text:
Talk:Wojciech Korfanty

Untitled
I would dispute that the reference to the "Freeciv" player of the same name should be at the bottom of the article. At the very least I would recommend that the sentence in question be clarified by inserting the words "W. K. is the pseudonym of one of the..." (unless the player's real name is actually W.K. which I do doubt very much.)

Normally, you would create a new article adding a specification in brackets (such as "W.K. (Politician)" and "W.K. (Freeciv player)". However, although I may be underinformed as to the latter's significance to his own special interest community, I daresay that this is not at all a proper place for explanations of this kind. So let's remove the reference altogether.

--Thorsten1 18:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Wojciech Korfanty is just a name of a leader you can choose when you play as the Silesian nation. I agree that such an information surely isn't significant enough to be in an encyclopedia.

 * So, I'll wait some time and then remove it unless my intention is opposed. -- Sandius 13:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I removed the sentence from the article. -- Sandius 20:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--

Oh guys, again a polish propaganda article... silesia was a GERMAN province... and what ever happend it is not RETURNED or RESTORED to poland... it is an annexion against the treaty of versailles, broken by organized force through polish nationalists like korfanty...

the provinces are not called warmia, gdansk etc... it were GERMAN provinces... East Prussia for example... the city is called DANZIG in english not GDANSK and it was the capital of West Prussia... but i am tired fighting against all this polish propagandry... :( it would be nice if any one could write articles not directly from a polish history book...

Molobo's edits
Molobo, your edits are unacceptable. Rather than reverting immediately, I will comment here first and give you an opportunity to present your rationale. I am pessimistic about reaching a compromise, given mine and other's previous experience with you, but that doesn't mean we do not have to try.

The main problem about your edits is their somewhat flowery, un-encyclopaedic style. First off, about K. as "national hero" - we are not here to decide who is a "hero" and who isn't. This is a normative, and inherently POV-ed question. The fact is that K. was considered a hero by some of his contemporaries, and most other people after his death. That fact, however, was already in the article, in its proper chronological place. For a significant part of his lifetime, K. was not a hero, but a persona non grata in public life. He was in opposition to Piłsudski, who a majority of Poles supported (grudgingly or otherwise), and following P. and considering K. a hero was mutually exclusive. His elevation to official "hero" status ultimately commenced after 1945 - and ironically, it was initiated by communists, something which K. probably wouldn't have appreciated much.

"He fought to protect Polish people from discrimination in the form of forced Germanisation policy pursued by Germany in Upper Silesia" - this simply is a more flowery and convoluted version of the information already included: "He opposed the policy of Germanisation in Upper Silesia".

"one of the chief advocates of joining Polish inhabited regions of Upper Silesia to Poland after the war." Wrong. He advocated joining the whole of Upper Silesia to Poland. It was practically impossible to distinguish regions inhabited by just Poles or just Germans. They were living next door to each other, and a significant part of the population didn't really care whether they were Polish or German.

"This came as Catholic Centre Party became more focused on the issues of German catholics, and didn't support Polish fight for equal rights." The Centre Party had always been focused on the issues of Catholics, regardless of whether they spoke German or Polish. "Equal rights" for Germans and Poles was simply not an issue for them - equal rights for Protestants and Catholics was: The party was interested in the rights people had on grounds of their faith, not of their nationality. That the Catholic party would be dominated by German Catholics was quite inevitable in a predominantly German speaking country. (Note that while close to 100% of the Polish speakers in the German Empire were Catholics, they formed less than 10% or so of the overall Catholic population.) The point is that previously, many (kind of) Polish-speaking inhabitants of Upper Silesia did not mind this, as being Catholic was more defining for them than being Polish. With time, this began to change, and Korfanty worked hard to reinforce this ongoing change. Note that I am not saying this was bad, as you seem to assume. But is should not be implied that Korfanty's politics were in any way a response to a change in the Centre Party's position. It was the Poles who changed, not the party. Whether this was "good" or "bad" is simply not for us to discuss. If you want to do this, why don't you get one of those free blogs? Who knows, if it's any good, we may include a link to it here.

You changed "pseudo-democratic" and "quasi-dictatorship" as descriptions of the Sanacja government to "government that possesed authoritarian tendencies." Now there is a broad consensus in Polish and international scholarship that Piłsudski's government was far from democratic, even if a democratic facade remained intact. It did not just "possess authoritarian tendencies" - this was a de-facto dictatorship effectively controlled by P. and people loyal to him. In Poland, there is no disagreement over the non-democratic character of P.'s regime. What people disagreed about was whether it was a benevolent dictatorship or not. Many people then and now agree that it was - but that does not make it democratic. By the way, Korfanty, as a Christian Democrat and earlier a comrade of Roman Dmowski's, would have been about the last to call it democratic, with some slight "authoritarian tendencies" perhaps... There was an enormous cleavage between Sanacja on the one hand, and Centrolew on the other hand. Of course, if one is preoccupied with the "Polish-German" political cleavage, one may tend to overlook the Polish domestic cleavage, which was at least as acute at that time. This may explain why you are paradoxically praising Korfanty and downplaying Piłsudski's role as a dictator at the same time. This makes about as much sense as praising Robespierre and Louis XVI because they were both great French leaders. ;)

I hope you will think about what I wrote and reconsider your edits. Here is your chance to demonstrate that you have something valuable to say about internal Polish affairs and are not a Polish-German one trick pony. --Thorsten1 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In Poland, there is no disagreement over the non-democratic character of P.'s regime. Sadly the Polish Ministry of Education disagrees with your opinion, and claims the government was combination of authoritarism and democracy. --Molobo 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC) "the government was combination of authoritarism and democracy". Of course, there was democracy on the outside and authoritarianism on the inside, so it was a "combination". ;) Seriously, authoriarianism and democracy are mutually exclusive. A government that "combines" both is not democratic by definition. I am pleased to see that the Polish Ministry of Education conforms with my opinion and that of every serious historian. --Thorsten1 02:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is your chance to demonstrate that you have something valuable to say about internal Polish affairs Your opinon on Polish matters is quite clear-they are either liberals led by Mazowiecki or Gieremek and nationalist, clerical antisemites on the other side. Hardly an objective view I am afraid Thorsten.Doesn't speak much for your support as objective viewer of Polish internal affairs, and I hope this is just a mistake on your part. --Molobo 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mazowiecki is primarily a Christian Democrat, not a liberal. Also, I do not see how your creative representation of my alleged "opinion on Polish matters" is supposed to relate to Wojciech Korfanty in any way. I would really appreciate it if you could remain on topic or at least anywhere near it.--Thorsten1 02:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As to Catholic Party
Viewing the Polish deputies as a political threat and fearing that a more pro-Polish attitude would lose the very nationallyminded German Catholics of Upper Silesia to the National Liberals or Conservatives following the 1893 elections, the Silesian leadership of the Center Party embarked on an aggressive campaign against the Polish challengers. Labeling the Polish candidates explicitly as "Poles" and - playing on fears of Social Democracy - as social revolutionaries and anti-clericalists, Porsch proclaimed that the position of the Center in Upper Silesia was "endangered." As Huene's defeat had shown, the Center was engaged in a power struggle with an "anti-Center current" whose "special danger lies in that in Upper Silesian . . . the linguistic opposition or, as one now says, national opposition covers itself with the opposition of possessing and not possessing."81 By contrast, Porsch offered his vision of a united Center party at an 1895 party meeting in Breslau:

