text:
Talk:Singularitarianism

Green Anarchist
The green anarchist line is identical in the lede and in the body. I've removed it from the article body but not the lede. While the lede should reference the content of the article, it should not be a verbatim copy. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Although I've restored the line to the lede and will edit it be different from the line in the body, please point me to the Manual of Style (lead section) guideline which explicitly states that while the lede should reference the content of the article it should not be a verbatim copy. --Loremaster (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The lede is off track. To wit, from WP:LEAD
 * “Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body.” In this case, beyond the first paragraph, the lede is just excerpts from the body. That’s not greater generality.
 * “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.” The lede does not read as a broad, concise description of the article. It reads as a definition of Singularitarianism and a couple of sound bytes of criticism.
 * “The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific.” The lede is exactly as specific as the article on several topics it covers, having simply lifted text directly from the article. The description in the lede is not neutral; a full half of the precious space of the lede is devoted to specific criticisms of the topic. This reflects some agenda rather than a general description of the topic. A proper lede would state the controversies in general terms, not dive into cherry-picked details.
 * “The lead should define the topic,” which it does, “establish context,” which it does to some extent, “explain why the subject is interesting or notable,” which is does not, “and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies,” which it also does not. That is, it does not summarize the most important points. It goes into detail about a couple of points. It was even worse before removing etymology, which bizarrely had a whole lede paragraph devoted to, ignoring the lede length guidelines for an article of this size.

 * Strebe (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I disagree with you. The real problem lies in the fact that the content in the body of the article is already a general overview of the subject so it is hard for the lead section to be even more general. So the current version of the lead section is fine until the body is significantly improved. Ultimately, IRWolfie and you need to let it go and move on. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 * You are in no position to tell people what they need to let go and move on about. I suggest you use Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines as a benchmark for discussion. There is no such thing as “can’t make it more general”. I already did that; you reverted it. The lede sucks, to put it in the vernacular. I have explained why and how. You, on the other hand, are making bizarre excuses and ordering people around. That really does not bode well.
 * Strebe (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your overgeneralization made the pagagraph too short but also uninformative. That being said, I will restore the disputed content but improve it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I have given several reasons founded on Wikipedia guidelines for my version of the lede edits. You, Loremaster, not only have failed to cite a single Wikipedia rationalizations for your version, but you have bossed around other editors, ignored the fact that no other editors support your position, have ignored the Wikipedia policies I brought to bear to explain why the article needs improvement, and have offered nothing but subjective opinions in an effort to coddle and preserve your own edits.

 * The lede paragraph is supposed to be general. Meanwhile you keep injecting into it your apparent personal favorite “Rapture of the Nerds” metaphor and details about opposition groups. They are a level of specificity appropriate only to the article body. In point of fact my proposed edits are more informative than yours because they summarize more of the article and they do it economically. Your edits fixate on details of interest to you, creating a flabby, patchy, confusing lede. Furthermore everything you keep putting into the lede duplicates at the same level of detail what is already in the body. Your arguments for this are transparent rationalizations. No professional editor would agree with this amateurish editing and manipulation of agenda, and certainly no Wikipedia guideline permits it.

 * Do you understand that you do not own or control this article? Do you understand that in the end, the article will conform to Wikipedia guidelines, not whatever content and arrangement happen to titillate you? Strebe (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I've deleted your unsourced sentence that is glaringly too short and uninformative. I've replaced with a sourced paragraph that is in fact a generalization of content in the body. Unlike the previous paragrah, it is neither inappropriately lengthy nor too detailed nor too verbose nor does it completely duplicate body text. I will continue tweaking it if necessary. All of this is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines you cite. --Loremaster (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

These inclusions still require third party sources to establish they are not a fringe view. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Singularitarianism itself is a fringe view... --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * and as a result it makes no sense to have anything other than mainstream criticism of it. (i.e mainstream criticism of it as the rapture of the nerds). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * In order to resolve this dispute, I've removed all content based on the Green Anarchy article but I have and will continue to restore to the lead section an improved version of the specific criticisms expressed by John Horgan and David Correira since they are notable mainstream journalists and scholars while IEEE and CounterPunch are reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * is CounterPunch reliable? It doesn't appear to be: "Counterpunch.org, a conspiracy-mongering website run by Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn" . Related reliable sources discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10. I don't think it should be used for grounds for inclusion, since nothing has been shown to establish David Correira as mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk)

 * It wouldn't be wise to judge the reliability of a source based on an opinion piece by a neo-conservative pundit who has been criticized for dishonesty. That being said, CounterPunch isn't being used to support a fact but only to report the opinion of a university professor. --Loremaster (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * An assistant professor isn't a professor. but anyway: being an academic does not make his claims mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * You are correct on the professor issue. However, although Wikipedia considers mainstream scholars and journalists to be the most reliable sources, their viewpoints don't have to be “mainstream” in the sense of them being accepted and held by a majority of people. They only have to be significant and Wikipedia guidelines demand that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints. That being said, this dispute has reminded me that I've actually read articles/essays by other critics who essentially express the same opinion as Correira so I will track them down and add them to support his viewpoint. --Loremaster (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * It would be better if they are added instead of his since his view has not been shown to be significant either. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * It has been cited in H+ Magazine and some blogs by thinkers critical of Singularitarianism:
 * Counterpunch Expose: H+ “Journal” a Part of Ruling Class Conspiracy!
 * Sean Hannity is a cyborg
 * My Response to the Counterpunch Expose of Singularitarianism
 * However, my point is that Correira reinforced an opinion shared by other critics and therefore is “mainstream”. --Loremaster (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in those blogs that makes his claims mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two arguments I am making: 1) Correira's criticism of Singularitarianism is significant because it has been cited by other sources, and 2) other critics of Singularitarianism share his viewpoint so it isn't “fringe”. Dale Carrico has repeatedly expressed the same criticism of Singularitarianism in his blog Amor Mundi. --Loremaster (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

offtopic?
The paragraph beginning "In July 2009, academics and technical experts, some of whom were Singularitarians ..." appears a bit off topic, or at least a bit too much info on it not related to this Singularitarianism movement. Does anyone else agree? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * It is the best example of what Singularitarians are interested in and actually do but I'm not opposed to the paragraph being shortened. --Loremaster (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I edit the first sentence of the disputed paragraph to say "In July 2009, many prominent Singularitarians..." not only to make the paragrah less offtopic but also for the sake of accuracy. --Loremaster (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

wikilinking to new religious movement
Wikilinking to new religious movement is inappropiate. Loremaster, do not revert my edits without some form of comment please. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * You haven't offered a good explanation (nor pointed to a Wikipedia guideline on the subject) as to why wikilinking to new religious movement is inappropiate. Keep in mind, this neutral term is being used over the more the loaded term some critics have used: cult. --Loremaster (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Add the source that Singularitarianism as a New religious movement and that which labels it as a cult. Also please do not revert my edits without marking them as being reverted and give a justification. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Since I don't want to needlessly sow the seeds for future edit wars with users who will try to delete the word “cult” even if it is sourced, I prefer more closely summarizing Horgan's criticism. --Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, here is a good quote from an April 2011 Religion Dispatches essay, The Cult of Kurzweil: Will Robots Save Our Souls?:

 * What we see is the emergence of a genuine religious tradition. Is it new? Not exactly: faith in technology to produce transcendent human conditions is centuries old. But this manifestation, whether it be under the label of transhumanism, Singularitarianism, or (as I’ve called it) Apocalyptic AI, has a cultural cachet that goes far and allows it to separate itself from other religious visions. Sacred books such as Moravec’s Mind Children (1988) and Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near (2005) and documentary films like Transcendent Man establish a textual tradition that forms the core of an entire belief system promising salvation, encouraging embodied practices (most of which are designed to keep an individual alive until the coming day of upload), and establishing a worldview through which all of science, religion, and politics may be judged.

