text:
Alsos Mission

The Alsos Mission was an organized effort by a team of British and United States military, scientific, and intelligence personnel to discover enemy scientific developments during World War II. Its chief focus to investigate the progress that Nazi Germany was making in the area of nuclear technology, and to seize any German nuclear resources that would either be of use to the Manhattan Project or worth denying to the Soviet Union. It also investigated German chemical and biological weapon development and the means to deliver them, and any other advanced Axis technology it was able to get information about in the course of the other investigations (such as the V-2 rocket program).

The Alsos Mission was created after the September 1943 Allied invasion of Italy as part of the Manhattan Project's mission to coordinate foreign intelligence related to enemy nuclear activity. The team had a twofold assignment: search for personnel, records, material, and sites to evaluate the above programs and prevent their capture by the Soviet Union. Alsos personnel followed close behind the front lines in Italy, France, and Germany, occasionally crossing into enemy-held territory to secure valuable resources before they could be destroyed or scientists escape or fall into rival hands.

The Alsos Mission was commanded by Colonel Boris Pash, a former Manhattan Project security officer, with Samuel Goudsmit as chief scientific advisor. It was jointly staffed by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), the Manhattan Project, and Army Intelligence (G-2), with field assistance from combat engineers assigned to specific task forces.

Alsos teams were successful in locating and removing a substantial portion of the German research effort's surviving records and equipment. They also took most of the senior German research personnel into custody, including Otto Hahn, Max von Laue, Werner Heisenberg and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker. By November-December 1944, they had concluded that there was no threat of a German atomic bomb, and that the German nuclear program had only reached an experimental phase, not a production phase. After the defeat of Japan, an Alsos mission was sent in to evaluate its nuclear program as well.

Origin
The Manhattan Project was the Allied nuclear weapons research-and-development program, operated during and immediately after World War II, led by the United States with contributions principally from the United Kingdom and Canada. Brigadier General Leslie Groves of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers became its director in September 1942. The project operated under a tight blanket of security lest its discovery induce Axis powers, particularly Germany, to accelerate their own nuclear projects or to undertake covert operations against the project.

Allied work on nuclear fission had been motivated by scientists, many of whom were refugees from Nazi Germany, who feared a German atomic bomb program was underway. The discovery of fission had taken place largely in Otto Hahn's Berlin laboratory, and many scientists in the United States held the work of German scientists, especially Werner Heisenberg, in high regard. Fear that they were in a "race" for the atomic bomb was one of the main reasons for the establishment of the Manhattan Project and acceleration of the Allied effort. The Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler, frequently claimed that Germany was developing secret weapons, and it was feared that these might include nuclear weapons. Reports of German nuclear activity were taken seriously. At the instigation of the Manhattan Project, Norwegian saboteurs and Allied bombers attacked heavy-water infrastructure in German-occupied Norway in late 1942 and early 1943.

Following the September 1943 Allied invasion of Italy, Brigadier General Wilhelm D. Styer, Chief of Staff of Army Service Forces, was concerned that intelligence activities related to foreign nuclear energy programs were not being properly coordinated. He feared that important items might be overlooked unless those responsible were properly briefed, yet at the same time wished to minimize the number of personnel with access to such secret information. Having the Manhattan Project itself take over responsibility for coordinating these efforts would address both these concerns. Accordingly, he approached Groves on behalf of General George Marshall, the Chief of Staff of the Army, with that recommendation.

In response, Groves created the Alsos Mission, a small team jointly staffed by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), the Manhattan Project, and Army Intelligence (G-2). Its assignment was to investigate enemy scientific developments, including nuclear weapons research. Groves was not pleased with the codename (derived from ἄλσος, the Greek word for "grove"), but decided that changing it would only draw unwanted attention.

The Chief of Army Intelligence, Major General George V. Strong, appointed Lieutenant Colonel Boris Pash to command the unit. Pash had served as the head of the Counter Intelligence Branch of the Western Defense Command, where he had investigated suspected Soviet espionage at the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley. Pash's command comprised his executive officer Captain Wayne B. Stanard, four Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) agents, four interpreters, and four scientists: Dr. James B. Fisk from the Bell Telephone Company, Dr. John R. Johnson from Cornell University, Commander Bruce Old from the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Major William Allis, originally from MIT although then serving on the War Department scientific staff.

The Manhattan Project intelligence staff believed that the Japanese atomic program was not far advanced because Japan had little access to uranium ore, the industrial effort required exceeded Japan's capacity, and, according to American physicists at the University of California, Berkeley, who knew the leading Japanese physicists personally, there were too few Japanese qualified to work in the area.

Italy
In December 1943, the Alsos Mission reached Algiers, where Pash reported to the Chief of Staff at Allied Force Headquarters (AFHQ), Major General Walter B. Smith, and his British Chief of Intelligence, Brigadier Kenneth Strong. This was awkward as Pash's instructions were not to give the British information about the Alsos Mission, but it turned out that Strong was already fully aware of it. It was arranged that Pash would deal with Strong's American deputy, Colonel Thomas E. Roderick. The Alsos Mission then moved on to Italy, where it was assigned to Major General Kenyon A. Joyce's Allied Control Commission. Pash met with Marshal of Italy Pietro Badoglio, the man who had negotiated Italy's surrender to the Allies, and was now head of the Italian Provisional Military Government, who gave him a letter of introduction addressed to Italian civil and military authorities.

Alsos interviewed the Italian Minister for Communications, the Chief of Naval Ordnance, the staff of the Italian Naval Academy, and Italian scientists at the University of Naples, and examined what captured technical documents could be found. There was little information about developments in northern Italy and Germany. The Alsos Mission was attached to Colonel George Smith's S-Force. Built around a Royal Air Force ground reconnaissance squadron equipped with armored cars, this unit contained American, British, French, and Italian technical specialists of various kinds who would enter Rome on the heels of the advancing Allied forces. The expectation that Rome would soon be captured proved premature, and by March 1944 most of the Alsos Mission had returned to the United States. The Alsos Mission had gathered little of value about nuclear matters, but submitted detailed reports about German rockets and guided missiles.

Rome fell on 4 June 1944. When the news came that its fall was imminent, Pash was ordered from London to Italy. He flew back to Italy and entered the city with S-Force on 5 June. Pash took key scientists into custody and arranged for sites targeted by Alsos, including the University of Rome and the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, to be secured. The Alsos Mission to Italy was reconstituted under the command of Pash's deputy, Major Richard C. Ham, and Johnson and Major Robert R. Furman were sent from the United States to join him. They reached Rome on 19 June, and over the next weeks interviewed scientists including Edoardo Amaldi, Gian-Carlo Wick, and Francesco Giordani. The picture that the Alsos Mission built up indicated that the German effort was not far advanced.

Britain
In December 1943, Groves sent Furman to Britain to discuss the establishment of a London Liaison Office for the Manhattan Project with the British government, and to confer over coordinating the intelligence effort. Lieutenant Commander Eric Welsh, the head of the Norwegian Section of MI6, was unimpressed with Furman's grasp of the subject matter. Groves selected the head of the Manhattan District's security activities, Captain Horace K. Calvert, as head of the London Liaison Office, with the title of Assistant Military Attaché. Working in cooperation with Welsh and Michael Perrin from Tube Alloys, the London Liaison Office consisted of Calvert, Captain George B. Davis, two Women's Army Corps clerks and three CIC agents.

The Liaison Office interviewed European refugee scientists and studied German physics journals. It compiled lists of German scientists of interest and possible locations of nuclear research and industrial facilities, and the mining and stockpiling of uranium and thorium ores. Little thorium was available in Germany or German-occupied Europe, and attention soon centered on the mines at Joachimsthal in Sudetenland (the German-annexed part of Czechoslovakia). Aerial reconnaissance was carried out periodically, and production was measured by assessing the size of the piles of tailings.

Groves warned General Dwight D. Eisenhower of the possibility that the Germans might disrupt the Normandy landings with radioactive poisons, and sent Major Arthur V. Peterson to brief his chief of staff, Lieutenant General Walter B. Smith. Under the codename Operation Peppermint, special equipment was prepared and Chemical Warfare Service teams were trained in its use. The British forces made similar preparations for their beaches. The precautions were unnecessary.

Meanwhile, the new head of G-2, Major General Clayton L. Bissell, at the urging of Groves and Furman, decided to create a new, even larger Alsos Mission for western Europe in March 1944. Pash assumed command of the new unit upon its official creation by the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, on 4 April. The military staff for the new mission were selected by Bissell on Pash's advice. Lieutenant Colonel George R. Eckman became the deputy commander. Captain Henry A. Schade was appointed as the head of the naval contingent. Groves and Vannevar Bush, the head of OSRD, selected the scientific staff, and appointed Samuel Goudsmit, a University of Michigan physicist with a good command of several western European languages, as its head. Goudsmit had not been working on the Manhattan Project, and therefore could not reveal any of its secrets if captured. The British considered creating their own rival mission, but in the end agreed to participate as a junior partner. Three Dutch and one Norwegian officer also served with the Alsos Mission. By the end of August it had seven officers and 33 scientists.

