text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shawn Mikula

 * Classic vanity page. Isomorphic 22:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Grrrr. He removed the vfd notice. Oh, and while the original version listed his degrees and said he's currently in a Ph.D. program, now he's just a "neuroscientist". Bah. Stupid grad student with an over-inflated ego. Isomorphic 22:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Aha! Vanity!  Delete! - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should also delete related article Mind-Brain.com. —Frecklefoot 22:32, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, unless someone can demonstrate Mikula's significance, of course. I concur with Frecklefoot about Mind-Brain.com. Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, perhaps I'm changing my vote -- his article does go a bit overboard, but google for "Shawn Mikula" + mind-brain ... Apparently he's actually pretty well spread over the internet. Can anyone tell if this is just a successful self-promotion campaign, or if these are reputable sites?  ImmInst, for example? Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * About Shawn Mikula's significance, see the following: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22shawn+mikula%22 --128.220.29.140
 * why do you think it's a vanity page? What not de-vanitize it?  I'm expecting others will and that other contributions and links will be made. -128.220.29.140
 * The concern is whether there is enough verifiable information on Mikula to be able to do so -- I'm thinking there may be, but I think we should all express our opinions. Additionally, we have a policy against people creating pages about themselves, and you do appear to be Mikula (though I'm sure you'll insist you aren't. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not. I got most of the info directly from mind-brain.com and some from direct acquiantance with him. -128.220.29.140
 * What do you all need to find these page submissions acceptable?  Better write-ups? -128.220.29.140
 * Speaking for myself, I need some clear evidence that Shawn Mikula's notability rises to encyclopedic standards. Some evidence that people might want to look him up in Wikipedia. For example, a notable neuroscientist might be expected to have written a book, but an Amazon search for author Shawn Mikula yields no hits. Has he, say, won a McKnight scholarship from the McKnight Endowment Fund for the Neurosciences? Anything like that? Dpbsmith 02:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd think that few neuroscientists have time to be writing books. -Mikula
 * If you'd think that, you'd be wrong. David Marr died at age 36, but managed to find time to write enough seminal papers to fill the book "Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information." Bernard Katz managed to find time to write the semipopular book Nerve, Muscle, and Synapse, and deserves his Wikipedia article, although possibly winning the Nobel prize may have been a more important contribution. And take a look at Warren McCulloch's Embodiments of Mind. Incidentally, that book contains some of his poetry, as well as some of his papers such as "A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity."
 * Granted, Shawn has not won a nobel prize (yet) nor can I find any books that he's found time to publish (besides articles in journals), but with all due respect, Warren McCulloch is small time. -Janus san
 * You do not bolster respect for your position by saying that the first president of the American Society for Cybernetics is "small time." Isomorphic 21:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to play down Warren and I am not meaning any disrespect, but I am sufficiently knowledgeable of his works in and contributions to neuroscience to pass judgement, in my opinion. And how many Google hits does Warren have? 1,850, compared with Shawn's 26,400. -Janus san
 * I'll bet Warren doesn't call Shawn "Shawn." Dpbsmith 23:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * the informality was not meant disrespectfully 70.16.2.172 00:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably because Warren has no idea who Shawn is. RickK 22:59, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The person's article certainly has a ways to go to indicate notability (any books, works published in journals or other third parties, etc.)--is this the same person that has a bunch of poetry hits? Also, it should link to the WP mind-brain article, rather than the external link. mind-brain.com is at the top of the alexa.com category "Subjects > Society > Philosophy > Philosophy of Mind  > Consciousness Studies"., but it would be a better article if it gave more details about accomplishments than objectives. Both articles should focus more on detailing notable accomplishments/works, instead of airy jargo-babble about intentions/beliefs. Keep if improved, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Niteowlneils 00:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * He's a grad student. The current version doesn't reflect this, but that's what he is. Check the original version. Not saying he couldn't be notable as a grad student, but there's no particular reason to believe he is, either. Isomorphic 05:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * He's famous and spread across the internet. -Mikula
 * Keep. He's more significant than a lot of the other bios I've seen here. Kanjiish 16:43, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Another sockpuppet heard from. RickK 23:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, see Ecclesiastes 1:2. But take a look at Shawn and Tabitha's wedding, particularly the cake kiss. Dpbsmith 02:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC) P. S. And one of his poems, Am I to blame?
 * What's wrong with those URL's? -70.16.2.172
 * You continuously refer to the abundance of google hits on his name. Those are examples of why that is not sufficient evidence.  Google hits alone aren't proof of noteriety.  I get over a million hits on my real name and I've certainly never done anything encyclopedic. --Starx 00:37, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: self promotion, nonnotable. A few journal and conference publications is, sadly, no sign of notability, and neither is a vanity web site. I looked at the abstracts for a couple of his papers and it looks like pretty typical academic journal material -- solid work, I'm sure, but not distinguished. Come back in a decade or two, Shawn, but leave the poetry out of it, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:29, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You all are such hypocrites and provincials. I've seen so many pages at wikipedia that could much more easily be classified as "vanity pages" than the one that started this thread.  Hypocrites and provincials, the whole lot of you, that's what you are!  Congratulations on your lameness! -Shawn314
 * Please point them out specifically then; I for one would love to get rid of those too. - Hephaestos|§ 15:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a place to post your life story. (Unless you are notable)--Beelzebubs 15:24, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good point re. that Anissimov article.  Someone listed it as needing cleanup, but I'm of a mind to put it up for delete.  Anyone else want to take a look at it? - Lucky 6.9 16:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, and now abuse. See talk:Michael Anissimov for my comments on that page. Some linked pages should also go IMO. Andrewa 16:37, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I see "Shawn Mikula" has 25,800 Google hits.  Hmmmm..... -Mikula
 * You really should sign your edits here. See my welcome for how to do this. Take a deep breath, and lurk a little. You may find Wikipedia has something important to say about some of your pet ideas. Andrewa 17:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * thanks Andrewa -70.16.2.172
 * Delete. Clear vanity, abuse, etc.  Plus the author obviously feels like he has something to hide if he won't even sign his posts.  I don't see Mikula's relevance at all.  blankfaze 19:38, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * why don't you read about his accomplishments before passing judgment? -Janus san
 * Delete. No evidence of achievement that merits being in encyclopedia. Every graduate student writes papers and presents them at conferences. Andris 21:32, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * He has published in many journals, is known across the neuroscience community, has hosted many talks, and belongs to many key organizations.  Quite simply, he is a current leader in the field.  If some ppl are not aware of this it's probably because they're lagging behind by 10 yrs or more. -Janus san
 * Or.... you could be wrong. You dismiss others as not knowing what they're talking about without providing any proof of your position.  Why don't you find us a link to a reputable site with an article on Mikula? --Starx 00:37, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete both pages. The "solution" to the mind-body problem mentioned in the article seems to be nothing more than a retreading of functionalism. This is a classic vanity page. The fact that he added himself to a list of philosophers working on the mind-body problem next to Daniel Dennett just adds insult to injury. Of the Google hits, nearly all of them seem to be crap indexes that he's added himself to.   —  Adam Conover † 22:07, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * a retreading of functionalism? You have misread the article apparently.  Daniel Dennett is just a philosopher, to my understanding, and has no neuroscience background, nor has he made any contributions to neuroscience.  So his contributions to the mind-brain problem, lacking any such background, are doubtful at best.  Or, to put it another way, a philosopher lacking a rigorous scientific background can amount to little more than a poet, in my opinion.  Dennett has published some books but has made no contributions to neuroscience.  Dennett will appeal to laymen, but it's hard to imagine that he'd appeal to a scientist-philosopher since he lacks a scientific background and scientific rigor.  Also, I have read his books and what he has said on the mind-body problem, and I am not impressed.   About Google hits, Shawn has more than Daniel Dennett, and I could say that most of the latter's are to crap indexes too. -Janus san
 * I don't think this is a vanity page.  I do have the sneaking suspicion, however, that some people here feel, shall we say, less than adequate perhaps, which is why they are reacting so strongly against this page.   To me, that's true vanity. -70.16.2.172
 * Delete, especially since this person is trying so hard to keep it without giving us any reason why it's worth having. RickK 04:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * you presume far too much. The reasons have already been given.  Being that your background is in writing about fictional universes, I don't think you're really qualified to judge one way or the other. -70.16.2.172
 * Personal attacks are unacceptable, all you're doing is hurting your supposed cause. RickK 04:55, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the irony. -70.16.2.172
 * Delete, Vanity. Well written vanity, but still vanity. --Starx 13:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear User:Shawn314, User:Janus san, User:Mikula, User:128.220.29.140, and User:70.16.2.172. When posting, please conclude your posts by typing four tildes, ~ at the end. That will "sign" your post with your username and the time of posting. -Dpbsmith 00:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Umm, you know that those usernames don't exist, right? -70.16.2.172

Also, if you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, we currently have no article on Vernon Mountcastle (Vernon Benjamin Mountcastle, Jr. b. 15 July 1918), and we could use one. Dpbsmith 00:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * thanks for the suggestions, both of them. 70.16.2.172 00:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Those users exist ! Just not the user page. It's alright. It would be easy to start those yet-to-exist user pages on behalf of the "users", cut-&-paste everything from Shawn Mikula & Mind-Brain.com. (or re-direct !) Of course, the pages in question will need to be deleted to avoid duplications. Let's do this to all Wiki-Vanity-pages. :-) 199.71.174.100 05:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that it's a good idea to do that with all Wiki-Vanity-pages, but it's still questionable to me that this submitted page constitutes a vanity page because I have seen many "lesser" individuals (in my opinion) with page listings at wikipedia. Perhaps they wrote some obscure book or song, and because of that, it somehow justifies that they be listed here over others who have made many significant contributions to science but who many laymen are probably unaware of.  I think your biographical pages here are highly biased towards people that laymen may be familiar with and is very under-representative of the people who make real contributations to society but who may be less well-known to the laymen because they don't necessarily popularize themselves by publishing books geared towards laymen or using other such popularity techniques and shenanigans.  And I personally think it would be a shame if wikipedia further succumbs to that bias, to the bias of the laymen and the provincial-minded.  It would be unfortunate indeed. -70.16.2.172