 * So I may restore the disputed term. --Loremaster (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 * You haven't shown that this website is in any way significant or mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Religion Dispatches is an online religion magazine based at Emory University, which has been nominated in the 15th Annual Webby Awards competition in the Religion and Spirituality category on April 18, 2011. Is that significant or maintream enough for you? --Loremaster (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I confess to being too lazy to bother reading Horgan's arguments, but I infer that the guy is a lazy idiot from first principles, and hence I doubt his notability. I infer 'lazy idiocy' from his assertions, which fly in the face of experts who have made careful estimates and best possible extrapolations. To conflate (necessary) extrapolations re a potentially incredibly dangerous possibility with religious wishful thinking is egregiously shonky thinking. It is also poor thinking to deduce impossibility from lack of published techniques, given the enormous military and economic advantages that might conceivably be gained from superintelligence, and also given that the smartest people (Joy, Hawking, Gates) have advocated Relinquishment / great caution. 203.214.155.72 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead and desirablity
I have problems with this section of the lead -
 * "Singularitarians are distinguished from other futurists who speculate on a technological singularity by their belief that the Singularity is not only possible, but desirable if guided prudently. Accordingly, they might sometimes dedicate their lives to acting in ways they believe will contribute to its rapid yet safe realization."

"Desirablity" is just one kind of Singularitairanism. A better definition is that a Singularitarian is a person who strongly believes in the likelihood of a technological singularity in the medium term future, and that this raises issues and attitudes which often arise in theology and extreme forms of existentialism. The belief in near term inevitability and its religious and existential aspects are what define the Singularitarian, who may not find it desireable, or who might want to guide it, but does not have faith in an ability to do so. There are also many other Singularitarian perspectives. Does anyone have any sources to correct the lead? PPdd (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 * You are the one with the objection; the onus is on you to find sources. Strebe (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Technological Versus Biological Singularity
Other pages covering similar topics have had this same confusion between biological and technological singularity. The reference to "The Singularity is Near", by Raymond Kurzweil seems out of place to me, since his book seems to cover biological singularity, while this article would seem to more be referencing technological singularity Dreamstohack (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead and neutral point of view
If we're going to include the claim in the lede that Singularitarian is a religion, then we should also clearly state in that same paragraph that Singularitians themselves do not agree with that claim, otherwise we are violating the "neutral point of view" rule. Either both points of view should be in that paragraph, or that paragraph should be removed completely and that comment left only in the "criticism" section. (Yosarian2 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

 * Note that it is not a claim that Singularitarianism is a religion; it is a mention that some people claim it. The same is true of the concerns about the industrial-military applications, which you deleted. When I looked over these edits, it wasn’t obvious to me that the paragraph belonged in the lede at all, but with further thinking, •not• mentioning any counterpoints is a violation of NPV, since the lede is basically an advertisement of Singularitarianism otherwise, giving no indication there are alternative perspectives. This pattern of description followed by a summary of the con camp’s objections, is common in the ledes of articles describing controversial topics. Make sense? In any case ledes definitely are not the place to describe the intricacies of the debate.

 * Also, Wikipedia guidelines oppose even have a section on controversy. The “debate” is supposed to be woven into the article body. The article needs a lot of work. Strebe (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article needs a lot of work. However, having the lead of the article about Singularitarianism dominated by an anti-Singularitarianism point of view seems to quite clearly be a violation of the rules about neutrality.   I was trying to maintain neutrality by leaving in both points of view, but perhaps that paragraph should simply be removed.  One of those things has to happen, though; the lede is supposed to be a quick summery of the subject, and to put a minority point of view in that summery without even mentioning that it is not the point of view of the philosophy the article is discussing is clearly not neutral.  Yosarian2 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Well, you lost me in your first posting with, ”should also clearly state in that same paragraph that Singularitians themselves do not agree with that claim”. The verbiage says that critics say Singularitarianism is a religion. “Critics” “very clearly” means not-Singularitarians. And now with this new posting you lose me with, “dominated by an anti-Singularitarianism point of view”. With the exception of the final paragraph, the lede is a description of what Singularitarianism is, not some pro- or anti- verbiage. And noting that there are critics does not introduce POV problems and is not anti-Singularitarianism. In fact, not noting that there are criticisms is a POV problem. Again, it is common in ledes to summarize a topic including mention of contrary views. I don’t have any problem with that part of it. Strebe (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Update
I have added some sourced information to the article and these include key content to the Reception section, which I hope would clarify the criticism that it is more of a religion than science (from the view of critics). Please let me know if you have questions regarding the edit. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Here's the issue: When you write "Science journalist John Horgan ...", how does that evade the earlier comment on this talk page; I quote: I confess to being too lazy to bother reading Horgan's arguments, but I infer that the guy is a lazy idiot from first principles, and hence I doubt his notability. I infer 'lazy idiocy' from his assertions, which fly in the face of experts who have made careful estimates and best possible extrapolations. To conflate (necessary) extrapolations re a potentially incredibly dangerous possibility with religious wishful thinking is egregiously shonky thinking. It is also poor thinking to deduce impossibility from lack of published techniques, given the enormous military and economic advantages that might conceivably be gained from superintelligence, and also given that the smartest people (Joy, Hawking, Gates) have advocated Relinquishment / great caution. 203.214.155.72 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC) -- my conclusion is that Horgan is incapable of providing a credible opinion, and certainly, not one that is cite-worthy. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Oh, sorry, I see you did not add that. I'm thinking I should remove the Horgan quote, per above comments from 203.214.155.72 ... 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I deleted the Horgan quote. There is a meta-issue -- distinguishing "the singularity" from "singularitarianism" -- the former is indeed profoundly important and discussed by profound thinkers; the latter does indeed have lots of mindless NPC adherents who don't really know what they are talking about. In that context, does "singularitarianism" differ in any way from ecofacism, ecosocialism, alt-right, alt-left, antifa, lesswrong, QAnon, SJW or any other memetic tribe? It's a ball of beliefs that "stick together" and are appealing enough that lots of people like to believe in them. To answer my own question: the distinction is that singularitarianism is a set of beliefs about technologies that will actually transform (and possibly destroy) the world; its about existential risk. The others are a collection of beliefs about justice and meaning in society. And QAnon seems to be a paranoid-delusional, schizophrenic idea-salad. Horgan seemed to suggest that all these memetic tribes are on the same footing; I'd suggest that they're not. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Your opinion on the WP:RELIABLE reference is not WP:RELIABLE. It's clear Horgan's comment is about putting faith in (imminence/desirability/problems that will be solved by) the singularity, which is a defining trait of singularitarianism. Strebe (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Horgan's a crack-pot ... so now, we are citing crackpots? Bill Joy, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking are "notable" critics of singularitarianism, Horgan is not. If you wish to critique it, quote them, not him.67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 * And now IP editor 67.198.37.16 has accused me of edit warring, by edit warring. This is on a fast track to dispute resolution. 67.198.37.16's rationale is that the quote is not "notable". To start with, WP:NOTABLE refers to topics, not references. The question is whether the reference is WP:RELIABLE. Given that it appears in IEEE Spectrum, whereas 67.198.37.16's opinion appears as self-published on a Wikipedia Talk page, I think it's pretty clear where this is going. Calling notable people you disagree with "a crackpock" is not a path to credibility. Strebe (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I confess to being too lazy to bother reading Horgan's arguments, but I infer that the guy is a lazy idiot from first principles, and hence I doubt his notability. You imagine that is as a credible source for deleting a relevant quote from a WP:RELIABLE source? It does not work like that. You cannot sit around deciding who or what is "credible" by resorting to whatever tortured rationalizations occur to you. The onus is on you to provide WP:RELIABLE sources that demonstrate that an author published in WP:RELIABLE media is a crackpot, rather than inventing crackpot reasons yourself. I am reverting the article to its original use of the quotation, and will defend its inclusion throughout the real process for making these decisions. Strebe (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Aw, come on. Don't distort facts and truth. It's not conducive to any discussions. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Ahh. Strebe, please reconsider your actions. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your personal opinions and fringe beliefs. It is a dis-service to all readers when crackpot-content is added to an article. I removed this content twice, you restored it twice. It's not a credible reference, it's obviously nutty. So why are you defending it? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Singularitarianism


text:
Philémon Cousineau

Philémon Cousineau (October 25, 1874 – March 3, 1959) was a Canadian politician born in Saint-Laurent (today part of Montreal). He was mayor of St-Laurent from 1905 to 1909, and Quebec Conservative Party leader from 1915 to 1916. He resigned following his defeat in the 1916 Quebec provincial election in the riding of Jacques-Cartier which he was the member for eight years. In 1920 he became a Quebec Superior Court judge.

