text:
Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

A Slayer in the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel (both created by Joss Whedon), is a young woman bestowed (unwillingly) with mystical powers that originate from the heart, soul, and spirit of a pure-demon which gives her superhuman senses, strength, agility, resilience, and speed in the fight against forces of darkness. She occasionally receives prophetic dreams in the few hours that she sleeps.

The opening narration in the Buffy series states "In every generation there is a chosen one. She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons, and the forces of darkness. She is the Slayer."

While in the series, they are commonly referred to as "Vampire Slayers" even by Watchers and vampires themselves. The Slayer may operate as a defender against all supernatural threats.

The reputation of the Slayer is well-known and revered even throughout other dimensions. The notion of the Slayer has been compared to the equivalent of a Demonic "Boogey-Man", incredibly feared and considered by most to be essentially unconquerable.

Reception and analysis
Rhonda Wilcox explains that the First Slayer was violated by the Shadow Men. She contrasts this with Buffy's offer of choice to the potentials. Wilcox notes that despite the message of sharing power around the world, not all women are made slayers. She then equates being a slayer with being a leader. Patricia Pender discusses the potentials and sharing of power as well, noting the cultural aspects and providing critique of the cultural portrayals.

Pender also analyzes the reception of Buffy as the slayer in early criticism of the show: "the Slayer is celebrated at the expense of the girl, and the composite character is found inexplicably wanting," going on to explain this is a flaw in analysis of the character. Pender goes on to discuss the "struggle to balance the demands of her supernatural duties as the Slayer and her desire to live what she sees as a normal teenage life. As several critics have pointed out, this struggle literalises the challenges many, if not all, adolescents experience when negotiating their entry into the adult world".

Cynthia Fuchs similarly says Buffy's character brought an understanding of teenage life, but that her "'secret identity' as the slayer exacerbates such ordeals and dreams. She explains further, when analyzing a sequence with the First Slayer, "Buffy's perpetual sense of displacement, her sense that she belongs to another "race", apart from her world (which is populated by humans, demons, and vampires, communities into which she never quite fits), is made concrete for her in the First Slayer.

The Chosen One
"'In every generation there is a Chosen One. She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons, and the forces of darkness. She is the Slayer.'"

The First Slayer
Thousands of years ago in ancient Africa, a group of tribal elders known as the Shadow Men used powerful magic to infuse a captive girl with the heart, soul and spirit of a demon known as the Shadow Demon. This process granted the girl great strength, speed, agility, reflexes, healing, endurance and psychic abilities in the fight against evil, she became the First Slayer, called to fight the vampires and other demons that populate the Earth. The Shadow Men's descendants went on to form the Watchers' Council, an organization dedicated to finding, training, and supporting Slayers.

The Slayer line
Due to the violent nature of the life of a Slayer, their average lifespan is quite short after being called. Consequently, the Shadow Men's spell also created a large number of Potential Slayers—normal girls around the world who may one day be called. When a Slayer dies, one of the Potentials—seemingly chosen at random—gains the powers and abilities of a Slayer. The Watcher's Council tries to identify and train these "Potentials" before they are called, locating some as babies, but are not always able to do so, with some girls only being found after they have been activated as the Slayer.

This process continues through the generations until 1997, when one Slayer—Buffy Summers—is killed in battle (by drowning) only to be revived via CPR. Buffy retains her Slayer powers, but her clinical death is enough for the next Slayer to be called. For the next year there are two Slayers in the world: first Kendra, who was called on Buffy's death, and then Faith, who was called when Kendra was killed by Drusilla. Regardless, Buffy is still referred to as the Slayer.

Buffy's second death did not result in another slayer being called because of Faith—a new slayer would not be called until her death; however, Buffy's second resurrection for some reason caused an imbalance in the Slayer line. Following her first death, Mayor Wilkins says that he does not want Buffy killed, because that will cause a new Slayer to be called, and, when she is discussing why she has been revived a second time with Giles, Buffy states, "It was my time, Giles. Someone would've taken my place." Following her second death, Buffy herself, addressing a group of Potential Slayers, says: "My death could make you the next Slayer." However, the shooting script for the final episode on the show originally included a much longer speech by Buffy to the potential Slayers, including the line "It's true none of you has the power Faith and I have. I think both of us would have to die for a new Slayer to be called, and we can't even be sure that girl is in this room. That's the rule. So here's the part where you make a choice."

The mystical "rules" governing the Calling of Slayers change again in 2003, when Buffy discovers a Scythe forged for the Slayer to wield. Willow Rosenberg uses magic to tap into the Scythe's essence at Buffy's request, and performs a spell that calls every living Potential Slayer at once, thus ending the legacy of "one girl in all the world".

After taking the time to find and count them, Buffy states that there are at least 1800 Slayers in the world, 500 of whom are working with the Scooby Gang. Potentials now awaken as Slayers when they reach suitable maturation; for instance, the Slayer Soledad was awakened on her sixteenth birthday.

At the end of Season Eight, Buffy destroys the Seed of Wonder, affecting the magical world; while all active Slayers present on Earth remain, no new Slayers can be called.

At some point in the 21st century, a Slayer faces an army of demons. As a result of this battle, all demons and magicks are banished from Earth's dimension. At this point, the Slayer line becomes dormant—while Potential Slayers still exist, none are called for two hundred years.

In the far future, demons eventually find a way to return to Earth's dimension, and the next Slayer is finally called—a girl named Melaka Fray. The continuity of the Slayer line is still unclear since Melaka had a twin brother who was given the dreams and visions typically possessed by the Slayer, while Melaka received the physical attributes (strength, reflexes, stamina, accelerated healing). On top of that, Melaka's brother has died and become a vampire.

Powers and abilities
The powers that are bestowed upon the Slayer are mostly physical enhancements that vary in degree from Slayer to Slayer.

Strength
Slayers are endowed with strength far greater than that of regular humans, some demons and the vast majority of vampires. Buffy Summers, for instance, has been shown to lift, with great effort, a metal portcullis which an entire group of people were unable to budge. She is also capable of bending a steel rifle barrel with little apparent effort and easily bending open the bars of prison cells with her bare hands. Buffy has been recorded throwing human-sized subjects sizable distances and casually lifting steel girders used in construction building

During a fight, Faith Lehane is able to pick up the vampire Angel with one hand and easily throw him across a room, then lift him over her head and slam him into the ceiling. Once, while fighting Buffy, she punched her fist into a wall. She is also seen picking up a barbell with one hand and hitting a woman in the face with it. Genevieve Savidge once slapped a fellow Slayer so hard that her neck snapped in a fit of rage. Since Slayers can take blows from superhuman beings with little to no injury, this indicates the high-end feats of Slayer strength can go above and beyond what one would expect.

One example of a Slayer being stronger than most vampires is in "The Gift", when Buffy easily lifts Olaf's hammer with one hand when Spike was barely able to do so with both hands in "Blood Ties", and when she defeats the demon Doc easily when Spike is unable to. Angel also remarked in "Sanctuary" that Buffy is "a little bit stronger" than he is, though the humorous tenor of the exchange suggests he may have been understating the difference.

The Slayer's strength appears to be largely metaphysical, as it does not seem to add to their body mass and they remain buoyant enough to swim.

Melaka Fray is able to pick up an overweight vampire several times her own size and body mass, lift him up over her head with both hands and throw him over a distance of presumably over 20–25 feet, with no downward arc to his trajectory (which was only interrupted due to his hitting a metal grate, which was extensively deformed on impact).

The psychotic Slayer Dana is able to, through several violent shoves, knock down a metal door as well as deform the edges of a metal gate as she tore it from its hinges.

Buffy and Angel often shows inconsistencies in their characters' physical strength; for example, Buffy was unable to bust open a metal door in "I, Robot... You, Jane", but casually breaks down metal doors in both "The Harvest" and "End of Days". Buffy also been successfully bound by rope or chains on multiple occasions. This has been acknowledged frequently in commentaries and interviews by writers and creators of the shows. However, it is stated by Riley that Buffy gets stronger "every day" and is inferred that she may be stronger due to the fact that she has been activated the longest.

