text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyone using a username which is against policy/archive

I'm told this is the appropriate place to complain about inflammatory usernames. Under our no offensive usernames policy, the following user accounts should be disabled:

 * 1) Always gods child
 * 2) Child of God
 * 3) CrucifiedChrist (see also specific discussion at Requests for comment/CrucifiedChrist)
 * 4) Crusty Ass
 * 5) Eminem is god
 * 6) Fuck
 * 7) Fuck You
 * 8) Fuck2
 * 9) FuckAmerika
 * 10) FuckMenchi
 * 11) Fucking Asshole
 * 12) FuckingFucker
 * 13) Fuckstick
 * 14) Fuqnbastard
 * 15) God
 * 16) Godisgood
 * 17) Godisnowhere
 * 18) Jesus
 * 19) Jesus Chirst
 * 20) Jesus Christ
 * 21) Jesus Saves!
 * 22) Jesus is Lord
 * 23) Jesus is a controversial word
 * 24) Jesus is a fudgepacker!
 * 25) Jesus is so much cooler than Brahma
 * 26) JesusCantSave
 * 27) JesusChrist
 * 28) ManofGod
 * 29) NoLordButJesus
 * 30) Satan
 * 31) Satan is our Saviour!
 * 32) Sum' D-Block Muthafucka
 * 33) There is no God
 * 34) Wrath-Of-God

I haven't linked to the user pages because everything you need to know about them is on this page. May I suggest changing the relevant passwords to some random string? That way they won't have their IPs blocked next time they try to log in. -- Tim Starling 02:55, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I completely support that. -- BCorr € Брайен 02:58, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * No objection, though it would be better if there was a way of blocking a username without blocking their IP so that if any of these users ever try to log in again, they will see the reason for the blocking, rather than being confused by a changed password. Angela. 03:11, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Some more spotted by Pakaran are listed below. -- Tim Starling 04:27, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) PhatJew
 * 2) Cumguzzler
 * 3) Cockgoblin
 * 4) Illiterate Cow
 * 5) Nutsack
 * 6) Fragrant feces

Some more offensive usernames.

 * 1) User:Jengod -- Offensive: contains the word "God" in it.
 * 2) User:Hephaestos -- Offensive: a tribute to a pagan god (Hephaestos).
 * 3) User:Stewartadcock -- Offensive: contains the word cock. There is a precedent: User:TMC.
 * 4) More: See Offensive User Names Havers Club

Some of the names listed don't seem to me to be offensive. Is having a name of a religious nature ("Godisgood" for example) necessarilly offensive? Is there a policy in this regard? Sam Spade 05:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * from what I read here it is reccomended against, but not against policy. I can't see how such a name would be inflamatory or offensive, which would be. Sam Spade 05:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * We went through all this before. There was a long discussion, and a consensus was reached. If the policy page hasn't been updated fully, then the policy page is at fault. See User talk:Jesus is Lord! and User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange. It's got nothing to do with whether you personally find a name offensive, the question is whether some significant minority will find it offensive. -- Tim Starling 13:21, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Its clear to me that the vote you cite favors my position, not yours. I ask again, where is there evidence of any signifigant minority feeling this name is so offensive as to force a change of name? Sam Spade 04:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer to change offensive names to something inoffensive. That removes the name from the page history. Martin 00:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd rather that the names be changed. Perl 23:11, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done since the presence of these names paints the project in a bad light. Perhaps they could all be changed to something like User:NameWithheld, especially if the number of edits is few. UninvitedCompany 21:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Jengod, Stewartadcock are from actual names. Nothing offensive there. Dori | Talk 18:21, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

A few more:
 * 1) CrapBeater
 * 2) Allah is great
 * 3) Olga Bityerkokoff

Dori | Talk 18:25, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

And:

Secretlondon 18:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Sex
 * 2) Rothwellisretarded