We in the Center have not, up to this point, recognized a distinction between Germans and Poles, no distinction of language, of class, of occupation. The instant that you introduce such distinctions, in that instant the foundation on which the Center stands and on which alone the Center can be great collapses.82

Porsch did not recognize national principles where Polish demands were concerned; however, to maintain support among German Catholics he actively sought to counter the claims of opponents in the national parties that "by standing up for the native languages [we] are standing up for the nationalities." Like Windthorst a decade earlier, Forsch emphasized the confessional nature of this support.83 But Forsch went well beyond Windthorst's judicious support for German nationalist goals. Indeed, Forsch made special efforts to illustrate that, although he opposed the anti-Polish measures, he was not blind to the danger that Polish nationalists posed to Deutschtum. Commenting on the issue of colonization in an 1898 article in the Schlesische Volkszeitung he noted that the Center did not disapprove of Germans' self-defense "against the advances of Polentum" nor did they deny "that Polish encroachments and outrages should be turned back." Rather, he wrote, "we disapprove of the means by which one proceeds against the Poles," and thus the "national conviction" of German Catholics should not be questioned.84 Porsch's disdain for Polish nationalists and the Polish interests within the Center, as well as the rhetorical tightrope he walked by denying the legitimacy of Polish national feeling while defending that of German Catholics, did little to bridge the growing gap between Polish and German interests in Upper Silesia.

The decisive moment in the collapse of Center-Polish co-operation was the school language crisis.88 In 1900, Bulow's elimination of the last remaining Polish religious instruction in the elementary grades generated a series of spontaneous, local school strikes that began the following year. As the government remained intransigent and civil disobedience grew, the National Democrats and the Populists actively began to support the resistance, and the campaign spread. By the fall of 1906 the protests had escalated into a general school strike, directly involving over 93,000 children and attracting the attention and support of Poles throughout the Prussian East. The Prussian government's refusal to compromise and its harsh suppression of the protests in the summer of 1907 further exacerbated the general Polish dissatisfaction with the Prussian state.

The widespread, militant response despite the patent illegality of the strikes suggests that this campaign struck a deep chord among Prussian Poles, serving, in the words of John Kulczycki, as a "hothouse for the growth of Polish nationalism."89 And because the Polish church hierarchy vociferously supported and participated in the strikes, Bulow's policies served to further cement the alliance of Polish nationalism and Polish Catholicism throughout the Prussian East.90 Much more ambivalent in their support for the Poles, the Center and the German Catholic hierarchy opposed the language policy but simultaneously condemned the strikes as unlawful.

Polish nationalists were frustrated that the leadership of the Center party had not been able - and seemed not to have made a significant effort - to mitigate the effects of anti-Polish measures, that it had denigrated resistance against those measures, and that it even denied that Poles in Upper Silesia had common interests or a common identity that deserved attention. As a result, they settled on a complete break with the Catholic party that no longer seemed to represent Polish Catholics. --Molobo 01:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Molobo posted the above to my talk page first, so I replied there (User_talk:Thorsten1). --02:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * As per my above statement, I have refrained from further edits to this article so far. Instead, I explained my objections to Molobo's removals of my "strange formulations" and invited him to try and achieve a consensus on this talk page first. He did not accept this proposal - his only response was to copy and paste the above desert of third-party text, here and to my talk page (where he also posted some stereotypical, repetitive assertions). When a (Polish!) IP user reverted, Molobo reverted again - leaving the edit summary empty and marking his own edit as "minor". In addition, he returned to his habit of denouncing me as "anti-Polish" and reported me as having "insulted Poland" in the German article on Adam Michnik (totally unrelated to this one) to the Polish Wikipedians' notice board. I think this is highly symptomatic of Molobo's overall editing style and interpersonal behaviour on Wikipedia. --Thorsten1 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you feel offended I apologize, but I pointed out that your view on political life in Poland is very biased based on your claims that parties in Poland are divided between liberals of Mazowiecki type and nationalists antisemites. --Molobo 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC) In addition, he returned to his habit of denouncing me as "anti-Polish" This is claim however Thorsten is fabricated where did I label you so ? --Molobo 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