He became Dean of the law faculty of the University of Montreal and emeritus professor. He was an associate of Batonnier De Sales Bastien, and became President of the Mount Royal Telephone Co. and of the St. Lawrence Tobacco Co., board director of Saraguay Light & Power Co., and member of the Canadian Club and Lafontaine Club of Montreal.

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

title: Philémon Cousineau


text:
Talk:Bored Suburban Youth

i am amazed to see this info

someone in our band write this?

Troy

 * Started by a uunet IP, so hard to say. - Hephaestos|§ 06:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Hathaway wrote it up. He emailed me a link to the page a few years back.

Shannon Just in case you care, Kenny Jolt went on to become a college teacher in Japan. Troy Tague played drums for indie rocker Danielle Howle. Carl Van Sewell and Darren Walker were both in the Columbia, S.C. area. Steve Sonic went on to a successful pro wrestling career on the independant circuit, as Johnny Vendetta, a much despised heel. Sonic is still writing and performing music with the Tourists, a christian rock band, and working on a novel, his first. Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.81.30 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bored Suburban Youth


text:
User talk:Wolf530

_TOC__ Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

If you need editing help, visit How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 06:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Duplicate articles
Hi, I removed the table again from Duplicate_articles. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Duplicate_articles for my justification. Thanks. -- Taku 08:56, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Welcoming committee
Thanks for joining the welcoming committee. Glad to have the help. Just so you know, it's probably not worth your time to welcome most anonymous editors - it's a nice touch, but there are far too many of them to keep up. Most will only edit once or twice, and won't know how to find their talk page anyway. The exception is that if you see a static IP that's clearly a single user who's been editing for a while, go ahead and welcome them and suggest that they get a user account. Isomorphic 05:58, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Public domain
Hi, your User:Wolf530/Welcome message-copyvio page states all text used on the site must be public domain. This isn't quite true. All text needs to be GFDL, not public domain. You might want to change it to avoid confusing the people you give that message. Angela. 03:22, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

New York Subway template/category
I saw your comment on the Village Pump about needing a template/category for the New York Subway. Until such custom templates are possible, how about using a system like I've set up for the Washington Metro? Check List of Washington Metro stations and Red Line (Washington Metro) for examples. I'll help out with New York, I'm a huge subway junkie as you can probably tell. ;) I don't think a category would be useful, but a dropdown, etc. might, in the future if they implement that. Until then, I think making a list page of stations and lines, and linking from that, is the best option. What do you think? --Golbez 15:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Misery law
I removed your misery law from the list of eponymous laws. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word eponymous, if it was not blindingly obvious from the context of the page. You're doing an english degree? I fear for you. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * You can deal it out but not take it, eh? That's a bit pathetic. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * I didn't blow a gasket. You're merely over sensitive. Go and take a lie down. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * No. You blew it. You're happy to lash out in your response, whilst suggesting that I should have been more polite. Go look up double standards. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * You shouldn't let your feelings get in the way of evaluating whether Riciometreapoline is a valid article or vandalism. Stalking me without applying your brain isn't going to get you anywhere. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Dipstick, check out Swishguy2000's talk page again. You'll see that I;ve already cited to him a link for rice writing. I'm absolutely sure that Riciometreapoline is vandalism. He's just admitted as much on my talk page. his other edit was vandalism of the M240 article. Now, exactly what is your problem? --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Or at least, you would have seen that admission had some other user not come along and deleted it. Sigh. Check the history if you can be bothered. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * For the same reason as you are intent on seeing things that are not there. Where is the "nasty little remark" in "Go on - don't start your wiki career with vandalism, eh? Your rice~ article will never fly"? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks for the kind welcome. I've really enjoyed Wikipedia so far, and I look forward to contributing more Pedro Picasso 20:48, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Minor edits
You and the rest of your team have been making excellent and much needed minor edits. In recognition of your dedication, I offer you my sincere gratitude, and this Minor Barnstar. -- User:ClockworkSoul 07:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you!
Posted on User_talk:ClockworkSoul

Holy cow! I'm so honored to receive a barnstar! Thank you for making my day! :) --Wolf530 14:22, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * You deserve it! Now, post it with pride! -- User:ClockworkSoul 15:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with User:Sietse Snel/Fix common mistakes project, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Romanticsm in the 18th century.
If it's okay to do a modernism nav on 20th_century, then it's okay to do Romanticism here

That's poor reasoning. All of the links in the Modernism nav panel have something to do with the 20th century. Most of the links in the Romanticsm nav have to do with the 19th century. All of the content in the 18th century should be relevant to the 18th century.

In any case, the 20th century article is a mess and shouldn't be used as a model for the other centuries. - Brunnock 11:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Portal
I need help in The Lord of the Rings portal. . . . It somehow looks different from the other portals. -- 69.212.71.72 05:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not really talking about the background color. For example, the featured article seems to have a "set" height, and there used to be an edit link for the intro, and the top margin was different so I changed it to 0. -- 69.212.71.72 05:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, More about The Lord of the Rings didn't come with the template. -- 69.212.71.72 05:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I ♥ Little Rock
I hope my comments in Votes for deletion/Little Rock restaurants didn't cause offense. I didn't mean to imply to Little Rock people are obstructive or anything. It's just that VfDs are always getting blocked because the the article is a matter of regional pride, or of extreme interest to a small-but-vocal group of people. Thank you for being more objective! Isaac R 23:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Little Rock
In future it would be preferable if you looked at changes before reverting them. My edit was to add the new Category:Little Rock, Arkansas to the page, which you have now removed. This new category is a subcategory of the three that were there previously, making them uneeded. In the same edit I thus removed them, which is standard procedure. - SimonP 22:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hendrix_small_shield.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Hendrix_small_shield.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 18:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hendrix small shield.png
FYI, fair use images are not allowed on user pages. As such, I removed it from User:Wolf530/warrior and have deleted the image. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Fair use criteria, specifically item #9. Thanks.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to pipe in with: Totally correct. Fair use is often applied liberally but it's actually quite narrow, and user pages really don't fit.
 * It's the law and just as any one person doesn't make a difference when they vote, the cumulative effect is what counts.
 * I know it can be disconcerting, and it can seem like we're being rude on purpose sometimes, but over half of all images on wikipedia ar either tagged as fair use or are believed to be fair use. Every inappropiately used fair use image is a liability risk.
 * While it's tempting to say "Get lost! no one is ever going to sue over :Image:Hendrix small shield.png!" It misses the point: if someone does sue over :Image:InsertNameofImageHere then our entire treatement of images will be called into question.
 * Hope this helps,
 * brenneman {T}  {L}  01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

WWII edit not minor
Hi :-) Just a friendly note ... you deleted Italy switched sides in late 1943 in your minor edit, which I think is a pretty significant change, not minor. In fact, it's going to cause an editwar, not with me, as I don't care, but there is an editor out there that keeps inserting Italy switching sides into the intro. Anyway, just a friendly note of objection to calling the edit minor. I see that you have a star for making minor edits, so I'm sure you probably forgot the deletion when marking the edit minor, or marked the edit then added the deletion and forgot to change the minor box. I just like to complain, lol. Drogo Underburrow 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC) I left a reply to your comment on my talk page. Drogo Underburrow 03:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fisher-a-thumbnail.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fisher-a-thumbnail.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, sorry... I didn't realize the license tag already gave the source. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot editing userpage
That wasn't a stupid edit. Before it was deleted, wikifying redirected to Glossary, and the bot correctly bypassed the redirect to point the link directly there. --Rory096 18:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, that's news to me. Last time I checked, wikifying went to the old equivalent of WikiProject_Wikify. --Wolf530 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The deletion log entry (08:16, June 9, 2006 Bookofjude (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikifying" (cross namesapce redirect, content was: '#redirect Wikipedia:Glossary')) says otherwise. --Rory096 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay. Not a big deal anyway... Thanks for bringing the change to my attention. --Wolf530 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

AIV
Just because something is put on AIV does not mean it will receive a block. I did block most of the accounts listed on AIV, but I decided that the IPs did not deserve a block because they have not edited in many hours. I generally block IPs only if they are caught within a reasonable time after their last edit. Academic Challenger 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, that IP is definitely a problem. The other blocks were quite a while ago, so I did not give out a really long block, but I did block that IP for a week, and then will give another month block the next time it vandalizes after that block expires. Academic Challenger 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued from the Village Pump
Since you brought it up I did a quick check using Interiot/Tool2. It's true your "Total" edit count would be considered a bit low, but your Mainspace numbers are quite good. If you stay as active as you've been the past week, it won't be long at all :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

...continued on my Talkpage. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 08:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Improvements
Thank you for the improved code for the Random Smiley Award - I had been trying to figure out how to remove the frame around the graphic, without success. Also, the template idea was something I had been trying to figure out for some time. Thank you! Pedia-I Project J e s u s

Arevolutionofone 04:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I hope I did that right. Thanks. I will do what you suggest before I do any more editing. Thanks again.