Agility and reflexes
Slayers are able to move faster and react more quickly than normal human beings. Buffy has been shown snatching a crossbow bolt in mid-flight, dodging gunfire from multiple ranges and setting off a bear trap, but not getting caught in it. At one point Buffy was fast enough to outrun a raiding motorcyclist on his bike shortly after her resurrection. Faith has been shown to dodge shotgun blasts at point-blank range and Dana was able to dodge a tranquilizer dart also fired at point-blank range. A Slayer is capable of superhuman feats of agility. She can leap to great heights; though the maximum is unknown, Buffy was shown to be capable of reaching the roof of the original Sunnydale High in a very short period of time, after running up a sloping wall then flipping onto the roof.

Resilience and healing
A Slayer's body is substantially more durable and resistant to blunt force trauma than an ordinary human's and there is evidence of an incredibly high pain tolerance. It is difficult, though not impossible, to bruise them, break their bones or strain their joints. Buffy has suffered from a sprained arm as a consequence of fighting vampires. Melaka Fray is hit with a steel girder thrown at her from a demon and recovers within minutes; she is also shown to fall from a height of over five stories to land face-first on a cement sidewalk and be only dazed before fully recovering in moments, and at a later time, to fall four stories down, crash through the cement roof of an adjacent building and fall down the height of one more story, and recover instantly. Buffy can leap from a window with a man in her arms, landing on the ground and letting her body take the brunt of the fall. Buffy has been hit by a moving truck, got up and run off. Faith has fallen from a height of three stories on top of a closed dumpster, rolled off it to hit the ground and got up immediately with no signs of damage; she also was able to hold her own in a fight with Buffy less than 24 hours after waking from a nine-month coma —a coma which she entered after surviving a deep stab wound to the abdomen immediately followed by a fall from the top of a multi-story building into a moving truck. Also, in an attempt from the Watcher's Council to capture Faith without killing her in "Sanctuary", they prepare a tranquilizer that is capable of knocking out a man twice her size, which is more than enough to subdue an ordinary young woman her size.

Despite these feats, the Slayer is far from invulnerable. For instance, Buffy has been knocked out by blunt force trauma, such as being hit over the head with a lead pipe by a possessed Cordelia Chase in "Bad Eggs" and with a detached mannequin arm by Ethan Rayne in "The Dark Age", and was also rendered unconscious when Drusilla jolted her with a cattle prod in "Crush". In addition, the Slayer can be injured by conventional bullets, bladed weapons, and more advanced weaponry (such as the energy weapons commonly used by the Initiative) just as easily as an ordinary human can, but they can recover from even very severe injuries in remarkably short periods of time. Usually, Buffy is completely healed within 24 hours of being injured, though more serious injuries have been shown to take at least a few days, and Slayers can receive scars. Buffy has survived contact with a live electrical wire; the normally lethal jolt simply renders her unconscious and melts her shoe soles.

The Slayer also appears to have a heightened immune system: Buffy is depicted as almost never getting sick, aside from contracting the flu during a period of great emotional stress.

Senses
Slayers possess a heightened awareness of their surroundings. This heightened awareness can, with experience, allow the Slayer to know the position of an attacker and fight them blindfolded or in the dark. This is not a constant ability, however. This skill must be honed through practice and the Slayer usually must focus to achieve the full benefit, as shown in season 5 "Family", during which, when Tara casts a spell that causes demons to be invisible to the gang, Buffy orders everyone to be quiet and fights a demon without seeing it.

A Slayer also has the limited ability to detect the presence of vampires (and presumably other demons). This power must be honed as with the heightened awareness, and the Slayer must focus to achieve the full effect. This does not prevent Buffy (and other Slayers) from being ambushed by vampires. Buffy could be unusually deficient in this sense: Although she initially distrusts Angel when first meeting him and seems to sense that he is following her for a period of time, she doesn't realize until he shows her his vampiric face for the first time that he is a vampire. However, her ability might have been compromised by the presence of Angel's soul. Additionally, in "Dirty Girls," Faith attacks Spike under the impression that he is chasing an innocent girl and is unaware that he was in fact pursuing a vampire until said vampire attacks her from behind.

In the 1992 film, the ability to detect vampires manifested itself in the form of feminine cramps. (Merrick describes this as a "natural reaction to their unnatural presence".) This ability was inconsistent, as Buffy was unaware that a vampire was hiding in a photo booth right next to her. The movie, however, is not considered canon, and this aspect of her powers was not carried over to the series.

Dreams
All Slayers through the ages share a psychic link, manifested in dreams. A Slayer will frequently dream of herself as a Slayer in another time and place. These dreams are usually vague, but can also be prophetic. Dreams exist in their own mystic plane or "dreamscape" where for a Slayer, precognitive sense and the inherited memories of other Slayers can manifest themselves. Also, Slayers have been shown to appear in each other's dreams, and Buffy and Faith shared several dreams while Faith was in a coma. Faith provided the first cryptic reference to Dawn Summers' arrival.

Melaka Fray, the Slayer of the far future, lacks these abilities. Due to the unusual nature of their birth, her twin brother received these visions instead.

Other abilities
While a regular person may require eight to ten hours sleep, a Slayer seems to require considerably less but needs some rest to function. Buffy herself has been seen as staying awake for days although she will usually "crash" and sleep for half a day and show no lingering disabilities. A Slayer naturally has formidable fighting skills. Buffy is shown to easily fend off multiple vampires at the same time while under a memory loss spell, with no memory of her combat training—relying entirely on her natural Slayer instincts, presumably indicating an instinctual grasp of fighting. Dana is seen holding her own against Spike without having any previous combat training. It is also shown that Potential Slayers have innate skills in combat, even before being called, as Amanda was able to defeat a vampire without any previous combat training in "Potential". The Slayer's Watcher trains her to hone these talents, and to teach her specific fighting skills, such as various martial arts. The training helps her to battle the occasional demon whose physical strength outclasses her own. For most situations, however, her strength suffices. To test a Slayer's natural ingenuity and practical capability, the Watcher's Council administers a test known as "the Cruciamentum" if/when they turn eighteen, which strips the Slayer of her powers and forces her to fight a powerful vampire without them ("Helpless"). The compound used to weaken the Slayer makes her typically weaker than most normal humans. This renders a Slayer who would still normally be physically fit without her powers remarkably feeble even for a human. This forces the Slayer to rely solely on her intellect and wit, which Buffy proves to have. She killed an insane vampire called Kralik by using his weakest point against him—his medication (without which he suffers extraordinary pain). When he rushes to take his pills, he searches for a glass of water. After drinking it, he realizes that Buffy had filled the glass with Holy Water.

There is some evidence to indicate that The Slayer might possess some supernatural influence or presence over others. Part of the role of the Slayer is being a leader and deciding the appropriate course of action to be taken. In the course of the entire timeline, The Slayer has always instantly been acknowledged as the leader and the final decision maker, superseding even that of the Watchers. This is touched on in the episode "Chosen", with Faith and Buffy hypothesizing that one of the major reasons they don't get along is that there should only be one. This could also be the major reason why Slayers went rogue and constantly struggled for sole leadership of the Slayer Army in Season Eight and the Potential Slayers kept questioning both Faith and Buffy's judgement in Season Seven. Further evidence of this phenomenon is found with Melaka Fray, the Slayer of the future, and her vampire brother. She possesses all the strength and physical abilities, but everyone dismisses her and no one takes her seriously, though her brother, who possesses all of her non-physical abilities, was instantly accepted as a leader among his peers, despite him being newly sired and inexperienced.