''and invited him to try and achieve a consensus on this talk page first. He did not accept this proposal'' I accepted the proposal on your talk page. I will move the discussion here then If you feel so strongly offended. --Molobo 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * "I pointed out that your view on political life in Poland is very biased based on your claims that parties in Poland are divided between liberals of Mazowiecki type and nationalists antisemites". Even if this was true - which it obviously isn't - what does it have to do with Korfanty's opposition to Piłsudski's regime?
 * "This is claim however Thorsten is fabricated where did I label you so". On several occasions that I do not have the nerve to look up now. Some had to do with the Polish Black Book that I was listed in after not agreeing with you, if I recall correctly.
 * "I accepted the proposal on your talk page." My talk page is not this talk page. Discussions about edits to articles belong on the respective talk pages. I can only interpret your avoiding this page as an attempt to restrict the audience of your statements. Secondly, and more importantly, I characterised your response on my talk page above and put a link to it. I do not consider this as a "discussion" about my objections above. --Thorsten1 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 what does it have to do with Korfanty's opposition to Piłsudski's regime? That you have stron POV views in regards to politics in Poland. --Molobo 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So I am unable to see the cordial harmony between Piłsudski and Korfanty because of my "stron POV views" of today's Polish politics? (No answer required).--Thorsten1 23:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You view Polish politics in black and white colours, which makes your claims very questionable. --Molobo 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I would say about you. And you have a much longer track records of comments about Polish politics than I will ever have. I tend to look at Polish politics from the POV of a disengaged outsider. --Thorsten1 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I am sorry but your views are very POVish or uniformed-you divide Polish politics between two camps-liberals of Mazowiecki and national clerical antisemites. For example Bronislaw Wildstein is a political activist that hardly supports Mazowiecki, and according to your edit he would have to be considered nationalist clerical antisemite, because you presented Polish politics as two camps: liberal and nationalist clerical antisemite.He is a good example that your divide isn't proper.They are many currents, faction and ideas in Polish politics. --Molobo 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Your allegation is based on your personal interpretation. Quite irrespective of that I'm still waiting for you to make a plausible connection from Wildstein to Korfanty, who we are supposed to discuss here. If you have something interesting to say about Wildstein, simply do so at Talk:Bronisław Wildstein. --Thorsten1 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Authoritarian democracy
Historia Polski 1871-1939 Profesor Roszkowski, Dr. Anna Radziwiłł Warszawa 2000 Polish Ministry of Education, :name the government authoritarian and note on several times that Piłsudski refused to implement a dictatorship. Sorry Thorsten but MEN doesn't agree with you it seems after all. --Molobo 01:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what is this supposed to be - an instruction for Polish teachers of history? ;) If so, I do not feel obliged by this doomed attempt to reconcile Polish raison d'état and historical fact. Of course, Piłsudski never modified the constitutional structure, so Poland remained a democracy on paper. He even withdrew to seemingly marginal cabinet positions after his coup. However, he continued to pull the strings from behind the scenes - nothing significant ever happened without his approval. An opposition, although legally and sometimes physically harassed, continued to exist and participated in elections, however to no real effect. As I already said clearly enough, the facade was democratic, the inner workings were not. Not even Piłsudski's most ardent supporters call him a democrat, neither then nor today. The only point of contention is whether his and his successors' regime worked for the benefit of the people or not. A decisive proportion, if not a majority, of Poles then and now assume it did - especially considering that an Endecja-led regime might have been the alternative. But that does not make the Sanacja regime a democracy. A monarchy remains a monarchy, even if the monarch is popular; the same goes for a dictatorship. Korfanty - which brings us back to the initial point - was an outspoken opponent of Sanacja and not shy to call it a dictatorship. He did not go into exile for no reason, and he was not imprisoned upon his return for no reason. No matter how you look at it - your attempt to praise Korfanty as a national hero and water down Sanacja to a "democratic government with authoritarian tendencies" at the same time is an attempt to square the circle. --Thorsten1 16:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrections
1. Korfanty was born in 1873 in Upper Silesia/Germany. 2. The University of Breslau was not only German administrated, it was a German University in a German City (territory and population). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.89.65 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Molobo's edits once again
In response to Molobo's statement "Duchy of Warsaw was also a Polish state" let me quote from the lead of the Polish article on the Duchy of Warsaw: "Księstwo Warszawskie (fr. Duché de Varsovie) – istniało w latach 1807-1815, formalnie niepodległe, jednak w rzeczywistości jako podporządkowane napoleońskiej Francji, było namiastką państwa polskiego. Władcą suwerennym księstwa był król Saksonii, która wchodziła w skład Związku Reńskiego, będącego protektoratem I Cesarstwa Francuskiego." (translation: "The Duchy of Warsaw, existing 1807-1815, was a formally independent, but in reality subordinated to Napoleonic France, poor substitute for a Polish state . The sovereign ruler of the Duchy was the King of Saxony, which was part of the Confederation of the Rhine, a protectorate of the First French Empire" (emphasis added). Molobo, I suggest you establish your POV in the Polish article first. ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A poor substitute, yes, but still a Polish state. Congress Poland was an even poorer substitute, but it is still considered a Polish state. We have refs for the latter as puppet (see CP article), but not for the former. If you have refs that Duchy was also a puppet state, please add it to the relevant article. In any case, I looked over Molobo's edits here and I don't see how either they or your revert relate to this issue? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "A poor substitute, yes, but still a Polish state." First, in general parlance, a substitute isn't the real thing. Something we call "a poor substitute for X" isn't identicial with X. Sure, you may say "a poor substitute for an argument" to imply that an argument you disagree with or are unable to counter isn't really an argument, so you needn't bother with it. This, however, is ironic usage, and I think we both agree that whoever wrote namiastka (etymologically: "something in place of something else") probably wasn't trying to be ironic. Further, państwo polskie is generally used as meaning an independent Polish state, not just one in which Poles had a degree of influence. That's why states like the Duchy of Warsaw, Congress Poland or the Republic of Kraków are not commonly refered to as "Polish states" that would have legitimately interrupted Poland's period of partition and foreign control. Therefore, Molobo's rationale is, at best, nitpicking. Since you ask, let's have a closer look. The original sentence read: "the restoration of an independent Polish state, which had not existed since 1795, resulted" (emphasis added). In his edit I diffed above, Molobo removed the part "which had not existed since 1795", arguing that "Duchy of Warsaw was also a Polish state". Given its position in the framework of Napoleon's system of satellites. whether or not the Duchy deserves the name "Polish state" is open to debate, but as long as the context is clear, calling it that is defensible. By no stretch of imagination, however, does it deserve the epithet "independent". To be sure, the contemporaries welcomed its establishment because they preferred French hegemony to Russian hegemony. But that's a far cry from any sort of independence. This is common knowledge, and see no need to get involved in any other articles because of it. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but question: Were Ukraine and the Czech or Slovak state >non/not existent< during the WWII,
 * because they were - as we all know - not (fully) independent ? (so called Protectorat and so on).

parody ?
"He was also the head of the Polish plebiscite committee in Upper Silesia.[11] He was one of the leaders of the Second Silesian Uprising in 1920[11] and the Third Silesian Uprising in 1921,[12] which were Polish insurrections against German rule in Upper Silesia. The German authorities were forced to leave their positions by the League of Nations. Poland was allotted by the League of Nations roughly half of the population and valuable mining districts, which were eventually attached to Poland. Korfanty was accused by Germans of organizing terrorism against German civilians of Upper Silesia.[13] German propaganda newspapers also "smeared" him with ordering the murder of Silesian politician Theofil Kupka.[14][15]" - Only so few lines concerning his greatest "oeuvre" = the bloody Upper Silesian Civil War ?????? Is it Wikipedia here - or parody ? :-( Not serious, not enough !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:AD58:5500:F1E3:362:4A97:8669 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wojciech Korfanty


text:
Talk:Body thetan

After Expulsion
So, once the clusters of body thetans are exorcised by the patient, with help from highly experienced practitioners *, where do they go ?

According to Thetan they, and we, are immortal souls, sinless ( since body thetans are sent involuntarily ) and who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So they can fortunately not be extinguished.

"A thetan can be incarnated many times over lifetimes and does not cease to exist at body-death, nor go to a heaven or hell." ... "When a thetan abandons its physical body—they go to a 'landing station' on the planet Venus, where the thetan is re-implanted and told lies about its past life and its next life. The Venusians take the thetan, 'capsule' it, and send it back to Earth to be thrown into the ocean off the coast of California. They quote Hubbard as saying, 'If you can get out of that, and through that, and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you're all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you're OK. And you just eventually just pick up a baby.'"

But that seems to refer to ordinary operating thetans, like you and me. Nothing is said about these free thetans.

Now, Xenu may have been imprisoned in an electronic mountain trap these past 75 million years, though one hopes this is not in perpetual torment ---  Mr. Hubbard being a rather vindictive fellow   ---  but he was a mighty sinner:  as said, these body thetans have not erred.

 * "The Scientologist is directed to find a cluster of body thetans, address it telepathically as a cluster, and take first the cluster, then each individual member, through Incident II, then Incident I if needed. Hubbard warns that this is a painstaking procedure, and that OT levels IV to VII are necessary to continue dealing with one's body thetans." Xenu

Understandably this takes a great deal of effort from the auditors, and it is obviously right that they are forced to charge high voluntary donations; but presumably the disincarnated souls have to go somewhere.

Claverhouse (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Well, when you find out and can provide a reliable source on that, let us know.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  06:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Body thetan


text:
Denis Coderre

Denis Coderre (born July 25, 1963) is a Canadian politician from Quebec. Coderre was the member of Parliament for the riding of Bourassa from 1997 until 2013, and was the Immigration minister from 2002 to 2003 and became the mayor of Montreal in 2013, but lost in 2017 to Valérie Plante. In 2021, he was defeated once again by Valérie Plante after a second mayoral race. He has been an administrator of Eurostar since 2018 and special advisor for the FIA since 2019.

Background
Born in Joliette, Quebec, Coderre is the son of Elphege Coderre, a carpenter, and Lucie Baillargeon. The family moved to Montréal-Nord in 1973, where Coderre attended École Secondaire Henri-Bourassa and Cégep Marie-Victorin. He has a BA in political science from the Université de Montréal and a Master in Business Administration (MBA) from the University of Ottawa. In April 2023, he suffered a mild stroke.

Unsuccessful Liberal candidate
Coderre ran unsuccessfully three times prior to being elected: first, in the 1988 election in the riding of Joliette, losing to the Progressive Conservative Party candidate, Gaby Larrivée; second, in a 1990 by-election in the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, losing to Gilles Duceppe; and third, in the 1993 elections in the riding of Bourassa, defeated by the Bloc Québécois candidate, Osvaldo Núñez.

