first confrontations between the AK-47 and the M14 (assault rifle vs battle rifle) came in the early part of the Vietnam War. Battlefield reports indicated that the M14 was uncontrollable in automatic mode and that soldiers could not carry enough ammo to maintain fire superiority over the AK-47. A replacement was needed: A medium between the traditional preference for high-powered rifles such as the M14, and the lightweight firepower of the M2 Carbine.

As a result, the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lbs (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine. The 5.56mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge.

This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the ArmaLite AR-10, called ArmaLite AR-15 rifle. However, despite overwhelming evidence that the AR-15 could bring more firepower to bear than the M14, the Army opposed the adoption of the new rifle. In January 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that the AR-15 was the superior weapon system and ordered a halt to M14 production. At the time, the AR-15 was the only rifle available that could fulfill the requirement of a universal infantry weapon for issue to all services. After modifications (Most notably: the charging handle was re-located from under the carrying handle like AR-10 to the rear of the receiver), the new redesigned rifle was subsequently adopted as the M16.

The M16 entered U.S. service in the mid-1960s and was much lighter than the M14 it replaced, allowing soldiers to carry more ammunition. Despite its early failures, the M16 proved to be a revolutionary design and stands as the longest continuously serving rifle in American military history. It is a benchmark against which other assault rifles are judged, and used by 15 NATO countries, and more than 80 countries worldwide

HK33
During the 1960s, other countries would follow the Americans lead and begin to develop 5.56×45mm assault rifles, most notably Germany with the Heckler & Koch HK33. The HK33 was essentially a smaller 5.56mm version of the 7.62×51mm Heckler & Koch G3 rifle. As one of the first 5.56mm assault rifles on the market, it would go on to become one of the most widely distributed assault rifles. The HK33 featured a modular design with a wide range of accessories (telescoping butt-stocks, optics, bipods, etc.) that could be easily removed and arranged in a various configurations.

5.56mm NATO
The adoption of the M16, the H&K33, and the 5.56×45mm cartridge inspired an international trend towards relatively small-sized, lightweight, high-velocity military service cartridges that allow a soldier to carry more ammunition for the same weight compared to the larger and heavier 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge. The 5.56mm cartridge is also much easier to shoot. In 1961 marksmanship testing, the U.S. Army found that 43% of ArmaLite AR-15 shooters achieved Expert, while only 22% of M-14 rifle shooters did so. Also, a lower recoil impulse allows for more controllable automatic weapons fire.

Therefore, in March 1970, the U.S. recommended that all NATO forces adopt the 5.56×45mm cartridge. This shift represented a change in the philosophy of the military's long-held position about caliber size. By the middle of the 1970s, other armies were looking at assault rifle type weapons. A NATO standardization effort soon started and tests of various rounds were carried out starting in 1977. The U.S. offered the 5.56×45mm M193 round, but there were concerns about its penetration in the face of the wider introduction of body armor. In the end, the Belgian 5.56×45mm SS109 round was chosen (STANAG 4172) in October 1980. The SS109 round was based on the U.S. cartridge but included a new stronger, heavier, 62 grain bullet design, with better long range performance and improved penetration (specifically, to consistently penetrate the side of a steel helmet at 600 meters).

During the 1970s, the USSR developed the AK-74 and the 5.45×39mm cartridge, which has similar physical characteristics to the U.S. 5.56×45mm cartridge. Also during the 1970s, Finland, Israel, South Africa and Sweden introduced AK type rifles in 5.56×45mm. During the 1990s, the Russians developed the AK-101 in 5.56×45mm NATO for the world export market. In addition, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and former countries of Yugoslavia have also rechambered their locally produced assault rifle variants to 5.56mm NATO. The adoption the 5.56mm NATO and 5.45×39mm cemented the worldwide trend toward small caliber, high-velocity cartridges.

Steyr AUG (bullpup rifle)
In 1977, Austria introduced the 5.56×45mm Steyr AUG bullpup rifle, often cited as the first successful bullpup rifle,  finding service with the armed forces of over twenty countries. It was highly advanced for the 1970s, combining in the same weapon the bullpup configuration, a polymer housing, dual vertical grips, an optical sight as standard, and a modular design. Highly reliable, light, and accurate, the Steyr AUG showed clearly the potential of the bullpup layout. In 1978, France introduced the 5.56×45mm FAMAS bullpup rifle. In 1985, the British introduced the 5.56×45mm L85 bullpup rifle. In the late 1990s, Israel introduced the Tavor TAR-21 and China's People's Liberation Army's adopted QBZ-95. By the turn of the century, the bullpup design had achieved world-wide acceptance.