Danke schön
For reverting "vandalism" on my userpage - thanks so much! :) riana_dzasta 08:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You've got mail, re:Admin school (eom)
The Transhumanist 17:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcomes!
Hey Wolf!

It's my own template, hard-coded to my name. You are, of course, welcome to use it but you'll need to do a couple of things.

First, visit User:Redvers/Welcome and click edit. Copy the code.

Second, go to User:Wolf530/Welcome (or similar of your own choice) and add the code. Then change every reference to Redvers to Wolf350 (I like helping new users... but not all of them! :o)

Save up, and you've got your own welcome template. You can, of course, make other changes as you see fit.

Third, find a new user (we usually welcome people after their first edit rather than just when they register, but the choice is yours) and put:

on their talk page (not their user page - a mistake all of us have made, believe me!). The subst: bit is important - it creates a copy, rather than just leaving a server-murdering repeatedly updating link to the original. Remember to sign with the four ~ as usual.

If you vandalhunt in your spare time, something popular to do is to use your welcome message on a new (named) editor and attach the testing warning afterwards. All of us were new once and this helps ease people into the wikiway: the majority of vandalism is not vandalism, it's new users unable to believe the tremendous power they've been given!

Hope this helps! Questions about welcome, the template or anything else are welcome. Drop me a line again if I can help. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting usernames
Besides asking Brion why, not really. He gets to say what is coded and what isn't, as he is CTO of Wikimedia and Lead Developer of MediaWiki. Tito xd (?!?) 05:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal template/blocking policy...
I'd be up for working on a draft with you if you're interested. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 13:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey, sorry for the belated response... last week turned pretty busy and I had too many projects going at once ;-). I was also under the impression that the full gamut was required, or at least new warnings after the previous blocking, but after reporting a few that had been recently blocked and were at it again, it seemed that the application of the rules is more on the "block the vandals" side than the "keep warning the vandal again" side :). For my own part, I might just empty my watchlist every few weeks or so, so that it won't bother me so much. I think I can be more useful cleaing out the copy-to-wikibooks categories anyway, since there's very few of us who can use the import tools. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input!
Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Virtual classroom lesson #2
Well, we've moved on to our second lesson in the Virtual classroom, though each lesson is continuous so I hope you will join in on the interface share and compare discussions as well. The current lesson focuses on "stubbing," with a short course to kick things off provided by our resident expert on the subject, Grutness. Please feel free to add your expertise and questions.

To help keep track of what's going on, here's a template you can place at the top of your userpage or talk page:

Hope to see you at the Virtual classroom again soon. The Transhumanist 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Renewable Energy cat
I'm not so sure I agree with the change of category on Category:Wikipedians who support the development of Renewable Energy. Why is "Politics" more relevant to this discussion than simply "interest"? --Wolf530 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I think if you take a look at the "politics" category and then at the "interests" category, you might have a better idea why. (Keyword: support) - jc37 17:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Replace "Editing help" with "Cheatsheet" link
Per your previous interest, here's a link to the updated proposal: Village pump (proposals). Please comment/support there. Thanks :) --Quiddity 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging Actual_cash_value with Cash_value
Hi, Wolf. You wrote the Actual cash value article, and I have suggest it be merged with Cash value. See Talk:Cash value for discussion. 2*6 06:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Real World: San Francisco
Hi. It seems we have a possible edit war on the The Real World: San Francisco article. If you could respond to the post I made on its talk page, it would be appreciated. Nightscream 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal: Nontheism
Are planning to continue working on Portal:Nontheism? I would like to get it up and running. — David618 t 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can. — David618 t 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Hazel Bryan
Thanks for your message; you're absolutely right of course; I've restored it pronto. Sorry about that. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 14:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Wolf530! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jonathan Murray -

File source problem with File:Fisher-a-thumbnail.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Fisher-a-thumbnail.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 06:54, 26 May 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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wolf530


text:
Springer Spaniel

Springer Spaniel refers to two different breeds of dogs, both of which are commonly called simply Springer Spaniel:

 * English Springer Spaniel
 * Welsh Springer Spaniel

title: Springer Spaniel


text:
Power Play

Power play is a sporting term used in various games

Power play or powerplay may also refer to:

Sports

 * Powerplay (cricket), a rule concerning fielding restrictions in one-day international cricket
 * Power play (curling), a rule concerning the placing of stones in doubles curling
 * PowerPlay Golf, a variation of nine-hole golf, featuring two flags on a green

Books

 * Power Play (novel), a Hardy Boys novel
 * Tom Clancy's Power Plays, a novel series created by Tom Clancy
 * Power Play, a 1995 Petaybee series novel by Anne McCaffrey and Elizabeth Ann Scarborough
 * Power Play: How Video Games Can Save the World, a 2017 book by Asi Burak and Laura Parker
 * Power Play: Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century, a 2021 book by Tim Higgins

Film

 * Power Play (1978 film), a 1978 British-Canadian political thriller film
 * Power Play (2003 film), a 2003 American action film
 * Power Play (2021 film), a 2021 Indian crime thriller film

Television

 * Power Play (1998 TV series), a 1998–2000 Canadian television series about a hockey team in Hamilton, Ontario
 * Power Play (2009 TV program), a 2009 Canadian political affairs television program
 * Power Play, an American television program from Night Tracks that aired on TBS from 1985 to 1988 and from 1988 to 1989 as Power Play Dancin'

Episodes

 * "Power Play" (Angel), a 2004 episode of the series Angel
 * "Power Play" (Star Trek: The Next Generation), an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation
 * "Power Play" (Cheers), an episode of Cheers
 * Power Play (Pretty Little Liars), an episode of Pretty Little Liars
 * Power Play (Hit the Floor), an episode of Hit the Floor
 * Power Play (Static Shock), an episode of Static Shock
 * Power Play (White Collar), an episode of White Collar

Music

 * Power Play (quartet), an American barbershop quartet
 * Powerplay (band)
 * Power Play (April Wine album), 1982
 * Power Play (Dragon album), 1979

Video games

 * PC PowerPlay, a PC games magazine published in Australia
 * Power Play (magazine), a defunct German computer and video game magazine published by Markt+Technik
 * PowerPlay (technology), a defunct standard for networked video gaming headed by Valve and Cisco Systems
 * Powerplay Cruiser, a joystick released in the early 1990s
 * Commodore Power/Play, a defunct video game magazine
 * Powerplay: The Game of the Gods, an ZX Spectrum games

Other uses

 * Powerplay (theory), international politics theory, raised by Victor D.Cha
 * AMD PowerPlay, a power management technology from ATI Technologies/AMD
 * Power Play (audio drama), an audio drama based on the Doctor Who television series
 * PowerPlay (lottery)

title: Power Play


text:
Oren E. Long

Oren Ethelbirt Long (March 4, 1889 – May 6, 1965) was an American politician who served as the tenth Territorial Governor of Hawaii from 1951 to 1953. A member of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, Long was appointed to the office after the term of Ingram Stainback. After statehood was achieved he served in the United States Senate, one of the first two, along with Hiram Fong, to represent Hawaii in that body. Long was the only non–Asian American U.S. Senator from Hawaii until the appointment of Brian Schatz to the position in 2012.