Note: I have gone through and retroactively signed all posts by User:Shawn314, User:Janus san, User:Mikula, User:128.220.29.140, and User:70.16.2.172. To be fair I accredited each post to the username that originally posted it, although I suppose that was a waste of time because they are all obviosly the same person. --Starx 14:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that contributes to this debate/discussion/thread, nor how it's obviously the same person (since same IP/username doesn't necessarily imply same person). It seems rather that you're trying to toss out a red herring and/or trying to throw this thread off topic. This thread is about whether the 'Shawn Mikula' page is a vanity page or whether it warrants being in wikipedia.  I personally think it's not a vanity page and that it should be in wikipedia.66.119.34.60 14:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I have more then one reason for believing they (and you also) are the same person. You all have IP address's or usernames that are used only to edit either this vfd page or the articles in question.  You all have the same tendency to revise and expand one comment 5 or 6 times in a row.  At times one username has revised/expanded on a post originally made by another username.  And finally you all share a common goal of vehemently defending the article.  As to the reason this is important; it's because wiki policy specifically states that sockpuppets are not to vote in vfd's, that is the reason why people sign their comments.  Plus it's just good manners to inform people of who they are speaking with. -> Starx 15:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Belief is a funny thing.  As others have noted, there are no facts, only interpretations and beliefs.  Thanks for sharing your interpretation and belief with us.  -66.119.34.60 17:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Your welcome. --Starx 19:50, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep it.218.145.25.80 14:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. It's not a vanity page.   -193.255.207.252 15:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Excuse this poor language, please, but STOP THIS STUPID ASS DISCUSSION AND DELETE THE FUCKING PAGE! blankfaze 17:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * there is no excuse for such pubescent remarks, and let me add that I consider your reply ironic since you're one of the biggest culprits creating these vanity pages (just look at the large list of nobodies you've made wikipedia pages for), and yet you would have a legitimate biographical page of a "somebody" be deleted. Hypocrite. 66.119.34.60 18:13, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It may be a legitimate biographical page, but this could go on that person's website or personal wiki page. Encyclopedic relevance doesn't exist here.  Delete. -- Stevietheman 18:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you think all the biographical pages created by Blankfaze (above) have encyclopedic relevance?  In my opinion, they're all biographies of people of rather small stature, so why are they in wikipedia?  In fact, I think I may go ahead and set them all up for deletion because I think they're all vanity pages and about people who lack encyclopedic relevance.70.16.2.172 18:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If you're finished editing your thoughts, I will endorse this plan. Anything in the Wikipedia that's not of encyclopedic relevance should be deleted. -- Stevietheman 19:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Then I have a lot of work to do.70.16.2.172 19:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking this personally, and it really isn't anything personal. The vote will reflect whether or not the article should stay.  If you see other articles that you think don't belong then please by all means put them up for a vfd.  But the name calling and other personal attacks aren't necessary. --Starx 19:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It IS personal, because all of these sock puppets are Shawn Mikula trying to make people think he's somebody important when he's just a grad student. Also, whichever of your multiple personalities threatened to delete other entries, don't try it wihout bringing it before VfD.  RickK 20:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * in my opinion, those biography pages created by BlankFaze are not of any encyclopedic relevance and should be deleted. What's wrong with that?  In fact, you want to talk about google hits, well I am getting few hits for the people that he felt inclined to write pages about.  These pages he created are about nobodies and should not be in wikipedia.
 * The pages he created that you put up for VfD; I didn't look through them all but the first 5 or so that I did included several actors in currently running TV shows, a forensic expert who worked on a highly publicised case. There were all obviosly encyclopedic.  Mikula is obviously not nearly as notable as these persons.  If you wish to plead you case that Mikula is notable enough for wiki then do it in a respectable manner.  But don't pretend that someone like Andy Dick is non-notable and deserving of deletion. --Starx 20:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of Andy Dick before coming across the wikipedia page on him, and after learning of him, did not think he had any encyclopedic relevance. And I think I have a right to express my opinion regarding what pages do not possess encyclopedic relevance, as all of you have too.  We all have a right to our own opinion, now don't we? (User:218.145.25.80)
 * Encyclopedic relevance must have some research behind it, though; it cannot simply be an opinion out of one's ass. Andy Dick is a very well-known person to those who enjoy sit-coms.  He also makes many appearances on talk shows. -- Stevietheman 20:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. But you are quite apparently basing your opinions of the Andy Dick article on the fact that Blankfaze wrote it, as opposed to on a neutral assesment.  If you read the stub you would be that he is an actor who has been on several TV shows.  Celebrity personalities are certainly encyclopedic. --Starx 20:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I know it's easy to rationalize things like you have, but the fact that blankfaze wrote the page was completely irrelevant to my decision that the page was not of encyclopedic relevance.
 * Well, I am certain that you are lieing about that. A visit to Blankfaze's user page shows that the list of articles that you tried to vfd are identacle to the list of articles he has worked on.  This after made it clear you were going to start vdf on other people articles as retrobution.  You have thrown a long drawn out temper tantrum over the fact that the consensus of wikipedia is that you are not noteworthy.  Instead of accepting that maybe you haven't earned your place in the history books yet, you decide it must be some sort of backlash against you and your charector, and you decide to respond in kind.  You complain that you aren't allowed to vfd articles, but you are, and already have.  1.8.14 Michael_Anissimov, and 1.8.15 Bruce_Klein remain on the vfd page because they are vanity and it was reasonable to vfd them.  It is your unreasonable vfd's that have been taken down.  You claim that this is a dictatorship.  But the fact that this page is likely to be deleted is proof that this isn't a dictatorship because wikipedia will not let you force your will upon it. --Starx 23:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Starx, arrogance is unbecoming. Are you saying that you and your cronies represent and control all of wikipedia?  If so, then meritocracy just flew out the window.  Should we all sing "Hail Starx and his cronies, the dictators of wikipedia"?  66.162.147.1 18:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Your dodging the point and trying to cover that up with an insult. The point still stands that a) your vfd's were obviosly retrobution, b) you have been allowed to vfd articles when not obviosly abusing the power, and most importantly c) you and your sockpuppets are in the minority about this article.  The majority of votes have been in favor of delete.  You somehow think that your objections to this should be held above the consensus of a fair vote, and when you discovered that wasn't going to happen you started trying to rig the vote.  If the average opinion of wikipedians is that this page is vanity then even if your sockpuppets save it from this vfd, some other wikipedian some time in the future will stuble over it, think it's vanity, and put it up for another vfd.  Just let the vote take place fairly. --Starx 20:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - vanity. I would not have paid attention to this one except for his vandalism of many pages in retaliation for this nomination. - Tεx τ urε 20:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly characterize putting pages up for deletion that I thought were not of any encyclopedic relevance as "vandalism"?  I think many people would agree that many of the pages I listed for deletion should not be in wikipedia.
 * No, I don't think many people would agree at all, I don't think any reasonable person would agree. --Starx 20:50, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * And so it comes down to a few people deciding what should get voted on for deletion. This does not seem like a democracy of knowledge to me; it sounds more like a beaurocratic dictatorship or something along those lines.
 * It's not as much a democracy of knowledge but a democratic meritocracy of knowledge, and that's how it should be. As long as you make responsible choices out of reason, you won't get knocked back as much or as hard. -- Stevietheman 21:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * a democratic meritocracy of knowledge is a worthy ideal, but it has not been realized here, even though you may choose to believe otherwise.  What I have been exposed to here, in general (though there have been exceptions), is provinciality and insularity coupled with abuse of power.
 * Ideals are never achieved; they remain as goals we continuously shoot for. I've not noticed any abuse of power, but rather a lot of people who care about keeping the encyclopedia, well, encyclopedic.  Also, you may want to come out from the shadows and sign your posts. -- Stevietheman 21:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * When I am not permitted to put articles up for deletion which I strongly feel are not of any encyclopedic relevance, then I can think of few things other than abuse of power at work. You apply double standards for what's considered a vanity article which is evident by the hundreds of them currently in the wikipedia while at the same time denying those which are worthy of inclusion.  But I guess that's the tragi-comic drama you've all chosen to create and propagate in this arena, one that falls far short of any sort of worthy ideal.  Yeah well, it's your choice.  You live with it.   218.145.25.80 21:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Your argument is unconvincing. You were trying to take down articles which had obvious encyclopedic relevance after making it very clear you were going to start a lot of delete debates after having your apparent super-large ego burst.  Maybe it's time to cool off and reflect upon the idea that nobody agrees with your position. -- Stevietheman 22:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that most rational intelligent individuals will agree with my statements above. Rationalizations and Freudian projections on your part are not convincing.
 * Intellectual honesty and the "discussion" laid out here would require that you be the one who does the doubting. -- Stevietheman 23:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Further, if you are a true scientist, you certainly understand the concept of "intellectual restraint". In other words, you know for a fact that you haven't become notable as of yet... so stop pushing it. -- Stevietheman 23:57, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I would beg to differ from you Stevieman regarding his notability. I have heard of this guy through several sources (newspaper, internet, friends).   Maybe you haven't heard of him, but many people have. 62.168.43.84 17:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Possibly because your actions were viewed to be out of spite and didn't reflect any research about the articles you put up for deletion. -- Stevietheman 20:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Couldn't agree more with User:Texture. I wouldn't have cared much either way if it wasn't for his absurdly bad behaviour. That said, the guy does have a point in there being lots of other vanity articles on Wikipedia that should also go. Go ahead. -- Jao 20:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. For all this talk, I still haven't seen a reason this guy is notable. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:55, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * This thread was fun to read. However, the guy's desperate attempts to argue underline his irrelevance. DELETE. --Netlad 23:51, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know what all the fuss is about. I don't see anything wrong with the page under discussion.  However, it could be cleaned up somewhat and maybe the reference to the guy's website removed altogether.  Other than that, I vote to 'Keep it'.  Rajesh918 16:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet number what is it now, eight or nine? RickK 23:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Woah! I just Googled "Shawn Mikula" and pulled up 28,300 hits! This dude's everywhere.  200.73.172.196 18:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that by adding more and more sockpuppets you're helping your case? RickK 23:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd be much more interested in knowing how many "hits" he gets in Science Citation Index. Anyone have easy access to a copy? 68.162.212.205 23:36, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh man... the puppets are really coming out of the woodwork now.... --Starx 20:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well that's kinda rude, Starz. Just cause people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're puppets.  Am I a puppet cause I also vote to KEEP IT? 80.58.33.172 22:33, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter what you vote for. Your vote will be thrown out because it is an anon with one edit (this one).  It has no weight. - Tεx τ urε 22:43, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * ^ That's why your a puppet. --Starx 22:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Anonymous posters are all puppets? One-time posters are all puppets?   Starz,  i'm beginning to think you're a puppet. We're all puppets! Yay!
 * For the sake of communicating clearly to anyone who might read this, anonymous posters are not always considered puppets, but one-time posters are certainly expected to be. That a user should stumble onto so obscure a policy page as this one and make their first edit here is unthinkable.  In general, in fact, anonymous users do not cast votes unless they are puppets -- anyone who doesn't care enough to register usually doesn't care enough about our policies to vote (with a very few notable exceptions).  Sock puppets are a danger of the Internet we try to minimize.  When (as in this case) numerous users, both registered and anonymous, appear out of nowhere and all have opinions on the same obscure article, it is obvious that someone is attempting to "stuff the ballot box".  I would argue, however, that we do try to pay attention to any substantial points raised by anonymous users -- if they point out a side of the issue not already discussed (rather than simply following the lead of other users), they can impact decision-making meaningfully.  Jwrosenzweig 23:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * anyone who stumbles on the "deletes" page is going to probably feel inclined to give their opinion on this topic because it sticks out when you scroll down the screen. To presume every anon and one-time poster is a sock-puppet is naive. 80.58.33.172 23:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You think a new user would take the time to read the vfd page? Highly unlikely.  It took me a little while before I even figured out how the vfd thing worked, let alone cared about it.  While it is possible that someone could stumble upon wikipedia, stumble upon the vfd, and decide to offer their opinion as their first edit.  But the odds are slim to none on that one and it's already happened at least a half a dozen times in this discussion (and only this discussion).  The possibility of that person then contributing highly to the Mikula article and continuining the debate past "offering their opinion" further narrows the odds.  The naive POV here would be that these are all well intentioned individuals looking to cast their vote. --Starx 00:37, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * um, Starx, what's the probability that a new user search engines onto a page up for deletion, follows the delete link at the top, and recognizes Shawn Mikula and Mind-Brain.com in the contents at the top and then clicks on the prominent 'Edit this page' link?   Or how likely is it that a link to this discussion has been posted in a forum or other online discussions?    Your post is practically screaming you're naivety about the ways of the web.  Just thought you should know, from someone who knows.  :) -66.119.34.59
 * More ad hominem attacks in an attempt to obscure the point. The probability of someone search engining wiki for Shawn Mikula is low but within the realms of possibility, the probability of a half a dozen new users doing it the moment your other sock puppets got called out, slim to none and certainly not in the realm of reasonableness.  You are one of the puppets in question.  Care to post a link to the online discussion that you followed to here?  You are all quite obviosly sockpuppets.  This has been pointed out by more users then me.  But I encourage people to not take my word on it.  Go look into their edit historys and judge for yourselfs.  I'm confident that the results will be as obvious to everyone else as they are to me. --Starx 15:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I came by way of IM.  It's funny that I respond directly to your point and you cry that it's an ad hominem attack and an attempt to obscure the point.  What are you, in 6th grade?
 * You called him naive, and just now called him a crying middle school student. Both ad-hominems. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:37, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Bah!
 * "Encyclopedic relevance" comes up again and again, but what has not been established is a well-defined criteria for what constitutes encyclopedic relevance other than the haphazard whims of the poster and those who moderate posts. -208.183.105.4