France
On 5 August, Pash received a secret message from Washington, D.C., reporting that the French physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie had been sighted at his holiday home at L'Arcouest in Brittany. Joliot-Curie was at the top of Alsos's wanted list, so Pash and CIC Special Agent Gerry Beatson set out to investigate in the wake of the advancing U.S. Third Army. On 11 August they reached the homes of Joliot-Curie, Francis Perrin, and Pierre Auger in the L'Arcouest area. Pash and Beatson got there the morning of 17 August with Task Force A, and they were directed to Joliot-Curie's house, which had been emptied by the Germans. They searched the University of Rennes and found some documents there on 21 August.

The rest of the advance party of the Alsos Mission moved to Normandy in August 1944, where it joined T-Force, a similar formation to S-Force, at Rambouillet, where it was preparing for the liberation of Paris. An Alsos Mission team including Pash and Calvert reached Joliot-Curie's house in the Paris suburbs on 24 August to find that he was not there, but at his laboratory at the Collège de France. The next day they reached the Porte d'Orléans where they encountered troops of the French 2e Division Blindée, who were engaged in liberating the city, and came under small arms fire from the German defenders. The Alsos Mission replied with their M1 carbines and Thompson submachine guns as they made their way through the back streets to the college, where they found Joliot-Curie in his office.

Goudsmit interviewed Joliot-Curie in Paris on 27 August. Accompanied by Calvert, Joliot-Curie was flown to London where Perrin and Goudsmit interviewed him about the activities of German scientists. Joliot-Curie recalled visits to the College, which had a cyclotron, by German scientists including Erich Schumann, who had initiated the German nuclear project, and controlled it until it had been handed over to the Reichsforschungsrat (National Research Council) in 1942; by Abraham Esau, who had been in charge of nuclear physics under the Reichsforschungsrat; and by Walter Gerlach, who had replaced him in January 1944. Other German physicists who had used the facilities included Kurt Diebner, Walther Bothe, and Erich Bagge, all of whom were known to be associated with the German nuclear project.

Meanwhile, T-Force had moved into the Petit Palais. The main body of the Alsos Mission soon followed, and the Mission opened an office at the Place de l'Opéra. On 5 September, word was received that the British 21st Army Group was about to enter Brussels. There were two important Alsos Mission objectives in Belgium: the corporate headquarters of Union Minière du Haut Katanga, the world's largest supplier of uranium ore, in Antwerp, and its uranium processing plant in Olen. A six-man Alsos Mission team set out to secure them, led by Pash and the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, at ETOUSA, Colonel G. Bryan Conrad.

On reaching Brussels, they made contact with Lieutenant Colonel David Strangeways, the commander of R Force, who provided them with an escort of Royal Air Force armored vehicles. They entered Antwerp on 7 September and found the office of Union Minière. They discovered that over 1,000 tons of refined uranium had been sent to Germany, but about 150 tons still remained at Olen. They set out for Olen, where they located 68 tons, but another 80 tons were missing, having been shipped to France in 1940 ahead of the German invasion of Belgium. The capture of Eindhoven by the U.S. 101st Airborne Division allowed early access to another high priority target, the Philips plant there. Brigadier Edgar Williams, the 21st Army Group's Chief of Intelligence, facilitated the Alsos Mission's detour to Eindhoven, where it was able to interview Dutch scientists. Williams also furnished a detachment of Royal Engineers to transport and move the uranium from Olen. Groves had it shipped to England, and, ultimately, to the United States.

The Alsos Mission now attempted to recover the shipment that had been sent to France. Documentation was discovered that said that part of it had been sent to Toulouse. An Alsos Mission team under Pash's command reached Toulouse on 1 October and inspected a French Army arsenal. They used a Geiger counter to find barrels containing 31 tons of the uranium from Belgium. Conrad persuaded Major General Frank S. Ross to release the U.S. 3342nd Quartermaster Truck Company from the Red Ball Express to retrieve the shipment. The barrels were collected and transported to Marseille, where they were loaded on a ship bound for the United States. During the loading process a barrel fell into the water and had to be retrieved by a Navy diver. In Marseilles, the Alsos Mission detachment also met up with the detachment that had been sent to Italy, which now rejoined them. The remaining 49 tons of the original shipment to France were never found.

Information gathered in Rennes, Paris, and Eindhoven pointed to Strasbourg as a place of particular interest. Physicists Rudolf Fleischmann and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker were known to be working at the University of Strasbourg, as was Eugen Haagen, an expert on viruses whose work was of great concern to the Alsos Mission's Biological Warfare section. The Naval section was interested in the torpedo research being carried out there, and jet engine development was being undertaken at Strasbourg's Junkers plant.

On 22 November, the U.S. Sixth Army Group notified the Alsos Mission that the capture of Strasbourg was imminent, and it should join T-Force in Saarburg, where it was preparing to enter the city. The Alsos Mission joined T-Force in Strasbourg on 25 November. The German nuclear laboratory was discovered on the grounds of the Strasbourg Hospital, where the physicists attempted to pass themselves off as medics. Fleischmann was taken into custody, but Weizsäcker and Haagen had fled the city.

Documents discovered in Weizsäcker's office, Fleischmann's laboratory and the Strasbourg Hospital pointed to nuclear activities taking place at Stadtilm, Haigerloch, Hechingen, and Tailfingen. After establishing its headquarters in Haagen's office Alsos staff uncovered documents concerning secret medical experiments at Natzweiler concentration camp. These indicated the Germans had been unable to develop a practical process for uranium enrichment. For the first time the Alsos Mission was able to categorically report that a German nuclear weapon was not a threat, as it had never gotten to a production phase. As Goudsmit put it later: "The conclusions were unmistakable. The evidence at hand proved definitely that Germany had no atom bomb and was not likely to have one in any reasonable time."

Germany
When the German Operation Nordwind offensive threatened Strasbourg, Pash ordered all captured documents to be removed. Papers indicating the nature of the Alsos Mission were removed or destroyed. Although Strasbourg was not abandoned by the Allies, and ultimately did not fall, the Alsos Mission departed the city on 8 January 1945. Pash even ordered an evacuation plan to be prepared for the Alsos Mission's main headquarters in Paris. The embarrassing series of intelligence failures that had led up to the Battle of the Bulge cast doubts on the Alsos Mission's own findings. A four-man team under Eckman was sent to investigate a suspiciously devastating V-2 explosion near Antwerp, and Fred Wardenburg had to confirm that it was not a small nuclear explosion.

Rumors that Germany had an atomic bomb persisted as late as March 1945, but all signs pointed to the lack of a production program. On March 16, Groves wrote to Bissell that "the most complete and factual information we have obtained bearing on the nature of the German effort in our field"— the results of the Strasbourg mission — "tends to confirm our conclusion that the Germans are now behind us."

A new forward headquarters, Alsos Forward North (AFwdN), was opened at Aachen, and on 8 February the Alsos Mission reopened its forward headquarters in Strasbourg as Alsos Forward South (AFwdS). In March, the U.S. Twelfth Army Group launched Operation Lumberjack, an offensive to clear the Germans west of the Rhine. Pash, who was promoted to colonel on 6 March, led an Alsos Mission detachment into Cologne on 7 March, but little additional information was found.

The interrogation of German prisoners indicated that uranium and thorium were being processed in Germany, mostly at the Auergesellschaft plant at Oranienburg, so Groves arranged for the plant to be bombed on 15 March 1945. Some 612 B-17 Flying Fortresses of the U.S. Eighth Air Force dropped 1,500 tons of high explosive and 178 tons of incendiary bombs on the plant.

On 30 March, the Alsos Mission reached Heidelberg, where important scientists were captured including Walther Bothe, Richard Kuhn, Philipp Lenard, and Wolfgang Gertner. Their interrogation revealed that Otto Hahn was at his laboratory in Tailfingen, while Werner Heisenberg and Max von Laue were at Heisenberg's laboratory in Hechingen, and the experimental natural uranium reactor that Heisenberg's team had built in Berlin had been moved to Haigerloch. Henceforth, the main focus of the Alsos Mission was on these nuclear facilities in the Württemberg area.

As the Allied armies advanced into Germany in April 1945, Alsos Mission teams searched Stadtilm, where they found documentation concerning the German nuclear program, components of a nuclear reactor, and eight tons of uranium oxide. Scientists captured at Göttingen and Katlenburg-Lindau included Werner Osenberg, the chief of the planning board of the Reichsforschungsrat, and Fritz Houtermans, who provided information about the Soviet atomic bomb project. At Celle, the Alsos Mission uncovered an experimental centrifuge for separating uranium isotopes, the result of work undertaken at the University of Hamburg by a team under Paul Harteck.

The problem with the targets in the Württemberg area was that they not only lay in the path of the French First Army's advance, but were also in the occupation zone allocated to France. Groves attempted to get the occupation boundaries changed, but the State Department wanted to know why first, and Groves refused to provide this information. Groves, Marshall, and Stimson then decided that the area would have to be secured by American troops that would carry off what they could and destroy everything else. Pash was sent to ask General Jacob Devers, the commander of the U.S. Sixth Army Group, if the zones of the French First Army and the U.S. Seventh Army could be swapped around. He was informed that the matter would have to be taken up with Eisenhower.

Groves dispatched Lieutenant Colonel John Lansdale Jr. to Europe, where he participated in a meeting with Lieutenant General Bedell Smith and Major General Harold Bull of SHAEF; Major General Elbridge Chapman, the commander of the U.S. 13th Airborne Division; Pash, Furman, and Goudsmit of Alsos; and Brigadier General Reuben E. Jenkins from the Sixth Army Group. The plan, codenamed Operation Effective, called for the 13th Airborne Division to occupy the area to prevent its capture by the French, and seize an airfield that could be used to fly in an Alsos Mission team, and later to fly it out, along with captured German scientists. Operation Effective was scheduled for 22 April. Meanwhile, Devers took steps to delay the French advance.