Life and career
Long was born in Altoona, Kansas and attended Johnson Bible College in Knoxville, Tennessee, the University of Michigan, and Columbia University in New York City. He first came to Hawaii in 1917 as a social worker in Hilo. He then held various educational positions in the public school system, eventually serving as a superintendent from 1933 to 1946. He was appointed Governor of the Territory of Hawaii by President of the United States Harry Truman in 1951 and served until 1953. Long served in the Hawaii Territorial Senate from 1956-1959.

On July 28, 1959 he was elected to one of the two Senate seats from the newly formed State of Hawaii, and took office on August 21, 1959. The other Senator elected was Republican Hiram Fong. Long chose not to run for a full six-year term in 1962, and was succeeded by fellow Democrat and then-Rep. Daniel Inouye, in January 1963.

For his entire tenure Long was Hawaii's Senior Senator, as he took office the same day with fellow Senator from new state, Hiram Fong (with Long having a seniority edge due to being former Governor)

Long appeared as a contestant on What's My Line? shortly after taking office. One of the panellists Bennett Cerf recognised him immediately and disqualified himself from the round. After three rounds of questioning, the rest of the panel successfully guessed him to be the senator from Hawaii.

He died in 1965 after suffering an attack of asthmatic bronchitis in Honolulu, Hawaii and was buried in Oahu Cemetery.

Long's papers are stored at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa in their Catalog for Archival Materials.

title: Oren E. Long


text:
John Motley Morehead III

John Motley Morehead III (November 3, 1870 – January 7, 1965) was an American chemist, politician, and diplomat. As a chemist, his work provided much of the foundation for the business of Union Carbide Corporation. The Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation was formed in 1917 from the merger of the former Union Carbide founded in 1898 by Morehead's father; and the National Carbon Company founded in 1886. He was a noted philanthropist who made major gifts to his alma mater, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He also served as mayor of Rye, New York and United States Ambassador to Sweden.

Early life
Morehead came from an illustrious North Carolina family: his father was James Turner Morehead; his grandfather, John Motley Morehead, served as Governor of North Carolina. His sister, Lily Morehead Mebane, was decorated by the governments of France and Serbia for her relief work after World War I; she later served two terms in the North Carolina state legislature. Direct descendants through the paternal line of James Turner Morehead include W. Harris Nelson and William H.M. Nelson III. Non-lineal descendants include Jean Motley Morehead Larkin and John L. Morehead.

Morehead graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill in 1891 and was a member of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity.

Career
One of his notable early scientific discoveries was the development of an economical process for the manufacture of calcium carbide. He was also an authority on the analysis of gases, having invented a device for the purpose and written a book on the subject.

One of Morehead's particular interests was in providing financial assistance to students attending UNC Chapel Hill. To that end he endowed the John Motley Morehead Foundation, which each year awards undergraduate scholarships covering the full cost of attendance at UNC Chapel Hill to applicants chosen through an extensive and competitive screening process. The Morehead-Cain Scholarship is the oldest merit-based scholarship in the United States.

During the First World War, Morehead served as a major in the United States Army; he later became a colonel in the United States Army Reserve. From 1925 to 1930, Morehead served as the mayor of Rye, New York, and also gave money for the establishment of a new city hall; his nomination as minister to Sweden, from which he served from 1930 to 1933, came during his mayoralty.

Personal life
Morehead married Genevieve Margaret Birkhoff. A few years after her death, he married Leila Duckworth Houghton. He had no children. He devoted his considerable fortune to philanthropy, especially to the benefit of UNC-Chapel Hill. With a college classmate and fraternity brother, Rufus Lenoir Patterson, he donated the Morehead-Patterson Bell Tower on the campus. He also gave the University the Morehead Planetarium, later renamed the Morehead Planetarium and Science Center.

Honors and legacy
He was awarded the North Carolina Award, the highest civilian award bestowed by the U.S. state of North Carolina in the category of Public Service in 1964.

There is a section of Interstate 40 named after him, called the John Motley Morehead III Freeway, that passes through Chapel Hill, North Carolina and most of the eastern end of Orange County.

title: John Motley Morehead III


text:
Talk:24th Golden Raspberry Awards

Just
Just came from the Razzie site. They note "Gigli" was first film to sweep the top six categories (Film, Director, Actor, Actress, Screen Couple, & Screenplay), making it the Razzie equivalent of "It Happened One Night". Trekphiler 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:24th Golden Raspberry Awards


text:
1890 Quebec general election

The 1890 Quebec general election was held on June 17, 1890, to elect members of the 7th Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec, Canada. The incumbent Quebec Liberal Party Parti national coalition led by Honoré Mercier, was re-elected, defeating the Quebec Conservative Party, led by Louis-Olivier Taillon.

A scandal and charges of corruption cut short Mercier's term of office. He was later cleared of all charges, but his political career was ended.

Redistribution of ridings
Through the passage of two Acts passed prior to the election, the Assembly was increased from 65 to 73 members through the following changes:

title: 1890 Quebec general election


text:
Don Cornell

Don Cornell (born Luigi Francisco Varlaro; April 21, 1919 – February 23, 2004) was an American singer.

Early years
Born to an Italian family in The Bronx, New York, Cornell attended Roosevelt High School in the Bronx.

Career
In his teens he played guitar in a band led by jazz trumpeter Red Nichols. When he was eighteen, he was a vocalist in the Sammy Kaye band. He became a solo act in 1949. Between 1950 and 1962, twelve of his records were certified gold. These included the million-seller "It Isn't Fair", plus "I'll Walk Alone", "I'm Yours", and "Hold My Hand". He appeared often on television programs hosted by Perry Como, Jackie Gleason, and Arthur Godfrey during the 1950s and 1960s.

When singing at the Beverly Hills Supper Club in Kentucky, he appeared many times on the Ruth Lyons television program and was a substitute host. In 1953, he was on the TV program Chance of a Lifetime. He had a radio program on KGO in San Francisco in 1953.

In 1959, Cornell, comedian Martha Raye, and other investors formed The Big Daddy Mining Company. The company planned to mine "a rich gold vein on a hillside near Coarsegold, California".

Cornell worked as a singer into the 1990s. He and his wife founded the label Iris as a division of MCA to release songs he recorded for Coral and Dot earlier in his career. These albums include Something to Remember Me By and From Italy with Love.

Awards and honors
Cornell was named to the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1963. In 1993, he was inducted into the Big Band Hall of Fame.

His 1952 hit "I" was the only single-character pop chart entry until Prince's No. 7 Billboard Hot 100 hit "7" from 1992 and the only single-letter hit until Xzibit's No. 76 Hot 100 hit "X" from 2000. "Hold My Hand" sold over one million copies and topped the UK Singles Chart in 1954. Cornell's 1955 hit "Young Abe Lincoln" holds the record for highest debuting pop single (No. 25) to spend only one week on the Billboard chart.

Death
Cornell died in Aventura, Florida, from emphysema and diabetes at the age of 84.

title: Don Cornell


text:
Al Green (politician)

Alexander N. Green (born September 1, 1947) is an American lawyer and politician serving as the U.S. representative from Texas's 9th congressional district since 2005. A member of the Democratic Party, Green served as the justice of the peace of Harris County, Texas from 1977 to 2004. The 9th district includes most of southwestern Houston and part of Fort Bend County, including most of Missouri City. It also includes western portions of Pearland.

Early life, education, and career
Green was born in New Orleans, Louisiana. He attended Florida A&M University and Tuskegee University. He received a Juris Doctor degree in 1974 from Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University. He is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity.

After law school, Green co-founded the law firm of Green, Wilson, Dewberry, and Fitch. He remained in Houston and lives in the community of Alief.

In 1978, Green was elected justice of the peace in Harris County, Texas. He held this position for 26 years before retiring in 2004.

Green ran for mayor of Houston in 1981, and finished fifth in the Democratic primary.

Elections
In 2004, Green entered the Democratic primary for the 9th congressional district. The 9th district had previously been the 25th congressional district and was represented by Democrat Chris Bell. A 2003 Texas redistricting placed Bell's seat in jeopardy. Although the redistricted 25th district remained heavily Democratic, it had a significantly larger percentage of blacks and Latinos than the old 25th district, which had been 65% white. The new 9th was 17% white, 37% black and 33% Latino. The redistricting left Bell, who is white, vulnerable to a primary challenge from a black or Latino Democrat. Green won the March 9 primary with 66% of the vote to Bell's 31%. He then defeated Republican nominee Annette Molina in the general election.