 * Additional pages have been added and linked to the Shawn Mikula page. 128.220.29.140 16:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I have removed links added to articles solely to support your case. Not only is it questionable to create articles solely to bolster an article nominated for deletion, but nothing in the articles provides a reason for a link to Shawn Mikula. - Tεx τ urε 17:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Neural Connectivity
 * Consciousness Singularity - nominated for VfD
 * Expanded Consciousness
 * Neural coding
 * Baseline consciousness - written from the first person - is this a term paper?
 * this has been rewritten in 3rd person 128.220.29.140 17:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but I have re-added the links because I think it's premature at this stage to remove them. If the Shawn Mikula page gets deleted, then the links should be removed, but not beforehand.  The links were added to the articles because they are all related to the Shawn Mikula page and to Shawn Mikula's work, publications, and in general, what he's known and noted for. Also, the articles were not contributed solely to bolster an article nominated for deletion, but possess encyclopedic relevance regardless of whether the page under question gets deleted.  128.220.29.140 17:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You wrote some good articles. However, they have no reason to link to Shawn Mikula. Regardless the outcome of this vote they do not belong in the links section as there is no apparant reason in those articles to view an article about you.  Every article I create does not have a link to my user page even if I am am very knowledgeable in that field. - Tεx τ urε 20:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Vote complete - article deleted

Deleted page protected

 * Shawn Mikula - Page was deleted after VfD vote but Shawn keeps logging in with a new IP to recreate it whenever it is deleted. I have created a blank article and protected it to prevent this. - Tεx τ urε 17:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly legit page and you know it. You're just acting out of spite now.   And you should make a mental note that the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity pages are copyright material and cannot be posted without proper credit given to Shawn Mikula somewhere in the article.  Point being that either the Shawn Mikula info stays or the pages and others like it leave.   Also, I think what your doing amounts to abuse of your 'Protected Page' privilege, and I have notified your superiors about this abuse.
 * The VfD vote was to delete it. Candidates for speedy deletion makes it a candidate for speedy deletion when you recreate it.  Please stop this effort to recreate an article that has been properly voted for deletion. - Tεx τ urε 18:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You, Shawn Mikula, posted the info. If you'll look down at the botom of every edit page you'll notice that in doing so you have agreed to release the info under the GNU Free Documentation License.  See here.  Also if the vfd was to delete then it's your recreation of the article that is the abuse.  This is how wiki works, if the vfd says the page goes then the page goes and you have to abide by that. --Starx 18:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * First off, I am not Shawn Mikula. And secondly, the pages I created are copyright material that must, at the very least, contain relevant citations to Shawn Mikula.  Otherwise, they cannot be posted, and by keeping them posted without the relevant citation to Shawn Mikula, you are engaging in theft and copyright violation.  193.255.207.252 18:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me understand what you are saying: Are the following copyrighted material?:
 * Neural Connectivity
 * Consciousness Singularity
 * Expanded Consciousness
 * Neural coding
 * Baseline consciousness
 * - Tεx τ urε 18:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, those articles are copyright material that may not be posted without, at the very least, an appropriate citation to Shawn Mikula in the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity articles. So, if you want, remove all the articles, but please do not keep up the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity articles without an appropriate citation to Shawn Mikula. 193.255.207.252 19:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If those are copyrighted material you can either refuse GFDL and we will delete the articles per our policy or you can waive your copyright and grant permission under GFDL and you lose sole ownership of the article and anyone can change, add, or by vote - delete the articles. - Tεx τ urε 19:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I am saying that if unqualified admins abuse their power and insist on removing the citation to Shawn Mikula in the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity pages, then those pages violate copyright and all five contributions I made need to be removed. If that is not an acceptable option, then consider the GFDL refused.  Thanks in advance.193.255.207.252 20:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you blind? Do you see the statement below the edit box, under "Save page"? You realsed your text under the GNU FDL. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." Got it? -- Hadal 18:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * How does that justify removing legitimate references?  I don't understand what some of you have against giving appropriate citations.   It seems like, if you haven't personally heard of the person, well then no citation should be given, and I think that's just ignorant.  You do not know what goes on in 99.99% of the world.   This is not an ad hominem, but is simple matter of fact.  We all, as human beings, are ignorant of much of the world.   You should not be making edits with the presumption of omniscience, and you certainly should not be removing citations if you are not in a position to judge or are ignorant on the matter at hand.    You are editing pages that you know little about, and so are not in a position to do such things.   That's what you don't seem to understand, even though I've tried to bring home the point repeatedly.   You think because you're an admin that it gives you the right to pass judgement on matters you're ignorant about, and that's just abuse.  193.255.207.252 19:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's nice; dismiss the rest of us as unworldly and ignorant. If you don't want us dumb, lowly lay folk editing your work, don't submit it in the first place. Also, regarding your answer Texture's question: If what you submitted is copyrighted by someone other than yourself, you should not have submitted it in the first place. If it is copyrighted by you, by submitting it to Wikipedia you have released it under the GNU FDL (a license which does not require your citation). In either case, throwing legal insinuations around isn't going to win you any points here. Wikipedia values any non-copyrighted contributions you have to make; all we ask is that you respect our policies. -- Hadal 19:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Enough with the straw man. I do not mind competent knowledgable individuals editing pages, but you are not one of those people to be editing my pages.  Don't take it personally.  There are few people who have such qualifications (who are specialized and know the scientific literature very well).  I have not met any yet at wikipedia.  All I'm saying is that, just because some people don't understand something or have never heard of it, does not mean it's unimportant to people who do understand and who have heard.  I made those pages because I thought other people would find them useful and informative, and I did not count on others unjustifiably removing legitimate cititations that would result in copyright violations. Maybe it was a mistake on my part to presume that people would know their place and would respect other people's works, and that would not edit things outside their sphere of competence.193.255.207.252 19:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * "Know their place?" I think you'll find that out place is in the real world, Shawn.  Why don't you join us?  RickK 19:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, know their place and who respect other people's works and do not edit things outside their sphere of competence. Is that too much to ask for?  193.255.207.252 19:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You're being obnoxious. Go away. Ashibaka ✎ 19:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see we have some real intelligent and competent admins here. It's a shame too, because wikipedia could be so much better and of higher quality than it is now if there were just higher standards in place for becoming an admin.193.255.207.252 19:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You are the only one currently having serious problems with the admins in question, and you have had serious problems with almost every wiki-regular that you have engaged in any sort of debate with; logic would dictate that the problem is more then likely with you.--Starx 19:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose logic would dictate that it's more probable the problem lies with me, but it does not rule out the probability that the problem lies with a few abusive admins either.  193.255.207.252 20:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Works cannot be submitted with conditions. And if the Mikula referance is truly appropriate then let someone else edit it in, any referances you edit in about yourself are going to be removed.  If the referance is truely deserved then someone else will put it in their.  Wiki's policy on autobiographies has been mentioned several times to you.  Self referances aren't autobiographies but they certainly fall under the spirit of the rule.  Anyway, while we're on the subject of strawmen, this page is not about copyvio.  This page is about Shawn Mikula being protected.  That decision was an appropriate one reguardless of the debate over the other pages. --Starx 19:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * as I've already stated, I am not Shawn Mikula, so arguments about autobiographies are beside the point. And if you're saying that works cannot be submitted without conditions as some sort of justification for copyright violation and theft, then do I understand that as an admission from you that it is your intent to further violate copyright even though it has been made clear to you on multiple occasions that those pages are copyright material? 193.255.207.252 19:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If they're copyrighted material not released under the GFDL, then they will be removed. If they're to stay posted on here, they are going to need to be licensed under the GFDL.  There is no room for conditional posting; it's an all-or-nothing arrangement. - jredmond 20:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I am saying that if unqualified admins abuse their power and insist on removing the citation to Shawn Mikula in the Baseline_Consciousness and Consciousness_Singularity pages, then those pages violate copyright and all five contributions I made need to be removed. If that is not an acceptable option, then consider the GFDL refused.  Thanks in advance.193.255.207.252 20:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have a choice in how GFDL is applied. In accordance with your wishes these articles will be listed on Copyright problems and deleted per process. Any article in Wikipedia can be edited or added to by any other user.  (Not just admins.)  In addition, by vote they can be deleted.  I will mark the pages as not in compliance with GFDL and add them to copyright problems. - Tεx τ urε 20:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. And let me just say that it says a lot that no admins at wikipedia stepped up to the plate to do the right thing, which would be to argue in favor of including the relevant citations.  I'm not sure whether it's simply due to ignorance, whether the right admins didn't see this discussion, or what, but in any event, I don't think it bodes well for wikipedia to know that such ignorance and provinciality runs rampant through this site.  Again, my apologies to the more intelligent and sincere admins who did not see this discussion for whatever reason.  It is my sincere hope that those who did participate in this discussion will one day wake up to the error of their ways and the injustice that they permitted to propagate, and that they will become better admins in the process.   193.255.207.252 20:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I am aware that this page has been deleted previously but I think my addition is noteworthy and new, and would recommend that a fair vote for deletion be made if anyone feels otherwise.