Overall, the Slayer's abilities seem to be enhancements of normal human attributes, rather than extra abilities garnered from a magical source; Buffy trains constantly and works out to enhance and maintain her abilities, suggesting that they would atrophy otherwise. A "normal" workout routine that would enhance a regular human's strength and speed increases her abilities much faster and at greater magnitude. Also, the concoction created in the Season Three episode "Helpless" (which Giles says includes muscle relaxants and adrenal inhibitors) would have the same effects on a normal human as they did on Buffy; the effects are simply more pronounced. Also, regular illnesses such as the flu were shown to have effects on the Slayer not greatly different from its effects on humans; once again the handicap is more noticeable given the Slayer's usually enhanced abilities, though it was nonetheless proven to be enough that it nearly cost Buffy her life while fighting Angelus.

Recently in Season Eight, Buffy has gained a multitude of new powers: her strength, speed, agility, and reflexes have been greatly enhanced, and she has also developed telescopic vision, superhuman hearing, flight, and a level of invulnerability. Willow initially theorizes that these powers are a result of Buffy unwittingly absorbing the collective powers of all of the Slayers who have died since their organization began, but Angel later claims that they are in fact a reward because of the fulfillment of her destiny and involvement with the coming of a new reality.

Weapons and equipment
Slayers typically use weapons to fight vampires and other demons. Simple wooden stakes, crucifixes, and holy water are commonly used due to their effectiveness against vampires. Swords, axes, and knives are the most common implements used for dispatching demons, though other melee weapons (generally of medieval European design) are also used. Ranged weaponry is usually confined to crossbows. On occasion, more sophisticated weaponry is used; Buffy Summers has used a military-issue rocket launcher to defeat a particularly tough demon. The Slayer Melaka Fray uses weaponry native to her time period, such as rayguns, as well as traditional Slayer weapons. Buffy has a personal dislike for firearms, and has made it a rule that no Slayer in her group use them. On the other hand, the rogue Slayer Simone Doffler and her criminal gang are enamoured of guns.

Scythe
The Scythe is a weapon resembling a metal lochaber axe with a wooden stake and a flanged mace head built into the handle. Due to its design, the Scythe can be used as an axe, sword or spear, depending on the fighting style of its wielder. The Scythe exhibits some mystical properties. A Slayer who picks it up recognizes it as a source of power, and has an instinctive sense of ownership of the weapon. When Buffy showed the Scythe to Faith, she said that she "felt like it belongs to me", but immediately surrenders it to Buffy, saying that it was hers because she was a Slayer first. When Buffy discovers the weapon, she tracks its lineage to a mysterious woman who explains its origin. Centuries ago, a group of women known as the Guardians forged the Scythe for the Slayer. The Guardians kept the weapon a secret from the Shadow Men, and later the Watchers. The Scythe was used to kill the last pure demon on Earth in what would later become Sunnydale, California. It was lost after that, until discovered by Buffy embedded in stone. Willow Rosenberg is soon after able to harness the Scythe's mystical essence and activate every Potential Slayer in the world.

The Scythe is seen 200 years later in the hands of the demon Urkonn, who passes the weapon on to Melaka Fray. Melaka Fray did not seem to sense anything in particular upon wielding the Scythe for the first time, likely because she is cut off from the slayer's psychic abilities. It is during Fray's time as Slayer that the Scythe was destroyed; during a confrontation with a time-displaced Buffy Summers, the latter smashed it clean in two with a backhanded punch.

Slayer Emergency Kit
The "emergency kit" is a bag found in the possession of Robin Wood. It was given to him by his mother Nikki Wood. When he gave it to Buffy, he claimed that it was a "Slayer heirloom" that should have been passed down to the next Slayer, but he kept it instead, presumably because he did not have much by which to remember her. It is unknown how long this had been passed down, and has not been mentioned by any other Slayers, but it is assumed to be quite old considering its contents. At the time Buffy received it, it was in a brown leather bag, and contained several objects, including a boomerang, a vase, a locked box containing shadow casters, and a mystical book written in Sumerian.

The shadow casters are placed onto the smaller circular metal piece in front of a light, creating shadow images on the wall, and the book is then read to tell the story. The book will then translate itself, possibly into English, or perhaps into whatever the reader's language might be. The shadows cast by the metal figures will then become enchanted themselves and begin to move on their own, recreating the story of the First Slayer. A portal is then created, allowing the Slayer to speak directly to the Shadow Men that created the First Slayer, but "exchanging" the Slayer for a particularly powerful demon, releasing the demon onto Earth through the same portal. The Slayer can then gain more power through the Shadow Men if she is willing, but only through taking in more of the essence of the demon which gave the Slayer her powers in the first place. The only apparent way to bring the Slayer back to Earth is to bring the released demon back to the site of the portal.

The text translated from the book is as follows. "First there is the Earth. Then, there came the Demons. After Demons, there came men. Men found a girl. And the men took the girl to slay demons. They chained her to the Earth. Filled her with Dark. You cannot be shown. You cannot just watch, but you must see. See for yourself, but only if you're willing to make the exchange. This is the only way. There is no..." The page then ends, and it's unknown what comes next.

title: Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)


text:
User talk:Danamongden

I'm pretty sure you're right about the 1.36×104 J/s×m² being wrong on the 1 E4 J page, and thence the 6.2×1021 J/s on the 1 E21 J page. I know the 3.9×1026 J/s is what's listed at Sun, and fits what I remember being correct (more precisely, 3.827×1026 J/s, I'm not sure how the rounding was done there; might fix that a bit while we're at it). I think I was thinking 1,360 J/s×m², and somehow went with 104 instead. And yes, it looks like I carried that error on to the figure for the whole Earth at 1 E17 J. I'll go ahead and fix those up.

By the way, since you're new here, you might not have noticed or not know how to do it easily; it's usually nice to put your name at the end of a message on a talk page, whether a User_talk: or a regular Talk: page. You can do this by putting three tildes for your name & link to your User_talk: page, or four tildes (~) for name, link, & time, like I'm about to do right here (dashes aren't part of the tildes, but also fairly standard). -- John Owens (talk) 22:39, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Danamongden


text:
Megas XLR

Megas XLR is an American animated television series created by Jody Schaeffer and George Krstic for Cartoon Network. The series revolves around two teenage slackers: mechanic Coop and his best friend Jamie, who find a mecha robot from the future called MEGAS (Mechanized Earth Guard Attack System) in a New Jersey junkyard. Coop modifies Megas and replaces his head, the control center, with a classic muscle car, and names him XLR (eXtra Large Robot). Together with Megas's original pilot Kiva, they must defend Earth from the evil alien race called "the Glorft". The series is an homage and parody of mecha anime. Krstic was originally one of the co-creators of MTV's Downtown.

Schaeffer and Krstic conceived the idea of an animated series where the main character would pilot a giant robot utilizing his video gaming skills. The pilot episode, LowBrow, was shown in 2002 during Cartoon Network's Cartoon Cartoon Weekend Summerfest, to determine which pilot would become a new Cartoon Cartoon; it was the most popular among viewers. It aired on the Toonami block from May 1, 2004, to January 15, 2005, for two seasons (totaling 26 episodes), before being cancelled due to low ratings.

Despite low ratings, the series was met with positive reception, and was ranked at No. 4 on ToonZone's "Toons of the 2000s: Top 5 Cartoon Network Originals". There have been various fan efforts and petitions to revive the show since its cancellation.

Megas XLR was produced by Cartoon Network Studios; Titmouse, Inc. animated the main title and did animation work on Season 1.

Overview
In the year 3037, Earth is fighting a losing war against the Glorft, a hostile alien race led by Gorrath (Clancy Brown). In a last, desperate attempt to save the planet, the human resistance steals a prototype mecha robot from the Glorft and modifies it into a powerful war machine, renaming it Megas (Mechanized Earth Guard Attack System). Their plan is to use a time-traveling device called a time drive to send Megas and its assigned pilot, Kiva Andru (Wendee Lee), two years into the past to the Battle of the Last Stand, which was the last major offensive fought by humanity against the Glorft. Humanity lost that battle, but the members of the resistance, particularly Kiva, believe that Megas can tip the scales and hand the Glorft a decisive defeat.