Green was reelected unopposed in 2006 and faced only a Libertarian opponent in 2008. The 9th district is heavily Democratic, with a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+29. It is Houston's most Democratic district. Hillary Clinton carried the 9th district in 2016 with 79.3% of the vote, her strongest showing in Texas.

Tenure
In Congress, Green has focused on issues such as fair housing and fair hiring practices for the poor and minorities.

After the 2012 election, Green held a press conference in Houston at which he emphasized the need for the lame duck Congress to work together to reform the national budget. He also announced a plan for infrastructure investments across the country intended to create jobs and unify the country and improve the economy.

Green has supported the Federal Reserve's program of quantitative easing and claims it has led to economic recovery since the financial crisis of 2007–2008.

On May 17, 2017, Green presented articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, citing Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey. Immediately after his speech, he shelved the document without calling for a vote, but continued to call for impeachment. He reintroduced articles of impeachment on July 16, 2019, citing Trump's attacks on four Democratic congresswomen of color. As a privileged resolution, the House was required to vote on it. On July 17 the House voted to table the resolution, effectively killing it. The vote was 332–95, with 95 Democrats (40%) voting in favor of the resolution and all Republicans against it.

During the House Financial Services Committee hearing on April 10, 2019, at which the CEOs of all the major banks and investment institutions of the United States were sworn to testify, Green presented several questions that were regarded as controversial. He began by asking why all the executives were white men, then asked whether they hypothetically saw themselves succeeded in the future by men of color or women, repeatedly asking them to raise and lower their hands. Green then asked J. P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon whether the institution he chaired had profited from slavery, to which Dimon responded that it had taken place more than two centuries ago.

On February 6, 2024 he left a hospital for a short moment to vote in a wheelchair against the Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas which prevented the success of the inquiry as the Republican Party assumed that he would not be able to attend.

Committee assignments

 * Committee on Financial Services
 * United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (chair)
 * United States House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit

Caucus memberships

 * Congressional Black Caucus
 * Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
 * Congressional Maritime Caucus
 * Congressional Urban Caucus
 * Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus
 * Congressional Natural Gas Caucus
 * Congressional Ports Caucus
 * Congressional Science, Technology, Education and Math (STEM) Caucus
 * Congressional After School Caucus
 * Congressional Veterans Jobs Caucus
 * Congressional Military Family Caucus
 * Congressional Children's Caucus
 * Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans
 * Congressional Arts Caucus
 * Afterschool Caucuses
 * U.S.-Japan Caucus
 * Congressional Pakistan Caucus
 * Medicare for All Caucus

Political positions
Green has expressed strong liberal views on social issues.

Green is pro-choice, and consistently votes against restrictions on abortion. On October 13, 2011, he voted against an amendment to the Affordable Care Act, which prevented insurance programs created by the Act from covering abortions. He has voted against eight other bills proposed in the House that would if enacted prevent the federal government from covering the cost of abortions. He has received a 100% ratings from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, while receiving a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

Green also supports gun control. He spoke out after the Trayvon Martin shooting, asking members of the African-American community to show faith in the justice system and let the courts do their job and convict George Zimmerman. The NRA Political Victory Fund gave him repeated "F" ratings, Gun Owners of America rated him 25%, while the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave him a Lifetime Score of 83%.

On budget issues, Green follows his party's views. He supported every budget bill proposed during President Obama's term. During President Bush's term, Green voted against all budget bills that cut government spending and cut taxes. He also voted for Obama's bailout of the Auto Industry in 2009. On December 10, 2008, he wrote a statement supporting the auto bailout, saying, "The auto bailout is really about bailing out people, and the people of this country... I think that [how tax dollars are spent] is a legitimate concern for the American people, but I do think, with the proper strings attached, we can bail out the people...who may lose their jobs."

Green is a member of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus. He is a strong supporter of holding Pakistan as an ally in South Asia. After the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007, which initially destabilized the country as riots erupted, Green issued a statement condemning the assassination as a "dastardly effort to circumvent the democratic process." He announced his support of the US's continued alliance with Pakistan, and urged Pakistanis to continue their push towards true democracy, "knowing that freedom, justice, and democracy are difficult to achieve."

On December 6, 2017, Green denounced Trump for "casting contempt on transgender individuals, inciting hate and hostility, and sowing discord among the people of the United States on the basis of gender." Green is a member of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus. On February 25, 2021, Green gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the House in support of the Equality Act, comparing the use of religion to support homophobia by representatives opposed to the bill to the use of religion to support racist policies, saying, "You used God to enslave my foreparents. You used God to segregate me in schools. You used God to put me in the back of the bus. Have you no shame?"

On October 25, 2023, Green and eight other progressive Democrats (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Andre Carson, Summer Lee, Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, and Rashida Tlaib), along with Republican Thomas Massie, voted against congressional bi-partisan non-binding resolution H. Res. 771 supporting Israel in the wake of the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The resolution stated that the House of Representatives: "stands with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists" and "reaffirms the United States' commitment to Israel's security"; the resolution passed by an overwhelming 412-10-6 margin.

Lucinda Daniels controversy
In 2008, former staffer Lucinda Daniels accused Green of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, including claims that Green discriminated against Daniels after she refused to continue to have sex with him. Daniels filed a lawsuit against Green and then withdrew it. Green filed a counter-lawsuit, alleging Daniels had threatened to sue Green for workplace discrimination if Green did not pay her money. Green subsequently withdrew his suit too. The Hill reported that a spokesman for Green said the two had had a "romantic encounter" in 2007, but that the allegations of sexual harassment were untrue.

In 2017, at a time when several other congressmen were facing accusations of sexual misconduct, Green and Daniels released a joint statement saying that both regretted having "hastily made allegations and charges against one another that have been absolutely resolved" and that they were "friends".

title: Al Green (politician)


text:
1886 Quebec general election

The 1886 Quebec general election on October 14, 1886, to elect members of the 6th Legislative Assembly for the Province of Quebec, Canada. The Parti National, a broad coalition formed and led by Honoré Mercier, that included the Parti libéral du Québec and nationalist defectors from the Conservative party. The Parti national got a large boost when Liberals and dissident Conservatives rallied in reaction to the hanging of Louis Riel in 1885, for which the federal Conservatives were held responsible by Quebec voters. The nationalists won a majority of seats against the Parti conservateur du Québec, led by John Jones Ross.

The Conservatives hung on in a minority government until Mercier became premier on January 27, 1887.

title: 1886 Quebec general election


text:
1881 Quebec general election

The 1881 Quebec general election was held on December 2, 1881, to elect members of the 5th Legislative Assembly for the Province of Quebec, Canada. The Quebec Conservative Party, led by Premier Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau, defeated the Quebec Liberal Party, led by Henri-Gustave Joly de Lotbinière.

title: 1881 Quebec general election


text:
688 Attack Sub

688 Attack Sub is a submarine simulator video game designed by John W. Ratcliff and Paul Grace and published in 1989 for MS-DOS and in 1990 for Amiga by Electronic Arts. A Sega Genesis version developed by MicroProse was released in 1991 by Sega.

The player takes command of a US Los Angeles-class submarine or Soviet Alfa-class submarine nuclear-powered attack submarine and plays ten missions ranging from into either Cold War scenarios or combat missions in a hypothetical global conflict. As modeled in the game, the American submarine has more sophisticated electronics and more weapons. The Soviet boat has fewer weapons but higher sustained speeds. Two people can play against each other over a modem (or null modem cable).

Ratcliff and Grace later developed SSN-21 Seawolf, published in 1994.

Reception

Computer Gaming World in 1989 gave the IBM PC compatible version a positive review, noting the game was designed to be a fun game, as opposed to a realistic simulator, and concluding that it was "this reviewer's personal candidate for 'Game of the Year'". 1992 and 1994 surveys in the magazine of wargames with modern settings gave the game two stars out of five, stating that the game was closer to World War II than modern submarine operations, and criticizing the "unrealistic" emphasis on periscope target acquisition. Compute! included the game in its list of "nine great games for 1989", describing it as "swift and exciting as any Mach 2 flight simulator". The magazine praised the game's graphics and two-player modem option, but criticized the lack of more than ten missions.