Member of Parliament
Coderre was elected as a Member of Parliament in 1997 representing the riding of Bourassa, located in Montreal, and was re-elected in the 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2011 federal elections. In August 1999 he was appointed Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.

Cabinet Member
In January 2002, he was appointed Immigration minister.

On December 12, 2003, Prime Minister Paul Martin advised Governor General Adrienne Clarkson to appoint Coderre to the Cabinet as President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada where he was responsible for a number of files, such as the creation of the new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency. He was also the Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, the Minister responsible for La Francophonie and the Minister responsible for the Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution. Coderre was not re-appointed to Cabinet following the 2004 general election, despite being re-elected in his riding.

As Minister of Immigration, Coderre supervised the application of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which came into effect on June 28, 2002. As Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, Coderre successfully negotiated a number of national and international agreements and helped to establish the World Anti-Doping Agency in Montreal.

Adil Charkaoui

As minister of Immigration, Coderre was responsible, along with his cabinet colleague Wayne Easter, for the detention of Adil Charkaoui, a Moroccan immigrant with a checkered travel history, on a security certificate. Restrictions on Charkaoui's conditional release were gradually lifted, and were cancelled in September 2009, on his final release order by Federal Court Judge Danièle Tremblay-Lamer.

Sponsorship scandal
During the events of the Sponsorship Scandal Denis Coderre was accused of frequent confidential conversations with Pierre Tremblay, head of the Communications Coordination Services Branch of Public Works. Coderre has denied these allegations. His previous position as vice-president of public affairs for Le Groupe Polygone Éditeurs Inc. is judged to be the key connecting factor. Close links to Claude Boulay of Groupe Everest, another actor in the sponsorship scandal, were also made during the Gomery Inquiry, which cost him his cabinet position in 2004. No legal action has been taken to substantiate or disprove the allegations.

The Shane Doan incident
During the 2006 election, Coderre accused National Hockey League player Shane Doan of uttering ethnic slurs directed against French-speaking referees at a game in Montreal. Coderre wrote a letter to the Canadian Olympic Committee asking them to keep Doan off Canada's 2006 hockey team competing at the Olympics in Turin, Italy. The Globe and Mail columnist Eric Duhatschek noted that "the NHL is tough on ethnic slurs ... if Mr. Coderre has any proof he should produce it. Otherwise he should just shut up." Hockey commentator John Davidson accused Coderre of "grandstanding" and criticized his accusation, saying that "a person shouldn't go stand on a platform and yell and scream about it when he doesn't even know the facts."

Doan was given a gross misconduct penalty for verbal abuse of the officials at the end of the December 13, 2005 game between his team, the Phoenix Coyotes, and the Montreal Canadiens. Referees and linesmen for the game were all francophones from Quebec. Although one of the linesmen, Michel Cormier, filed a report against the player, Doan was cleared by NHL Executive Vice-President Colin Campbell, the league's chief disciplinarian, who concluded that the allegations were baseless. Doan himself has denied that he ever made the ethnic slur.

In January 2006, Doan sued Coderre for character defamation seeking $250,000 in damages with Doan promising to donate all damages awarded to charities to benefit Canadians. On April 2, 2007 Coderre counter-sued Doan for defamation seeking $45,000 in damages after referee Michel Cormier reiterated under oath that Doan made a racist comment against him as a Francophone.

Opposition Member
Coderre won re-election to the House of Commons in 2006, but the Liberals lost the campaign and became the Official Opposition party. Coderre was the Liberal Defence Critic. In 2007 Coderre made allegations against the previous Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier (retired) of being a "prop". Hillier in return has accused Coderre of being more concerned with party image than in protecting Canadian Forces members. In October 2007, Coderre made a self-planned visit to Afghanistan to visit the war-torn country and the Canadian Forces in the Kandahar region. He criticized the Harper government — who did not invite him on an official tour of the country that was made by Ministers Bev Oda and Maxime Bernier a few days before him — and consequently, Coderre, as Liberal defense critic, had to travel by himself at his own expense, mentioned that the mission in Afghanistan must change in 2009. The government had accused him of staging a stunt while he fired back that the Conservatives overestimated the success of the mission.

Quebec lieutenant
On January 22, 2009, Coderre became the Quebec lieutenant of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. He had been offered the same assignment by former leader Stéphane Dion, but had declined the offer.

On September 28, 2009, Coderre resigned as Quebec lieutenant because of a disagreement with Ignatieff. Coderre had been tasked with picking 'star candidates' for the next election, attempting to replace Montreal-area MPs Stéphane Dion, Lise Zarac, and Bernard Patry, as well as Laval MP Raymonde Folco, at Ignatieff's request. Coderre had chosen Nathalie Le Prohon to run in Outremont, formerly a Liberal safe seat now held by the NDP's Thomas Mulcair. However, Martin Cauchon was seeking a return to politics and wanted to run in Outremont, a riding he had held for 11 years prior to 2004 when then-Liberal leader Paul Martin would not guarantee Cauchon's nomination. Cauchon had served as Jean Chrétien's Minister of Justice and Quebec lieutenant. Cauchon preferred to seek help from Alfred Apps from Toronto instead of talking to Coderre and his team. Cauchon and Coderre had previously been close when both were part of Chrétien's cabinet, but some suggest that Coderre now saw Cauchon as a potential rival for influence over the Quebec wing of the Liberals, and perhaps in a future leadership convention. Ignatieff initially sided with Coderre, then reversed his decision and allowed Cauchon to run in Outremont.

In Coderre's first press conference after resigning as Quebec lieutenant, he criticized Ignatieff's aides, all of whom were from Toronto. Coderre also skipped votes in the House of Commons in protest. Ignatieff later warned that Coderre would face expulsion from caucus if he did "any more damage to the party."

In 2012, Coderre confirmed that he would not run for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party.

2013 election
Coderre resigned on June 2, 2013 to run for mayor of Montreal in the 2013 Montreal municipal election. He formed the Montreal municipal party Équipe Denis Coderre pour Montréal (alternatively Équipe Denis Coderre) though he had no previous provincial or municipal experience. Coderre was elected mayor of Montreal subsequent to the municipal elections of November 3, 2013.

Spending of $410 million for Montréal's 375th anniversary in 2017
The Montreal government of Coderre contributed $410 million for events and projects for Montreal's 375th anniversary, in 2017. The figure of 410 million means $241 per person in Montreal (population 1.7 million). The total spending for the festivities exceeded $1 billion. The rest came from Quebec, Ottawa and private sources. For Montreal's contribution, the main achievements that remain include several sculptures in various parts of Montreal; and some other beautification projects. In addition, the Société des célébrations du 375e anniversaire de Montréal, to which Montreal was a major contributor, paid $9.5 million out of the total price of $40 million for the controversial light project of the Jacques-Cartier Bridge. Some have found that the costs of the celebrations have not been worth the benefits.

2017 election
Coderre ran for re-election in the 2017 Montreal municipal election on November 5, 2017. In a surprise, Coderre lost the mayoral race to Valérie Plante, making her the first female elected Mayor for the city of Montréal. After the election loss, he announced that he would be retiring from politics.