Before the plan can be executed, however, an attack by the Glorft forces the human resistance to send Megas back in time before proper preparations are made. Megas' head is blown off in the attack and its time drive is damaged, and the crippled robot is inadvertently sent to a junkyard in 1930s New Jersey. It remains there until a slacker mechanic named "Coop" Cooplowski (David DeLuise) discovers it in approximately the year 2004. Coop turns Megas into a hot rod project by giving it a flaming paint job, replacing its head with a classic muscle car (resembling a car from the '70s MOPAR family; most likely a Plymouth Barracuda) and adding XLR (eXtra Large Robot) to its name.

While Coop is showing off the robot to his best friend Jamie (Steve Blum), Kiva travels to the 21st century to retrieve Megas and, upon discovering that only Coop can now pilot the robot due to his modifications to it, grudgingly agrees to train him in its use. However, Gorrath has followed her through time, forcing Kiva, Coop, and Jamie to team up and defend Earth against both Gorrath's forces and various other threats.

Production
While playing video games, Schaeffer and Krstic came up with an idea of making an animated series in which the main character would use his video gaming skills to pilot a giant robot. The pilot short (LowBrow) was shown in 2002 as part of Cartoon Network's Cartoon Cartoon Weekend Summerfest, a contest to determine which pilot would be selected as the next Cartoon Cartoon. It was the most popular among viewers, and was greenlit as a series.

Much of the series is inspired by Japanese mecha anime which the two grew up watching, with the animation being inspired by both anime and Western animation. The humour often pays homage or mocks anime conventions.

After being delayed from its original debut in December 2003, Megas XLR finally debuted on the Toonami block on May 1, 2004. However, due to low ratings, the series was cancelled after two seasons, with the final episode airing on January 15, 2005.

Reruns continued to air sporadically from January 16, 2005, to September 24, 2005. During this time, the series was later moved to the graveyard slot of 3:30am on Friday nights/Saturday mornings, before being removed from the network altogether.

Media
The entire series is available at the iTunes Store and on Xbox Video.

Possible revival
In late 2012, fans of the show on Twitter started using the hashtag #BringBackMegasXLR. The co-creator George Krstic and director Chris Prynoski announced they would bring back the show; seeing as Megas XLR had been written off by Cartoon Network, the studio Titmouse, Inc. would have to get the rights to the show. On April 29, 2013, George Krstic posted a tweet saying that he and Chris Prynoski were having a meeting at Titmouse to discuss bringing back the show along with Motorcity. However, in a 2014 interview George Krstic was quoted as saying: "Megas was written off as a tax loss and as such can not be exploited, at least domestically, in any way, or the network will get into some sort of tax/legal trouble." Because the show was used as a tax write-off the network would have to pay back the taxes they received from it and face large fines. It could also open the network up to tax fraud investigation. As of 8 February 2019, Krstic has stated that the rights to the series had successfully transferred ownership to Warner Bros, though at this point it's too early and uncertain to tell what it could mean for the show's future.

Potential video game
In December 2012, a series of messages were posted on Twitter by series director Chris Prynoski, hinting at production of a video game based on the series with Valve. No official comment on the project has yet been made by Valve or Cartoon Network. However, in 2015 Chris Prynoski mentioned on Twitter that he had been unable to sort out the licensing needed.

title: Megas XLR


text:
Water contact

In the hydrocarbon industry water contact is the elevation above which fluids other than water can be found in the pores of a rock.

For example, in a traditional hand-excavated water well, the level at which the water stabilizes represents the water table, or the elevation in the rock where air starts to occupy the rock pores.

In most situations in the hydrocarbon industry the term is qualified as being an oil-water contact (abbreviated to "OWC") or a gas-water contact ("GWC"). Often there is also a gas-oil contact ("GOC").

In an oil or gas field, hydrocarbons migrate into rocks and can be trapped if there is a permeability barrier to prevent upward escape. Gas and oil are lighter than water, so they will form a bubble at the high end of the "trap" formed by the impermeable barriers. A simple physical model of this would be a coffee cup held upside down underwater with an air bubble occupying the highest portion of the cup's interior. The base of the bubble is the water contact.

Capillary action can obscure the true water contact in permeable media like sandstone. Capillary pressure prevents the hydrocarbons from expelling all of the water in the pores, which creates a transition zone between the fully saturated hydrocarbon levels and the fully saturated water levels.

In poorly porous intervals, the oil-water, gas-water or gas-oil contacts can similarly be obscured, which makes estimation of hydrocarbon reserves difficult. Descriptions of the well's petrophysics will then often further qualify to delineate a gas-down-to, oil-up-to, oil-down-to and water-up-to line, clearly showing the uncertainties involved.

title: Water contact


text:
Talk:United States abortion-rights movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 23 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rj-2198, Haydenh22. Peer reviewers: Meganchong, Sreddyuab.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
I noticed the article on the anti-abortion movement had a section on violent attacks by activists, but this article does not, even though violence has been committed by abortion rights activists as well. Would it make sense to include that for the sake of neutrality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimasterclmaster (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. See the recent discussion of this point at Talk:United States anti-abortion movement. NightHeron (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So I understand that violence from anti-abortion activists has been common historically, and portraying it as equivalent would create a false balance, that being said, I feel it is still misleading to not mention violence from abortion rights activists at all. Obviously we should mention that it's been less common that from the other side, but would not it make sense to have even just a brief paragraph about it? Aimasterclmaster (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion that just took place at Talk:United States anti-abortion movement. Among other things pointed out in that discussion, in order to include that material it would have to be something that's covered extensively (meaning not just news of the day) in reliable secondary sources. NightHeron (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing
— Assignment last updated by Racoon dolphin (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Joey's apartment

Entertainment Unit
You know, some total git just deleated the bit I spent a while doing on the entertainment unit. I don't care if you think it's over the top, you've got no right to delete it. Edit it, yes but to just delete something just because you don't want to read it is just ignorant. Whoever you are, you get go forth and fornicate with your self (Am I allowd to Swear, cuz if so, I'll change that last bit). Cheers Dick. --Crestville 22:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merging wirth main article
Just copying what I said on the discussion of "Monica's apartment", cause the same applies on this entry:

But what kind of entry is "Monica's apartment" ?? I dont think this belongs in Wikipedia. "Friends" however DOES belong in WP and that's were the info over Monica's apartment should go. Jees what's next? "Estelle's funeral" ? If people want to know that much about the series they should go and watch them.

(dont get me wrong on this, I really like Friends but I like a good encyclopedia as well)

 * Here. I'll just post a link.  Talk:Monica's apartment  No need to discuss it in multiple places. -- Dpark 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confusing title
Joey and Chandler have had both apartments. Can I suggest moving this article to Apartment 19 (Friends) or similar (I think I have probably got the the wrong number, so please correct it. smurray  in   chester  ( User ), ( Ho Ho Ho! ) 22:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Naming Conventions Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Very few people know the apartment number.  (In fact, I believe it actually changed.)  People who know Friends at all will think of the correct apartment when they hear or read this title.  For most of the show, they lived in that apartment together.  It's an accurate title. -- Dpark 18:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate
This article was to be merged with and redirected to 'somewhere' as a result of an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Please do read that debate before proceeding. -Splash - tk 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joey's apartment


text:
Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Why is there this random photo of Ayaan with Steve Jurvetson?
It's a photo with no significance to her biography or career and seems strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.145.24 (talk • contribs) 2016-03-12 (UTC)

I second this, and recommend its removal.Dtwedt (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 * There are few photos of her. I swapped with a photo without Jurvetson. --— Erik Jr. 16:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web
You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