And:
 * 1) User:Paki (racist term in the UK)

fabiform | talk 18:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We have had this page up in one form or another for almost a month. Since there appear to be no serious reservations about dealing with the clear-cut cases, and particularly since many of these are not regular contributors to the project, let's take action. Can we just delete the accounts, or do we want to go through and re-attribute the edits, first, to something neutral like "no longer a Wikipedian" or "name withheld"? And are we going to delete the user pages, or not? UninvitedCompany 23:18, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that those which are obviously offensive should be changed, or banned, or what-have-you, but I also want it very clear that there is no concensus about religious names which are clearly not universally offensive, like god is good, or allah is great, or whatever. Sam Spade 23:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Rather than re-open that debate at this time, it may be wisest to remove those user names that are, as you say, obviously offensive, and perhaps also any marginal cases that appear to have been created for trolling or shock value; that is, those without meaningful edits. Once that is done, the remaining names can be dealt with in a more leisurely fashion, or perhaps not at all.  UninvitedCompany 23:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Some of the names listed on this page are clearly offensive and obviously intended as such. Some ot the arguments against other names lean toward absurdity.  I think it would be worthwhile for everybody to read "The Death of Common Sense" (as for the ISBN, I dunno, my copy is either in storage or loaned out, but as Yogi Berra often said, "You could look it up").  As to the policy "Wikipedia recommends that users avoid names of religious figures", for Pete's sake, gazillions of people are named after religious figures.  Get real!  And for the one about how "Paki" is offensive somewhere, lots of things are offensive somewhere, and SO WHAT?  Example:  "Omaha" means "piss" in Tahitian.  If someone wants to call himself Paki, that's not at all the same as one person tossing it as an epithet at another.  ;Bear 05:26, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)
 * Pardon? I live in the UK, we speak English, this is the English language wikipedia.  In case anyone else is wondering if this word really is offensive: "In research, 50% or more people said the words that should never be broadcast are cunt, motherfucker, nigger, Paki and spastic" [research carried out by the BBC and various broadcasting watchdogs].  I doubt people would defend any of those other words used as a username.  fabiform | talk 10:59, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll accept that -- but one comment: things change, keep that in the back of your mind. In particular, about the word "spastic": forty years ago I had a small British auto, and I recall that printed on something that came with or was about it, in one corner of the cover (or an early page inside) there was this "public-service announcement" thing: a drawing of a hand holding  a flower, with the legend "Help Spastics". ;Bear 04:32, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

I disagree with a policy condemning all names which carry any religious significance. Specifically, I think objections to Jengod, Hephaestos, and Stewartadcock are unfounded and ridiculous. I do agree, however, that names containing profanity or racial slurs should be deleted. There is a clear difference between names which are intended to offend ("Fuck You") and names which simply contain some religious reference ("Child of God" or "Godisgood"). The latter should not be deleted. If you find "CrucifiedChrist" to be offensive, you are free to politely request a username change on his/her Talk page; but I disagree with a policy which forces deletion of those names. My two cents... Cribnotes 05:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem with a name like "CrucifiedChrist" is that it puts other people in the position having write things like, "CrucifiedChrist, your writing is inappropriate and laced with profanity" or "CrucifiedChrist, I disagree with your edit on the Mormonism article" or something. I can see where that may be uncomfortable for some Christians. - Nat Krause 07:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't. The truth is it isn't Christians who have been suggesting his name to be offensive, but rather others suggesting that someone else might be offended. Clearly nobody is offended by Hephaestos's name (I have found him otherwise offensive, buts thats neither here nor there), and in my opinion anybody who is offended by CrucifiedChrist's name needs a long and intimate date with a bible. In summary I am intensely offended by people claiming to be offended by anything remotely holy, and UC is right, get rid of those who are offensive to all, and we can debate the "theoretically offensive to somebody" at a later date. Sam Spade 08:19, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Sam, that's absolute nonsense to suggest "it isn't Christians who have been suggesting his name to be offensive" as you don't know the religious views of those voting. Angela. 11:03, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