title: Automatic rifle


text:
User talk:AndreasB

Hello Andreas B., welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for all your contributions. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~

Noldoaran 04:17, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

--- Whats IMHO? Greyengine5 19:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi - you might want to check out WikiProject Aircraft and take a look at the naming conventions. German aircraft of the Nazi era are linked as "Name Na 123". Cheers, --Rlandmann 02:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:AndreasB


text:
Keio Corporation

Keio Corporation (京王電鉄株式会社) is a private railway operator in Tokyo, Japan and the central firm of the Keio Group (京王グループ) that is involved in transport, retail, real estate and other industries. The Keio railway network connects western suburbs of Tokyo (Chōfu, Fuchū, Hachiōji, Hino, Inagi, Tama) and Sagamihara in Kanagawa with central Tokyo at Shinjuku Station.

The name 'Keio' (京王) is derived from taking one character each from the places through which the railway runs: Tokyo (東京) and Hachiōji (八王子).

Lines
The Keio network is based around the central Keiō Line, 37.9 km, 32 stations.

The Keio Inokashira Line does not share track with the Keio Main Line. It intersects with the Keio Line at Meidaimae Station.

History
The company's earliest predecessor was the Nippon Electric Railway (日本電気鉄道) founded in 1905. In 1906 the company was reorganized as the Musashi Electric Railway (武蔵電気鉄道), and in 1910 was renamed yet again to Keio Electric Tramway (京王電気軌道). It began operating its first stretch of interurban between Sasazuka and Chōfu in 1913. By 1923, Keiō had completed its main railway line (now the Keiō Line) between Shinjuku and Hachiōji. Track along the Fuchū – Hachiōji section was originally laid in 1,067 mm gauge by the Gyokunan Electric Railway (玉南電気鉄道); it was later changed to match the rest of the line's 1,372 mm gauge.

The Inokashira Line began operating in 1933 as a completely separate company, Teito Electric Railway (帝都電鉄). This company had also planned to link Ōimachi with Suzaki (now Kōtō ward), though this never materialized. In 1940, Teito merged with the Odakyu Electric Railway, and in 1942 the combined companies were merged by government order into Tōkyō Kyūkō Dentetsu (東京急行電鉄) (now Tokyu Corporation). In 1947, the shareholders of Tokyu voted to spin off the Keio and Inokashira lines into a new company, Keiō Teito Electric Railway (京王帝都電鉄). The Teito name was dropped in 1998 in favor of Keio Electric Railway (京王電鉄), though "KTR" placards and insignia can still be seen occasionally. The company's English name was changed to Keio Corporation on June 29, 2005.

Priority seats
Keiō was among the first railway companies to introduce priority seats on its trains. Priority seats are those reserved for the physically handicapped, elderly, pregnant women, and people with infants. These special seats, which were initially called "Silver seats" but renamed in 1993, were inaugurated on Respect for the Aged Day on September 15, 1973.

Rolling stock
All Keio trains have longitudinal (commuter-style) seating.

gauge lines

 * 7000 series (since 1984)
 * 8000 series (since 1992)
 * 9000 series (since 2001)
 * 5000 series (2nd generation) (since 2017)

The first of a fleet of five new ten-car 5000 series EMUs was introduced on 29 September 2017, ahead of the start of new evening reserved-seat commuter services from Shinjuku in spring 2018.

gauge lines

 * 1000 series (2nd generation) (since 1996)

gauge lines

 * 5000 series (from 1963 until 1996)
 * 6000 series (from 1972 until 2011)

gauge lines

 * 1000 series (from 1957 until 1984)
 * 3000 series (from 1962 until 2011)

Transport

 * Mitake Tozan Railway
 * Keio Dentetsu Bus
 * Nishi Tokyo Bus

Retail

 * Keio Department Store
 * Keio Store

Other

 * Keio Realty and Development
 * Keio Travel Agency
 * Keio Plaza Hotel
 * Keio Construction

title: Keio Corporation


text:
Blaine Act

The Blaine Act, formally titled Joint Resolution Proposing the Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is a joint resolution adopted by the United States Congress on February 20, 1933, initiating repeal of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States. Repeal was finalized when the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was ratified by the required minimum number of states on December 5, 1933.

Initial activity in the 72nd Congress
The Volstead Act implemented the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). The act defined "intoxicating beverage" as one with 0.5 percent alcohol by weight. Numerous problems with enforcement and a desire to create jobs and raise tax revenue by legalizing beer, wine, and liquor led a majority of voters and members of Congress to turn against Prohibition by late 1932.