text:
Jyotirao Phule

Jyotirao Govindrao Phule (11 April 1827 – 28 November 1890) was an Indian social activist, businessman, anti-caste social reformer and writer from Maharashtra. His work extended to many fields, including eradication of untouchability and the caste system and for his efforts in educating women and oppressed caste people. He and his wife, Savitribai Phule, were pioneers of women's education in India. Phule started his first school for girls in 1848 in Pune at Tatyasaheb Bhide's residence or Bhidewada. He, along with his followers, formed the Satyashodhak Samaj (Society of Truth Seekers) to attain equal rights for people from lower castes. People from all religions and castes could become a part of this association which worked for the upliftment of the oppressed classes. Phule is regarded as an important figure in the social reform movement in Maharashtra.The honorific Mahātmā (Sanskrit: "great-souled", "venerable"), was first applied to him in 1888 at a special program honoring him in Mumbai.

Early life
Jyotirao Phule was born in Poona (Now Pune) in 1827 to a family that belonged to the Mali caste. The Malis traditionally worked as fruit and vegetable growers later but earlier were warriors: in the four-fold varna system of caste hierarchy, they were placed within the Kshatriyas. Phule was named after God Jyotiba. He was born on the day of Jyotiba's annual fair. Phule's family, previously named Gorhe, had its origins in the village of Katgun, near the town of Satara. Phule's great-grandfather, who had worked there as a, or low-ranking village official, moved to Khanwadi in Pune district. There, his only son, Shetiba, brought the family into poverty. The family, including three sons, moved to Poona seeking employment. The boys were taken under the wing of a florist who taught them the secrets of the trade. Their proficiency in growing and arranging became well known and they adopted the name Phule (flower-man) in place of Gorhe. Their fulfillment of commissions from the Peshwa, Baji Rao II, for flower mattresses and other goods for the rituals and ceremonies of the royal court so impressed him that he granted them 35 acre of land on the basis of the Inam system, whereby no tax would be payable upon it. The oldest brother machinated to take sole control of the property, leaving the younger two siblings, Jyotirao Phule's father, Govindrao, to continue farming and also flower-selling.

Govindrao married Chimnabai and had two sons, of whom Jyotirao was the youngest. Chimnabai died before he was aged one. The then backward Mali community did not give much significance to education and thus after attending primary school where he learnt the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic, Jyotirao was withdrawn from school by his father. He joined the other members of his family at work, both in the shop and in the farm. However, a man from the same Mali caste as Phule's recognised his intelligence and persuaded Phule's father to allow him to attend the local Scottish Mission High School. Phule completed his English schooling in 1847. As was customary, he was married at the young age of 13, to a girl of his Mali community, chosen by his father.

The turning point in his life was in 1848, when he attended the wedding of a Brahmin friend. Phule participated in the customary marriage procession, but was later rebuked and insulted by his friend's parents for doing so. They told him that he being from a Shudra caste should have had the sense to keep away from that ceremony. This incident profoundly affected him and shaped his understanding of the injustice inherent to the caste system.

Education
In 1848, aged 21, Phule visited a girls' school in Ahmednagar run by Christian missionary Cynthia Farrar. It was also in 1848 that he read Thomas Paine's book Rights of Man and developed a keen sense of social justice. He realized that exploited castes and women were at a disadvantage in Indian society, and also that education of these sections was vital to their emancipation. To this end and in the same year, Phule first taught reading and writing to his wife, Savitribai, and then the couple started the first indigenously run school for girls in Pune. He also taught his sister Sagunabai Kshirsagar (his maternal aunt's daughter) to write Marathi with Savitribai. The conservative upper caste society of Pune didn't approve of his work. But many Indians and Europeans helped him generously. Conservatives in Pune also forced his own family and community to ostracize them. During this period, their friend Usman Sheikh and his sister Fatima Sheikh provided them with shelter. They also helped to start the school on their premises. Later, the Phules started schools for children from the then untouchable castes such as Mahar and Mang. In 1852, there were three Phule schools in operation 273 girls were pursuing education in these school but by 1858 they had all closed. Eleanor Zelliot blames the closure on private European donations drying up due to the Rebellion of 1857, withdrawal of government support, and Jyotirao resigning from the school management committee because of disagreement regarding the curriculum.

Women's welfare
Phule watched how untouchables were not permitted to pollute anyone with their shadows and that they had to attach a broom to their backs to wipe the path on which they had traveled. He saw how untouchable women had been forced to dance naked. He saw young widows shaving their heads, refraining from any sort of joy in their life. He made the decision to educate women by witnessing all these social evils that encouraged inequality. He began with his wife, every afternoon, Jyotirao sat with his wife Savitribai Phule and educated her when she went to the farms where he worked, to bring him his meal. He sent his wife to get trained at a school. The husband and wife set up India's first girls' school in Vishrambag Wada, Pune, in 1848.

He championed widow remarriage and started a home for dominant caste pregnant widows to give birth in a safe and secure place in 1863. His orphanage was established in an attempt to reduce the rate of infanticide.

In 1863, Pune witnessed a horrific incident. A Brahmin widow named Kashibai got pregnant and her attempts at abortion didn't succeed. She killed the baby after giving it birth and threw it in a well, but her act came to light. She had to face punishment and was sentenced to jail. This incident greatly upset Phule and hence, along with his longtime friend Sadashiv Ballal Govande and Savitribai, he started an infanticide prevention centre. Pamphlets were stuck around Pune advertising the centre in the following words: "Widows, come here and deliver your baby safely and secretly. It is up to your discretion whether you want to keep the baby in the centre or take it with you. This orphanage will take care of the children [left behind]." The Phule couple ran the infanticide prevention centre until the mid-1880s.

Phule tried to eliminate the stigma of social untouchability surrounding the exploited castes by opening his house and the use of his water well to the members of the exploited castes.

Views on religion and caste
Phule appealed for reestablishment of the reign of mythical Mahabali (King Bali) which predated "Aryans' treacherous coup d'etat". He proposed his own version of Aryan invasion theory that the Aryan conquerors of India, whom the theory's proponents considered to be racially superior, were in fact barbaric suppressors of the indigenous people. He believed that they had instituted the caste system as a framework for subjugation and social division that ensured the pre-eminence of their Brahmin successors. He saw the subsequent Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent as more of the same sort of thing, being a repressive alien regime, but took heart in the arrival of the British, whom he considered to be relatively enlightened and not supportive of the varnashramadharma system instigated and then perpetuated by those previous invaders. In his book, Gulamgiri, he thanked Christian missionaries and the British colonists for making the exploited castes realise that they are worthy of all human rights. The book, whose title transliterates as slavery and which concerned women, caste and reform, was dedicated to the people in the US who were working to end slavery.

Phule saw Vishnu's avatars as a symbol of oppression stemming from the Aryan conquests and took Mahabali (Bali Raja) as hero. His critique of the caste system began with an attack on the Vedas, the most fundamental texts of Hindus. He considered them to be a form of false consciousness.

He is credited with introducing the Marathi word dalit (broken, crushed) as a descriptor for those people who were outside the traditional varna system.

At an education commission hearing in 1882, Phule called for help in providing education for lower castes. To implement it, he advocated making primary education compulsory in villages. He also asked for special incentives to get more lower-caste people in high schools and colleges.

Satyashodhak Samaj
On 24 September 1874, Phule formed Satyashodhak Samaj to focus on rights of depressed groups such women, the Shudra, and the Dalit. Through this samaj, he opposed idolatry and denounced the caste system. Satyashodhak Samaj campaigned for the spread of rational thinking and rejected the need for priests.

Phule established Satyashodhak Samaj with the ideals of human well-being, happiness, unity, equality, and easy religious principles and rituals. A Pune-based newspaper, Deenbandhu, provided the voice for the views of the Samaj.

The membership of the samaj included Muslims, Brahmins and government officials. Phule's own Mali caste provided the leading members and financial supporters for the organization.

Occupation
Apart from his role as a social activist, Phule was a businessman too. In 1882 he styled himself as a merchant, cultivator and municipal contractor. He owned 60 acre of farmland at Manjri, near Pune. For a period of time, he worked as a contractor for the government and supplied building materials required for the construction of a dam on the Mula-Mutha river near Pune in the 1870s. He also received contracts to provide labour for the construction of the Katraj Tunnel and the Yerawda Jail near Pune. One of Phule's businesses, established in 1863, was to supply metal-casting equipment.