ok, then I will say that being offended by his name is unchristian. Sam Spade 11:07, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Not at all. Christians could have very valid reasons for objecting to someone using the name "CrucifiedChrist"—something about not taking a certain name in vain springs to mind, and Cyan's comment about Matthew 6:5-6 (from User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange) is just as applicable to this username. —67.71.79.111 11:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think we should split these up in an appropriate way, and I will do that tomorrow unless there are objections. UninvitedCompany 21:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is an encyclopedia, the objective is to write articles, not express yourself. There is no reason not to pick something low-key, as most editors do. There is no reason not to be aggressive in enforcing a username policy. If you want to express your views, do it on your user page, that's what it's for. In the article histories though, there is no reason for having POV/offensive/etc names. Dori | Talk 22:02, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I won't try to sway your opinion, but for the record: I do believe there is a reason not to be "aggressive" in policing usernames: Nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones. Just my two cents... Cribnotes 19:06, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to keep any of these usernames (except Jengod, Hephaestos and Stewartadcock of course). I really wouldn't want to have to type out "Godisgreat" in order to reply to someone, or indeed "JesusCantSave". I agree with Dori, for most people it doesn't seem to be too difficult to pick an inoffensive username, there's no need to have names which stir up bad feeling or offend people. fabiform | talk 22:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * whatever, clearly we all have our own ideas about what is acceptable and what isn't I agree w UC about dealing w the ones we all agree about 1st, for example any w foul language. Sam Spade 22:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Mgarraha

Mike Garrahan

 * Computer programmer
 * Amateur violinist
 * Amateur astronomer

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

title: User:Mgarraha


text:
Talk:Rose of Sharon

Disambiguation page
This has been converted into a disambiguation page due to the fact that the name "Rose of Sharon" refers to Hibiscus syriacus at least as often as it is used to refer to Hypericum calycinum. The dialogue below--which led to this move--is copied from my Talk page. --Sewing 20:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Korean national flower
Hi Sewing, saw your addition to Rose of Sharon - unfortunately, what the Korean page you linked shows, is that the Korean national flower is not Hypericum calycinum, but another species, Hibiscus syriacus (no page for this species yet, but see Hibiscus). I suspect this is a case of translation error in translating from Korean to English. If I get time tomorrow, I'll create a page for Hibiscus syriacus and transer the Korea reference across. MPF 01:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see your note regarding the application of the name Rose of Sharon to Hibiscus syriacus at the bottom of the article...it didn't even register with me that the Latin names were different. But this is not an isolated "translation error," since the flower's Korean name (mugunghwa) is universally translated as "Rose of Sharon" in all sources. You may need to modify the Rose of Sharon article, however: the online American Heritage Dictionary defines "Rose of Sharon" as (1) Hibiscus syriacus (also known as "althea") and (2) Hypericum calycinum (also known as "Aaron's beard"). (Dictionary entry here.)  Furthermore, a Google search for "hypericum calycinum" and "rose of sharon" together turns up 393 search results, whereas a search for "hibiscus syriacus" and "rose of sharon" together yields some 3,530 results: so there are 9 times more Web pages out there that refer to hib. syr. as Rose of Sharon than those that refer to hyp. cal. as Rose of Sharon. --Sewing 01:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; this is I fear yet another example of "US versus the Rest of the World" (and American domination of the internet) in name usage.I guess the translation of the Korean was done by American-influenced Koreans. I would think that 'Rose of Sharon' was applied to Hypericum calycinum before America was even discovered, let alone started using 'Rose of Sharon' for a different species. The US forms only 5% of the world's population; I feel that both the 'silent majority' and historical precedent deserve to have their usage recognised. - MPF 02:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the source for your assertion that Hypericum calycinum is the "real" Rose of Sharon? I have consulted 4 different reference books--all published long before the World Wide Web was born--and only 1 of them even mentions Hypericum calycinum.