Political situation
When the first legislative session of the 72nd United States Congress opened on December 7, 1931, more than two dozen bills were offered amending the Volstead Act or repealing the 18th Amendment altogether. Republicans, who controlled both houses in the previous Congress, had previously been united in their support for Prohibition and, with the support of "dry" (pro-Prohibition) Democrats, easily garnered more than the two-thirds majority needed to block any vote on even the slightest easing of the Volstead Act. Now, however, 64 "wet" Republicans formed a caucus in the House of Representatives to work with Democrats (who had a slim majority after winning a number of special elections) to seek modification or repeal. The Democrats also changed the rules of the House, adopting a discharge petition procedure which would force a bill to the floor for a vote if 145 members requested it.

Legislative activity initially focused on the Senate. Among the bills filed at the start of the session was one by Senator Hiram Bingham III (R-Conn.), which amended the Volstead Act to permit the manufacture of beer which was 4 percent alcohol by weight. His bill would not have modified the 18th Amendment. Republican "wets" were able to win a minor victory on December 23, 1931, when they secured an agreement establishing a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee which would hold hearings regarding modification of the Volstead Act and repeal of the 18th Amendment. Senator John J. Blaine (R-Wisc.), a leader of the Senate's Republican "wets", was named subcommittee chair. Although the five-member subcommittee had a three-member "dry" majority, "wets" only wanted to use the subcommittee to lay the groundwork for a vote (at some indeterminate future) on a Prohibition bill (of some undetermined type). "Wets" won another victory a few days later when the Senate Committee on Manufactures agreed to hold hearings on Bingham's 4 percent beer bill.

These small victories emboldened "wet" forces. On December 26, Senator Bingham submitted legislation to repeal the 18th Amendment. Three-fourths of the state legislatures were required to approve any amendment, and Bingham believed that too many legislatures still supported Prohibition. Bingham's bill therefore proposed submitting the amendment to the public via a national referendum or ratification by conventions specially elected by voters in each state. In the House, where "wet" forces were in somewhat disarray, Majority Leader Henry T. Rainey (D-Ill.) (a "dry" himself) tried to block legislation by telling "wets" that they would have a single opportunity for a vote. It didn't matter if the bill was modification or repeal, he said. In response, a bipartisan caucus of "wets" decided to submit a plan to modify the 18th Amendment according to the recommendations issued in 1931 by the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (the Wickersham Commission), a panel established by President Herbert Hoover to study law enforcement problems under Prohibition.

In the first direct vote on the issue since Prohibition began, the Senate rejected the Bingham repeal resolution, 55 to 15, on January 21, 1932. "Drys" hailed the vote as symbolic of the weakness of the repeal forces.

Wavering support for changing Prohibition
"Wets" in Congress perceived that support for Prohibition was waning. A week after the defeat of the Bingham repeal proposal, House "wets" began drafting legislation to amend the Volstead Act to permit the manufacture of beer once more. Their goal was to force a vote before the session of Congress ended in July 1932. With only 34 "wet" votes in the Senate and 190 in the House, repeal lobbyists believed no action could be taken until after the November 1932 elections.

Congressional "wets" received a major boost on February 20 when a leading Democratic candidate for president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, announced he supported repeal of the 18th Amendment as a means of generating tax revenues for the federal government and states. Roosevelt's support for repeal boosted "wet" support in the House. On February 16, the House Judiciary Committee had voted 14-to-9 against the Beck-Linthicum resolution, which would have asked state legislatures to reaffirm or repeal the 18th Amendment. House "wets" then shocked political leaders in both sides on February 25 by obtaining 110 signatures on a discharge petition for the Beck-Linthicum resolution. The "wets" secured the required 145 signatures for discharge on March 1. The Beck-Linthicum resolution received 187 votes, resulting in the smallest majority "drys" had managed to muster since the start of Prohibition. House "wets", who considered the vote on Beck-Linthicum only a test of their growing strength, were thrilled by the vote.

The House test vote was encouraging to Senate "wets" as well. On March 19, Blaine's Judiciary subcommittee favorably reported a bill by Senator Bingham proposing the legalization of 4 percent beer. Surprisingly, the subcommittee report even called modification of the 18th Amendment useless. Three days later, a bipartisan group of 38 senators surprised the Senate by signing a letter demanding a vote to modify or repeal the 18th Amendment. The letter referred to four resolutions before Blaine's subcommittee. Senator George W. Norris (R-Neb.), chair of the full Judiciary Committee, promised the group that his committee would report at least one of the bills (favorably or not), and give senators a chance to vote on it on the Senate floor.