The Alsos Mission had learned that the uranium ores that had been taken from Belgium in 1944 had been shipped to the Wirtschaftliche Forschungsgesellschaft (WiFO) plant in Staßfurt. The 83rd Infantry Division captured this on 15 April. As it was in the occupation zone allocated to the Soviet Union at the Yalta Conference, the Alsos Mission, led by Pash and accompanied by Lansdale, Perrin and Air Commodore Sir Charles Hambro, arrived on 17 April to remove anything of interest. Over the following ten days, 260 truckloads of uranium ore, sodium uranate and ferrouranium weighing about 1,000 tons, were taken away by an African-American truck company. The uranium was taken to Hildesheim and most of it was flown to the United Kingdom by the Royal Air Force; the rest had to be moved to Antwerp by train and loaded onto a ship to England.

On 20 April, the French First Army captured an intact bridge over the Neckar River at Horb and established a bridgehead. It was decided to send in a force on the ground instead of Operation Effective, which was cancelled on 19 April. This time, instead of following or accompanying the front-line troops, the Alsos Mission would operate behind enemy lines. The Alsos Mission had taken delivery of two armored cars, four jeeps with machine gun mounts, and two .50 caliber machine guns. The other two jeeps would carry captured German machine guns. They would be accompanied by three unarmed jeeps. For the operation, codenamed Operation Big, Pash would command a special force called Task Force A, built around his Alsos Mission team and the U.S. 1269th Engineer Combat Battalion commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Wilbur White, less its Company B. Sir Charles Hambro decided to accompany the Alsos Mission with a British group that included Michael Perrin, David Gattiker, Eric Welsh, and Rupert Cecil. Lansdale accompanied Task Force A as Groves' representative, and Brigadier General Eugene L. Harrison, the G-2 from the Sixth Army Group, as Devers' representative.

The Alsos Mission set out on 20 April and rendezvoused with the 1269th Engineer Combat Battalion at Freudenstadt. The intact bridge over the Neckar River at Horb was crossed and Haigerloch was occupied without opposition on 22 April. The main body of Task Force A arrived on 23 April. In a laboratory in a cellar they found a German experimental nuclear reactor shaped like a cylinder and made of graphite blocks, but the uranium and heavy water were missing. The scientists immediately began dismantling it. Pash left Hambro in charge, while he led troops of Task Force A to Bisingen, and then on to Hechingen, where 25 scientists were captured, including Weizsäcker, Laue, Karl Wirtz, Horst Korsching and Erich Bagge. At Tailfingen they took Otto Hahn and nine members of his staff into custody. At Haigerloch, a sealed drum of documents was retrieved from a cesspool, and three drums of heavy water and 1.5 tons of uranium ingots were found buried in a field. The uranium and heavy water were loaded onto trucks. The apertures in the cellar were blown up with minor explosions to prevent their capture by the French.

Werner Heisenberg, "Germany's Oppenheimer" according to Gregg Herken, remained at large, having left Hechingen on 19 April. On 1 May, Pash set out in pursuit of Heisenberg with ten men in the two armored cars and two jeeps. They teamed up with the 36th Reconnaissance Troop of the U.S. 36th Infantry Division and entered Urfeld on 2 May, where Pash found Heisenberg at his home. The Americans became involved in firefights with German troops attempting to enter the town, and the 36th Reconnaissance Troop had to head off on another mission, leaving Pash with just seven men. Fortunately, the German force, which numbered about 700, offered to surrender. Pash returned on 3 May with the 3rd Battalion, 142nd Infantry, which took them prisoner, while Pash and his Alsos Mission team took Heisenberg into custody.

By VE day, the Alsos Mission had a strength of 114 men and women. It was officially disbanded on 15 October 1945.

Operation Epsilon
German scientists that had been captured by the Alsos Mission were held in several camps, separate from other prisoners of war. After VE Day, SHAEF decided to concentrate them in an internment camp at Kransberg Castle, codenamed "Dustbin", as part of Operation Epsilon. At Welsh's instigation, ten of the nuclear physicists, Bagge, Diebner, Gerlach, Hahn, Harteck, Heisenberg, Korsching, von Laue, von Weizsäcker and Wirtz, were brought to England. They were accommodated between 3 July 1945 and 3 January 1946 at Farm Hall, a house in Godmanchester, near Cambridge. The premises were thoroughly bugged to determine how close the German nuclear project had been to constructing an atomic bomb by listening in to their conversations and transcripts of their conversations were sent to Groves. The most interesting conversations occurred after they received the news of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when they struggled to comprehend how the Allies had done what they could not.

Japan
Plans for the invasion of Japan incorporated an Alsos Mission. Japanese fire balloon attacks on the United States had aroused fears that the technique might be used in combination with biological agents, which the Japanese Unit 731 was known to be experimenting with. In March 1945, the physicist and seismologist L. Don Leet was appointed as head of the scientific section of the Alsos Mission to Japan. Leet had previously worked with the Manhattan Project on the Trinity nuclear test. Plans were drawn up to prepare and equip a T-Force along the lines of the one in Europe, but made up of personnel already in the Pacific. The mission differed from its European counterpart in that it was solely American and consisted of only one intelligence agency. Responsibility for nuclear matters was subsequently handled by a separate Manhattan Project Intelligence Group organized by Groves.

Leet's group reached Manila in July 1945, where they met with the intelligence staff of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's Army Forces, Pacific. Following the surrender of Japan the mission traveled to Japan and visited various research establishments including Tokyo Imperial University, Waseda University, Tokyo Institute of Technology, the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, the Institute for Materials Research, Tokyo Shibaura Denki (Toshiba), the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the National Research Council, and the Board of Technology. The mission, which included Karl Compton, interviewed over 300 Japanese scientists and produced reports on Japanese research into radar, rockets, and other developments, including chemical and biological warfare. The Manhattan Project Intelligence Group, under the command of Philip Morrison, arrived in Japan in September 1945 and examined Japan's wartime nuclear weapons program. The group concluded that lack of uranium ore and low priority had doomed the Japanese effort. They reported that, contrary to American belief, Japan's nuclear physicists were competent.

Legacy
After seeing the German project at Haigerloch, Goudsmit wrote that:"It was so obvious the whole German uranium set up was on a ludicrously small scale. Here was the central group of laboratories, and all it amounted to was a little cave, a wing of a small textile factory, a few rooms in an old brewery. To be sure, the laboratories were well equipped, but compared to what we were doing in the United States it was still small-time stuff. Sometimes we wondered if our government had not spent more money on our intelligence mission than the Germans had spent on their whole project."

In the end, the Alsos Mission contributed little to the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany, because the German nuclear and biological weapons programs that it had been formed to investigate turned out to be smaller and less threatening than had been feared. In the field of nuclear weapons development at least, the underfunded and disorganized German program lagged far behind the Allies' own efforts. In its appropriation of the accomplishments of European science, the Alsos Mission played a small part in the wartime and subsequent scientific and technological developments that characterized and transformed the postwar world.

title: Alsos Mission


text:
User talk:DW/Quebec issue

<Conflicts between users

I removed this here from Village Pump Muriel Victoria 16:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm new here and not certain if this is the proper page to be writing on so if not, someone please move it to the appropriate spot. I came across the article History of Quebec and was rather surprised to see it was far from encyclopedic in nature being little more than manipulated writing to provide a political slant. I tried fixing it but User:Mathieugp, deltes anything factual that is not to his political liking and removes links to other articles and words things far from a NPOV. I see that I’m not the only one with a problem with User:Mathieugp’s conduct, another user complained about his similar behaviour. Too, I see where User:Angela had to post a notice on his page saying: ''I have removed attacks made by you against others on Talk:Quebecois and strongly urge you to read the guidelines regarding no personal attacks. Angela 23:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)''. I am not interested in constantly having to change the deliberate propaganda and deletions of fact by this user. People like that ruin any pleasure one gets from contributing here. In fact, I really want nothing whatsoever to do with someone who abuses Wikipedia to promote their personal views and who launches vicious personal attacks. I suggest a Wikipedia Administrator do whatever necessary to put an end to this type of action that denegrates the sincere work being done by the many excellent contributors to the Wikipedia project. Thank you. Angelique 15:58, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(I moved the following here from vandalism in progress --snoyes 14:30, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC))

User:Angelique has been reverting to an earlier version of her own on 3 (or more) occasions. We are at least 2 users to have told Angelique to stop removing other peoples' dated events as part of History of Quebec. (See Talk:History_of_Quebec). On various occasions she accused me and User:Tremblay of pushing a "cause" which she never named and suggested that I had racist views, all the while adding a good number of paragraphs that are objectively anti everything that is Catholic and/or French. We have invited her to explain what was wrong with the things we inserted. She did not reply once, continuing to claim that it was all propaganda and lies in order to justify her removing it. I don't know what to do with that. I am not in the mood for a war of revert. Mathieugp 14:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mathieugp and I have repeatedly invited Angelique to have a dialogue with us to hopefully clarify the passages she deems inappropriate. Unfortunately, she has ignored these requests and continues to revert to her own version of edits with "It's massive propaganda" as the only explanation.