 * I never said it was the biblical Rose of Sharon - that, for lack of any description in the bible, is unknown and impossible to determine. But it is probably the first species the name was applied to in the English language. I've added to the disambig page to reflect the biblical mention. - MPF 16:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all, where does the English term "Rose of Sharon" come from? One of its earliest English appearances must be in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, in Song of Solomon 2.1:

 * "I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys."

According to a footnote in the 1991 edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible--a scholarly study Bible--the Hebrew word traditionally translated inton English as "rose" properly denotes a crocus (854 OT). According to an explanatory note on the same page:

 * "The flower of Sharon is probably the crocus that grows in the coastal plain of Sharon; the lily is the lotus flower."

The article "Sharon, the Plain of" in the 1985 edition of Harper's Bible Dictionary--a collaborative work by academics in many fields--says this about the flower:

 * "The rose of Sharon is a kind of crocus growing as a "lily among the brambles" (933)

In contradiction, the article "Rose" in the same dictionary says this:

 * "The rose of Sharon (Song of Sol. 2:1) is probably not a true rose, but a bright red tulip-like flower (Tulipa montana), today prolific in the hills of Sharon" (884).

A picture (with the caption "Rose of Sharon") in the article shows a solitary 6-petalled flower with 3 long, narrow, upward-pointing leaves attached its stem. (Of course, montana in the plant's Latin name refers not to the American state of Montana, but to the plant's hilly habitat.)

Note that neither the New Oxford Annotated Bible nor Harper's Bible Dictionary mention either Hypericum calycinum or Hibiscus syriacus. So if the "rose of Sharon" of the Bible--surely the source of the English name "rose of Sharon"--does not properly apply to either plant, how can we say that Hypericum calycinum is the "true" rose of Sharon?

Now, if we turn away from Biblical references, the 1986 edition of the New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Knowledge gives this entry for the "Rose of Sharon":

 * "Rose of Sharon, hardy shrub, Hibiscus syriacus, native to China. It can be grown farther north than many hibiscus plants.  The flowers are red, purple, rose, or white.  Height: 15 ft (4.6 m).  Family Malvaceae.  See also Hibiscus" (503).

The article does not even mention Hypericum calycinum as an alternate meaning.

 * Erm, this is an American text and has the sadly all-too-common parochial American viewpoint ("the rest of the world is not America, and therefore unimportant and doesn't matter"). Try checking some British texts, or Australian, or any other part of the English-speaking world – Sydney RBG, for example gives Hypericum calycinum, Lilium candidum and Tulipa agenensis as being called "Rose of Sharon", but no mention of Hibiscus. - MPF 16:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I am curious about your value judgments regarding the "Britain and most other English-speaking countries" vs. the "US and areas heavily influenced by US-english usage." First of all, I am Canadian, so don't prejudge my point of view.  Secondly, the "American" text you refer to is a parallel printing of  the original British text published in the same year by a publisher in London (I have updaed the Works cited to reflect this).  Thirdly, while the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney mention Hypericum calycinum without mentioning Hibiscus syriacus, they speak Australian English, and this does not necessarily reflect usage in British English.  Finally, Webster's dictionary--which uses American English--mentions Hypericum calycinum first, so there is no evidence of a predilection there to prefer Hibiscus syriacus over Hypericum calycinum.  --Sewing 16:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The Oxford English Dictionary cites use of RoS for Hibiscus syriacus as a specifically US usage. Australian English is generally much closer to UK English; a google check of .au websites revealed most as using RoS for Hypericum calycinum, and a mix of names for Hibiscus syriacus with 'serious' sites (botanic gardens etc) mainly using "Hibiscus" or "Syrian Rose", and commercial nurseries mostly using RoS. PS sorry about accidentally wiping the above para when I posted mine - not sure how that happened! - MPF 16:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * No problem, sorry for the heated discussion, and I was wondering what the OED said. I absolutely accept the OED as the final and authoritative voice on the subject!  --Sewing 16:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Finally, we find mention of Hypericum calcycinum in this 1977 definition from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

 * "rose of Sharon...1: a Eurasian St.-John's-wort (Hypericum calycinum) often cultivated for its large yellow flowers. 2: a commonly cultivated Asiatic small shrubby tree (Hibiscus syriacus) having showy bell-shaped rose, purple, or white flowers" (1006).