House "wets" appeared to suffer a setback on March 25 when the House rejected a bill, proposed by Rep. Thomas H. Cullen (D-N.Y.), to amend the Volstead Act to permit the manufacture of 2.75 percent beer and tax it.

"Wets" in the Senate also lost ground. Blaine began holding hearings on repeal of the 18th Amendment in mid April, and on April 19 the Senate Manufactures Committee unfavorably reported a 4 percent beer bill which had the perverse outcome of enabling a floor vote. In this test vote, "wets" were able to secure only 24 votes.

In May 1932, House "wets" shocked the political establishment again by securing enough signatures on a discharge petition to free the O'Connor-Hull bill from the House Ways and Means Committee. The House defeated the bill, which would have permitted 2.75 percent beer and taxed it at a rate of 3 percent of its retail value, 228 to 169. It was a significant drop in anti-Prohibition support.

Election of 1932 and effect on Prohibition repeal
The political situation among voters in the various states was strongly in favor of Prohibition repeal, however. Although a majority of delegates to the 1932 Republican National Convention, held in Chicago June 14 to 16, were in favor of repealing the 18th Amendment, President Hoover was not. A compromise was reached in which the convention adopted a party platform plank which advocated amending Prohibition to permit states to follow the law in whole or in part (subject to federal control). The plank also rejected a national referendum in favor of approval/disapproval by state legislatures. The platform plan was widely criticized for not taking a stand on Prohibition. "Dry" organizations, however, backed Hoover strongly, seeing in him their only chance of preserving Prohibition in any form.

At the 1932 Democratic National Convention, held in Chicago from June 27 to July 2, an overwhelming majority supported a repeal of the 18th Amendment. The party's platform contained a plank proposing repeal by conventions specially elected by voters in each state (the Bingham proposal from earlier in the year). The plank also proposed allowing states and their localities to stay "dry" if they so chose. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the party's nominee for President of the United States, campaigned strongly in favor of repeal.

"Wets" of both parties in Congress were elated by the Democratic Party platform, and agreed, at a minimum, to seek significant amendment of the Volstead Act before the end of the 72nd Congress in March 1933. Senate "wets" were particularly encouraged after Senator Cameron A. Morrison (D-N.C.), a radical "dry", was defeated for reelection in the June 1932 Democratic primary and Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.), another strong "dry", abruptly began advocating repeal. However, when Senator Bingham attempted to move his repeal resolution forward, Senate leaders blocked the move. In the House, "wets" rushed to circulate discharge petitions on four bills which would make beer legal again.

By late fall, it was clear to many leaders in Congress that the "wet" movement already had majority support. Polls of candidates for Congress showed that at least 80 percent of them supported repeal of the 18th Amendment. Rep. John W. Summers (R-Wash.), "dry" chair of the House Judiciary Committee, now believed it was inevitable that the 18th Amendment would be resubmitted to the states. Speaker of the House John Nance Garner believed Congress would approve the sale of beer by the end of the session. Prominent "wets" in the Senate were less hopeful, as their forces were divided between supporting modification of the Volstead Act and outright repeal of the 18th Amendment.

On Election Day, more than 100 "dry" candidates lost their seats in Congress. In the House, a super-majority of new and reelected members supported outright repeal, while in the Senate the repeal super-majority was just three votes short. Two more repeal votes were gained when Senator Thomas J. Walsh (D-Mont.), a leading "dry", agreed to vote for modification or repeal on November 12, followed by Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) on November 18.

Passage of the Blaine Act
As the lame-duck session of Congress opened in November, House Majority Leader Rainey—bowing to the wishes of his caucus—announced that House leaders would move with all due speed on Prohibition changes. A survey of House members showed a strong majority for amending the Volstead Act to make beer legal again, with fewer in favor of a repeal of the 18th Amendment. Despite President Hoover's pledge to veto the legislation, Speaker Garner said he would clear all legislative calendars to give a "beer bill" priority before Congress was forced to adjourn.

On December 6, Senator Blaine introduced Senate Joint Resolution 211, whose text amended and rewrote the 18th Amendment to read that Congress shall not have "the power to authorize the transportation or importation into any State or Territory of the United States for use therein of intoxicating liquors for beverage or other purposes within the State or Territory if the laws in force therein prohibit such transportation or importation". Alcohol imported into a prohibited area was subject to local (not federal) law, and Congress was authorized to enact legislation to aid states in enforcing their own liquor laws.