SPLC
Re:. The text already says that the SPLC removed the list. So half this sentence is redundant. The other half is about the apology to Nawaz. So since this article is about Hirsi Ali, not Nawaz, it's off topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Undue
The article is overwhelmingly biased against Ayaan with the bulk of the reception being negative. Looking at the contributions it appears a lot of these edits come from users who are opposed to her views on Islam and not approaching the article in a neutral way.--173.162.148.157 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific and give us some ideas about the kind of modifications you want to do to improve the neutrality of the article? Whining is not enough, you have to propose specific changes (add something, remove something, replace something, trim something, etc... this is how Wikipedia works)--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If I need to make it clearer... There's two positive lines of her in the reception and then there's an entire criticism section where a few specific biased users (checking the contributions of a few of the top editors) used it to pile on negative diatribes against her. She's polarizing but she's not overwhelmingly reviled and the article clearly favors the views of one argument. Either the criticism section needs to be trimmed significantly or the positive comments need to be expanded on.--24.147.160.219 (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are some issues with the Criticism section, such that critics are unnamed or it is not explained why these critics are important. I tagged a few, but an editor deleted the tags instead of fixing the problems. AadaamS (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree: Insofar as I can tell having just now read the article from top to bottom, Ali has many critics, and had a very sad early life. Overwhelmingly the contents of the article seems to focus on the statements of uninvolved observers, who note that Ali's methods are controversial, and will not easily sway many people because of their directness.  That being said it does not appear that there is disproportionate weight given to her critics- though you might argue there is simply not enough weight given to her achievements.  So right now the article reads  .  Yes the first half of the article is overwhelmingly negative and sad feeling, but that's just how her life has gone, there is little that can be done about that.  It's an encyclopedia article,sometimes it will be sad, you wouldn't for example expect the article about the Holocaust to have cheery upbeat parts after all. Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t get what point you are trying to make. The issue isn’t about her early life in regards to her mutilation, the issue is in regards to one viewpoint being over-represented. She is a controversial figure but not to the extent that a majority-negative reception is accurate.—173.162.148.157 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article over-represents the rather obvious Islamist and pro-Islamic views on Ali - their criticism of an Islam critic is simply not needed, and the article repeats this sky is blue information. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree And I deleted the tags put in because they were spurious. A  tag attached to the name of a person who provides the referenced statement noted at the end of the same sentence? It's an attribution so as not to be in Wikipedia's voice. And Hirsi Ali's religious viewpoint attracts a lot of negative attention in part because of its pretty evident bias. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She’s a controversial figure but has received lots of positive acclaim as well. To suggest that the overwhelming majority of reception she has received is negative is simply untrue and presenting that viewpoint as being the case is a sign of bias.—173.162.148.157 (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that users who aren't satisfied with the current condition of the reception section would find their time better served looking for WP:RS supported material to insert and less attacking other editors. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

UTC)
 * It’s an example of the inherent bias in this article. You have someone with a clear bias steamrolling the article with negative views on the subject. I don’t see how that’s acceptable with Wikipedia’s policies on bias. —173.162.148.157 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I would suggest you would have better luck in adding additional reliable sources into the article than in complaining that a specific editor made edits to it whose POV you dislike. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

UTC)
 * I’m not an experienced editor which was why I brought the issues of bias here. I think what needs to happen is for the article to be trimmed at minimum for balance but if I were to do that my edits would be reverted immediately.—173.162.148.157 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If you start asking for reliably sourced criticisms to be deleted on grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT you'll probably find it hard-going. This is why I suggested that if you find there isn't enough positive coverage in reception you should be trying to find more - because your assertion that the current weight of the article doesn't reflect the reality of her reception hinges largely on whether positive responses to her can be found that have not been included. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Her multiple awards alone from feminist and human rights organizations alone are an indication that she is not someone who is generally viewed with the overwhelming level of disdain that a few specific editors would like to suggest when they dogpiled on people who are opposed to her criticism of Islam.—173.162.148.157 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Per WP:HAT: “This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction
 * with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It
 * should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the
 * objections of other editors.” And the bias in this article is a relevant topic of discussion.173.162.148.157 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh for the love of... Just stop. This is WP:NOTAFORUM and you are not asking for any substantive edits. Instead you've repeatedly violated WP:AGF, insulted a random editor who hasn't even weighed in here and suggested there's a conspiracy against Hirsi Ali rather than doing what at least two different editors suggested and finding supportive reliable sources to include. Then, when I closed this off as an obvious waste of everybody's time you called me involved on the weak basis that I recently deleted spurious tags on-page. Just drop the WP:STICK and find something productive to do with your time. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve been solely discussing the article and it’s violation of NPOV. I’ve explained my issue with bias and WP:UNDUE numerous times. That doesn’t apply to “notaforum” which is just discussing the subject itself. And you’ve been an active participant in this discussion so trying to close it goes against what the template instructs.173.162.148.157 (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have provided precisely zero concrete examples of WP:UNDUE statements or sources in the text and have repeatedly refused to provide any sources supporting your assertion that the article, as is, is a violation of WP:NPOV. You keep insisting it's undue because you dislike some of the editors who have previously edited it, but that's not relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles
Hi,

Request for comment discussion has been initiated @ Talk:List of former Muslims and has reference to this article there in.

Those interested can express their views there in.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

New book: Prey
Ayaan has released a new book, this should be mentioned. Most sources appear to be commentaries however:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/books/review/ayaan-hirsi-ali-prey.html
 * https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/women-rights-europe-under-attack-ayaan-hirsi-ali

2001:56A:F123:4400:D97E:541B:76A0:561 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see the book is in the article, so that concern has been met at least. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Why I am now a Christian
I read the entire essay, but it isn't really clear if she is more than a "cultural Christian", and that's what I took away from it. For what it is worth, Dawkins also describes himself as a cultural Christian. I also think that was the primary thesis of her essay, that the reformation of Christianity allowed for secularism and atheism to co-exist without the call to destroy them found in political Islam today. Obviously, she goes one step beyond this simple argument by asserting that the story itself (the whole shebang, ball of wax, enchilada, or megillah) is the driving force for the values of progressivism and modernity. It's an interesting idea, and it's one I've been investigating for a long time, but there's a lot of counterarguments that she should have been aware of or at least addressed, but chose to ignore. I would like to see more critical discussion about it in the article. Her position sounds a lot like the philosophy of Leo Strauss who believed in the primacy and importance of a noble lie (or story) to drive civilization. My guess is that this essay places her in the neoconservative camp, along with the rest of the so-called "liberals" on the right. Viriditas (talk)

 * Outside of listing her as a Christian in the article, this would predominately fall into original research territory, which is something that Wikipedians can't do on their own.

 * I agree with you that it's an interesting argument/story, . KlayCax (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Either way, the section on her conversion to Christianity is way to long given her long public life and smacks of WP:RECENTism. I believe we should give a one or two sentence summary. The reader can read the whole article if they want details. Ashmoo (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree: it's one small paragraph, which is fine. If there's more material out there, it would be excellent to see it included.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV problem
Recent edits by StardustToStardust and KlayCax have been made to the article in the wake of the right-wing news blitz over Ali claiming to be a Christian (which I touched upon in the above thread). Previous to their tag-team distortions, other editors make a series of policy-compliant edits that properly added this information to correct parts of the article and discussed it in the appropriate context.

Everything was fine until StardustToStardust arrived, changing the entire stability of the article, to now calling Ali "a central figure of New Atheism" in the first paragraph, which is completely out of the context of the third paragraph where her role is discussed, and then immediately juxtaposing this extraordinary claim with "she announced her conversion to Christianity in November 2023", again, out of the third paragraph where it is discussed. They then went on to rewrite other stable sections out of chronological order, duplicate material in the same section (female genital mutilation is now discussed twice in the lead) and remove in its entirety her opposition to male circumcision.

StardustToStardust claimed in the edit summary that they removed the content about male circumcision because the link was dead, but that's not how we edit Wikipedia, and I think StardustToStardust knows that. A quick search shows that Ali's comments about male circumcision were recorded on video with an English transcription provided, so one wonders why the material was removed.

This is not an improvement, it is the destabilization of a former stable article. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax comment:

1.) In two different contexts. The first relates to her activism against FGM. The second recounts her personal experience of FGM.

2.) This is uncontroversial. She's frequently listed as a top figures in the movement by reliable sources.

3.) What evidence do we have that she's not really Christian? Even from a conservative, traditionalist perspective? Does she deny a theistic view of God?