Recently she's resorted to name-calling, and there is no doubt as to her bias on the issues being discussed. Tremblay 18:53, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I will not discuss false assertions and racist remarks that state I and all others are anti-Semites. I will remove them. Example: "Later, when such opinions weren't uncommon for North American and European Christians, he (Lionel Groulx) denounced Jews and supported the Nazis in Germany." -- I am a North American who is not anti-Semitic nor is anyone I know. There is no room for this kind of slander in Wikipedia. It is an embarassment to all of us who are sincerely trying to make their best and honest contributions. Angelique 20:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * From what you've just quoted he's not accusing you of being anti-semitic. He's saying that anti-semitism was more prevalent than now in North America - not saying that all North Americans are anti-semitic, or Nazis or whatever. It's not a personal attackSecretlondon 20:32, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * There is a long list of awful things said and done on the back of Jews by members of the powerful Anglo-Protestant elite of Canada as well as the former Catholic elite of French Canada (Quebec), which was indirectly ruled by the later. There is the "none is too many" of McKenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, and the "they own too much" of Peladeau. I don't think it would serve any good to compare the two cases, but if it were to be done, there would be more than enough evidence to proove that the oppressed French Canadian minority of Canada had better things to do than oppress another minority group such as the Jews. There is a place to discuss and inform people on anti-semitism and racism. What you are doing is something else: The amalgamation of a bunch of quotes and statistics taken out of their context in the hope of portraying today's Quebec nationalists as monsters comparable to the Nazis. All it succeeds in doing is to nourish sentiments of hatred towards an entire people. Mathieugp 21:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, USER: 66.130.171.30 is me (don't know why it didn't show my name) --- Ok, I guess I wasn't 66.130.171.30 then. :-) User:Mathieugp 19:04, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The following reprimands for unacceptable conductis from Mathieugp's talk page which he deleted:

I have removed attacks made by you against others on Talk:Quebecois and strongly urge you to read the guidelines regarding no personal attacks. Angela 23:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I was referring to statements you made such as "you are hopeless" and "all morons who are brainwashed". Try to talk about the content of the article, not who wrote it. Read Staying cool when the editing gets hot and try not to get angry with other contributors, no matter how poorly they might be behaving. Angela 22:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thought I should add to this that I have offered to mediate on this article, as I am somewhat knowledgeable about the topic (I am not one of those new official mediators or anything though). Mathieugp and Tremblay have no problem with this and are willing to see if I can make some sense out of timeline they have there now, but Angelique has either ignored my offer or told me I have no facts, or whatever (see my talk page). The others agreed to take a week off, and I know there is nothing stopping Angelique from editing it, but she is not being very helpful. Adam Bishop 16:49, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * With the continual removing of information, moving of pages, accusations that I am somehow violating policy, I can no longer be bothered to attempt to fix the History of Quebec page at all (or the Timeline of Quebec History, where it has been moved to). I am also not really neutral anymore, since I've started taking sides in the issue. I am going to go back to editing stuff on things very few people care about so I can avoid all this nonsense. Sorry! Adam Bishop 19:25, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I unfortunately have found myself unable to avoid this issue, especially as it spills into things I am more familiar with (New France, specifically). I don't want to blame Angelique entirely, because, as I have said elsewhere, Mathieu, Tremblay, and I are not innocent in this issue either. However, we almost certainly have differing views on politics and life in general, and we have been able to work together. Angelique has not; it seems as if she is trying to push some kind of POV, but to be honest, I am completely baffled as to what that POV is. The best I can piece together is that she thinks Anglophones in Quebec are the victims of racism by the French government, and does not have any qualms about claiming people are racist.

Related to this, if that is a correct assessment, is the issue I have been involved in the most, which is the quote attributed to John A. Macdonald that "Riel shall hang, though every dog in Quebec barks in his favour," or something similar. I would not have a problem with her explaining that it's probably an apocryphal quote, but the conflict here is that no one has any idea what she thinks is wrong with it. Apparently she just doesn't want to denigrate Macdonald's character, which seems to be another POV issue to me, since she is trying to praise Anglophone politicians while bashing Francophone ones. Her solution to this was to post a government document supporting her position, but we still don't know what her position is, and the document treated the quote as if it was a fact anyway.

Whenever we question her about what she says, she either says she has answered already (and we can't read, or need to read her answer as if we haven't already tried), ignores the questions entirely, claims we are violating policy, claims we need to "read history," or "please use facts," or similar essentially meaningless phrases. I'm not sure what can be done about this, if anything. I am stumped and have no idea what should be done. Adam Bishop 00:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just to conclude this page, Angelique is the banned user DW and has been blocked from editing again. Angela. 03:28, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wonderful. No wonder he/she made absolutely no sense. Well, I guess they can feel proud that they have embarrassed me publicly, or something. Adam Bishop 03:50, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Alleluia. -- Mathieugp 05:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:DW/Quebec issue


text:
The Vapors

The Vapors are an English new wave and power pop band that initially existed between 1978 and 1981. They had a hit with the song "Turning Japanese", which reached No. 3 in the UK Singles Chart in 1980 and No. 36 in the US Billboard Hot 100.

1978–1982
Based in Guildford, Surrey, an early version of the group were playing at The Three Lions pub in Farncombe when The Jam's bassist Bruce Foxton spotted them. The group's line-up stabilised with David Fenton (lead vocals, rhythm guitar), Howard Smith (drums), Edward Bazalgette (lead guitar) and Steve Smith (bass). Howard Smith and Steve Smith were not related. The group were originally named The Vapours but had removed the "u" to help garner more attention in America. Foxton then offered the group a few gigs and agreed to jointly-manage them with John Weller (father of Paul Weller). The Vapors were then offered a slot supporting The Jam on the Setting Sons tour in 1979.

The group signed to United Artists, releasing their first single, "Prisoners", at the end of 1979, but it failed to chart. Their second single, "Turning Japanese", is the song for which they are best remembered. The track was produced by The Jam's producer Vic Coppersmith-Heaven and reached number 3 in the UK and number 1 in Australia. It was also a top-ten hit in Canada and New Zealand and reached the top 40 in the United States. "Turning Japanese" was believed to euphemistically refer to masturbation, although Fenton (the song's writer) denied that claim in an interview on VH1. He did, however, say he wished to thank whoever first came up with that interpretation, as he felt the salacious rumour about what the song 'really' meant may have been what made it a hit. The follow-up singles "News at Ten" and "Jimmie Jones" both peaked at number 44 in the UK Singles Chart.

The group released two albums; New Clear Days (1980) and Magnets (1981). New Clear Days contained "Turning Japanese" and displayed a new wave sound with socially-conscious lyrics. That album reached the middle of the charts in the UK, Canada, and US. Magnets revealed a power pop sound and darker lyrics, with the song "Jimmie Jones" making reference to cult leader Jim Jones. That album sold poorly and the band broke up in 1982. Fenton alleged in a later interview with Record Collector magazine that lack of record label support was the chief reason for the band's split, while a planned single release was cancelled without explanation.

After the Vapors broke up, David Fenton joined the legal profession in the early 1990s, concentrating on the legal aspects of the music industry, and from 1999 he worked as a London-based in-house solicitor for the Musicians' Union. Edward Bazalgette became a television director; his credits include a 2005 BBC documentary about Genghis Khan and two episodes of Doctor Who in 2015. For many years Howard Smith ran an independent record shop, People Records in Guildford, the band's home town. Steve Smith formed the band Shoot!Dispute, which appeared in John Peel sessions, and toured in support of Bruce Foxton; and later joined the rap/rock band 1ST.

2016–present
After 34 years of inactivity, David Fenton, Ed Bazelgette, and Steve Smith appeared on stage at the Half Moon in Putney on 30 April 2016. With a guest drummer standing in for Howard Smith, they played "Turning Japanese" and then left the stage. Rumors of a reunion were rife, and the Vapors completed a four-date tour in October–November 2016 with Michael Bowes on drums. The Vapors continued with six more concerts in 2017 and 10 in 2018. That included three dates in New York City with David Fenton's son, Danny Fenton, standing in for Ed Bazelgette on lead guitar, where they played several new tracks, including "Sundown River", "Letter to Hiro (No11)", "The Right Stuff", "One of My Dreams", and "King L".

As of 2017, the band's catalogue masters are controlled by Razor & Tie Industries, which acquired them from Warner Music Group, whose Alternative Distribution Alliance serves as RT Industries' worldwide distributor when RT was newly launched in 2018. On 21 April 2018, they re-released "Turning Japanese" on red vinyl with bonus tracks for Record Store Day.

In April 2019, the band was announced as the support to From the Jam on the 30-date Setting Sons 40th Anniversary tour. The Vapors had been the opening act for The Jam on the original 1979 Setting Sons tour.

On 3 March 2020, the Vapors announced that they would be releasing a new album, Together, and issued "Crazy" as its lead single.

Together was released on 15 May. It was the first album from the Vapors in 39 years, marking one of the longest gaps between studio albums.

On 30 August, "Girl from the Factory", the third single from the album, reached number one on the United DJs Heritage Chart. Follow-up single "Wonderland" also reached the top of the Heritage Charts on 22 November.

The band celebrated their top-selling album by going out on the New Clear Days 40th Anniversary Tour in 2021. The download-only singles "One of My Dreams Came True" (2021) and "Novocaine" (2022) both reached the Heritage Chart top ten, maintaining the band profile.