So in the one source I have available to me at home that even mentions Hypericum calycinum, it is in a definition together with Hibiscus syriacus. Even if "Rose of Sharon" was used in English to denote Hypericum calycinum before it was applied to Hibiscus syriacus, it is clear that "Rose of Sharon" is as much a misnomer for the first plant as it is for the second.
 * But note it is given as the first definition there, the one the compiler or editor considered the more relevant or widely used - MPF 16:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have made Rose of Sharon a disambiguation page, with links to the separate articles Hypericum calycinum (incorporating the material formerly in Rose of Sharon) and Hibiscus syriacus --Sewing 15:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That I agree is a very good idea, and have expanded it with the addition of two further species also (much more rarely) cited as 'Rose of Sharon', and usage by region - MPF 16:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Narcissus?
Is there not also a theory that the biblical plant was some kind of Narcissus? The Jerusalem Bible translates the word as "jonquil", which certainly suggests that some fairly reputable scholars must have thought so, though I'm a bit worried that going by a single bible translation would count as original research, and I can't easily find an actual source to cite. 81.86.133.45 21:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Grapes of Wrath
Rose of Sharon or 'Rosasharn' is an important character in the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. Perhaps worth adding? Sarahjeantaylor 17:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Perhaps a "references in popular culture" or in literature section is in order?-Zookman12 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Which RoS?
The article starts out note the ambiguity of the term. Later the flower - which one?? - is given as the symbol of an organization. This should be cleared up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.176 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rose of Sharon


text:
Talk:Daniel Harrwitz

Linking "German"
Its my understanding that the linking convention for articles is to link to other articles of particular relevance, and not simply because a word has a wikipedian article. In the opening statement, if both "German" and "chess master" are both linked, the eye tends to see just one long link, it looks like "German chess master" and that is misleading, as there is no such article, and clicking on "German" takes you to general entry on Germany. So, perhaps its best to link "chess master" only, as its not obvious that such an article exists, and its relevant to understanding what Harrwitz was in his life. On the other hand, if the reader wants to know about Germany in general, they can simply type "Germany" into the search box. Linking "German" is over-linking in this type of article, in my opinion. ChessPlayer 03:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It's really a matter of taste, and there are certainly plenty of people who would agree with you that such links are unnecessary and even undesireable, but most biographical articles in the Wikipedia do nevertheless link to countries in this way. If you wanted to take the link out, then you could do so, but I'd expect somebody to put it back in eventually. Personally, I think such links do little harm. I wouldn't worry about it too much, really - such things don't make a lot of difference one way or the other. The content of the article is more important. --Camembert

 * If you turn on link underlining in the Preferences, you'll find that the eye does not run together German chess master as one link. I favor linking both.  -- Mareklug  talk  06:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Harrwitz did not have a plus score against Anderssen. The score was either even, or plus one in favor of Anderssen. Their 1848 match ended with five wins each. But, some sources have an additional two games that year with Anderssen scoring 1 1/2. Then, in 1857 they played three games, each winning one, plus a draw. JStripes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.177.88 (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Black
It seems that Harrwitz had the black pieces, not Morphy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.107.99 (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Birth date
The correct birth date was the 22 Feb 1821. See the grave stone in Edgar Winters CN 6286 See also the film "Geburten 1804-1802, 1809-1822, 1825-1846 International Film 1184380 7989998" (Jewish records from Breslau) at family-search (free registration necessary) On page 337/594 of the film the birth is registrated as 22 Feb 1821 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.125.174 (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Death date
The death date is also wrong, see the grave stone in Edgar Winters CN 6286 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.125.174 (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Daniel Harrwitz