There are a lot of problems with Starlight's edits. I've removed most of the issues you pointed out of. But I see nothing objectionable in the remaining changes. What's the POV being pushed? KlayCax (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I just finished explaining it on your talk page and I don't see how you've removed any of the major issues; they are still in the article. We don't need to talk about anything twice in the lead, least of all FGM. If we take the WHO at their word, then 200 million girls and women have undergone the procedure, while 3 million are at risk per year.  Why is this notable to mention in the lead?  It's mentioned for POV reasons having to do with Staright's bias.  Why do you think it wasn't mentioned in the lead before?

 * The first paragraph in the previous stable version was about what Ali is notable for. She is not notable for being an atheist or a Christian, but that's where Starlight added it.  The previous version was correct, the current version is not. The previous version follows up with a paragraph about religion, explaining how Ali was a former Muslim who became an atheist, and who now identifies as Christian. We don't highlight this in the first paragraph, because the lead has a distinct structure. The first paragraph tells us what she is notable for, and she is not notable for being an atheist nor for being a Christian.

 * Ali is notable as an activist, a politician, and as a critic of Islam, and for the subjects and topics related to that notability, none of which have to do with atheism or Christianity. Only right-wing news sources think Ali is notable for being an atheist and a Christian, and we aren't FOX news, we are an encyclopedia that has strict standards regarding article structure, content, and lead sections. It's weird to me that you can't see how the article has completely degraded and destabilized with Starlight's edits. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas - I agree with you about mentions. Certainly something like FGM could be mentioned in the intro, then developed in the body of the article. With regards to Atheism and Christianity, I assure you that, given this topic has been reported and discussed in this article in The New York Times in the last few days (not to mention the National Review and The Spectator which, while conservative, are certainly not deprecated sources for this encyclopedia). In short, it's notable. By the way, I've ridden the notability rodeo before, and the principle only applies to whether the subject of the BLP is notable. Once that's established - and in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it's well and truly established - then anything reported about the subject, given a decent secondary source - can legitimately be included. I say @KlayCax and others should proceed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't understand the objection here. It's important to note that Hirsi Ali was already mentioned  as a figure within it before this news story broke.
 * See here, here, et al. for examples. The claim that Hirsi Ali was a leader in New Atheism isn't new. This source published by Oxford Publishing describes her as such. (And not in positive terms.)
 * Claiming that her (significant) involvement with New Atheism is only noted by "conservatives" or "right-wing media outlets" isn't true at all. KlayCax (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we've come a ways toward that being settled, haven't we? The material is widely reported and directly relevant.
 * I do think the "not in two places" rule of @Viriditas should be observed, so I've removed the second mention of the topic in personal life section at the end.
 * The one thing I think is missing is on this area of what the subject personally believes as being true as of late 2023. There is nothing in the secondary sources on this.
 * There's an excellent interview done by the former YouGov Editor-in-Chief, Freddie Sayers, where Hirsi Ali directly engages with this question. (It can also be found on Youtube.) But as of this moment, there's no secondary source available.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @KlayCax, @Viriditas and all other editors of good cheer,
 * I'm keen to see if we can get this article to the point of a NPOV.
 * Looking at the discussion above, and keeping in mind some recent edits. I submit that:
 * 1.) female genital mutilation (FGM)... in the lede has appropriate, reliable sources now
 * 2.) calling Ali "a central figure of New Atheism" in the first paragraph is pretty well established; the book by M H Khalil provides the substance, and a recent piece from New York Magazine called here "a face of New Atheism" which roughly means she was a central figure. (And, yes, I've added that source in.)
 * 3.) the question of Ali claiming to be a Christian is settled as a basic statement, but there are contrasting views as to how personal the decision is, so I have included opposing views.
 * So, are there are there other details to attend to, that could make this article closer to neutral?
 * MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ( @Joyous! This is the monkey like editing I'm talking about. ) MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Dutch Americans
Are people with Dutch heritage. If I move to Somalia, live there for 10 years and then move to the USA, I do not become an Afro American. My (recent) ancestors did not live in Africa and hers did not live in the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:27:6BF0:3946:BAAD:7B1B:4C71 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I would posit that if you get naturalized (become a citizen) then get elected to Parlament, it would be very legitimate for you to identify as Somali-American. Refael Ackermann (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It really comes down to whether she's reported, by a reliable source, to be "Somali-American" or what-have-you. If there are enough news pieces and such that describe her in those terms, then that's what we could use in the article.
 * MatthewDalhousie (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