2021 election
After much speculation, Coderre had announced his intention to run for Mayor of Montreal in the 2021 Montreal municipal election. On April 7, 2021 he became leader of the municipal party Ensemble Montréal (formerly Équipe Denis Coderre). On November 7, 2021, he was defeated once again by Valérie Plante. After the election loss, he announced once again that he would be retiring from politics.

Lawsuit by Hamza Chaoui
On January 31, 2015, the Coderre administration denied a request to open an Islamic community centre in the Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve neighbourhood of Montreal because its imam Hamza Chaoui, had allegedly preached that Canadians ought to change their legal system to sharia. Chaoui filed a lawsuit on July 9 for defamation against Coderre and the city of Montreal. Chaoui characterised Coderre's remarks as an attack on his dignity, honour and reputation. Réal Ménard, the borough mayor of Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, supported Coderre's position.

Coderre jackhammer vs. mailbox stunt
In August 2015, Coderre took a jackhammer to a Canada Post community mailbox foundation in l'Anse-à-l'Orme Nature Park. He was dismissive of concerns that his action was illegal. The Province of Quebec's Crown prosecutors office confirmed that Coderre would not face charges for the media stunt.

Environmental issues
From October 18, 2015 until October 25, 2015, Coderre authorized the dumping for 8 billion litres of untreated sewage into the Saint Lawrence River to facilitate repairs to Montreal's sewer system. The incident was widely criticized by Environment and Climate Change Canada, Infrastructure Canada, and a petition of over 55,000 signatures.

On January 21, 2016, Coderre, along with other officials of the Montreal Metropolitan Community (Communauté Métropolitaine de Montréal), formally opposed the Energy East Pipeline project based on environmental concerns. His position was denounced by Conservative Party of Canada interim leader Rona Ambrose, Saskatchewan Party leader Brad Wall and Alberta Wildrose Party leader Brian Jean.

Pit bull ban
On September 27, 2016, Montreal passed a citywide pit bull ban. Coderre was a big advocate for the bylaw stating that "My duty as mayor of Montreal is making sure I am working for all Montrealers, and I am there to make sure they feel safe and that they are safe." The bylaw creates a citywide ban on new pit bull-type dogs from being owned and restrictions on those currently in the city. The bylaw also places new restrictions on all dogs and cats within the city and its 19 boroughs, which has led to a lot of controversy. Animal protection groups such as the Montreal SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) stated that if the new bylaw passed they would take legal action against the city.

On October 3, 2016, a Quebec judge temporarily suspended the pit bull ban part of the bylaw. Two days later the judge decided to extend the suspension on the grounds that the bylaw was too vague and imprecise, claiming that "This court has the impression that certain articles of the bylaw were written in haste." An appeal court overturned the decision and Coderre's pit bull ban was in effect in Montreal from December 1, 2016 to December 20, 2017, when the administration of new mayor Valérie Plante repealed it in favor of a new animal by-law that didn't target specific breeds. Opposition to Coderre's pit bull ban was an electoral issue during the 2017 Montreal municipal election.

title: Denis Coderre


text:
User talk:Khalid

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Phil Gingrey
Thanks very much for your efforts to uphold a neutral version of Phil Gingrey. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) --Khalid 13:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Phil Gingrey
Rather than engage in knee-jerk reverts you might try reading the new material in the article first. By the way, you and Meelar sound like "best friends" now.
 * I have read the material you added in the article. I might as well say that I agree with your "opinions" about Phil Gingrey; the thing is, it is not a neutral point of view, which - I am sure you agree with me - is a necessity for an encyclopedic article to be valuable.
 * Please not to take this personal; I do not know Meelar, and it is not his edits that that caused me to revert your additions (He doesn't seem to be the only one either). If you would rewrite your additions in order to state facts, rather than your own opinion, nobody is going to - or even have a point in - reverting what you write. Why do not you try, in a way different than keeping adding this clearly unagreed upon content, to reach an agreement with the others about it in the talk page?
 * Thanks. --Khalid 15:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you're wasting your time. This 66.20.28.21 guy's only hobby is inserting POV crap and getting into revert wars. He knows better. He'll only stop when he's hard-banned. --dreish 22:39, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
 * What you say may very well be true; in fact, it most likely is. I am simply trying to be reasonable with the person, and hoping for the best; especially since my edits are by no means For Personal Reasons. Thanks for the advice! --Khalid 23:03, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Arabic names
Khalid,

Thank you for your help in writing the names of Arabic people in the Arabic script. Your assistance was greatly appreciated.

On the article Arabic name, there is a great deal of information, but I'm not sure whether it is all accurate or not. I thought you might know. In particular, someone wrote a question on Talk:Arabic name about the meaning of the name "Abu". Do you know the answer?

By the way, what part of Saudi Arabia do you come from?

Warmest regards,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   12:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem; I'm glad to be of help, and never hesitate to ask about these things. I have looked at Talk:Arabic name and responded explaining the concept of Abu as best as I could. I will look thoroughly at Arabic name and correct any thing or add anything I can think of, hopefully later today.
 * About my location, I live in Khobar, and study a few kilometers away from it, in KFUPM, Dhahran. These articles do not say much; I'm hopefully going to add to them sometime. --Khalid 16:48, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

re: Jesus page
I appreciate your return of the article to a (albeit moderately so) NPOV. Seems we hit it about the same time and your revision caught first. Feel free to delete this

Veteran
Hello, I noticed that the College Preparatory Center is listed in your resume. Just wanted to say hi (from a current CPC student). - Eagle 15:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hello
1) Please consider voting at Conspiracy theory to restrict the use of the pejorative "Conspiracy Theory" in article headings. This phrase prejudges content in a way that is unacceptable, as witnessed in 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory

2) When you get a chance, please drop me a line at yusuf.toropov@gmail.com. I have something I would like to discuss off-line. BrandonYusufToropov 14:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

User categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedians/Saudi Arabia page as living in or being associated with Saudi Arabia. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Saudi Arabia for instructions. -- Gurch 16:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam!
Hi! I created a new template, and would appreciate a coment from you: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild.

Ma salam! --Striver 02:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Fundamental pattern for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fundamental pattern is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Khalid


text:
Talk:Teegeeack

Note for the archived deletion debate for this article see Talk:Body Thetans/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Faulty redirect
This article (previously) redirected to the Earth article. This is wholly inappropriate, not least because the Earth article does not mention "Teegeeack" or Scientology (nor should it).

title: Talk:Teegeeack


text:
User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive July 2004 2

Tea infuser
Hi, Sam. I could be mistaken, but I thought a tea infuser was the little metal ball that you placed loose tea in, and then put in a teapot, rather than being a carafe-like device like a French press. Joyous 05:29, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Resolution
Well gee Sam, given that the dispute has already been resolved what resolution would you suggest for this dispute?AndyL 02:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well good. Thank you for admitting there is no dispute. AndyL 02:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, if you want to convince people of your "good faith" you have to start demonstrating it. Clearly the RfC you've started is in bad faith given that you did not give me any time to resolve the dispute and given that you are continuing it despite the dispute having been resolved. How can you speak of "good faith" when you behave in such a petty manner? If you want respect you must earn it. Begging for it cravenly won't do. AndyL 03:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. —No-One Jones 03:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you either act in "good faith" or you don't. It's not something you can ask other people for. AndyL 03:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you're wasting my time. I have no interest in debating you or talking to you any further. I'm going to ignore your RfC page from now on since it's clearlyi a waste of everyone's time and seems to be nothing more but a childish attempt by you to get attention. Go bother someone else. AndyL 03:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bible and Reincarnation
Your editing and additions have been superb. Thanks for making a "C" article into an "A" article. One Salient Oversight 06:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Calvinism
See my talk page for answers on this One Salient Oversight 11:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help. I've been watching Wikipedia grow for some time now and am very excited about helping to make Wikipedia an even better place. It's always nice to have a friendly face. =) User:SocratesJedi (signature added by me after the fact Sam Spade 18:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC))