Mike Siggins reviewed 688 Attack Sub for Games International magazine, and gave it a rating of 7 out of 10, and wrote that "the appeal of using modern weapons soon wears off and one is left with only the different situations to add spice. Overall though, it is a good game on an unusual topic but would benefit from a second edition".

title: 688 Attack Sub


text:
1878 Quebec general election

The 1878 Quebec general election was held on May 1, 1878 to elect members of the 4th Legislative Assembly for the Province of Quebec, Canada. The result was a hung parliament, with no party having a clear majority. Only one seat divided the two major parties, the Quebec Conservative Party and the Quebec Liberal Party. The balance of power was held by two Independent Conservatives.

The incumbent premier, Henri-Gustave Joly de Lotbinière, was able to form a minority government with the support of the Independent Conservatives, even though the Conservative Party had one seat more than the Liberals.

Political events
The election was called in unusual circumstances. On March 8, 1878, the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, Luc Letellier de Saint-Just, dismissed the Conservative premier, Charles Boucher de Boucherville, in a dispute over proposed railway legislation. The Lieutenant Governor then appointed Joly de Lotbinière, the leader of the Liberals, as premier. Since the Conservatives still maintained a substantial majority in the Legislative Assembly, on March 22, 1878 Joly de Lotbinière requested the dissolution of the Assembly and a general election, which Letellier de Saint-Just ordered.

The election was fought in part over economic issues and in part over the actions of the Lieutenant Governor, who was criticised by the Conservatives for having installed Joly de Lotbinière by a coup d'état. One of the leading Conservatives, Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau, opened his campaign with the slogan: "Silence the voice of Spencer Wood [the residence of the Lieutenant Governor] and let the mighty voice of the people speak." Joly de Lotbinière agreed that the people should decide, and campaigned on the slogan “The province must choose between direct taxation and economy.”

Following the election results, Joly de Lotbinière was able to stay in office for one year as the leader of a minority government supported by the Independent Conservatives, even though the Conservative Party had one more seat than the Liberals. In 1879, he was defeated in the Assembly by the Conservatives, who formed a minority government.

Electoral map
The Legislative Assembly was composed of sixty-five single-member constituencies or "ridings". The 1878 election was conducted under the pre-Confederation electoral map of the former Province of Canada. That map had set the boundaries for the sixty-five constituencies of Canada East, which became Quebec. The British North America Act, 1867 provided that the pre-Confederation electoral map would continue to be used for Quebec elections until altered by the Legislature of Quebec. The map of the sixty-five constituencies was also to be used in federal elections, until altered by Parliament.

Secret ballot
The election was conducted under The Quebec Election Act, a provincial statute. It was the second election where the secret ballot was used in Quebec.

Preparation of voter lists
The Act required that each municipality prepare a voter list in March of each year, based on the valuation of property and ownership used for the tax rolls. The list was drawn up the secretary-treasurer of each municipality. The municipal council then reviewed the list and could make corrections to it. Once approved by the municipal council, the list was in force until the preparation of the list in the next year. Any person who was dissatisfied by their inclusion or exclusion from the list could appeal to the local judge of the superior court or district magistrate, whose decision on the issue was final.

Procedure for the election
The election began with a proclamation issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, setting the date for nomination of candidates. The date was the same for all constituencies. The provincial Clerk of the Crown in Chancery then issued sixty-five writs, directed to the returning officer for each constituency, directing them to conduct the election. The Returning Officer would be the registrar or sheriff of the constituency.

On the date set for nominations, the Returning Officer would hold a public meeting to receive nominations. The meeting was conducted at the most central and convenient location in the constituency, in a court house, city hall or registry office, between noon and one o'clock.

To be nominated, a candidate had to file a nomination paper with the Returning Officer, signed by at least twenty-five supporters eligible to vote in the constituency, and accompanied with a deposit of $200. The nomination paper and deposit had to be filed on or before the nomination meeting.

If only one nomination was received, the Returning Officer would declare that person to be elected, and immediately report the result to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery with the return of the writ. If two or more candidates were nominated, voting would occur one week after the nomination date set in the writ. The Returning Officer would establish polling stations throughout the constituency. On polling day, the polls would open in each station and voters would cast their ballots in the locked ballot box. When the polls closed, the deputy returning officers would unlock the ballot box, count the ballots in the presence of the candidates or their agents, and prepare a record of the vote. The deputy returning officer would then place all of the records and ballots in the ballot box, lock it, and deliver the ballot box to the Returning Officer.

Once all the ballot boxes were received, the Returning Officer would open all the ballot boxes in the presence of witnesses and total the votes from each polling station. The Returning Officer would declare the candidate with the most votes elected. If there was a tie between the top two candidates, the Returning Officer was required to give a written casting vote immediately to decide the election. In no other circumstances could the Returning Officer vote.

The Returning Officer would then prepare a complete report of the results of the election, along with his return of the writ, and forward it all to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.

Results
The election resulted in a hung parliament: neither of the parties had a majority. Two Independent Conservatives were elected, who held the balance of power.

title: 1878 Quebec general election


text:
1875 Quebec general election

The 1875 Quebec general election was held on July 7, 1875, to elect members of the 3rd Legislative Assembly for the Province of Quebec, Canada. The Quebec Conservative Party, led by Charles-Eugène Boucher de Boucherville, defeated the Quebec Liberal Party, led by Henri-Gustave Joly de Lotbinière.

The election was the first one held under the new Quebec Elections Act, passed by the de Boucherville government to replace the pre-Confederation elections law. The new law provided for the secret ballot in Quebec elections for the first time. Under the pre-Confederation elections law, each voter had been required to publicly declare their vote to the elections officials, a form of open ballotting.

Right to vote
The right to vote in elections to the Legislative Assembly was not universal. Only male British subjects (by birth or naturalisation), aged 21 or older, were eligible to vote, and only if they met a property qualification. For residents of larger cities, the qualification was being the owner or occupant of real property assessed at three hundred dollars or more, or for tenants, an annual rent of thirty dollars or more. For any other municipality, the qualification was being an owner or occupant of real property assessed at two hundred dollars or more, or twenty dollars in annual value. For tenants in smaller centers, the qualification was paying an annual rent of twenty dollars or more.

Women were completely barred from voting.

Judges and many municipal and provincial officials were also barred from voting, particularly officials with law enforcement duties, or duties relating to public revenue. The Returning Officer in each riding was also barred from voting, except when needed to give a casting vote in the event of a tie vote.

Qualification for the Legislative Assembly
Candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly had to meet stricter qualifications than voters. To stand for election, a candidate had to
 * 1) Be at least twenty-one years of age;
 * 2) Be of the male sex;
 * 3) Be a subject of Her Majesty (either by birth or naturalisation);
 * 4) Be free from all legal incapacity;
 * 5) Be the proprietor in possession of lands or tenements worth at least $2,000, over and above all encumbrances and charges on the property.

Women were completely barred from membership in the Assembly.

Electoral map
The Legislative Assembly was composed of sixty-five single-member constituencies or "ridings". The 1875 election was conducted under the pre-Confederation electoral map of the former Province of Canada. That map had set the boundaries for the sixty-five constituencies of Canada East, which became Quebec. The British North America Act, 1867 provided that the pre-Confederation electoral map would continue to be used for Quebec elections until altered by the Legislature of Quebec. The map of the sixty-five constituencies was also to be used in federal elections, until altered by Parliament.

New election law
The election was the first election conducted under The Quebec Election Act, a completely new election law passed by the Quebec Legislature. The new Act replaced the pre-Confederation election law, which had been continued in use for the first two elections, in 1867 and 1871. Two significant changes under the new law were the introduction of the secret ballot, and a requirement that all constituencies vote on the same day.

Secret ballot
The 1875 election for the Legislative Assembly was the first time the secret ballot was used in Quebec. Under the pre-Confederation law used in the first two general elections, voting had been by open ballotting, where voters publicly declared their vote to the polling officials.