Phule was appointed commissioner (municipal council member) to the then Poona municipality in 1876 and served in this unelected position until 1883.

Published works
Phule's akhandas were organically linked to the abhangs of Marathi Varkari saint Tukaram. Among his notable published works are:

 * Tritiya Ratna, 1855
 * Brahmananche Kasab, 1869
 * Powada : Chatrapati Shivajiraje Bhosle Yancha, [English: Life Of Shivaji, In Poetical Metre], June 1869
 * Powada: Vidyakhatyatil Brahman Pantoji, June 1869
 * Manav Mahammand (Muhammad) (Abhang)
 * Gulamgiri, 1873
 * Shetkarayacha Aasud (Cultivator's Whipcord), July 1881
 * Satsar Ank 1, June 1885
 * Satsar Ank 2 June 1885
 * Ishara, October 1885
 * Gramjoshya sambhandi jahir kabhar, (1886)
 * Satyashodhak Samajokt Mangalashtakasah Sarva Puja-vidhi, 1887
 * Sarvajanik Satya Dharma Poostak, April 1889
 * Sarvajanic Satya Dharmapustak, 1891
 * Akhandadi Kavyarachana
 * Asprushyanchi Kaifiyat

Legacy
According to Dhananjay Keer, Phule was bestowed with the title of Mahatma on 11 May 1888 by another social reformer from Bombay, Vithalrao Krishnaji Vandekar.

Indian Postal Department issued a postage stamp in year 1977 in the honour of Phule.

An early biography of Phule was the Marathi-language Mahatma Jotirao Phule Yanche Charitra (P. S. Patil, Chikali: 1927). Two others are ''Mahatma Phule. Caritra Va Kriya (Mahatma Phule. Life and Work) (A. K. Ghorpade, Poona: 1953), which is also in Marathi, and Mahatma Jyotibha Phule: Father of Our Social Revolution'' (Dhananjay Keer, Bombay: 1974). Unpublished material relating to him is held by the Bombay State Committee on the History of the Freedom Movement.

Phule's work inspired B. R. Ambedkar, the first minister of law of India and the chief of Indian constitution's drafting committee. Ambedkar had acknowledged Phule as one of his three gurus or masters.

There are many structures and places commemorating Phule. These include:
 * The full-length statue inaugurated at the premises of Vidhan Bhavan (Assembly Building of Maharashtra State)
 * Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Mandai, formerly known as Crawford Market, in Mumbai
 * Mahatma Phule Museum in Pune
 * Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth (Agricultural University) in Rahuri, Ahmednagar District, Maharashtra
 * Mahathma Phule Mandai, the biggest vegetable market in Pune
 * Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University
 * Subharti College of Physiotherapy was formerly named after him.

In popular culture

 * G. P. Deshpande's biographical play Satyashodhak (The Truth Seeker) was first performed by Jan Natya Manch in 1992.
 * Mahatma Phule (1954), an Indian Marathi-language biographical film about the social reformer was directed Pralhad Keshav Atre.
 * Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule, an Indian drama television series based on Savitribai Phule's and Jyotiba Phule's life was aired on DD National in 2016.
 * Savitri Jyoti, an Marathi drama television series based on the life and work of Savitribai and Jyotiba Phule was aired on Sony Marathi in 2019- 2020.
 * Savitribai Phule, an Indian Kannada-language biopic was made about Phule in 2018.
 * Satyashodhak (2024), is an Indian Marathi-language biographical journey through the life of Mahatma Jyotirao Phule.

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

title: Jyotirao Phule


text:
Metal (disambiguation)

A metal is a material that is typically hard, opaque, shiny, and has good electrical and thermal conductivity.

Metal may also refer to:

People with the name

 * Tamara Metal (1933–2022), Israeli Olympic high jumper and long jumper, and captain of the Israel women's national basketball team

Places

 * Metal Township, Pennsylvania, US

Music

 * Metal music or heavy metal music

Albums

 * Metal (Annihilator album)
 * Metal (Pierre Estève album)
 * Metal (Manilla Road album) or its title track
 * Metal (Preston Reed album) or its title track
 * Metal (EP), by Newsted
 * Metals (album), by Feist

Songs

 * "Metal" (song), a song by Gary Numan from The Pleasure Principle
 * "The Metal", a song by Tenacious D from The Pick of Destiny

Other uses in art and entertainment

 * Metal (magazine), an Argentine former heavy metal magazine
 * Metal.de, German-language online magazine
 * Métal, a 1928 portfolio by Germaine Krull
 * Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, a documentary
 * Metal Sonic, a character in Sonic the Hedgehog

Other uses

 * Metal (API), a graphics API from Apple for iOS and macOS
 * Metal (Wu Xing), a phase of the Chinese philosophy of Wu Xing
 * Shanghai Metals Market (metal.com)
 * Metals, types of tincture in heraldry

 * Road metal, the crushed stone used for road surfaces and railway track ballast

title: Metal (disambiguation)


text:
Metal (wuxing)

In Chinese philosophy, metal or gold, In the Wu Xing, it is the return or the declining stage. In Traditional Chinese Medicine Metal is yang within yin in character, its motion is going inwards and its energy is contracting. It is associated with the west, dusk, autumn, fall and old age, lose and grief. it governs the Yin, Zang organ the Lung and the Yang, Fu organ colon, nose and skin, body hair, pungent smell, the planet Venus, the color white, dry weather, and the White Tiger (Bai Hu) in Four Symbols. The archetypal metals are silver or gold.

Attributes
In Chinese Taoist and Traditional Chinese medical theory and thought, Metal attributes are considered to be firmness, rigidity, focus, integrity, and quality. The metal person when excessive is controlling, cutoff and arrogant, set in their ways as metal can become very rigid. They are self-reliant and resilient and prefer to handle their problems alone. The metal person is also intelligent, business-oriented, and good at organization and stability. However, the metal person can also appreciate luxury and enjoy the good things in life. The metal person has strong impulses and generative powers that they can use to change and transform those who come into contact with them, just like metal can conduct electricity. The well-balanced metal person is calm, humble and honest as well as a good person with a focused mind.

In traditional Chinese medicine, metal governs the lungs, large intestine, nose, and skin. The negative emotion associated with metal is grief and lack of self worth, while the positive emotions and qualities are reverence, righteousness, self worth, empathy and altruism. It is associated with the soul or the Po (魄), the physical form of the body and identity.

Astrology
In Chinese astrology, metal is included in the 10 heavenly stems (the five elements in their yin and yang forms), which combine with the 12 Earthly Branches (or Chinese signs of the zodiac), to form the 60-year cycle. Yang metal years end in 0 (e.g. 1980), while Yin years end in 1 (e.g. 1981). Metal governs the Chinese zodiac signs Monkey and Rooster. The planet Venus is associated with metal because it is white in color (the Chinese color of death), and rises in the west as the evening star.

Cycle of Wu Xing
In the regenerative cycle of the Wu Xing, earth engenders Metal as "all metal has to be extracted from the earth in which it resides"; Metal begets water as from the mountain tops flowed the water from the source.

In the conquest cycle, fire overcomes metal as love melts the coldest heart or "can only be melted and forged" by flame or heat; Metal ads minerals to wood for it to grow health and straight or overcomes wood as the metal axe is able to topple the tallest tree.

However, the Cycle of Wu Xing also states that excessive volumes of wood may defeat small volumes of metal, Wood by excessively wanting to grow undermines it's integrity of and becomes a weed and not a tree or as an axe would be broken or dulled after trying to chop down a forest.

title: Metal (wuxing)


text:
Vlaamsch Nationaal Verbond

The Vlaamsch Nationaal Verbond (Dutch for "Flemish National Union" or "Flemish National League"), widely known by its acronym VNV, was a Flemish nationalist political party active in Belgium between 1933 and 1945. It became the leading force of political collaboration in Flanders during the German occupation of Belgium in World War II. Authoritarian by inclination, the party advocated the creation of a "Greater Netherlands" (Dietsland) combining Flanders and the Netherlands.

Origins
The Vlaamsch Nationaal Verbond (VNV) was founded on 8 October 1933. Its origins were in the long-established Frontpartij, a moderate Flemish patriotic party which was taken over by Staf Declercq and moved to the right in 1932. From the start, the VNV was authoritarian and anti-democratic, being influenced by fascist ideas from elsewhere in Europe. However, it initially included both moderate and radical wings. It was not a genuinely fascist organisation per se. Ideologically, the party rejected Belgium and supported the creation of a new polity known as the Greater Netherlands (Dietsland), through the fusion of Belgian Flanders and the Netherlands, which would be linguistically and ethnically homogeneous. The party's slogan was: "Authority, discipline, Dietsland".

It shared many ideological elements with Verdinaso, a rival party founded two years earlier but slightly less radical. Unlike Verdinaso, the VNV took part in elections and included a relatively moderate wing. Initially, it also differed from Verdinaso in not being an anti-Semitic movement. Still, it increasingly embraced anti-Semitic elements after 1935, out of political calculation rather than ideological conviction.

In the 1936 Belgian general election, the VNV received 13.6% of the Flemish vote, corresponding to 7.1% nationwide. After the election, in which the far-right nationalist and Catholic Rexist Party also performed strongly, the two parties concluded an alliance intended to create a corporatist Belgian state with great autonomy for Flanders. The VNV revoked this agreement after just one year. In the 1939 elections, the VNV moderately increased its share of the Flemish vote to 15% (8.4% nationally) while the Rexist vote collapsed.

Despite cooperating with the Flemish section of the mainstream centre-right Catholic Party on the local level, De Clercq realised that his movement would not be able to take power by democratic means. Instead, he contacted Nazi Germany, hoping his project could be realised with German help. He contacted the Abwehr, Germany's military intelligence service, informing them that a part of the Belgian military supported his movement and could be controlled by him if Germany declared war. The Belgian state security gained knowledge of these contacts and arrested some VNV supporters.