?
I thought the link wasn't working. AndyL 05:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Greeting
Hi, I just saw your user greeting, and I'm not sure if the list of links is entirely geared to a new user. Can I suggest you throw in Tutorial and Help desk at the top? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

question about redirects
Hi, I'm a relative newbie; I'm emailing you because you left a message on my talk saying you could help. I think the entry for Sayed Qutb should be a redirect to Sayyid Qutb which should be the main entry, but I'm not sure how to switch them easily. Sayyid is the much more common transliteration of this Arabic name into English, as far as I can tell. It's certainly the way his name is spelled on English translations of his books. I read the rules about deleting redirects and so forth but I'm not sure what category this falls into. Thanks. --csloat 10:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New article
Thanks for the welcome message (wether it is automatic or not ;-)). I'll have a look at these link sometime. Currently, I'm in the process of writing my first article. While I'm here, what should I do when I finish writing it? I mean, except for the stub tag (which I'll add), is there a way to tell people: "Hey, I've written a new article but I'm new so I'm not sure I did it correctly, please have a look at it".

 * Well, whats the name of the article? I'll take a look. Also you can try Peer Review. Your not logged in, BTW. Sam Spade 19:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well I know... I just noticed while editing this message that I'm not logged... and seems like you edited faster than me so there is a conflict but nevermind... BRB...

Ok, the article is Computational tree logic but it's not done yet (will take some time to make as I'm not quite fast.

Ged 19:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * ok, take your time, I'll read it when your done :) Sam Spade 19:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re welcome
Thank you for your kind thoughts. Too Old 21:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sig
Well, the only reason I commented was because it was so long in code. I thought mine was too long... Its nice to have the external link graphic added. But generally, the idea is that the field in prefs is the section inbetween the "" and the closing "" Ideally the extra talk sig would be an optional field, but we have to add the extra "nickname]] [[User_talk:Name|Nick". Im sure you already figured that out, but I hope that explains it: Be well, -Stevertigo 01:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you Sir--ATZ 16:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mother Goddess/Shaktism
Nice edits. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:23, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

AndyL
What is the procedure now? no one participated at the talk page of National Socialism. Andy just decides to return national socialism to the Nazi article. I still don't agree and I think very unprofessional and unacademic. National Socialism existed before Hitler. How can National Socialism be redirected back to Nazism without any talk. He doesn't say or do anything to me. What is the next step for me? Where does the information that Czechs were the first ones to use it in a party name and where does Maurice Barres who also used the word at the same time go? Andy does this without consulting when it was disputed. What gives?WHEELER 22:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors
"OK, but some method of saying "this complaint is unfair and foolish" should be possible. How about having the writing of "Frivolous or vexatious complaints" being a criteria for being a disruptive or antisocial editor? "

You mean like your complaint against me last weekend?AndyL 20:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That was a legitimate complaint, which was quashed due to an unfortunate state of affairs here on the wiki, which I hope Erich’s policy will assist in correcting. You are likely a self correcting problem, as you will almost certainly either a) mess up bad enough and often enough in your defiance of policy to become a well known misuser of admin powers (much like user:172) or b) shape up and act right, learning from your mistakes and keeping your feet out of the dog droppings in your path. I actually tend towards the latter, and hope that my RfC shamed and frightened you enough to help push you in the right directions. In conclusion, obey policy, including npov Protection policy and civility, thank you very much :) Sam Spade 21:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That was a legitimate complaint

No, it was a frivolous and vexatious complaint. The fact that not one single editor agreed with your complaint should have told you something. AndyL22:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See:

Sam Spade 22:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And see my response to WHEELER and his response. The poor guy's going to go out and get himself hanged because he can't accept the fact that the community has rejected his article. Perhaps instead of railing against me because you're jealous of the fact that I was elected a sysop and you weren't, you should try to help him by warning him that he's about to make a huge mistake if he actually goes ahead with his National Socialism article. But no, then you'd be agreeing with me and your ego is much too big for that. AndyL22:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good lord. WHEELER'S article is just fine, it just needs a group editing process to help sharpen the edges a bit, and for you to stop harrassing the poor guy. And as far as me being jealous of you, I have declined nomination what, 3 times now? Immodesty doesn't become you. Sam Spade 22:28, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ha! If WHEELER's article was "fine" then why didn't you speak up for it when it was up on Votes for Deletion? Seems that when push comes to shove your friends cannot rely on you to come to their aid in their moment of need though I'm sure your belated support for WHEELER's article is appreciated even if it comes several weeks too late. (and, please note, that I did not initiate the VfD process - I am hardly alone in my criticism of WHEELER's work on this topic). If it the article was "fine" why did the community, in a rare move, come to a consensus that it be deleted?

As for your declining nominations to be an admin, were the nominations not headed for defeat when you graciously declined them? Who is being falsely modest now;)? AndyL

I thought you were supposed to be gone until september? Go find a gf or something, it'll help reduce all this tension. Sam Spade 04:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you have to be so rude? I guess now I can start an RfD on you for having made apersonal atack. I guess all your talk about "civility" is just hypocricy. AndyL

Sorry. I didn't mean to be particularly rude, I was actually kinda sincere about you going out and enjoying life rather than fussing about w me. I'm not exactly your enemy, y'know. Yes, you have annoyed me in the past w statements I found rude (insulting my spelling, etc...); yes, I disagree w you having been made admin, and w some of the decisions you've made when using that authority; but no, I don't hate on you, or want you to be unhappy or anything like that. If it were up to me your life would be all sunshine and buttercups, and yes you'd still be an editor here. I like your edits, something we unfortunately haven’t had much opportunity to focus on. I did look over your edit history more than once, and as far as actual edits you’re quite a positive contributor here. The stuff I have complained about is fairly petty in comparison, I agree, but promoting someone w a penchant for making unfriendly remarks and controversial decisions to admin wasn't something I agreed w, I admit. As far as me being admin, I may want to be someday, but I honestly haven’t in the past. Its alot of work and responsibility w/o much reward. The reason why I might like it in the future is based mainly on Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors, something I'd actually have some interest in having an admin status for, and helping with. Anyhow, I'd like to conclude things as sweetly as possible and move on. I don't hate you, rather I wish you well. I don't think your a bad editor, rather I'm glad your here. My complaints about you (mainly talk page stuff) are minor when compared to the benefits your provide (numerous beneficial edits in the main name space). Can we make our peace? I'd appreciate it, Sam Spade 18:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * (insulting my spelling, etc...)

Sorry Sam but while I agree flaming someone's spelling is a low move on discussion boards, USENET etc I think it's perfectly valid to take an *editor* to task for poor spelling. Editors who are chronic misspellers only create more work for other editors. AndyL

A misspeller would be someone who misspells. As for the rest of your point, touché - but that doesn't mean you should be immune from criticism on this issue. AndyL

I seem to have hit a sore spot. Perhaps instead of being so thin skinned you should just buckle down and work on your spelling skills?AndyL

Who holds the power on wikipedia
(In reply to comments made on User talk: WHEELER)

There's different layers, we have developers, admins, and bureaucrats at the moment.