On 2 September 2022 the band returned to their Guildford roots to play at the town's Suburbs Holroyd Arms

In January 2023, a US show was announced: the band played at the Cruel World Festival in Pasadena, California on May 20, 2023.

authors: Я сошла с ума

title: The Vapors


text:
List of urban public parks and gardens in Hong Kong

Urban public parks and gardens in Hong Kong include:

Note: Most public parks and gardens in Hong Kong are managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD).

Hong Kong Island

 * Aberdeen Promenade (Aberdeen)
 * Aldrich Bay Park (Aldrich Bay, Sai Wan Ho)
 * Blake Garden (Sheung Wan)
 * Chai Wan Park (Chai Wan)
 * Chater Garden (Central)
 * Cheung Kong Park (Central) (managed by Cheung Kong, open to public)
 * Choi Sai Woo Park (Braemar Hill, North Point)
 * Connaught Place (Central)
 * Harcourt Garden (Admiralty)
 * Hollywood Road Park (Sheung Wan)
 * Hong Kong Park (Admiralty)
 * Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens (Mid-Levels)
 * King George V Memorial Park, Hong Kong (Sai Ying Pun)
 * Pak Tsz Lane Park (Central)
 * Quarry Bay Park (Quarry Bay)
 * Southorn Playground (Wan Chai)
 * Statue Square (Central)
 * Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park (Sheung Wan)
 * Tamar Park (Tamar)
 * Wong Nai Chung Reservoir Park (Mid-levels)
 * Victoria Park (Causeway Bay)
 * Victoria Peak Garden (Victoria Peak)

Kowloon and New Kowloon

 * Choi Hung Road Playground
 * Fa Hui Park
 * Hoi Bun Road Park (Kwun Tong)
 * Hoi Sham Park (To Kwa Wan)
 * Hong Ning Road Park (Kwun Tong)
 * Hutchison Park (Hung Hom)
 * Jordan Valley Park
 * King George V Memorial Park, Kowloon
 * King's Park
 * Ko Shan Road Park, To Kwa Wan
 * Kowloon Bay Park
 * Kowloon Park (Tsim Sha Tsui)
 * Kowloon Tsai Park
 * Kowloon Walled City Park (Kowloon City)
 * Kwun Tong Promenade
 * Lai Chi Kok Park (Mei Foo)
 * Nan Lian Garden (Diamond Hill)
 * Morse Park
 * Nam Cheong Park
 * Ngau Chi Wan Park
 * Po Kong Village Road Park
 * Sau Mau Ping Memorial Park
 * Sham Shui Po Park (Sham Shui Po)
 * Shek Kip Mei Park (Sham Shui Po)
 * Sung Wong Toi Park (Kowloon City)
 * Tung Chau Street Park (Sham Shui Po)
 * Urban Council Centenary Garden (Tsim Sha Tsui East)
 * Yuen Po Street Bird Garden
 * West Kowloon Waterfront Promenade

New Territories (excluding New Kowloon)

 * Central Kwai Chung Park
 * Hong Kong Velodrome Park (Tseung Kwan O)
 * Ma On Shan Park
 * Ma On Shan Promenade
 * North District Park
 * Penfold Park (in the middle of Sha Tin Racecourse)
 * Po Hong Park
 * Po Tsui Park
 * Sha Tin Park (in Sha Tin New Town)
 * Shing Mun Valley Park
 * Tai Po Waterfront Park
 * Tin Shui Wai Park
 * Tsing Yi Northeast Park
 * Tsing Yi Park
 * Tsing Yi Promenade
 * Tsuen Wan Park
 * Tsuen Wan Riviera Park
 * Tuen Mun Park
 * Tung Chung North Park
 * Yuen Chau Kok Park
 * Yuen Long Park


text:
Hong Kong Park

Hong Kong Park is a public park next to Cotton Tree Drive in Central, Hong Kong. Built at a cost of HK$398 million and opened on 23 May 1991, it covers an area of 80,000 sqm and is an example of modern design and facilities blending with natural landscape.

History

Part of the site was known as Cantonment Hill in early colonial days in 1841. At the upper part of the former location of the Victoria Barracks, built between 1867 and 1910, the barracks were handed to the government in 1979. Glenealy Junior School occupied part of this site up until 1988. After the school vacated the site, the area was turned into the present park. Hong Kong Park was officially opened on 23 May 1991 by Sir David Wilson, the Governor of Hong Kong at that time. It covers an area of 8 hectares and is an outstanding example of modern design and facilities blending with the natural landscape.

The construction of the park was a joint project by the Urban Council (dissolved in 1999) and the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club (renamed the Hong Kong Jockey Club in 1996).

Historic buildings

 * Flagstaff House (1846), since 1984 housing the Flagstaff House Museum of Teaware

A few historic buildings of former Victoria Barracks were also conserved in the park, including:
 * Cassels Block (early 20th century), former barracks for married British officers. Now housing the Hong Kong Visual Arts Centre since 1992
 * Rawlinson House (early 20th century), former house of the British Deputy General, converted in the 1980s into Cotton Tree Drive Marriage Registry and the office of the park.
 * Wavell House (early 20th century), former quarters for married British officers, converted in 1991 into the aviary support centre (Education Centre).

These historic buildings are graded as Grade II Historic Buildings.

The park can be easily reached by walking through the Pacific Place and its nearby escalator.

Facilities
Hong Kong Park captures the natural landscape in the busy and crowded business centre. Its main feature is Edward Youde Aviary which is Hong Kong's largest aviary while the Vantage Point is another great place to see the "bird exhibition". There is also a greenhouse (Forsgate Conservatory) which holds "plant exhibition" such as "Orchid Exhibition" temporarily. There are also many modern gardens, including Garden Plaza and tai chi Garden. To suit the sport-lovers, a sport centre and a squash centre were also built in Hong Kong Park.

Awards

 * The design of the park won Honour Award for Urban Design (1998) of Hong Kong Chapter, the American Institute of Architects.
 * The park was awarded as one of the Top Ten Buildings of the 90s by a building journal in March 2000.

title: Hong Kong Park


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Mr-Natural-Health

Seems User:Mr-Natural-Health (contributions) has decided to take Uncle Ed's friendly advice as some sort of challenge -- see his own talk page before deleting the content, Ed's talk page where he wrote STOP mailing me your retarded comments. and Ed's "watchlist" subpage -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 06:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health has admitted that he will vandalize our website even if banned. Please take action immediately. Although many Wikipedia users have privately contacted him over the last few days (see his User page), he has ignored them all, and has publicly threatened to change his ISP address on a regular basis in order to avoid a ban. He also is making remarks about a user's religion, and has repeatedly stated that he will refuse to abide by group consensus. Please see his out of control personal remarks on the Talk:Alternative medicine page and on Conflicts between users. He essentially has made public and explicit admission of intent to committ vandalism on a regular basis. I agree with the other Wikipedia users who have given him warnings on his user page; he needs to be banned. RK 18:45, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * Mr-Natural-Health has just wrote a series of offensive statements to me on my User page, by admitting that he is a Nazi. He is totally out of control. Can some please ban him, please? This is not only not funny, it is scary. RK 21:47, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * In regards, to Ed_Poor, I the user decide what I want on MY user page *not* Ed Poor.--Mr-Natural-Health 09:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * People who protect my user page and don't provide e-mail addresses are on the very low end of the ethical spectrum. Websites, like this one, without standard forms of contact, privacy polices, and formalized complaint procedures are at the low end of the quality spectrum. Plain enough?--Mr-Natural-Health 12:15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, email addresses are not an option it is a requirement for proper internet social behavior! User privacy is not an option, it is a requirement!  Standard forms of contract through email addresses on a website is not an option, it is a requirement!  This form of gossip / mob rule is not only un-social -- it is downright animalistic behavior that belongs to inmates in prison and a pack of wild dogs.

 * I am going to continue to edit as I see fit. The choice is between doing it all on one account or randomly between several dozen different ISP addresses that I have access to.  Any further contact between me and your apes is going to be done the proper way through private email via this website.  It is an requirement, not an option.--Mr-Natural-Health 16:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

''I removed some comments towards Ed. Politeness, Mr Natural Health, to be respected here. Muriel Victoria 16:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)''

 * I have no respect for you unless you have earned that respect from me. You have not!  You cannot even control the simple edit of a simple article like Alternative medicine.--Mr-Natural-Health This is a polished version by me Muriel Victoria

 * Mr Natural Health refers to this sentence: "Alternative medicine is about alternative methods of treatment that actually work and not kill people like chemo does" which i removed from the article's introduction. Muriel Victoria 17:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * That was a cute edit of mine. Why not, after all?  If RK can do his number on it, I can post a perfectly reasonable opinion like that one too.  After all, it has just about as much POV in it as the current version of Alternative Medicine does.  You would think that in this point in time, doing a simple write up on a top node article would as simple as 1-2-3.--Mr-Natural-Health 21:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Further, I would like to file a complaint against who every protected my user page. I find it a total outrage. A total violation of my user privacy. These same people don't even provide for private email contact.  It seems that I don't like to be violated by a bunch of busy-bodies. And, I am telling YOU that, point blank.  If RK don't have to follow the rules, stop crying to me about your pathetic little attempts to control others.--Mr-Natural-Health 09:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Mr. NH and I are in a conflict about heroic medicine. He says I edited the article while protected, which I didn't do.  In fact, I didn't protect it in the first place.  -- Pakaran 08:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I think that a busy-body is a person who likes to waste time.--Why don't we discuss that issue for six months?--Mr-Natural-Health 09:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This user (Mr-Natural-Health) has: Can we ban him now? (Personally I think that's a good guideline; with any user who fits all three criteria we should be able to just go for it.) (Addendum: we should probably give it a week or so to see if the situation improves, which we've done in this case.)- Hephaestos 17:59, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) Made few if any useful contributions that I can see in the Wikipedia namespace;
 * 2) Unnecessarily rude and combative interpersonal interaction habits;
 * 3) Not made any attempt beyond tantrum to defend his actions

 * Actually, we can't. Only one person is supposed to ban a logged-in user, and he has not commented to any extent on Mr-Natural-Health.