text:
File:B2ModuleCover.jpg

Original uploader information
03:01, 5 March 2004

title: File:B2ModuleCover.jpg


text:
File:C3ModuleCover.jpg

Original uploader information
03:01, 5 March 2004

title: File:C3ModuleCover.jpg


text:
File:FR1ModuleCover.jpg

Licensing
This image is of a book cover

title: File:FR1ModuleCover.jpg


text:
File:I9ModuleCover.jpg

Licensing
This image is of a book cover

Original uploader information
03:02, 5 March 2004

title: File:I9ModuleCover.jpg


text:
File:L1ModuleCover.jpg

Licensing
This image is of a book cover

Original uploader information
03:03, 5 March 2004

title: File:L1ModuleCover.jpg


text:
File:RS1ModuleCover.jpg

Licensing
This image is of a book cover

Original uploader information
03:03, 5 March 2004

title: File:RS1ModuleCover.jpg


title: File:X7ModuleCover.jpg


text:
User talk:64.7.152.18

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in articles will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing here. Thanks. Hadal 03:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Canada
I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia. Your change was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.  Sango  123    (e)  20:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you.   Sango   123    (e)  20:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.   Sango   123    (e)  20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * 1) [[Image:Stop_hand.png|left|30px]] This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  -- light  darkness (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

April 2007
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Hiddekel 17:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Cars on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- M s c h e l 18:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Davewild 18:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Davewild 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Davewild 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Canada. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ckatz chat spy  18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

January 2008
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Texas Patriot | Talk | Contributions 23:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Texas Patriot | Talk | Contributions 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

March 2008
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Mifter (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

April 2008
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. BigDunc (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi, the recent edit you made to Canadian Confederation has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. J.d ela noy gabs adds 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Canadian Confederation constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. J.d ela noy gabs adds 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Canthusus (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Canthusus (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Venture capital, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Venture capital was changed by 64.7.152.18 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-10-28T09:28:33+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Kolindigo (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lander (spacecraft), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Lander (spacecraft) was changed by 64.7.152.18 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-01-08T19:13:03+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Evan Adams constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. WadeSimMiser (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Evan Adams, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Evan Adams was changed by 64.7.152.18 (u) (t) making a minor change adding "!!!" on 2009-01-08T23:01:43+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to E. C. Drury School for the Deaf, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: E. C. Drury School for the Deaf was changed by 64.7.152.18 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-01-08T23:05:43+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Evan, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Evan was changed by 64.7.152.18 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-01-13T22:54:57+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Evan constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. J.delanoy gabs adds 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Evan. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. J.delanoy gabs adds 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Mariner 1, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Mariner 1 was changed by 64.7.152.18 (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2009-01-14T20:05:05+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. — slakr \ talk / 20:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Fanshawe College has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Fleming College. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. J.delanoy gabs adds 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

March 2010
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Minimac's Clone ( Vandalise here ) 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Jusdafax  18:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fort York, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. This particular incident was located with the assistance of STiki. Thank you! -- Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Radial arm saw, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Rich (MTCD) Talk Page 03:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Disaster Assistance Response Team, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bento00 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Scooter Braun, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wendy's, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

February 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nunavut with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. mmovchin Talk 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cassie Campbell with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Your vandalism to the Eid al-Fitr article was reverted. Are we ever going to see anything useful from your school? Debresser (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chris, you may be blocked from editing. HighKing (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

title: User talk:64.7.152.18


text:
Jus ad bellum

Jus ad bellum ( or ), literally "right to war" in Latin, refers to "the conditions under which States may resort to war or to the use of armed force in general". This is distinct from the set of rules that ought to be followed during a war, known as jus in bello, which govern the behavior of parties in an armed conflict.

Definition
Jus ad bellum is sometimes considered a part of the laws of war, but the term "laws of war" is more often considered to refer only to jus in bello, which, as noted above, concerns whether a war is conducted justly, or lawfully (regardless of whether the initiation of hostilities was just). Jus ad bellum rules focus on the criteria concerning what conditions make an armed conflict just, or lawful."