Some developers also have admin rights, some don't. To become a developer, you simply need to contribute to the technical aspects of wikipedia. To become an admin you need some measure of popularity. So I think both systems are represented on wikipedia. (That and the meritocrats still rule the system, to a large degree. Thank goodness.)

Kim Bruning 21:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

category creation
hello, sorry for bothering you. i tried to create a category of "Female Composers". it seems to have created the category, but it doesn't seem to work to add entries to that category. i tried to add Pauline Oliveros by using the standard category tag, but the category does not show up on her page, nor does she show up on the category page. what did i do wrong? thanks, Jimaltieri 23:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

huh
I read that page... but where does it say that? Erich 06:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me
Hi Sam

When I first joined Wikipedia you posted a welcoming message and a number of useful links on my discussion page. I didn't know how to thank you then, but I do now, so thank you. Jayjg 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plurals
Plurals don't take apostrophes. It's independents, not independent's. Though O'Reilly is as right wing as the rest of them. RickK 23:14, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hello to you too
Thanks for noticing me :) Tinus 01:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

jews etc
I don't know where you live or who you have been talking to, but you clearly know next to nothing about the climate of opinion among Jews. I work all day with Jews, I live in a Jewish area and I read the Jewish press both locally and internationally. I would guess that 90% of all people who identify themselves as Jews, either by religion or by ethnicity, consider themselves Zionists in the sense that they support the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. That includes those who oppose the Sharon government and favour the creation of a Palestinian state. The only Jews who are not Zionists are some Hasidic groups and small numbers (and I mean small) of secular left-wing intellectuals in New York and Paris etc. Furthermore, most Jews think that the slogan "anti-Zionism" is usually just a cover for anti-Semitism. As it happens, I think they are wrong about that, but that is what they think. I actually gave two good reasons in the article why anti-Zionism should not be equated with anti-Semitism, which you have apparently not noticed, and which your silly edits detract from. As to my debating style, I certainly give as good as I get, but I only deploy my blunter rhetorical weapons against people who first show either stupidity or malice. Adam 06:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I say that the Jews I know and read are more representative of Jewish opinion than the Jews you know on left-wing chat sites. But that is not something we are going to resolve. My position is that the section of the article on this issue is fine as it is, and I will revert changes to it which in my opinion add nothing to the article (or which introduce illiteracies such as "cornucopias of reasons" or whatever it was you wrote). Adam 07:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this conversation is concluded. Adam 07:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gay stuff
Yes, I like "that gay stuff," but that would stand to sense, don't you think? Anyway, I added Christian Campbell's birthdate and another role. He's playing on one of my favorite soaps now. Mike H 14:40, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * I was using a Britishism used by Hilda Ogden. Anyway, I was saying that it would make sense, right, because I'm gay? Mike H 16:18, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Just because one is gay does not mean one is unwilling to breed. I want to have two kids of my own, by a surrogate. Mike H 16:47, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Rank
Yeah, people have long been proposing ranking systems for pages (like this), and for editors as well. The idea depends on technology, which most of the mainstay developers are kind of (or had been) FLOABT, lacking in enthusiasm for. I tend to agree, generally. At the time of the above listing, I was quite opposed to methods by which people formed cabals (around this time people started defining terms like wikifaith, deletionism, etc) and by which WP would institute the kind of rigid structure that failed to do anything for Nupedia. At times I kind of come to think that things need to change a little bit, and this might be one of those. Not everything can be done with software, nor will developers write free software without feeling like its worthwhile; this kind of idea might just be the way that WP:PP proceess (particular to articles) is merged somewhat with the newer process now called mediation and arbitration (particular to people). Its out of my hands and up to all youse guys. I'm out of ideas for today. -SV 17:00, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Kind
You are very kind. I appreciate the feedback. Mark Richards 17:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rudeness
That's it, I'm going ahead with an Request for Arbitration against you for breaking wikipedia rules on personal attacks. AndyL 07:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments
Hi Sam, thanks very much for editing my discussion page with some helpful links. Hope to see you around a lot more. Madeline 08:28, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Nazi Theology
"If this subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_nationalism#White_Religion.3F) interests you, I would request that you study up and contribute. The wiki articles are neglected and sparse, but their actually one of the most mainstream sources on info on this subject. I find the concept of extreme mysticism (extremes in general really) rather fascinating myself, and would appreciate your input if you feel up to the challenge."

I'm currently looking into it and researching it. I find this subject (mysticism) fascinating as well. In fact, when I got your message, I was actually doing research into Italian Witchcraft -- specifically Charles Leland, the Malandanti & the Benandanti, and Aradia de Toscano. I'll put that one on hold for a while though while I research this and see what I can contribute on the matter. Thank you very much.

--Corvun 23:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a cult?
Hello Sam, do you think that Wikipedia should be on the list of purported cults? Please read this article Wikipedia:controversial issues. Thanks in advance Andries 14:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV reverts
You most definitely have your blinders up. You missed the entire point David Halperin was making. This reading of the present into the past, even in text describing how the past was different from the present, is what makes your definitions of homosexuality, heterosexuality, and sexual orientation ahistorical. Hyacinth 02:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Halperin did not say "homosexuality", he said "heterosexuality and homosexuality." If an ideosyncratic gay community currently exists it is in junction with, or because of, an ideosyncratic straight community, and this is more than worthy of inclusion in articles. Hyacinth 07:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
I assume that this is how I send a message to someone--double click their screen name and they'll get a message on their User Page that says "New Message?" Thanks for the links. Then to "send" it I select "Save Page?" I'll try it.

Aloha, Aliman 04:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Theosophy
Hi Sam. Personally, I find the article Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path to be a vague treatment of a dull subject. But that's just me. Esotericism (which Theosophy espouses) in the article is a "Left Hand" path, a path to power in this world. It also mentions that orthodox religionists tend to Legalism (which also misses the mark, IMO). The areas I like to concern myself with are transcendant of such ephemeral positionings. Was Blavatsky an Esotericist or a Legalist? Cheers, Fire Star 05:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your welcome messages
I just happened to see your welcome message on the page of a new user I wanted to talk to. I am just wondering if a great list of links leading (in some cases) to quite esoteric pages is the best thing to do. I can imagine new users being put off all that reading material. We don't want to create a high barrier to entry if possible. Better to break it to them gentle as required. What do you think? Pcb21| Pete 11:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom
I've replied to your questions on the talk page for my arbcom statement. Snowspinner 13:35, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Heh, you must be watching my userpage?
Since you welcomed me back with some real speed. :-) Thanks. I don't feel that I contribute too much around here in either content or wisdom, but I do what I can and am glad that even editors who tend to disagree with me (nudge, nudge) seem to get along with me well. :-) I hope all is well in your corner of the WP, and that you're having a good summer in real life. Wear those hats -- keeps off the sun. :-) Jwrosenzweig 17:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==I didn't think that mattered since AndyL by virtue of invoking the "protect" on John Kerry must obviously be either an AKA for another user (ie; phoney account for doing dirty deeds) or simply LYING about being unavailable until September 15th.== Even so, forgive me for not knowing that maximum curtesy must be afforded evn to those WHO CONSPIRE to lie and cheat.

In the future, I shall be more careful!