 * There have been about fifteen messages on the list already; perhaps someone should summarize the discussion here, especially as regards Mr. NH's threats to contribute even if blocked, and his "interesting" interpretations of NPOV. I would do so myself, but I am driving back to campus and will be offline until at least 5 PM (eastern).  -- Pakaran 20:18, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The "only one person is supposed to ban a logged-in user" comment is not strictly true. Any sysop can ban a logged in user for cases of "simple vandalism" (Jeezis is Lard!, Soilguy2) and secondly, Jimbo has said he doesn't have time to make banning decisions now, so it would presumably be up to the new arbitration committee to make this decision. Also, there have been numerous cases of logged in users being banned without any comment from Jimbo before the event (RK, BuddhaInside), and sometimes no comment after it (Nightcrawler, Chris Jones, Non-liberals are stupid). Angela. 20:47, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I going for another try... Muriel Victoria 18:03, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Apparently not very successful... Muriel Victoria 15:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that disciplinary action needs to be taken against mister healthy food. He doesn't follow any of the wikipedia rules and is therefore is a "simple vandal." While I may not agree with the people who have opposite viewpoints from mister healthy, I think that Mister healthy's views are irrelevant. He could have used other ways of improving the article(and it did have some POV), but instead he resorted to namecalling. He should have been panned prior to this. Alexandros 20:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At times like this, I would just like to add that the people who have responded to this zoo like exhibition of animalistic mob behavior are the ring leaders of the gang of thugs, in this joint.

This is the kind of privacy protection, that my mother warned me about. Do you thugs steal credit card account numbers, too? I vote for this website to be banished from the Internet. :(

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :) --Mr-Natural-Health 21:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He wrote the following on RK's Talk page:
 * Mr-Natural-Health, The German Nazi from New York

RickK 22:11, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Gang of thugs delete:

Suggested changes for when the page becomes unprotected
in talk on how to improve Alternative medicine without it showing up in page history.

Very slick gang of thugs. You are obviously operating at the highest levels of corruption.--Mr-Natural-Health 22:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

I have a question to pose to you.

I at all did not follow the history of "Mister Natural Health", but something me ennnuie.

You apply to him to accede to the social standards on Wikipédia, and in same time, its personal user page is protected. It cannot thus publish its own page. But, on Wikipédia, the social standard is that the user page of a person is personal, and that each user can do what he wants with.

On the other hand, the social standard is that a user cannot do what he wants with his talk page. In particular, it is requested from the users not to blank their talk page.

Therefore, the standard is "the user page is personal", the "talk page is collective".

Therefore, by protecting the user page from Mr...., the social standards are broken with respect to him. Is this correct?

How to hope that a user respects to him same the social standards if these standards are not respected with respect to him?

 * As i understand it the user page was protect to stop blanking from Mr Healthy. I believe that people can blank their own pages. But MrNH was blanking repeated attempts to reason, several pleas for not being rude and offensive, etc. He is also in the habit of deleting things and then shout that they are not there. So, in this way, at least he can not say he was not warned (begged) to stop his behaviour. Muriel Victoria 16:09, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Let him blank it. Put it on his talk page instead. -- Sverdrup 16:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * If he stops acting like a vandalizing troll, his page will be unprotected. If he is banned, his page will no longer be an issue.  Neither has happened yet. - Hephaestos 17:57, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree that his user page should not have been protected, but I really don't think that it has anything to do with his poor behaviour, and he should probably be banned, thus ending the contradiction posed above. JackLynch 19:47, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My quick survey of Wikipedia has revealed that I could write an original article on Individualization, Victim-Blaming, Prevention., Therapeutic Nihilism, Medical Scientism as well as a major re-write of the Biopsychosocial model and something linking the basic sciences to their association to Natural Hygiene movement through the philosophy of Naturalism. But, my warm reception to Wikipedia from my new found friends, seriously has questioned in me the wisdom of spending any more time on this project.--Mr-Natural-Health 13:33, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is now up to YOU!

I have decided that in the future I will only be monitoring the Support for Alternative Medicine section. Supporters of Alternative medicine now have provided 9 general arguments in support of their positions. I will welcome any further improvements made to this section in the future, such as a reference for the social critic Ivan Ilich (perhaps a third party web page or a book reference). The other arguments are clearly articulated and most are well supported with references. I will continue to edit out any further attempts by the opposition to interject their POV into the support section. Personally, I do not care what the opposition writes, just as long as they stay out of the support section. I have not even read through all their criticisms and do not ever intend to do so.

The quality of the writing in the other sections will determine whether or not the public will rate this Alternative medicine article as professionally written or amateurish. Excess verbiage, redundant text, and POV interjected in any section other than support or criticism will only reflect badly upon Wikipedia. I have spent enough of my time editing the other sections.--Mr-Natural-Health 22:54, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Rasmus Faber vs. User:Mr.-Natural-Health
Faber is a twenty year old and his juvenile tactics, in Talk:Alternative medicine are extremely offensive to me. To Mr. Faber: Grow up! To Faber and everybody else, STOP moving my comments! I put them precisely where I wanted to them to be. -- Mr-Natural-Health 13:52, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * This is frivolous, not least because Rasmus is right: arguments over the definition of alternative medicine belong on talk:Alternative medicine, not strewn all over the talk pages of related articles. (Perhaps he should have copied your comments instead of moving them, and I don't know why you didn't suggest this perfectly reasonable solution before coming here, but what he did was still correct.) — No-One Jones (talk) 14:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * When I make a personal comment to someone on a talk page, it is none of YOUR business. It is just my opinion, but I am right as usual. What he did was juvenile.  And, I guess that your comments indicate another immature juvenile? -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Am I alone in finding Mr-Natural-Health' personal abuse of other users both tiresome and indicative of a layer of insecurity? Mr-Natural-Health: please stop abusing and start co-operating. Bmills 14:17, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I suspect you would be alone only in the opposite view. — No-One Jones (talk) 14:20, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * In case you cannot read, Bmills, personal comments and discussions made by me are none of YOUR business. Please, STOP moving my personal comments and discussions! -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * As you so far have signally failed to understand, anything posted in public spaces on Wikipedia is everybody's business. Learn to play the game or resign yourself to ultimately losing out. This place is about co-operative creation of an encyclopedia and your little tantrums are much less significant than you appear to believe. Bmills 14:30, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * If you don't want others joining a discussion, then don't start it in the middle of the agora. If you want to keep your arguments with Rasmus private, then use talk pages or e-mail. — No-One Jones (talk) 14:36, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * A few comments: I had hoped to have a constructive discussion with Mr-N-H about the definiton of Alternative Medicine, since we appararently disagree about it. As such a discussion was off-topic on Talk:Evidence-based medicine, I moved the relevant parts to Talk:Alternative medicine and left a note explaining that we continued the discussion there.
 * Perhaps I should not have deleted it from Talk:Evidence-based medicine, but I felt it was cluttering the discussion there.
 * As for Mr-N-H not wanting the discussion placed on Talk:Alternative medicine, I do not believe he can refuse it. After all he has accepted the GFDL, when he pressed the "Save page" button, and I do believe that the discussion is relevant to the page. But I hope we can avoid an edit-war on a talk-page.
 * Finally, I would like to say, that I am honored by the ad-hominem attacks on me. It places me in distinguished company. Thanks!
 * Rasmus Faber 14:33, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Theresa knott vs, User:Mr-Natural-Health
Theresa has stated that I cannot find anything wrong with the following definition:
 * "Alternative medicine is a broad term for any method of treatment that stand outside the framework of conventional, evidence-based medicine."