BLP vio and edit warring
IP 83.105.44.124 has been repeatedly adding content to the article over the objections of other editors. I see parts of these edits as clear BLP violations, including the unsourced assertion that Ali's "statement of conversion from atheism to Christianity only in November 2023 is questionable at best". IP pings don't work, so I'll post a message at their talk page. I would love for them to come here and build consensus for their changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I am here. Please specify what exactly do you not want on this Wiki page and why?
 * Also please indicate why have you removed the legitimate changes right away, instead of starting the talk first.
 * The way I see it, the page should be reverted back to the way I edited it, and then we can discuss and come to a consensus and only AFTER the new edits can stay or be removed... On what grounds your edits PREVAIL over my edits? 83.105.44.124 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not feel that leaving the BLP violations in the article while discussion continued was appropriate per WP:BLPREMOVE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At the IP's user talk page, they questioned my removal of the content they added about Muslim schools. I'll start with just one of many objections: the line "Her attacks in the previous years against Muslim faith schools, whilst protecting Christian and Jewish schools, which is something an "atheist", such as her, should not technically have done" is not supported by the cited source. Contentious claims about living people always need to be cited to reliable sources that explicitly support the claims. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response!
 * 1) You justify removal by saying that there was a BLP violation. However, above you mentioned that this is only your opinion, so it's not an objective truth or fact. I don't see a BLP violation. It's a matter of discussion whether there is a violation or not. You should have started a discussion about it, and not remove the edits right away, according to the procedure.
 * 2) Her attacks on Muslim schools were references by an article from The Guardian and AU Daily Telegraph. The Guardian source is a very good article, indeed. Why have you ignored this reference?
 * 3) The phrase "Questionable at best" is further explained by giving two arguments. If you don't like the phrase "Questionable at best" you can edit it, to say "Controversial" or smth else. Why remove the whole section?? 83.105.44.124 (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It's true that it is my opinion that the edits included BLP violations, although I'm quite confident. If I'm wrong, others will surely join soon to tell me so. Until that happens, the content should not be restored, per WP:BLPRESTORE.
 * 2) Your edits which I reverted did not cite any Guardian articles. Which one are you referring to?
 * 3) Your arguments should not be included in the article, unless they are made explicitly by reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Ok, we'll see.
 * 2) The one in lead section and the one in the one of the sections below. Do you confirm then that there was AU Daily Telegraph reference indeed? Since you only mentioned not seeing Guardian.
 * 3) This argument was made in the Guardian article; this controversy was highlighted there, actually.
 * This is the Guardian link, by the way, for both 2 and 3:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-fighter-for-freedom-or-just-a-help-for-hanson 83.105.44.124 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did see the Telegraph article, and neither it nor the Guardian piece you just linked supports the content you added. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that you actually read the article then.
 * It says in black and white about her call to ban Muslim schools in Australia, whilst at the same time saying that Christian and Jewish schools are fine, no problem with them.
 * Please re-consider your stance on this, or I will have to escalate this further. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Using one small part of the source to make a much larger unsourced contentious point about a living person is a BLP violation. If you disagree, there are multiple avenues for escalation. Among other options, you could post a neutral request for input at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or call for sanctions against me at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Both will likely lead to editors evaluating both of our content opinions and conduct so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will consider those options, thanks!
 * Before I resort to them - can you clarify where exactly Wikipedia forces editors to use the approach you described in your comment - "Using one small part of the source to make a much larger unsourced contentious point about a living person is a BLP violation".
 * This is how referencing works - you look at the sources, you read them and you reference them. The paper could be 100 pages long, but you only need the part which is maybe 1 paragraph or 1 sentence long.
 * And how is that edit "contentious"? - this is taken directly from the source (The Guardian). 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the text of the edit that you cited to the Daily Telegraph, and which you now claim is supported by The Guardian:
 * Wikipedia doesn't force editors to do anything, but our policies do not permit unsourced contentious info to remain in articles about living people. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you are citing the wrong edit.
 * We are talking specifically about her call to ban the Muslim schools.
 * It was in the section about schools down below.
 * The one in the lead could be rewritten to not mention the Palestine and not mention questionability of her conversion, only the fact that she was against.
 * P.S. The argument about conversion however stands - I found other reputable sources that question her conversion into Christianity to be one of convenience, but I am not willing to explore this avenue for now - let it be on her consciousness.... 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you're referring to You think that's all supported by the sources you've cited? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Guardian article explains this in a very clear terms.
 * If you think it's needed, a reference could be added where she is reported to be against all faith schools (as if).
 * Again, don't delete the whole paragraph, but remove only parts you are not happy about or need additional references for (which you can request in the comment). Otherwise, it looks like you are abusing your powers. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're just looking for a neutral mention of her opposition to Muslim schools, then propose a neutral version. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks.
 * Here is one more source which establishes her opposition to Muslim schools. This time, there is even direct speech quotes from her (as in "she said"):
 * https://washdiplomat.com/womens-rights-advocate-hasnt-shied-from-criticizing-islam-2/ 83.105.44.124 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also explain why have you removed the properly referenced sentence about Niall Ferguson divorcing his wife of 16 years Sue Douglas to marry Hirsi Ali? This is well-known fact and there are multiple publications in the both American and British press about this. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your content made a claim about a "string of adulterous affairs" by Ferguson, which was not supported by the cited source. The piece in The Independent does not claim in its own voice that Ferguson divorced his former wife for Ali, though it does say that some of Ferguson's friends have made that claim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, below are TEN more sources that support this edit - that Ferguson divorced his wife of 16 years for Ali (some of the sources also discuss Ferguson's overall conduct in this matter and tell about the existence of other affairs).
 * 1. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2010/02/and_you_thought_dating_was_har.html
 * 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/romance-for-british-historian-niall-ferguson-1892263.html
 * 3. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-media-queen-9189839.html
 * 4. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/odd-couple
 * 5. https://www.businessinsider.com/niall-ferguson-is-ditching-his-wife-for-a-young-hot-feminist-and-politcal-war-refugee-2010-2?r=US&IR=T
 * 6. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2013/05/04/theres-wrong-theres-very-wrong-and-then-theres-niall-ferguson/
 * 7. https://www.dutchnews.nl/2011/09/ayaan_hirsi_ali_marries_scotti/
 * 8. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8738679/Niall-Ferguson-The-real-point-of-me-isnt-that-Im-good-looking.-Its-that-Im-clever.html
 * 9. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/apr/11/niall-ferguson-political-debate-england-america
 * 10. https://www.dutchnews.nl/2011/12/ayaan_hirsi_ali_gives_birth_to/
 * P.S. If you didn't like the words "adulterous affairs" then you could have removed only them rather than remove the whole sentence. See WP:NOTPERFECT WP:IMPERFECT and especially WP:PRESERVE 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "tell about the existence of other affairs": which source? Just below WP:PRESERVE is WP:DON'T PRESERVE, which includes BLP violations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * First, please restore the original edit, without the "affairs part if you wish.
 * Then we can continue discussing the "affairs" thing.
 * You can't hold ransom to the whole of sentence because of one phrase.
 * That phrase can be removed and the rest of sentence should stay. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Above are 10 sources that support the most of the sentence (so it's verified), so WP:DON'T PRESERVE does not fully apply here. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I second the assertion that many of the additions were BLP violations.
 * Also, we don't add things and then decide what to remove when something is controversial, we remove them and then come to a consensus over what the additions should be. It isn't holding things to ransom, it's the WP:BRD process. EasyAsPai (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The WP:BRD is NOT MANDATED by Wikipedia policies, so WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPERFECT, etc take precedence here. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks EAP. Speaking of additions, I would be fine with adding some content about Ferguson's prior marriage and his affair with Ali. The proposal on the table, even without the "string of adulterous affairs" bit, is non-neutral Does anyone have a neutral proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as "neutral" does not involve "white-washing" both Ali and Niall Ferguson.
 * They did what they did, and this should be reflected in the Wikipedia and not hidden from the public.
 * Otherwise it's called censorship or propaganda. 83.105.44.124 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not censorship or propaganda or whitewashing, it's making sure what we put in the article is verifiable and neutrally worded. If we have reliable secondary sources that state that he left his wife for Ali (in their own voice, not just that someone said so), we can state that in Wiki-voice.  Otherwise, we have to phrase it conditionally.  Maybe something about widespread media speculation about them having an affair, or that his divorce was a result of their affair?  If there's enough reliable sources for that, it would probably pass BLP.  We'd need to avoid using language that makes it sound like we're passing judgement, though, because NPOV. EasyAsPai (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Should certainly be mentioned on article about Niall Ferguson, as he is the person who took a particular action. I would caution against it appearing on the article about this subject. Feels a bit blaming-the-other woman, which ain't encyclopaedic, in my view. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ayaan hirsi ali
Why is there nothing in her wiki article about her conversion to Chistianity at all, let alone theresulting controversy particularly from atheists? Implicit leftist, anti Christian bias? 192.105.186.212 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Her conversion to Christianity has been mentioned in this article for more than a month. What reason do you have to make claims of anti-Christian bias? – Python Drink (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali


text:
Frankie Manning

Frank Manning (May 26, 1914 – April 27, 2009) was an American dancer, instructor, and choreographer. Manning is considered one of the founders of Lindy Hop, an energetic form of the jazz dance style known as swing.

Biography
Manning was born in 1914 in Jacksonville, Florida. After his parents separated when he was three years old, he moved to Harlem with his mother, who was a dancer.

Manning began dancing as a child. Manning's mother sent him to spend summers with his father, aunt, and grandmother on their farm in Aiken, South Carolina. On Saturdays, farmhands and locals would come to the farm to play music on the front porch with harmonicas and a washtub bass. Manning's grandmother encouraged Frankie to dance with the others.

In October 1927, Manning attended the Renaissance Ballroom & Casino. Watching from the balcony, he saw his mother dancing formal ballroom styles such as the foxtrot and waltz, having only seen her dance before in a much looser and casual style at neighborhood rent parties. Manning started listening to records on a Victrola in his bedroom and would practice dancing with a broom or a chair. When he was older, he started going to Harlem's Savoy Ballroom, the only integrated ballroom in New York. He frequented the Savoy in the 1930s, eventually becoming a dancer in the elite and prestigious "Kat's Corner," a corner of the dance floor where impromptu exhibitions and competitions took place. During a dance contest in 1935, Manning and his partner, Frieda Washington, performed the first aerial in a swing dance competition against George Snowden, the inventor of the term Lindy Hop, and his partner, Big Bea. The air step he performed was a "back-to-back roll" and was danced while Chick Webb played "Down South Camp Meeting" at Manning's request.

Career
In 1935, Herbert White organized the top Lindy Hop dancers at the Savoy Ballroom into a professional performance group that was eventually named Whitey's Lindy Hoppers. Manning created the troupe's first ensemble routines and functioned as the group's de facto choreographer, although he was never officially credited with that title. The troupe toured extensively and made several films. While with Whitey's, Manning danced with Norma Miller, who became known as the Queen of Swing. Whitey's Lindy Hoppers disbanded around World War II when many of the male dancers entered the armed forces. Manning himself served in the U.S. Army. After the war, in 1947, Manning created a small performance group called the Congaroos. When the Congaroos disbanded in 1955, Manning quietly settled into a career with the United States Postal Service.