Collaboration
When Nazi Germany invaded Belgium in 1940, De Clercq immediately chose to orient the VNV towards collaborationism, despite his previous declarations that he would not do so. Adolf Hitler did not install a civilian government (as in the Netherlands), but instead installed a military administration headed by General Alexander von Falkenhausen of the Wehrmacht. This, along with the departure of Ward Hermans and René Lagrou to form the Algemeene-SS Vlaanderen, led the VNV out of focus, forcing it to intensify its collaboration to gain influence. Hitler and SS leader Heinrich Himmler profited from the situation and increased competition between various groups by founding some more extreme collaborationist groups like the 6th SS Volunteer Sturmbrigade Langemarck and DeVlag ("German-Flemish Working Group"). Nevertheless, VNV politicians were given the mayor's office in several Flemish towns. VNV-led local administrations participated in the organisation of the deportation of Belgian Jews to Eastern Europe as part of the Holocaust in Belgium. They willingly implemented Nazi policies like the obligation of Jews to wear the yellow badge. VNV activists led in the Antwerp pogrom of April 1941.

Declercq died suddenly in October 1942 and was succeeded by Hendrik Elias, a member of the more moderate side. Elias continued collaborating with the Nazis but tried to come to terms with the military government to prevent the installation of a civilian government composed of Nazis. Elias failed, as Hitler installed the new body and declared the annexation of Flanders by Germany in 1944; seven weeks later, Belgium was liberated by the Allies. The VNV was outlawed after the liberation of Belgium. Elias fled to Germany but was tried after the war and imprisoned until 1959.

title: Vlaamsch Nationaal Verbond


text:
Bolsa Chica State Beach

Bolsa Chica State Beach is a public ocean beach in Orange County, California, United States. It is surrounded entirely by the city of Huntington Beach to the north and east, and to the northwest by the Huntington Beach community of Sunset Beach and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The beach extends 3 mi from Warner Avenue in Sunset Beach south to Seapoint Avenue, where the Huntington City Beach begins. The Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve is located across the busy Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) from the beach and is a popular spot for birdwatching. The Bolsa Chica Bicycle Path runs along the length of the park through Huntington City Beach.

Activities include surfing, sunbathing, and water sports. Tent camping is not allowed at Bolsa Chica State Beach. Fire rings are available.

Surf fishing for perch, corbina, California corbina, croaker, cabezon, shovelnose guitar fish and sand shark is available. California grunion is a species that only spawns on sandy southern California beaches. Under state law, these fish may be caught by hand with a fishing permit. Wildlife and bird watching are also popular at this state beach.

Lifeguards from the California State Parks Lifeguard Service patrol the beach year-round and lifeguard towers are staffed during the summer.

History
The area that is now Bolsa Chica State Beach was once called "Tin Can Beach" by locals. The 169 acre property was added to the state park system in 1960.

In 1967, a nuclear power and desalination plant was planned on Bolsa Island, a man-made island off the beach. It was supposed to produce more electricity than the Hoover Dam. However, the plans were abandoned by its chairman Jack K. Horton in 1968, as Southern California Edison was unable to raise sufficient capital, despite rate hikes and the sale of common stocks.

title: Bolsa Chica State Beach


text:
Talk:Bolsa Chica State Beach

Source
Parts of this article were originally obtained from http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=642.

title: Talk:Bolsa Chica State Beach


text:
Border Field State Park

Border Field State Park is a state park of California, United States, containing beach and coastal habitat on the Mexico–United States border. The park is within the city limits of Imperial Beach in San Diego County, next to the suburb of Playas de Tijuana in Mexico. It contains the southernmost point in the state of California. The refuge forms the southern part of the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Border Field State Park contains International Friendship Park, which is just inland from the place where the border meets the ocean. Immediately adjacent is the monument marking the Initial Point of Boundary Between U.S. and Mexico.

History
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was concluded on February 2, 1848, officially ending the war between the United States and Mexico. It provided that the new international border between the two countries be established by a joint United States and Mexican Boundary Survey. The commission began its survey at Border Field. During World War II it was base for Border Naval Outlying Landing Field

Habitat
The Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve contains much of Border Field State Park and is an important wildlife habitat. The salt and freshwater marshes give refuge to migrating waterfowl and resident wading birds, such as black-necked stilt, American avocet, green-winged teal, American wigeon and pelicans. The park offers hiking, horse trails, surf fishing and birding.

Visitors
For fiscal year 2014–2015 61,799 people visited the Border Field State Park, up from 45,633 in FY 2011–2012.

title: Border Field State Park


text:
The Devil's Dictionary

The Devil's Dictionary is a satirical dictionary written by American journalist Ambrose Bierce, consisting of common words followed by humorous and satirical definitions. The lexicon was written over three decades as a series of installments for magazines and newspapers. Bierce's witty definitions were imitated and plagiarized for years before he gathered them into books, first as The Cynic's Word Book in 1906 and then in a more complete version as The Devil's Dictionary in 1911.

Initial reception of the book versions was mixed. In the decades following, however, the stature of The Devil's Dictionary grew. It has been widely quoted, frequently translated, and often imitated, earning a global reputation. In the 1970s, The Devil's Dictionary was named as one of "The 100 Greatest Masterpieces of American Literature" by the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration. It has been called "howlingly funny", and Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig said in an interview that The Devil's Dictionary is "probably the most brilliant work of satire written in America. And maybe one of the greatest in all of world literature."

Predecessors
Prior to Bierce, the best-known writer of amusing definitions was Samuel Johnson. His A Dictionary of the English Language was published 15 April 1755. Johnson's Dictionary defined 42,733 words, almost all seriously. A small handful have witty definitions and became widely quoted, but they were infrequent exceptions to Johnson's learned and serious explanations of word meanings.

Noah Webster earned fame for his 1806 A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language and his 1828 An American Dictionary of the English Language. Most people assume that Webster's text is unrelieved by humor, but (as Bierce himself was to discover and describe ), Webster made witty comments in a tiny number of definitions.

Gustave Flaubert wrote notes for the Dictionary of Received Ideas (sometimes called Dictionary of Accepted Ideas; in French, Le Dictionnaire des idées reçues) between 1850 and 1855 but never completed it. Decades after his death, researchers combed through Flaubert's papers and published the Dictionary under his name in 1913 (two years after Bierce's book The Devil's Dictionary), "But the alphabetful of definitions we have here is compiled from a mass of notes, duplicates and variants that were never even sorted, much less proportioned and polished by the author."

Origins and development
Bierce took decades to write his lexicon of satirical definitions. He warmed up by including definitions infrequently in satirical essays, most often in his weekly columns "The Town Crier" or "Prattle". His earliest known definition was published in 1867. His first try at a multiple-definition essay was titled "Webster Revised". It included definitions of four terms and was published in early 1869. Bierce also wrote definitions in his personal letters. For example, in one letter he defined "missionaries" as those "who, in their zeal to lay about them, do not scruple to seize any weapon that they can lay their hands on; they would grab a crucifix to beat a dog."

By summer of 1869 he had conceived of the idea of something more substantial: "Could any one but an American humorist ever have conceived the idea of a Comic Dictionary" he wrote.

Bierce did not make his first start at writing a satirical glossary until six years later. He called it "The Demon's Dictionary", and it appeared in the San Francisco News Letter and California Advertiser of 11 December 1875. His glossary provided 48 short witty definitions, from "A" ("The first letter in every properly constructed alphabet") through "accoucheur". But "The Demon's Dictionary" appeared only once, and Bierce wrote no more satirical lexicons for another six years.

Even so, Bierce's short glossary spawned imitators. One of the most substantial was written by Harry Ellington Brook, the editor of a humor magazine called The Illustrated San Francisco Wasp. Brook's continuing column of serialized satirical definitions was called "Wasp's Improved Webster in Ten-Cent Doses". The column started with the 7 August 1880 issue and appeared weekly in 28 issues, working its way step-by-step alphabetically to define 758 words, ending with "shoddy" in the 26 February 1881 issue.

In the next issue of The Wasp Brook's column appeared no more, because The Wasp hired Bierce and he stopped it, replacing "Wasp's Improved Webster" with his own column of satirical definitions. Bierce named his column “The Devil's Dictionary.” It first appeared in the March 5, 1881 issue. Bierce wrote 79 “The Devil's Dictionary” columns, working his way alphabetically to the word “lickspittle” in the 14 Aug. 1886 issue.

After Bierce left The Wasp, he was hired by William Randolph Hearst to write for his newspaper The San Francisco Examiner in 1887. Bierce's first "Prattle" column appeared in the Examiner on March 5 of that year, and the next installment of his satirical lexicon appeared in the 4 September 1887 issue on page 4, under the title "The Cynic's Dictionary". Bierce wrote one more “The Cynic's Dictionary” column (which ran in the 29 April 1888 Examiner, page 4), and then no more appeared for sixteen years.

In the meantime, Bierce's idea of a "comic dictionary" was imitated by others, and his witty definitions were plagiarized without crediting him. One imitator even copied the name of Bierce's column.

In September 1903, Bierce wrote letters to his friend Herman George Scheffauer mentioning he was thinking about a book of his satirical definitions "regularly arranged as in a real dictionary."

Bierce restarted his “The Cynic's Dictionary” columns with new definitions beginning in June 1904. Hearst's newspaper publishing company had grown nationally, so Bierce's readership had expanded dramatically as well. Now “The Cynic's Dictionary” columns usually appeared first in Hearst's New York American, next in other Hearst papers (San Francisco Examiner, Boston American, Chicago American, Los Angeles Examiner), and then via Hearst's syndication business in other newspapers covering additional cities Hearst newspapers did not reach.

Book publication
On 4 November 1905, Bierce wrote to a friend that he was at last reshaping the witty definitions from his newspaper columns into a book, and was irritated by his imitators: “I'm compiling The Devil's Dictionary at the suggestion of Doubleday, Page & Co., who doubtless think it a lot of clowneries like the books to which it gave the cue.”

The 25 November 1905 issue of The Saturday Evening Post contained “Some Definitions,” a short list of humorous definitions by Post editor Harry Arthur Thompson. Thompson's definitions were popular enough to generate short sequel lists called “Frivolous Definitions” and to be reprinted in newspapers and magazines. Thompson and his definitions would have an unexpected impact on the publication of Bierce's book.

On 19 March 1906 Bierce signed a contract with Doubleday, Page & Co. for publication of his book, but without his preferred title The Devil's Dictionary. Instead the contract used the same title as Bierce's nationally distributed newspaper columns: The Cynic's Dictionary. Bierce explained to poet and playwright George Sterling: “They (the publishers) won't have The Devil's Dictionary [as a title]. Here in the East the Devil is a sacred personage (the Fourth Person of the Trinity, as an Irishman might say) and his name must not be taken in vain.”