Ha, ... Hah, ...Ha! Alternative medicine has always been paired against plain old medicine. But according to Theresa, it now suddenly has to be evidence-based medicine, because plain old medicine is no longer good enough. Where do these people come from? Not one single dictionary definition in any real dictionary uses evidence-base medicine in the definition. Thanks to the Medical Scientism people Alternative medicine has once again become an amateurish production that turns Wikipedia into a public joke. -- Mr-Natural-Health 16:57, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Mr natural health.Please read the guidelines at the top of this page. This page is for conflicts between users. You do youself no credit when you abuse this page like this. I am very happy to discuss the disputed sentence with you over on alternative medicine's talk page. theresa knott 17:04, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Theresa knott, I am still waiting for you to follow through at Talk:Medical Scientism or was all you talk so much hot air? -- Mr-Natural-Health 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Kosebamse vs, User:Mr-Natural-Health
You cannot develop and improve a perfectly valid article when you are not allowed to edit it. As long as articles like List of Nude Celebrities are allowed. An article on Medical Scientism is perfectly okay. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * User:Kosebamse protected the page because I (and others) repeatedly tried to undo what I (I cannot speak for the others) consider rank insertion of POV material. In which case, I suggest that User:Mr-Natural-Health's problem is really with me. As the article is listed on VfD, I am happy to leave it protected until a decision is reached there. Bmills 15:13, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of text is strictly prohibited. You want to change it then you have to go sentence by sentence, just like everybody else does. Since, you cronies practice your POV medical scientism on a daily basis, you should welcome the opportunity to support it. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:15, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * We engage in wholesale deletion of text frequently. Copyright violations, vandalism, polemic rants, etc. Could you please point us to the policy that states that one can not remove a whole paragraph that is hopelessly biased? --snoyes 15:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not aware of being in a conflict with MrNaturalHealth. I protected that page to stop an edit war he/she conducted against at least three other Wikipedians. While Medical Scientism may be worth an article, it's not worth wasting the time of others in a fruitless reversion war. Kosebamse 15:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * YOU are in major conflict with me. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:40, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Wholesale deletion of text is strictly prohibited. It is not editing.  It is vandalism which Kosebamse is now enabling. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:50, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Kosebamse has done nothing wrong! It is a sysops job to protect pages in which there is an edit war going on. theresa knott 15:55, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The statement: "Its implication is presumably that a non-science-based form of medical knowledge is both possible and preferable" is 100% POV that is being enabled by Kosebamse. Medical Scientism is making the argument that Medical Scientism is not scientific because it stiffles true science. -- Mr-Natural-Health 19:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr vs. User:Mr-Natural-Health
Adam Carr deliberately wrote profanity in Medical Scientism, to-wit: This article has been listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion on the grounds that it is irredeemable crap. Furthermore, Adam has been making a series of POV personal attack statements due to his inability to make a valid argument against Alternative medicine. Adam should learn to grow up and try being more constructive for a change. -- Mr-Natural-Health 07:23, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Troll-baiting is one of my little hobbies. I'm sorry if Mr Quacko is offended. Adam 07:37, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * "Adam has been making a series of POV personal attack statements. . . Adam should learn to grow up and try being more constructive"
 * (insert hearty chuckles here) Mr. (crack)Pot, meet Mr. Kettle! NPOV only applies to articles, you know (or perhaps you don't, as all the complaints below would suggest), and Adam ought to be commended, not chastised, for trying to protect Wikipedia from obsessive cranks. &mdash No One Jones (talk) 08:14, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, I don't agree. My assumption has been that users are listed here in order to resolve the conflicts between them.  I don't see how User:Adam Carr's "troll-baiting" is helping that along. - Scooter 01:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Adam is now engaging in wholesale deletion of meaningful text. His tactics are anti-Wikipedian.  I am not bannished from, Wikipedia but Adam clearly should be.  I will continute, to reverse Wholesale deletion of meaningful text done by Adam and his cronies. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually it was not me who deleted all your junk from the article - I listed it for deletion. Others are trying to create a NPOV article from your mass of polemic. I wish them well but I am not optimistic. And it's a bit rich accusing me of anti-Wikipedianism when you do nothing at Wikipedia except post grossly polemical and unencyclopeadic rants which you know will be deleted. You're entitled to your opinions (thpugh I'd like to see what happens to them when you get acute appendicitis), but don't pretend that you give a toss about Wikipedia. Adam 14:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

MNH just blanked Talk:Medical Scientism. I reverted, naturally. This would seem to indicate that he has no desire to talk about the page, so deleting it should be uncontroversial. --snoyes 14:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I just blanked it out becuase because some @#$%^&* just destroyed it by duplicating the an improved verson of Medical Scientism on it. I am not going to wast my time on a talk page that was intentionally rendered un-editable. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * That was me :-) please dont call me names, it's not nice. I put your version on the talk page so that we could discuss it line by line if necessary without getting into an edit war on the article itself. Adding stuff to a talk page does not make it unreadable, blanking the page OTOH does. theresa knott 16:01, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:RK vs. User:Mr-Natural-Health
RK has once again has decided to singled handedly destroy the work of several people that took several weeks of discussions to create in Alternative medicine. I have supported with numerous references and citations every argument made in support of alternative medicine. RK has not supported a single one of his obviously POV comments. An article about a perfectly legal subject called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it. Health Sciences and Medicine appear to be as poorly organized and written as is Alternative medicine. Alternative medicine currents suffers from the antics of RK and others who are unable to deal with the reality of alternative medicine. RK has been totally unable to articulate and support with references a rational argument against alternative medicine. Why doesn't RK try to clean up Health Sciences and Medicine rather than constantly work at destroying Alternative medicine? -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * RK's rants unsupported by references to web pages, citations to research, or books are worst than ever. When will RK's antics stop?  I will correct whatever damage RK does to Alternative medicine.  How about a little more professionalism, RK, in editing these articles? -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:56, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * An article about a perfectly legal subject called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it. This is basically incorrect, and may be the root cause of some of this conflict.  An article about a perfectly legal subject, or a perfectly illegal one, for that matter, should not be in favor or in opposition to it.  It should be neutral; that is the meaning of NPOV.  Describe what it is, describe the balance of current thought about the subject, whether for, against, or otherwise, and move on.  Advocacy has no place in an encyclopedia. - Scooter 19:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The bigotry of medical scientism has no place in an encyclopedia. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:25, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * By extension, would you argue that science has no place in an encyclopedia? Bmills 14:37, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Touché! True science is dynamic, not static. Encyclopedias are static.  Ergo you can not have science in an encyclopedia.  Furthermore, medical scientism is a false religion.  It is simply wrong.  There is more than one way of science. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I've never heard such a ridicuous argument! Mr Natuaral health you need to cool down, because you seem to be letting you emotions lead you into arguing silly things. May i make a suggestion ? Quit wikipedia for a week. You'll quickly find that a time away will settle you mind, and when you come back you can work with other editors to create neutral articles that are neither pro or against alternative medicine, but simple describes it, presents all opinions, and lets the reader make up their own mind. theresa knott 12:22, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Medical scientism people are so dated in their view points and ignorant of what the facts are and the latest research findings that their comments are often very amusing, if not sad. -- Mr-Natural-Health 16:29, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The biggest crock of bull being fostered by medical scientism people is that double-blind and peer reviewed, and peer-replicated, studies, are required in order to legitimize findings. Why? Because their teacher at school told them so! It is simply a form of bigotry used to promote the job security and income of people with basic science degrees.  -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Despite my comments on RK above, he is right on this one. The Alternative medicine article is a mass of unscientific rubbish. I doubt that RK is the right person to fix it though, given his diplomatic skills. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The only thing that needs correcting is the grossly out of date viewpoints and total lack of the actual facts by the medical scientism people. The latest round of tweaking/vandalism by the science geeks is quite pathetic! -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:29, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

 * I would actually agree that there is no requirement that a given argument (in the sense of a logical construct) or viewpoint on Wikipedia be "scientific", even in the context of an otherwise scientific article - provided that it is presented with NPOV; in other words, only the undisputed facts (probably worded similarly to, "The Council on Non-scientific Medicine believes that...") should be given. Thus, the article should contain these views, scientific or not.  However, there is an overriding consideration: the user in question has out-and-out stated his intention to inject his extreme POV into the article on more than one occasion.  I would like to suggest some possible solutions for this problem: first, the user should please read up on NPOV and apply it, preferably on a subject about which he may be truly neutral, such as auto racing or a recent movie or somesuch, as practice.  Failing any basic willingness to follow these guidelines, Mr-Natural-Health should cease editing on Wikipedia and work on his own Web page, which perhaps could be linked as a representative example of his opinion.  At the very least, and on a more personal note: Mr-Natural-Health should stop doing damage to his own cause.  I'm inclined to believe that there is something to many alternative medical methods, but his persistant baseless ranting is causing me to re-evaluate many of these ideas. - Scooter 07:43, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Ecuse me, Scooter, but the only people here with a perverse need to interject their loony POV's into Alternative medicine are the totally out of date science people. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:16, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * This is not germane to what I was speaking of. If others are inserting POV, they too are wrong, and that should be dealt with separately.  Regardless, they are not the only ones.  The point is that you are using POV.  You have stated your intention to do so in as many words on separate occasions, by saying "An article...called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it," and "...you cannot have science in an encyclopedia."  This is directly against what is mandated in NPOV.  I can't speak for others, but for me, the content of what you say isn't the main problem; your presentation - and the way you present counterarguments - is.  In fact, I would support removing your multiple mentions from this list, if you would simply agree to the following statement: "I have read NPOV, and agree to abide strictly by its dictates from this point forward in all articles that I write on Wikipedia, and in every situation, regardless of my personal feelings on the subject matter."  If you can truthfully agree to and apply that statement, I'll personally contact the mods and ask for you to be removed from this list. - Scooter 01:09, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)''