Return to Lindy Hop
In 1982, Al Minns, a former member of Whitey's Lindy Hoppers, started to teach Lindy Hop at the Sandra Cameron Dance Center. Before he died in 1985, he told his students that Manning, another surviving member of Whitey's Lindy Hoppers, also lived in New York City.

In 1986, dancers Erin Stevens and Steven Mitchell contacted Manning and asked him to teach them the Lindy Hop. Mitchell and Stevens returned to California and helped to spread Lindy Hop to the West Coast and other areas of the U.S. That same year, Lennart Westerlund contacted Manning and invited him to Sweden to work with The Rhythm Hot Shots. Manning traveled to Sweden in 1987 and returned there every year from 1989 onward to teach at the Herräng Dance Camp. Later, Manning would also teach Ryan Francois, who would help introduce Lindy Hop to a British audience.

Later years
Once the swing dance and Lindy Hop revival took hold during the late 1980s, Manning taught Lindy Hop around the world, occasionally appearing with Norma Miller. Sometimes, dance workshops returned him to places he had not been in decades. For example, Manning first visited Melbourne, Australia in 1939 to perform at the Princess Theatre. The swing revival and Melbourne's Swing Patrol brought him back again in 2002; it was his first visit to Melbourne in 63 years.

At age 75, Manning co-choreographed the Broadway musical Black and Blue, for which he received a 1989 Tony Award. In 2000, he was a recipient of a National Heritage Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts, which is the United States' highest honor in the folk and traditional arts.

Manning's autobiography, Frankie Manning: Ambassador of Lindy Hop, written with co-author Cynthia R. Millman, was published by Temple University Press in May 2007.

Manning's annual birthday celebrations attracted dancers and instructors from all over the world. His 80th birthday, in 1994, was commemorated by a weekend-long celebration in New York City; his 85th culminated in a sold-out party at New York's Roseland Ballroom, where a pair of his dance shoes were placed in a showcase along with those of dancers such as Fred Astaire. Dedicated cruises were organized for his 89th and 90th birthdays; for his birthday dances, Manning followed his custom of dancing with one woman for every year of his life. He continued this custom through his 94th birthday.

Death
A resident of Corona, Queens, Manning died in Manhattan on April 27, 2009, aged 94.

He is interred in the Hillcrest Plot at Woodlawn Cemetery in Bronx, New York.

Frankie Manning Foundation
Manning died one month before his 95th birthday. His planned birthday celebration was recast as Frankie 95, a celebration of Manning's life, and drew more than 2,000 people from 33 countries. Proceeds from the five-day Frankie 95 celebration were used to create the Frankie Manning Foundation. Its mission is to spread Lindy Hop throughout the world.

Accolades
Frankie 100 took place in New York City from May 22 to 26, 2014. The event was described as the largest swing dance event of modern era and brought together over 2,000 dancers from 47 countries to honor Frankie Manning and to name his birthday, May 26, as World Lindy Hop Day.

Manning was inducted into the National Museum of Dance and Hall of Fame in 2009. He was inducted into the U.S. Swing Dance Council (now World Swing Dance Council) Hall of Fame in 1992.

On July 4, 2012, a road in the village of Herräng, Sweden, was named after Manning, as a gift from the municipality of Norrtälje for the 30-year jubilee of Herräng Dance Camp.

On May 26, 2016, Google celebrated his 102nd birthday with a Google Doodle.

Filmography

 * Radio City Revels (1938)
 * Keep Punching (1939)
 * Hellzapoppin' (1941)
 * Hot Chocolates (1941)
 * Jittering Jitterbugs (1943)
 * Killer Diller (1948)
 * Malcolm X (1992) – choreography
 * Stompin' at the Savoy (1992) – choreography
 * Jazz: A Film by Ken Burns (2000)
 * Frankie Manning: Never Stop Swinging (2009)

title: Frankie Manning


text:
User:Jordbaer~enwiki/monobook.css

BODY { background: #ffff99; }

title: User:Jordbaer~enwiki/monobook.css


text:
Supergrass Is 10

Supergrass Is 10 is a compilation album celebrating the first 10 years of the band Supergrass. It includes singles from their first release, "Caught by the Fuzz" (1994), to their then latest release, "Kiss of Life" (2004).

The compilation was released on CD, DVD and double 10" clear vinyl record. The DVD release contains two discs. The first disc is a documentary of the band's first 10 years. The second disc contains videos of all of the singles (with the exception of "Cheapskate") with the option of director's commentary and karaoke lyrics. The song compilation managed to reach No. 4 in the UK charts.

In the US, the CD version came with a bonus live CD featuring 12 live and acoustic songs.

John Cornfield recorded and mixed the two new tracks featured on the album at Sphere Studios.

The Guardian newspaper said of the DVD compilation, "Once you've sat through the in-depth, career-spanning documentary on disc one, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than being Supergrass is probably the most joyful job in the world."

Track listing
CD 570 8602 Double Clear 10" 578 9941
 * 1) "Caught by the Fuzz" – 2:19
 * 2) "Pumping on Your Stereo" – 3:20
 * 3) "Alright" – 3:03
 * 4) "Moving" – 4:27
 * 5) "Richard III" – 3:21
 * 6) "Grace" – 2:32
 * 7) "Late in the Day" – 4:47
 * 8) "Seen the Light" – 2:27
 * 9) "Mansize Rooster" – 2:40
 * 10) "Sun Hits the Sky" – 4:54
 * 11) "Kiss of Life" – 4:03
 * 12) "Mary" – 4:02
 * 13) "Going Out" – 4:16
 * 14) "Lenny" – 2:42
 * 15) "Bullet" – 2:32
 * 16) "It's Not Me" – 2:57
 * 17) "Rush Hour Soul" – 2:56
 * 18) "Strange Ones" – 3:59
 * 19) "Lose It" – 2:39
 * 20) "Time" – 3:14
 * 21) "Wait for the Sun" – 4:08

Supergrass is 10 bonus live CD/DD (US only)

This was available free of charge with the first US pressings of the album, and could also be downloaded for free from iTunes if you had already bought the actual Supergrass is 10 full album download.
 * 1) "Kiss of Life" (live) – 4:12
 * 2) "Pumping on Your Stereo" (live) – 3:25
 * 3) "Grace" (live) – 2:33
 * 4) "Time" (live) – 3:37
 * 5) "Moving" (live) – 5:08
 * 6) "Late in the Day" (live acoustic) – 3:58
 * 7) "Wait for the Sun" (live acoustic) – 3:20
 * 8) "Caught by the Fuzz" (live acoustic) – 2:47
 * 9) "Strange Ones" (live) – 4:08
 * 10) "Hollow Little Reign" (live) – 3:35
 * 11) "Mansize Rooster" (live) – 2:43
 * 12) "Sun Hits the Sky" (live) – 6:28

Disc 1

 * A Home Movie: Documentary Film
 * Director and editor: Simon Hilton
 * Producer: James Chads
 * Production company: Maguffin
 * DVD mastering: Abbey Road Interactive

Disc 2 *
* All are music videos.
 * 1) "Caught by the Fuzz" – 2:19
 * 2) "Mansize Rooster" – 2:34
 * 3) "Lenny" – 2:42
 * 4) "Alright" – 3:13
 * 5) "Time" – 3:27
 * 6) "Going Out" – 4:17
 * 7) "Richard III" – 3:10
 * 8) "Sun Hits the Sky" – 4:44
 * 9) "Late in the Day" – 5:04
 * 10) "We Still Need More (Than Anyone Can Give)" – 3:46
 * 11) "Pumping on Your Stereo" – 3:20
 * 12) "Moving" – 4:24
 * 13) "Mary" – 4:10
 * 14) "Grace" – 2:43
 * 15) "Seen the Light" – 2:45
 * 16) "Rush Hour Soul" – 2:58

Extras *  * All are music videos, apart from Richard III.
 * 1) "Kiss of Life" – 3:45
 * 2) "Lose It"
 * 3) "Caught by the Fuzz" (acoustic) – 3:03
 * 4) "Richard III" Player Cam – shows individual members of the band.

title: Supergrass Is 10