Bierce's publishers quickly discovered that they would not be able to use The Cynic's Dictionary for the title either. Harry Arthur Thompson was turning the handful of definitions he wrote for The Saturday Evening Post into a book. Thompson's book would be published first and would steal Bierce's title. Bierce wrote to Sterling: “I shall have to call it something else, for the publishers tell me there is a Cynic's Dictionary already out. I dare say the author took more than my title—the stuff has been a rich mine for a plagiarist for many a year.”

The new title for Bierce's book would be The Cynic's Word Book. Bierce changed the title of his newspaper columns to “The Cynic's Word Book” to match his book.

Bierce's book was filed for copyright 30 August 1906 and was published October 1906. The Cynic's Word Book contained 521 definitions, but only for words beginning with “A” through “L.”

Doubleday, Page & Co. printed and bound 1,341 copies of The Cynic's Word Book. 147 copies were given to the author and to book reviewers for newspapers and magazines; 1,070 copies were sold; and eventually Doubleday remaindered 124 unsold copies and sold them below the publisher's cost. Doubleday was also able to sell British rights to a small publisher in London, Arthur F. Bird, who brought out a British edition in 1907. Sales of The Cynic's Word Book qualified it from the publisher's point of view as modestly successful, but not strong enough to justify a companion volume of words beginning with “M” through “Z” as Bierce had hoped.

Bierce's plan to cover the entire alphabet was brought back to life by publisher Walter Neale, who persuaded Bierce to sign an agreement with him on 1 June 1908 for Neale to publish The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce in a set of ten or more volumes. They planned for Volume 7 to be Bierce's lexicon, finally using his preferred title, The Devil's Dictionary.

To create a typescript for Neale to publish, Bierce first marked up a copy of The Cynic's Word Book with changes and a few additions. That work quickly gave him definitions of words beginning with “A” through “L”. Next he took clippings of his newspaper column definitions and revised them. That brought his dictionary up from “L” to early in the letter “R”. Finally Bierce wrote 37 pages of mostly new definitions spanning from “RECONSIDER” to the end of “Z”. On 11 December 1908 Bierce wrote to George Sterling that he had completed work on The Devil's Dictionary.

In 1909 publisher Walter Neale began issuing individual volumes in the 12-volume set The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce. Volume 7, The Devil's Dictionary, was published in 1911. Unlike most publishers, who sell individual volumes of a published work, Neale focused on selling complete sets of the 12-volume Works. Neale later claimed that he printed and sold 1,250 sets (250 numbered fully leatherbound sets, the first volume of each set signed by Bierce; a small number of sets half-bound in Morocco leather; and the bulk as sets of clothbound hardcovers). However, Neale's surviving royalty statements to Bierce for The Collected Works tell a different story: Bierce was paid for sales of 57 fully leatherbound 12-volume sets, 8 half-Morocco sets, and approximately 164 clothbound hardback sets.

Neale did not sell the rights to print a British edition of The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce. However, in late 1913 or early 1914 the periodical The London Opinion paid Neale for the right to reprint definitions of 787 words from The Devil's Dictionary.

Sample definitions

 * Air : (n.) A nutricious substance supplied by a bountiful providence for the fattening of the poor.

 * Cannon : (n.) An instrument employed in the rectification of national boundaries.

 * Conservative : (n.) A statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

 * Cynic : (n.) A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

 * Egotist : (n.) A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.

 * Faith : (n.) Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

 * Lawyer : (n.) One skilled in circumvention of the law.

 * Love : (n.) A temporary insanity curable by marriage...

 * Marriage : (n.) A household consisting of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making in all, two.

 * Positive : (a.) Mistaken at the top of one's voice.

 * Religion : (n.) A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

 * Youth : (n.) The Period of Possibility, when Archimedes finds a fulcrum, Cassandra has a following and seven cities compete for the honor of endowing a living Homer.
 * "Youth is the true Saturnian Reign, the Golden Age on earth again, when figs are grown on thistles, and pigs betailed with whistles and, wearing silken bristles, live ever in clover, and cows fly over, delivering milk at every door, and Justice is never heard to snore, and every assassin is made a ghost and, howling, is cast into Baltimost! —Polydore Smith"

Under the entry "leonine", meaning a single line of poetry with an internal rhyming scheme, Bierce included an apocryphal couplet written by the fictitious "Bella Peeler Silcox" (i.e. Ella Wheeler Wilcox) in which an internal rhyme is achieved in both lines only by mispronouncing the rhyming words:

"The electric light invades the dunnest deep of Hades. Cries Pluto, 'twixt his snores: 'O tempora! O mores!"

Reception
Initial critical reception for The Cynic's Word Book was mixed. Some reviewers praised Bierce's book, such as the anonymous critic for the Los Angeles Herald, who wrote: “It is a dictionary of misdefinitions, funny, witty and with an abiding background of humor, a tinge of real philosophy yet never degenerating into cheapness. One, upon reading it, finds a decided delight upon Bierce's character and his grim morbidness and obsession.”

Other reviewers disliked the sharp edge of Bierce's wit. Some were exhausted trying to read The Cynic's Word Book cover-to-cover, as though it was a thriller or popular novel. Edward F. Cahill of the San Francisco Call concluded of Bierce's definitions: “As paragraphs they were amusing, but in book form they grow tiresome.” Even so, Cahill could not help but quote a definition he found particularly amusing.

Like Cahill, other reviewers—whether they hated The Cynic's Word Book or they loved it—quoted definitions they liked. When the British edition of The Cynic's Word Book was published, one London magazine published a long, nearly full-page approving review; 95% of it was quoted definitions, and the review never mentioned the author Bierce's name even once.

In 1911 The Devil's Dictionary was published as volume 7 of the twelve-volume set of The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce. Most reviewers of the twelve-volume set didn't mention The Devil's Dictionary in their reviews, and those few who even named the book gave it scant consideration. For example, in a 9¾-page magazine article on Bierce's Collected Works, Frederic Taber Cooper gave The Devil's Dictionary one paragraph, explaining “One is tempted to devote considerably more space than is warranted to that extremely clever collection of satiric definitions, The Devil's Dictionary. It represents a deliberate pose consistently maintained, it is pervaded with a spirit of what a large proportion of readers in a Christian country would pronounce irreverent, it tells us nothing new and can hardly be conceived of as an inspiration for higher or nobler living. But it is undeniably entertaining reading.”

The Athenaeum Journal, one of the most widely circulated literary periodicals in the world, gave The Devil's Dictionary lengthier consideration and observed: “Dealing with a wide range of topics as well as a great number of words, it presents a sort of summary index of the author’s characteristic views as well as his literary aptitudes and poses. . . . Substantial intellectual value belongs to a great many entries that deal with a few large groups of subjects (politics, philosophy, &c.) that are individually too long for quotation.”

Seven years after the book's publication H. L. Mencken, the most influential American literary critic during the first quarter of the twentieth century, praised The Devil's Dictionary highly: “There you will find the most brilliant stuff, first and last, that America has ever produced. There you will find the true masterpiece of the one genuine wit that These States have ever seen.” Mencken later stated the book's contents “… are some of the most gorgeous witticisms in the English language. … In The Devil's Dictionary are some of the most devastating epigrams ever written.”

At that time, critical evaluations of The Devil's Dictionary were rare because copies of the book were hard to find. This scarcity changed in 1925, when the first reprint of The Devil's Dictionary was published, making the book easy to obtain. About the same time, the first abridged version was published by Haldeman-Julius as a Little Blue Book with a budget price of five cents. As The Devil's Dictionary became widely available, critical coverage of it increased.

The New York Times reviewed one reprinted edition: “It is a tour de force of no mean proportions, because it is possible to read it from cover to cover without being bored, so amusing are his unexpected turns of caustic humor, so brilliant his flagitious wit and so diverting the verses and dicta of non-existent philosophers as ‘Father Cassalasca Jape, S. J.’, with which he illustrates them.”

After receiving attention from reviewers in newspapers and commercial magazines, The Devil's Dictionary started to receive analyses from scholars in dissertations and academic journals. They investigated the place of Bierce's writing in the world's history of satire, how The Devil's Dictionary achieved its humorous effects, and the themes Bierce stressed in the book. In an often-cited essay, French author Jacques Sternberg categorized the caustic wit of The Devil's Dictionary as an example of humor noir.

Reprinted editions sometimes provided critical information about the book in the form of introductions by literary critics, Bierce scholars, or Bierce's biographers. In addition, the many imitators and successors of The Devil's Dictionary occasionally included thoughtful comments on Bierce's achievement.

Scholars came to agree that The Devil's Dictionary is “of primary importance to any study, understanding, or appreciation of Ambrose Bierce.” Critics noted that the Dictionary's definitions are frequently quoted, both with and without attribution, so several of Bierce's observations have been absorbed into American culture, familiar to and repeated by people who have no idea where the witticisms originated. Critics also noticed that Bierce used his humorous dictionary as a vehicle for moral instruction, as “… he often induced the readers to reexamine the validity of their own thinking.” A critical consensus has evolved that considers The Devil's Dictionary as “An American masterpiece of cynical wit” and "… probably the most brilliant work of satire written in America. And maybe one of the greatest in all of world literature."

In 1973, the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration was created by an act of Congress to create events and commemorations to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The Bicentennial Administration decided to select “The 100 Greatest Masterpieces of American Literature,” one hundred books written by Americans that “actually helped to shape the very course of our nation.” Faculty members of universities in all fifty states submitted nominations. The final choices included 99 volumes of fiction, nonfiction, poetry, and plays, but only one volume of humor: The Devil's Dictionary.

Since then the critical reputation of The Devil's Dictionary has continued to expand, as has the book's popularity with readers, by means of reprints, illustrated versions, and abridged editions continuously published in a dozen languages around the world.