Repeal failure in the House
The first attempt at repeal of the 18th Amendment came in the House. Speaker Garner (a "wet") surprised "wet" forces by announcing on November 23 that he himself had drafted a resolution (H.J.Res. 480) calling for repeal of the amendment and was prepared to suspend the rules of the House in order to get it passed. The Garner plan received a setback on December 2 when the House Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 6 to reject the resolution. Observers disputed whether the Garner resolution was flawed, or whether "drys" had decided to oppose it at last.

The House went into session again on December 5, and the Garner resolution went to the floor for a vote. Although Democratic Party whips had counted 275 votes in favor of repeal, the resolution failed to win the necessary two-thirds majority. The final vote was 272 to 144, with 79 former "drys" (66 Democrats and 13 Republicans) voting in favor of repeal. Angry and dejected, Garner proclaimed the issue "dead" for the remainder of the lame-duck session and said Congress would have to wait until the new "wet" majority took power in the 73rd Congress on March 4, 1933.

Rep. James M. Beck (R-Pa.), co-sponsor of the Beck-Linthicum bill (which had gone down to defeat nine months earlier), believed the House would have adopted Garner's resolution if he had not tried to force the issue on the first day of the lame-duck session.

The "beer bills"
The House leadership resigned itself to action on the "Collier bill", legislation sponsored by Rep. James Collier (D-Miss.) which would legalize 2.75 percent beer and wine and levy a $5 per barrel tax ($0 in dollars) on beer and a 20 percent retail sales tax on wine. On December 15, the Ways and Means Committee voted 17 to 7 in favor of this bill (which was amended to legalize 3.2 percent beer). The bill was amended to prohibit legal sales of wine, but attempts to include a ban on bars and saloons were beaten back. Although proposed amendments threatened to split "wet" ranks, the House passed the Collier bill on December 21 by a surprising large margin of 230 to 165. An amendment to the bill restricted shipments of beer into states which chose to retain Prohibition.

In the Senate, both "beer bills" and 18th Amendment repeal resolutions were pursued. Senator Tydings proposed legislation authorizing the sale of beer with any percentage of alcohol, and taxing beer at 16 percent of its retail value. Senator Bingham, however, sought passage of a measure identical to the original Collier bill. "Wets" in the Senate also sought to bring a repeal resolution to the floor as swiftly as possible. The Senate voted down, 48 to 23, an attempt on December 23 to bring the Bingham bill to the floor for debate and a vote. Senators pointed out that the bill did not actually amend the Volstead Act, but was stand-alone legislation. They feared that the Bingham-Collier bill would be found unconstitutional unless the Volstead Act itself were amended. Senator Blaine promised an immediate redraft to meet these concerns.

Moving the Blaine bill in the Senate
On January 5, 1933, the Blaine subcommittee substantially amended S.J.Res. 211 during markup. Section one of the proposed constitutional amendment now explicitly repealed the 18th amendment. New language in section two prohibited the sale of intoxicating beverages in any state or territory which prohibited them, while section three gave Congress the concurrent power to regulate or prohibit the consumption of intoxicating beverages in certain establishments. The final section provided for ratification by state legislatures, with a seven-year time limit. The new text was sharply criticized by repeal advocates, who saw the new ratification procedure as a breach of faith and who strongly objected to the concurrent federal power granted in section three.

The full Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S.J.Res. 211 on January 9 in an 11 to 5 vote.

Blaine moved to have the Senate consider S.J.Res. 211 on February 14. "Drys" in the Senate engaged in an eight-hour filibuster, led by Senators Morris Sheppard (D-Tex.) and Smith W. Brookhart (R-Iowa). Finally, frustrated by the filibuster's blockage of all Senate business (including emergency legislation to deal with the Great Depression's banking crisis), a successful cloture vote occurred at 10 P.M. which ended the filibuster.

During debate on the Blaine bill on February 15, the Senate made two substantive changes to the resolution. Senator Joseph T. Robinson (D-Ark.) offered an amendment in the form of a substitution to provide for ratification by state convention rather than state legislatures. The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 45 to 15. Senator Robinson then offered an amendment striking section two, but then modified his own motion to strike instead section three. The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 33 to 32. The Senate resumed debate on February 16. Senator David A. Reed (R-Pa.) asked for reconsideration of the vote to strike section three, and Senator Carter Glass attempted to offer S.J.Res. 202 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Glass' motion was rejected by a vote of 14 to 70. Senator Tydings attempted to prevent Congress from taxing any intoxicating beverage it chose to prohibit, but his amendment was rejected in a voice vote. Glass attempted again to substitute S.J.Res. 202 (this time as an amendment), and was again rejected 38 to 46. Reed's amendment to restore section three was also rejected, by a vote of 37 to 47. Senator Thomas Gore (D-Okla.) attempted to amend section two to bar the sale of intoxicating beverages for private profit, but his motion was rejected by voice vote.