Preparation of voter lists
The Act required that each municipality prepare a voter list in March of each year, based on the valuation of property and ownership used for the tax rolls. The list was drawn up the secretary-treasurer of each municipality. The municipal council then reviewed the list and could make corrections to it. Once approved by the municipal council, the list was in force until the preparation of the list in the next year. Any person who was dissatisfied by their inclusion or exclusion from the list could appeal to the local judge of the superior court or district magistrate, whose decision on the issue was final.

Procedure for the election
The election began with a proclamation issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, setting the date for nomination of candidates. The date was the same for all constituencies. The provincial Clerk of the Crown in Chancery then issued sixty-five writs, directed to the Returning Officer for each constituency, directing them to conduct the election. The Returning Officer would be the registrar or sheriff of the constituency.

On the date set for nominations, the Returning Officer would hold a public meeting to receive nominations. The meeting was conducted at the most central and convenient location in the constituency, in a court house, city hall or registry office, between noon and one o'clock.

To be nominated, a candidate had to file a nomination paper with the Returning Officer, signed by at least twenty-five supporters eligible to vote in the constituency, and accompanied with a deposit of $200. The nomination paper and deposit had to be filed on or before the nomination meeting.

If only one nomination was received, the Returning Officer would declare that person to be elected, and immediately report the result to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery with the return of the writ. If two or more candidates were nominated, voting would occur one week after the nomination date set in the writ. The Returning Officer would establish polling stations throughout the constituency. On polling day, the polls would open in each station and voters would cast their ballots in the locked ballot box. When the polls closed, the deputy returning officers would unlock the ballot box, count the ballots in the presence of the candidates or their agents, and prepare a record of the vote. The deputy returning officer would then place all of the records and ballots in the ballot box, lock it, and deliver the ballot box to the Returning Officer.

Once all the ballot boxes were received, the Returning Officer would open all the ballot boxes in the presence of witnesses and total the votes from each polling station. The Returning Officer would declare the candidate with the most votes elected. If there was a tie between the top two candidates, the Returning Officer was required to give a written casting vote immediately to decide the election. In no other circumstances could the Returning Officer vote.

The Returning Officer would then prepare a complete report of the results of the election, along with his return of the writ, and forward it all to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.

Results
The election resulted in a Conservative victory. The Conservatives were maintained in office with a strong majority, although a somewhat reduced seat count. The Liberals held steady with nineteen seats, the same as in the 1871 election.

title: 1875 Quebec general election


text:
1871 Quebec general election

The 1871 Quebec general election was held in June and July 1871 to elect members of the Second Legislature for the Province of Quebec, Canada. The Quebec Conservative Party, led by Premier Pierre-Joseph-Olivier Chauveau, was re-elected, defeating the Quebec Liberal Party, led by Henri-Gustave Joly de Lotbinière.

Right to vote
The right to vote in elections to the Legislative Assembly was not universal. Only male British subjects (by birth or naturalisation), aged 21 and older, were eligible to vote, and only if they met a property qualification. For residents of cities and towns, the qualification was being the owner, tenant or occupant of real property assessed at three hundred dollars, or at an assessed yearly value of thirty dollars. For residents of townships and parishes, the requirements were either an assessment of two hundred dollars, or an assessed yearly value of twenty dollars.

Women were expressly prohibited from voting, "for any Electoral Division whatever".

Judges and many municipal and provincial officials were also barred from voting, particularly officials with duties relating to public revenue. Election officials were also barred from voting.

Qualification for the Legislative Assembly
Candidates for the Legislative Assembly had to meet a significant property qualification. A candidate had to own real property in the Province of Canada, worth at least £500 in British sterling, over and above any encumbrances on the property.

Electoral map
The Legislative Assembly was composed of sixty-five single-member constituencies or "ridings". The 1871 election was conducted under the pre-Confederation electoral map of the former Province of Canada. That map had set the boundaries for the sixty-five constituencies of Canada East, which became Quebec. The British North America Act, 1867 provided that the pre-Confederation electoral map would continue to be used for Quebec elections until altered by the Legislature of Quebec. The map of the sixty-five constituencies was also to be used in federal elections, until altered by Parliament.

Conduct of the election
The 1867 election was conducted under the election laws of the Province of Canada, which had been continued until altered by the Legislature of Quebec. The electoral process of the Province of Canada in turn had been based on the traditional British electoral process, without a secret ballot. Instead, elections were public affairs, with each voter publicly stating the name of the candidate they voted for.

The election process began with writs of election issued by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, one for each constituency (also called a "riding"). The writ was directed to the Returning Officer for each constituency and required the Returning Officer to hold a public nomination of candidates, and if necessary a poll, on days to be chosen by the Returning Officer.

On the nomination day, the Returning Officer held a public meeting "in the open air", at a central place in the constituency, and in a place where the public had access, such as in front of a town hall or church in the constituency. The Returning Officer addressed the assembled members of the public from a platform, called a "husting", and called for nominations. If only one person was nominated, the Returning Officer would close the nominations and declare that person elected. If more than one person was nominated, the Returning Officer would grant a poll, to be held at a future date, chosen by the Returning Officer.

On polling day, polls would be held across the constituency. The polls were in held in the open air, or in buildings close to the highways, with free access by the public. It was prohibited to hold a poll in a "tavern or place of public entertainment". The Returning Officer would appoint a Deputy Returning Officer for each polling place, normally the town clerk or other municipal official. Each Deputy Returning Officer would have a poll book. Qualified voters would appear before the Deputy Returning Officer and declare how they voted. The Deputy Returning Officer would record each voter's vote in the poll book. At the close of the polls, the Deputy Returning Officers would deliver the poll books to the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer would then total all of the polls in public, at the place where the nominations had occurred, declare which candidate was elected, and issue a proclamation declaring the election closed. The Returning Officer would then send a report of the election with the return of the writ to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, within fifteen days after the closing of the election.

The elections for the sixty-five provincial constituencies were not all conducted on the same day. The writs of election for each constituency gave the Returning Officer the discretion to set the original nomination day, and the subsequent date for the polling, if more than one candidate were nominated. The 1867 election was spread across the months of August and September.

Results
The election resulted in a Conservative victory. The Conservatives were maintained in office with a strong majority, although a somewhat reduced seat count. The Liberals improved their standings from twelve seats to nineteen.

! colspan=2 rowspan=2 | Political party ! rowspan=2 | Party leader ! colspan=4 | MLAs ! colspan=3 | Votes ! Candidates !1867 !1871 !+/- !# !% !+/-

 * style="text-align:left;"|Pierre-Joseph-Olivier Chauveau
 * 59
 * 51
 * 46
 * 5
 * 31,168
 * 51.69%
 * 1.78

 * style="text-align:left;"|Henri-Gustave Joly de Lotbinière
 * 37
 * 12
 * 19
 * 7
 * 23,760
 * 39.41%
 * 3.96

 * style="text-align:left;"|
 * 2
 * 1
 * 1
 * 823
 * 1.36%
 * New
 * New

 * style="text-align:left;"|
 * 11
 * 4,545
 * 7.54%
 * 1.90
 * 4,545
 * 7.54%
 * 1.90

 * style="text-align:left;"|
 * colspan="3"|Did not campaign
 * colspan="3"|Did not campaign
 * colspan="3"|Did not campaign
 * colspan="3"|Did not campaign
 * colspan="3"|Did not campaign

 * style="text-align:left;"|
 * 1
 * 1
 * colspan="3"|
 * -style="background:#E9E9E9;"
 * colspan="3" style="text-align:left;"|Total
 * 109
 * 65
 * 65
 * 60,296
 * 100.00%
 * -style="background:#E9E9E9;"
 * colspan="7" style="text-align:left;"|Registered voters / turnout
 * 172,369
 * 34.98%
 * 11.86
 * }
 * 172,369
 * 34.98%
 * 11.86
 * }

Seats that changed hands
There were 12 seats that changed allegiance in the election:

 * Conservative to Liberal
 * Berthier
 * Chambly
 * Charlevoix
 * Drummond et Arthabaska
 * Maskinongé
 * Montréal Centre
 * Shefford
 * Verchères

 * Liberal to Conservative
 * Bonaventure
 * Yamaska

 * Independent to Liberal
 * Chicoutimi et Saguenay

 * Vacant to Conservative
 * Kamouraska

title: 1871 Quebec general election