Vandalism of this page
Mr-Natural-Health deleted the content of this page, and indicated that he will continue to do so. He wrote on my Talk page:
 * Excuse me Troll, but adding material is not moving matieral. I will delete anything that they added that was not moved. Just thought that a Troll like you might want to know. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RickK 04:54, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

from wikipedia:requests for arbitration
some time ago

I think the following is more presentation of evidence than a request to join the proceeding and probably ought not to be put into the page:
 * Though not a "victim" of one of these personal attacks, I am concerned with Mr Natural Health's ability to understand the idea of co-operative article editing. The following quotes from Talk:Alternative medicine illustrate what I mean. When do you get to decide when my last edit was not an improvement: NEVER!  I shall repeat it yet again.  That is exactly how it looked a week or so ago.  Amateurish presentations of material have no place on Wikipedia. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:23, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) and As stated elsewhere, my latest edits are *always* improvements and your one-way or the highway attitude  of Medical Scientism is both juvenile and offensive to me. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:16, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC). This inability to accept that others might be able to "improve" an article that he has worked on makes Mr NH extremely difficult to work with. I hope he will now come here and answer the concerns being raised in a useful way. Bmills 13:16, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But it is evidence. If he is not to post it here, then where? Arbitration-In the Matter of Mr. Natural Health?Fred Bauder 14:00, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * As the original poster of the above on the RfA page, I have removed it. I was considering joining in this process, but I consider Mr NH a troll and am exercising a don't feed the trolls policy instead, preferring to expend my time and energy on some new articles I have in mind and some general housekeeping. Also, I am clearly not predisposed to be open to him, given what I just said, so I would most likely be a poor participant anyway. I will, however, watch with interest. I think that all evidence needs a location and your suggestion seem good. Bmills 14:10, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry that you feel you don't want to take part. From my point of view the more people involved the more likely that all relavent evidence comes to the attention of the arbitration committee. I intend to present as much as i can but I might miss something. Still you can always post relavent things on my talk page for me to present instead. I think having a separate page as Fred suggeasted a good idea. theresa knott 14:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in evidence of the multitude of personal attacks made by MNH, they can visit user:snoyes/sandbox. --snoyes 14:29, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In the Matter of Mr Natural Health

 * Mister Natural Health and Theresa Knott failed to reach an accommodation through mediation. Despite early signs that a mediation could have productively been embarked upon, Mister Natural Health has now indicated that he insists on moving directly to arbitration. This leaves very little room for mediation. On behalf of the mediation committee, I can but regret this case of affairs and wish the arbitration committee good luck in their task. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 01:45, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Mr Natural health has made numerous personal attacks to members of the wikicommunity. He refuses to work with people. He has admitted to trolling. He lists people on conflicts between users all the time even when they are not in conflict with him. He write derogatory comments in page summaries. I would like the arbitration comittee to force him to be polite, cooperative and and unoffensive. theresa knott 11:53, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The issue for arbitration, here, has been narrowly defined by Theresa Knott and myself, Mr-Natural-Health. It is a result of my request to Jussi-Ville Heiskanen for the request for mediation filed by Theresa Knott be split up into two separate issues.
 * Theresa Knott requested mediation, to-wit:
 * "I would like the mediation committee to see if they can perseude [sic] user:Mr-Natural-Health to work with myself and many other users on alternative medicine and a number of related articles. In any situation where Mr NH has disagreed with anyone else, he starts dishing out insults, listing out names on conflicts between users and reverting out work. theresa knott 20:30, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)"
 * I, Mr-Natural-Health, requested to Jussi-Ville Heiskanen that:
 * A)the issue of "alternative medicine and a number of related articles" continue to be resolved by mediation, while
 * B)the alleged "conflicts between users" narrowly defined to work on "alternative medicine and a number of related articles" be resolved directly by arbitration; so that the historical facts can speak directly for themselves.
 * No other issues were raised by Theresa Knott in her above cited request for mediation.
 * Furthermore, as I responded to Ms. Knott's request for mediation, I am requesting relief on the  "conflicts between users" noted in my response to Theresa Knott above cited request for mediation as well, to-wit:
 * A)that User:David Gerard made an improper request to have Alternative medicine protected because David (1)reverted Off-topic POV comments, that were written by another user, in the research design sub-section, (2)declared that there was an edit war when in fact none existed, and (3)then had Alternative medicine protected.

 * 1)There was an edit war.2)David didn't have the page protected. David requested the page protected. It was down to the sysop involved to decide if the page really needed protecting. The sysop concerned ( I beleive it was mav) then protected the page.

 * B) that a yet to be identified user moved Mr-Natural-Health's Conflicts between users conflicts to Conflicts between users/Mr-Natural-Health, while this yet to be identified user clearly added a lot of material from elsewhere which was not from my conflicts listed on Conflicts between users. Further, the yet to be identified user put my conflicts on the very bottom of this page so that visitors to it would first have to page through a lot of unrelated garbage  before they could see the actual list of conflicts.
 * I can clear that issue up straight away. I moved the conflicts to that page. The other stuff on that page was already there left over from conflicts that you were having with others back in deccenber and earlier. A number of different people have been having problems with you for quite a while, so I put all those conflicts in one place so that everyone could see. theresa knott 19:12, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * In short, I have only consented to the above narrowly defined issues for both mediation and arbitration. -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:23, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Saulisagenius

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. 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!

Alexandros 15:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Welcome from me too. Thanks for catching my error on The Archers. I guess The Merriweathers must have been the proposed title for the replacement after the Bowmen had gone down the mineshaft. -- Alan Peakall 11:08, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alan, I like Hancock and I'm a lifelong Archers listener (its compulsorary in our house what with my mum beeing an almost life long listener, seeing as how it started when she was a few months old). Saul Taylor 01:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just William
Great work on Just William. I was having trouble finding any information on the films and television series. CGS 17:01, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC).
 * Thanks. Saul Taylor 05:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup
Hi, Saul; i appreciate your adding pages to Cleanup, and also your graceful masking (at least there) of your flamboyant user name.

I edited your entry
 * History of Socialism: Part 2-subheadings but no content.Saul Taylor 02:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

into
 * History of Socialism: Part 2-subheadings but no content.Saul Taylor

in compliance with the requested format described at the top of the page. I don't know if it was a slip of the keyboard that added the timestamp by putting in your extra tilde. (That's the name, Spanish and thus two syllables, of that squiggle that i think of as part of a "nearly equal" sign.) If it wasn't an accident, i recommend the portion of Cleanup above the ToC to you. (Actually, even if it was an accident; it took me a couple readings to get down the full recommended procedure, with the + and - signs, that IMO are justified by the need to make the page compact and quick to scan.)

If you ever decide that "Saulisagenius" is a burden (it will keep appearing in page histories, Recent changes, others' My-watchlist displays, etc.), you can have it changed, which includes retroactively applying it to past edits. (I have to confess -- tho i still would have been able to supress the impulse -- that at one level i was a little disappointed that you hadn't offered me the wide-open invitation to begin this note "Hey, Genius,".)

I haven't paid any attention to where i've seen your sig before, but anyone who's willing to add entries (or of course do some cleanup) on Cleanup is a welcome colleague. Glad to have you aboard. --Jerzy(t) 00:51, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

Not sure how serious you were being in asking which way to sign at my talk, Saul; i haven't noticed anywhere but Cleanup where the short form is preferred. Many people, as i', sure you've noted, do use the short many other places, but personally i make a point of using the long one everywhere but there, since it's only 1 more keystroke, and gives info that may be wanted by someone,  and since WinP. --Jerzy(t) 23:59, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

Hear'Say
Well done for starting the Hear'Say article. can't say I'm a particular fan either but I've added some substance from google searches. -- Graham :) | Talk 13:10, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

disrupting wikipedia policy vote
You voted once for the policy at Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - Tεx  τ  urε  16:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Manics
A tag has been placed on The Manics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Have I Got News for You episodes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Have I Got News for You episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Have I Got News for You episodes& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Saulisagenius


text:
Flagstaff House, Hong Kong

Flagstaff House, built in 1846, is the oldest example of Western-style architecture remaining in Hong Kong. It is located at 10 Cotton Tree Drive, Central – within the Hong Kong Park.

It has been a longtime residence of the Commander of the British forces in Hong Kong during colonial times. Today Flagstaff House houses the Flagstaff House Museum of Tea Ware.

History
Flagstaff House had been named as Headquarter House until 1932. The site chosen was a small bluff above the barracks and above Queen's Road, then at the waterfront.

The building was designed in Greek revival style. Historians suspect it was designed either by Murdoch Bruce, a Scotsman who was inspector of buildings, or by Lieutenant Bernard Collinson of the Royal Engineers. Construction was completed in 1846, and the first occupant was Major-General George Charles D'Aguilar, General Officer Commanding from 1844 to 1846, who also held the post of Lieutenant Governor.

The west and east wings were shelled during the Japanese invasion in the Second World War; it also suffered bomb damage. The Japanese repaired it and the Commandant took the building as his residence during the occupation.

After the war, Flagstaff House was again the Commander's residence until 1978, when the Commander moved to a purpose built house on Barker Road. It was handed over by the military to the civilian Hong Kong Government as part of the recovery of Victoria Barracks. The Government put it under the responsibility of the Urban Council in 1981.

The building was declared a monument in 1989. It was restored as far as possible to its original mid-19th-century appearance, structurally reinforced, and the interior was to be modified so that it could be used as a museum.

Museum of Tea Ware
In 1984, it was converted into the Flagstaff House Museum of Tea Ware, a branch museum of the Hong Kong Museum of Art. The museum specialises in the collection, study and display of teaware, including many samples of the Yixing teapot, from the Jiangsu of China, as well as the world's oldest known extant teapot.

A new wing, the K.S. Lo Gallery, was built and opened in 1995. It is named after local collector (and Vitasoy founder Dr. Kwee Seong Lo), who made a donation to the city in the 1970s. This donation now constitutes the core of the museum's collection. The new gallery contains a collection of ceramics and Chinese seals.

title: Flagstaff House, Hong Kong