The Senate then approved the amended resolution by a vote of 63 to 23, five more votes than the required two-thirds majority.

Moving the Blaine bill in the House
Adoption of S.J.Res. 211 created new repeal activity in the House. Majority Leader Rainey called an immediate meeting of the Democratic caucus, and Speaker Garner said he intended to seek suspension of the rules in order to bring repeal to a quick vote and to bar any attempt to amend the resolution on the floor.

On February 20, Majority Leader Rainey asked for suspension of the rules and immediate adoption of S.J.Res. 211. Debate was limited to just 20 minutes pro and con. The House adopted Rainey's motion on a vote of 289 to 121. S.J.Res. 211 was passed with 15 more votes than the required two-thirds majority.

Adoption of the 21st Amendment
S.J.Res. 211 was sent to the United States Secretary of State on February 20, 1933.

On March 21, 1933, Congress enacted the Cullen-Harrison Act, which redefined "intoxicating beverage" as one with 3.2 percent alcohol by weight. The Cullen-Harrison Act went into effect on April 7, 1933.

The 21st Amendment was ratified by state ratifying conventions on December 5, 1933. A nationwide radio audience listened in as Utah became the 36th state to ratify the amendment.

title: Blaine Act


text:
Ulsan Munsu Football Stadium

The Ulsan Munsu Football Stadium (울산문수축구경기장) is a football stadium in Ulsan, South Korea with a capacity for 37,897 spectators. Since 2001, it has been the home ground of K League 1 team Ulsan HD.

The stadium was built from 18 December 1998 to 28 April 2001 at a total cost of 151.4 billion won (US$116.5 million).

International matches
The venue hosted three matches at the 2002 FIFA World Cup.

title: Ulsan Munsu Football Stadium


text:
Secretary of the Interior

Secretary of the Interior may refer to:

 * Secretary of the Interior (Mexico)
 * Interior Secretary of Pakistan
 * Secretary of the Interior and Local Government (Philippines)
 * United States Secretary of the Interior

title: Secretary of the Interior


text:
Tension

Tension may refer to:a disagreement between the two groups or people.for example, a tension that was happening between the Allies after world war ll

Science

 * Psychological stress
 * Tension (physics), a force related to the stretching of an object (the opposite of compression)
 * Tension (geology), a stress which stretches rocks in two opposite directions
 * Voltage or electric tension, the difference in electric potential energy between two points

Entertainment

 * Tension (music), the perceived need for relaxation or release created by a listener's expectations
 * Suspense, the feeling of uncertainty and interest about the outcome of certain actions an audience perceives
 * Tension (film), a 1949 film by John Berry
 * Tension (Taiwanese band), a Taiwanese a cappella group and boy band
 * Tension (hardcore band), an American hardcore punk band

Albums

 * Tension (Dizmas album), 2007
 * Tension (Bakufu Slump album), 1994
 * Tension (Kylie Minogue album), 2023
 * Ten$ion, a 2012 album by Die Antwoord

Songs

 * "Tension" (song), a song by Kylie Minogue from her studio album of the same name
 * "Tension", a song by Avenged Sevenfold from Diamonds in the Rough
 * "Tension", a song by Jack & Jack from A Good Friend Is Nice
 * "Tension", a song by Killing Joke from What's THIS For...!
 * "Tension", a song by Korn from The Path of Totality
 * "Tension", a song by Orbital from The Altogether
 * "Tension", a song by Scullion from the 1980 album Balance and Control
 * "Tension", a song by Susumu Hirasawa from Paranoia Agent Original Soundtrack
 * "Tension (Interlude)", a song by Børns from Blue Madonna
 * "Tension", a song by Fergie from Double Dutchess

Other uses

 * Tension (knitting), a factor that affects knitting gauge
 * Tenseness, in phonetics, a phonological quality frequently associated with vowels and occasionally with consonants
 * Muscle tone or residual muscle tension, a partial contraction of the muscles
 * The Void (video game), also known as Tension in some regions

title: Tension