Under modern public international law, the UN Charter establishes the fundamental rules of the jus ad bellum. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

Article 51 of the UN Charter later clarifies: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

An international agreement limiting the justifiable reasons for a country to declare war against another is concerned with jus ad bellum. In addition to bilateral non-aggression pacts, the twentieth century saw multilateral treaties defining entirely new restrictions against going to war. The three most notable examples are the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war as an instrument of national policy, the London Charter (known also as the Nuremberg Charter) defining "crimes against peace" as one of three major categories of international crime to be prosecuted after World War II, and the United Nations Charter, chapter VI of which binds nations to seek resolution of disputes by peaceful means and requires authorization by the United Nations before a nation may initiate any use of force against another, beyond the inherent right of self-defense against an armed attack.

By contrast, agreements defining limits on acceptable conduct while already engaged in war are considered "rules of war" and are referred to as the jus in bello. Thus, the Geneva Conventions are a set of "jus in bello". Doctrines concerning the protection of civilians in wartime, or the need for "proportionality" when force is used, are addressed to issues of conduct within a war, but the same doctrines can also shed light on the question of when it is lawful (or unlawful) to go to war in the first place.

Proper authority and public declaration
The principle of right authority suggests that a war is just only if waged by a legitimate authority. Such authority is rooted in the notion of state sovereignty. In his Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas notes that to be a just war, war has not only to be declared publicly, but also must be declared by the proper authority.

Proper authority is what differentiates war from murder: "It is the rules of warfare that give the practice meaning, that distinguish war from murder and soldiers from criminals." A soldier is treated as a prisoner of war and not a criminal because they are operating under the proper authority of the state and cannot be held individually responsible for actions committed under the orders of their military leadership.

Just cause
According to the principle of right intention, the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests, but rather to re-establish a just peace. This state of peace should be preferable to the conditions that would have prevailed had the war not occurred. Wars cannot be fought simply to annex property or install a regime change. Current doctrines of "anticipatory self-defense" or preemptive strikes, sometimes associated with the Bush Doctrine, have challenged concepts of right intention/just cause. Right cause includes humanitarian intervention, particularly when actions "shock the conscience". The responsibility to protect covers more in depth the nature of humanitarian intervention.

Probability of success
According to this principle, there must be good grounds for concluding that aims of the just war are achievable. This principle emphasizes that mass violence must not be undertaken if it is unlikely to secure the just cause. This criterion is to avoid invasion for invasion's sake and links to the proportionality criteria. One cannot invade if there is no chance of actually winning. However, wars are fought with imperfect knowledge, so one must simply be able to make a logical case that one can win; there is no way to know this in advance. These criteria move the conversation from moral and theoretical grounds to practical grounds. Essentially, this is meant to gather coalition building and win approval of other state actors.

Ends Proportional to Means

Last resort
The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Diplomatic options, sanctions, and other non-military methods must be attempted or validly ruled out before the engagement of hostilities. Further, in regard to the amount of harm—proportionally—the principle of last resort would support using small intervention forces first and then escalating rather than starting a war with massive force such as carpet bombing or nuclear warfare.

History
St. Thomas Aquinas is one of the earliest philosophers on what makes a just war. His list of criteria were intended to protect civilians and guarantee that wars were not just fought for the interest of private parties.

After the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War, scholars became concerned with finding a way to control interstate war while respecting state sovereignty. It wasn’t until the formation of the United Nations after World War II that notions of jus ad bellum were formalized.