Noteworthy editions

 * New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., [October] 1906 (as The Cynic's Word Book). First edition. Includes 521 definitions beginning with A-L.
 * London: Arthur F. Bird, [stated publication year 1906; actual publication year 1907] (as The Cynic's Word Book). First British edition.
 * New York and Washington, D.C.: Neale Publishing, 1909-1912 [The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce: Volume VII]. First edition with the title The Devil's Dictionary. Includes 1,013 definitions.
 * New York: Albert & Charles Boni, 1925, 1926, 1935, 1944. First reprint.
 * Girard, KS: Haldeman-Julius, c. 1926. Little Blue Book No. 1056. First abridged edition.
 * New York: Citadel Press, 1946 (in The Collected Writings of Ambrose Bierce). Introduction by Clifton Fadiman. First inclusion in an anthology.
 * New York: Hill & Wang, 1957, 1961, 1962, 1968; Mattituck, NY: Amereon, 1983. Introduction by Bierce biographer Carey McWilliams (journalist).
 *  New York: Peter Pauper Press, 1958
 * Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1967; London: Victor Gollancz, 1967, 1968; Harmondsworth, UK or London: Penguin, 1971, 1983, 1985, 1989, 1990, 2001 (as The Enlarged Devil's Dictionary), Ernest Jerome Hopkins, ed. Preface by John Meyers Meyers. Introduction by Hopkins. To Bierce's 1911 book, Hopkins adds 851 definitions from other sources, including 189 not by Bierce but from Harry Ellington Brook, the editor of The Wasp.
 * New York: Limited Editions Club, 1972. Limited to 1,500 copies signed by artist Fritz Kredel. Introduction by Louis Kronenberger.
 * Owings Mills, MD: Stemmer House, 1978. Introduction by Lawrence R. Suhre.
 * Franklin Center, PA: Franklin Library, 1980. Series: 100 Greatest Masterpieces of American Literature. Leatherbound limited edition.
 * Chicago, IL: First Comics, February 1991 (as The Devil's Dictionary and Other Works). (Reprinted: New York: Papercutz, 2010 ; Godalming, UK: Melia, 2010) Series: Classics Illustrated. Adapted and illustrated by Gahan Wilson.
 * New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, 2002. Introduction by Bierce biographer Roy Morris, Jr.
 * Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2000, 2002 (as The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary), David E. Schultz and S. T. Joshi, eds. Lengthy, information-packed introduction covers The Devil's Dictionary as a work of moral instruction and provides the most detailed history of Bierce's writing of the text, the 1906 book publication of The Cynic's Word Book, and the 1911 book publication of The Devil's Dictionary. Main body of the text adds 632 definitions from Bierce's writings to provide 1,645 definitions. Omits 189 definitions incorrectly attributed to Bierce by Ernest Jerome Hopkins. Appendices provide an additional 35 “supplemental definitions” that Bierce wrote for the 1911 book but did not use, plus 49 “other definitions” gleaned from Bierce's other published books and journalism. Does not include definitions Bierce wrote in letters. Includes detailed bibliography of every appearance and variation for each definition. Extensively annotated throughout.
 * Mount Horeb, WI: Eureka Productions, 2003 (as The Devil's Dictionary and More Tales of War, Satire, and the Supernatural). Series: Graphics Illustrated. Adapted and illustrated by Rick Geary.
 * London: Folio Society, 2003, 2004, 2010. Introduction by Miles Kington. Illustrations by Peter Forster.
 * London, Berlin, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2003, 2004, 2008. Introduction by Angus Calder. Illustrations by Ralph Steadman.
 * New York: Barnes & Noble, 2007. Introduction by Craig A. Warren.
 * Boone, IA: Library of America, 2011 (in Ambrose Bierce: The Devil's Dictionary, Tales, and Memoirs), S. T. Joshi, ed.

Translated editions
See Translations of The Devil's Dictionary.

Adaptations

 * Berkman, Alexander (June 1917). "War Dictionary." The Blast, vol. 2, no. 5.
 * Tubb, E. C. (1957) "The Devil's Dictionary" (short story). Supernatural Stories, no. 9.
 * Baksa, Robert F. (1978). "Four songs to poetry from The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce." New York: Composers Library Editions.
 * Kulesha, Gary (1971–1993). "Six bagatelles from The Devil's Dictionary for woodwind quintet" ("Cynic," "Alone," "Dictator," "Reality," "Idiot," and "Eulogy").
 * Heritage, Helen (2008). The Devil's Dictionary (play).

Successors
The Devil's Dictionary has spawned many successors, including:

 * Volkart, Edmond Howell (1986). The Angel's Dictionary: a Modern Tribute to Ambrose Bierce. F. Watts. ISBN 978-0-531150-01-6
 * Rollins, L.A. Rollins (1987). Lucifer's Lexicon
 * Carter, Steven (2009). The New Devil's Dictionary, Napoli: Edizioni dell'Istituto Italiano di Cultura.
 * Koenig, Rhoda (2012). The New Devil's Dictionary: A New Version of the Cynical Classic. Lyons Press. ISBN 978-0-762772-47-6.
 * Napoli, James (2014). The Official Dictionary of Sarcasm. Fall River. ISBN 978-1-4351-5579-4
 * Schuberth, Richard (2014). Das neue Worterbuch des Teufels [The new Devil's Dictionary]: Ein aphoristisches Lexikon mit zwei Essays zu Ambrose Bierce und Karl Kraus sowie aphoristischen Reflexionen zum Aphorismus selbst. Klever Verlag. ISBN 978-3-902665-75-1
 * Zweig, Jason (2015). The Devil's Financial Dictionary
 * Carter, Steven (2009). The New Devil's Dictionary, Napoli: Edizioni dell'Istituto Italiano di Cultura.
 * Koenig, Rhoda (2012). The New Devil's Dictionary: A New Version of the Cynical Classic. Lyons Press. ISBN 978-0-762772-47-6.
 * Napoli, James (2014). The Official Dictionary of Sarcasm. Fall River. ISBN 978-1-4351-5579-4
 * Schuberth, Richard (2014). Das neue Worterbuch des Teufels [The new Devil's Dictionary]: Ein aphoristisches Lexikon mit zwei Essays zu Ambrose Bierce und Karl Kraus sowie aphoristischen Reflexionen zum Aphorismus selbst. Klever Verlag. ISBN 978-3-902665-75-1
 * Zweig, Jason (2015). The Devil's Financial Dictionary
 * Napoli, James (2014). The Official Dictionary of Sarcasm. Fall River. ISBN 978-1-4351-5579-4
 * Schuberth, Richard (2014). Das neue Worterbuch des Teufels [The new Devil's Dictionary]: Ein aphoristisches Lexikon mit zwei Essays zu Ambrose Bierce und Karl Kraus sowie aphoristischen Reflexionen zum Aphorismus selbst. Klever Verlag. ISBN 978-3-902665-75-1
 * Zweig, Jason (2015). The Devil's Financial Dictionary
 * Zweig, Jason (2015). The Devil's Financial Dictionary

title: The Devil's Dictionary


text: User talk:68.188.217.119

title: User talk:68.188.217.119


text:
Faroese orthography

Faroese orthography is the method employed to write the Faroese language, using a 29-letter Latin alphabet, although it does not include the letters C, Q, W, X and Z.

Alphabet
The Faroese alphabet consists of 29 letters derived from the Latin script:

 * Eth $⟨ð⟩$ (Faroese edd) never appears at the beginning of a word, which means its majuscule form $⟨Ð⟩$ rarely occurs except in situations where all-capital letters are used, such as on maps.
 * $⟨Ø⟩$ can also be written $⟨ö⟩$ in poetic language, such as Föroyar ('the Faroes'). This has to do with different orthographic traditions (Danish–Norwegian for $⟨ø⟩$ and Icelandic for $⟨ö⟩$). Originally, both forms were used, depending on the historical form of the word; $⟨ø⟩$ was used when the vowel resulted from I-mutation of  while $⟨ö⟩$ was used when the vowel resulted from U-mutation of .  In handwriting, $⟨ő⟩$ is sometimes used.
 * While $⟨c⟩$, $⟨q⟩$, $⟨w⟩$, $⟨x⟩$, and $⟨z⟩$ are not found in the Faroese language, $⟨x⟩$ was known in earlier versions of Hammershaimb's orthography, such as $⟨Saxun⟩$ for Saksun.
 * While the Faroese keyboard layout allows one to write in Latin, English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, etc., the Old Norse and Modern Icelandic letter $⟨þ⟩$ is missing. In related Faroese words, it is written as either $⟨t⟩$ or $⟨h⟩$. If an Icelandic name has to be transcribed, $⟨th⟩$ is common.

Glide insertion
Faroese avoids having a hiatus between two vowels by inserting a glide. Orthographically, this is shown in three ways: Typically, the first vowel is long and in words with two syllables always stressed, while the second vowel is short and unstressed. In Faroese, short unstressed vowels can only be.
 * 1) vowel + $⟨ð⟩$ + vowel
 * 2) vowel + $⟨g⟩$ + vowel
 * 3) vowel + vowel

The value of the glide is determined by the surrounding vowels:
 * 1) * "I-surrounding, type 1" – after $⟨i, y, í, ý, ei, ey, oy⟩$: bíða (to wait), deyður  (dead), seyður  (sheep)
 * 2) * "I-surrounding, type 2" – between any vowel (except "u-vowels" $⟨ó, u, ú⟩$) and $⟨i⟩$: kvæði (ballad), øði  (rage).
 * 3) * "U-surrounding, type 1" – after $⟨ó, u, ú⟩$: Óðin (Odin), góðan morgun!  (good morning!), suður  (south), slóða  (to make a trace).
 * 4) * "U-surrounding, type 2" – between $⟨a, á, e, o, æ, ø⟩$ and $⟨u⟩$: áður (before), leður  (leather), í klæðum  (in clothes), í bløðum  (in newspapers).
 * 5) * "A-surrounding, type 2"
 * 6) ** These are exceptions (there is also a regular pronunciation): æða (eider-duck).
 * 7) ** The past participles always have : elskaðar (beloved, nom., acc. fem. pl.)
 * 8) Silent
 * 9) * "A-surrounding, type 1" – between $⟨a, á, e, o⟩$ and $⟨a⟩$ and in some words between $⟨æ, ø⟩$ and $\langlea\rangle$: ráða (to advise), gleða  (to gladden, please), boða  (to forebode), kvøða  (to chant), røða  (to make a speech)
 * 1) ** The past participles always have : elskaðar (beloved, nom., acc. fem. pl.)
 * 2) Silent
 * 3) * "A-surrounding, type 1" – between ⇭⇭⇭ and ⇭⇭⇭ and in some words between ⇭⇭⇭ and ⇭⇭⇭: ráða (to advise), gleða  (to gladden, please), boða  (to forebode), kvøða  (to chant), røða  (to make a speech)

title: Faroese orthography