The modern era
Since the 1950s, declarations of jus ad bellum have dropped dramatically. In "Why States No Longer Declare War" Tanisha Fazal notes the drop in formal declarations of war since the 1950s. This may be as a result of the nuance of war in modern times, given the rise of non-state actors such as terrorist groups.

title: Jus ad bellum


text:
John Gaddis

John Gaddis may refer to:

 * John Gaddi, one of the leaders of the Maccabeans in the First Book of Maccabees
 * John Lewis Gaddis, American historian
 * John W. Gaddis, architect of Vincennes, Indiana

title: John Gaddis


text:
Lockheed EC-130H Compass Call

The EC-130H Compass Call is an electronic attack aircraft flown by the United States Air Force. Based on the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, the aircraft is heavily modified to disrupt enemy command and control communications, perform offensive counterinformation operations, and carry out other kinds of electronic attacks. Planned upgrades will add the ability to attack early warning and acquisition radars. Based at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona, EC-130Hs can be deployed worldwide at short notice to support U.S. and allied strategic and tactical air, surface, and special operations forces.

The EC-130H is one of the three main U.S. electronic warfare aircraft, along with the Boeing EA-18G Growler, and F-16CJ Fighting Falcon, all of which can suppress enemy air defenses while jamming communications, radar, and command-and-control targets.

In September 2017, the Air Force announced that L3 Technologies will serve as the lead systems integrator for a future Compass Call aircraft based on the Gulfstream G550 business jet. The new Compass Call platform was designated as EA-37B by Air Combat Command on November 14, 2023.

Crew
The EC-130H aircraft carries a combat crew of 13 people. Four members handle aircraft flight and navigation (aircraft commander, co-pilot, navigator, and flight engineer), while nine members operate and employ the EA mission equipment permanently integrated into the cargo/mission compartment. The mission crew includes the mission crew commander (electronic warfare officer), weapon system officer (electronic warfare officer), mission crew supervisor (an experienced cryptologic linguist), four analysis operators (linguists), one acquisition operator, and an airborne maintenance technician.

Aircraft
The EC-130H fleet is composed of a mix of Baseline 1 and 2 aircraft.

The Block 35 Baseline 1 EC-130H provides the Air Force with additional capabilities to jam communication, Early Warning/Acquisition radar, and navigation systems through higher effective radiated power, extended frequency range, and insertion of digital signal processing compared to earlier EC-130Hs.

Baseline 1 aircraft have the flexibility to keep pace with adversary use of emerging technology. It promotes enhanced crew proficiency, maintenance, and sustainment with a common fleet configuration, new operator interface, increased reliability, and better fault detection.

Baseline 2 has several upgrades to ease operator workload and improve effectiveness. Improved external communications allow Compass Call crews to maintain situational awareness and connectivity in dynamic operational and tactical environments. Aircraft communication capabilities are improved with the expansion of satellite communications connectivity compatible with emerging DoD architectures, increased multi-asset coordination nets, and upgraded data-link terminals.

Delivery of Baseline-2 provides the Air Force with the equivalent of a "fifth generation electronic attack capability," providing improved aircraft performance and survivability.

A majority of the improvements found in the EC-130H Compass Call Baseline-2 are classified modifications to the mission system that enhance precision and increase attack capabilities.

Operational history
The Compass Call had its first flight in 1981, was delivered to the Air Force in 1982, and reached initial operating capability in 1983.

All EC-130H Compass Call aircraft are assigned to Air Combat Command. The EC-130H is operated by the 55th Electronic Combat Group (ECG) consisting of two operational squadrons (41st and 43rd Electronic Combat Squadron (ECS)), a formal training unit (the 42nd ECS), the 755th Operations Support Squadron (OSS), and the 755th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron (AMXS). The 55th ECG is a tenant unit of the 355th Fighter Wing at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. Although located at Davis-Monthan, the group reports to the 55th Wing at Offutt AFB, Nebraska.

Compass Call has been used in Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

From 2002 to 2015, EC-130Hs participating in Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan and Operation Freedom's Sentinel flew over 40,000 hours during 6,900 combat sorties.

On 15 January 2020, the first EC-130H Compass Call (serial number 73-01587) was retired from active service. The aircraft was the first EC-130H Compass Call delivered to the Air Force in March 1982.

Operators

 * United States Air Force
 * Air Combat Command
 * 55th Electronic Combat Group
 * 55th Electronic Combat Group

title: Lockheed EC-130H Compass Call