Rex071404 03:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we have a Civility rule aginst "incivility"...
"... behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress...", why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?

I find that to be VERY "stress(ful)"

Rex071404 03:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?
I await your answer...

Rex071404

Thanks
Thanks for the compliment on effeminacy. Also, I apologize for earlier comments, I never meant to insinuate that you did not have the ability to absorb information, I meant to say you didn't have the desire. Either way, it is mostly irrelevant to Wikipedia, and could have gone unsaid. Wikipedia, luckily, is very humbling. Again, happy edits. Hyacinth 06:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Herschelkrustofsky
Sam, you seem to have been around a while, and you seem as well to have gotten yourself embroiled in a fair amount of controversy. I'd like to ask your opinion on a few matters:

1. Despite all the proclamations about NPOV and no propaganda, yadda yadda yadda, is Wikipedia really just dominated by gangs of thugs, imposing their own POV?

2. Has the arbitration process ever been known to work? If so, how long did it take? And were the results durable?

Thanks for your time, --Herschelkrustofsky 07:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * 1. Short answer, no. Long answer, everything in life is POV, and dominated by groups of likeminded individuals. The wiki is actually less so than most, but its no exception.

 * 2. Yes, but it takes a very long time, and in your case it looks like you may be railroaded for being a larouche advocate. From what I saw here you are losing your case rather handily. I am sympathetic, and feel too little attention has been paid to Adam's incivility, and too much to your pro-larouche sympathies, but what will be, will be.

 * Good luck, Sam Spade 01:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * In a better world, the questions of Adam's incivility or my symphathies would be tertiary at best, and the arbitrators would be primarily concerned with the truth or falsity of the articles that Wikipedia is presenting to the world. I am beginning to suspect that there is no standard for truthfulness, period. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree... In many ways this (the wikipedia) is a Consensus reality. Sam Spade 18:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Left/Right
Quote:

"I don't agree w the legalist = right, esotericism = left idea that seems to be a basis to your reasoning, but I can understand how you might not want to spend alot of time discussing the particulars of this :) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 20:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Yes, mine is purely an opinion of what I see as an inadequacy of the categorization scheme itself. Also, I'll understand if you don't agree w/my characterization of Theosophy (I'm not a fundamentalist, I believe wholeheartedly in free will and how it works, so while I do disagree with them, I don't feel a need to persecute them) and I do agree that the subject is only tangentially material to the article we were discussing. You've earned my respect and gratitude as the result of some of your arbitration afforts in the past, and I'm sorry that my carelessness has led to a disagreement. Best regards, Fire Star 14:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning
Sam, just wanted to let you know that I've nominated User:Kim Bruning for admin -- given that you've awarded her a barnstar, I figured you might want to rush to add your name to the list of supporters. :-) I've tried for 5-6 weeks to convince her to allow me to nominate, and she has relented, but she commented right before doing so that she wished she could be sure that anyone but me would bother to vote for her. Vote your conscience, of course. :-) See you around, Jwrosenzweig 19:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

definitions
What do you suggest I do: Whitehead espouses a very different kind of ontology (its more in line with modern physics/quantum physics) and so he defines words differently, and creates neologisms galore. To define these terms, do I maybe stick in a link to Wiktionary? How do I do that? Aliman 07:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, answered my own question with one of the links you sent me. Mahalo. Aliman 07:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something to read
Please consider reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snowspinner/Avala_Evidence

and then voting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#User:Snowspinner_.2854.2F6.2F2.29_Ends_17:06.2C_31_July_2004

-- orthogonal 18:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Category:Bugatti

This category refers to the French luxury car marque, Bugatti, owned by the Volkswagen Group since 1998.

title: Category:Bugatti


text: Category:Wikimedia projects

title: Category:Wikimedia projects


text:
Late Latin

Late Latin is the scholarly name for the form of Literary Latin of late antiquity. English dictionary definitions of Late Latin date this period from the, and continuing into the 7th century in the Iberian Peninsula. This somewhat ambiguously defined version of Latin was used between the eras of Classical Latin and Medieval Latin. Scholars do not agree exactly when Classical Latin should end or Medieval Latin should begin.

Being a written language, Late Latin is not the same as Vulgar Latin, or more specifically, the spoken Latin of the post Imperial period. The latter served as ancestor of the Romance languages. Although Late Latin reflects an upsurge of the use of Vulgar Latin vocabulary and constructs, it remains largely classical in its overall features, depending on the author who uses it. Some Late Latin writings are more literary and classical, but others are more inclined to the vernacular. As such it is an important source of information about changes in the spoken language, while not being a simple replication of the state of the oral language at the time. Also, Late Latin is not identical to Christian patristic Latin, used in the theological writings of the early Christian fathers. While Christian writings used a subset of Late Latin, pagans, such as Ammianus Marcellinus or Macrobius, also wrote extensively in Late Latin, especially in the early part of the period.

Late Latin formed when large numbers of non-Latin-speaking peoples on the borders of the empire were being subsumed and assimilated, and the rise of Christianity was introducing a heightened divisiveness in Roman society, creating a greater need for a standard language for communicating between different socioeconomic registers and widely separated regions of the sprawling empire. A new and more universal speech evolved from the main elements: Classical Latin, Christian Latin, which featured sermo humilis (ordinary speech) in which the people were to be addressed, and all the various dialects of Vulgar Latin.

The linguist Antoine Meillet wrote: "'Without the exterior appearance of the language being much modified, Latin became in the course of the imperial epoch a new language... Serving as some sort of lingua franca to a large empire, Latin tended to become simpler, to keep above all what it had of the ordinary.'"

Late and post-classical Latin
The origin of the term 'Late Latin' remains obscure. A notice in Harper's New Monthly Magazine of the publication of Andrews' Freund's Lexicon of the Latin Language in 1850 mentions that the dictionary divides Latin into ante-classic, quite classic, Ciceronian, Augustan, post-Augustan and post-classic or late Latin, which indicates the term already was in professional use by English classicists in the early 19th century. Instances of English vernacular use of the term may also be found from the 18th century. The term Late Antiquity meaning post-classical and pre-medieval had currency in English well before then.

Imperial Latin
Wilhelm Siegmund Teuffel's first edition (1870) of History of Roman Literature defined an early period, the Golden Age, the Silver Age and then goes on to define other ages first by dynasty and then by century (see under Classical Latin). In subsequent editions he subsumed all periods under three headings: the First Period (Old Latin), the Second Period (the Golden Age) and the Third Period, "the Imperial Age", subdivided into the Silver Age, the 2nd century, and the 3rd–6th centuries together, which was a recognition of Late Latin, as he sometimes refers to the writings of those times as "late". Imperial Latin went on into English literature; Fowler's History of Roman Literature mentions it in 1903.

The beginning and end of Imperial Latin is not well-defined. Politically, the excluded Augustan Period is the paradigm of imperiality, but the style cannot be grouped with either the Silver Age or with Late Latin. In 6th-century Italy, the Western Roman Empire no longer existed and the rule of Gothic kings prevailed. Subsequently, the term Imperial Latin was dropped by historians of Latin literature, although it may be seen in marginal works. The Silver Age was extended a century, and the four centuries following made use of Late Latin.

Low Latin
Low Latin is a vague and often pejorative term that might refer to any post-classical Latin from Late Latin through Renaissance Latin, depending on the author. Its origins are obscure, but the Latin expression media et infima Latinitas sprang into public notice in 1678 in the title of a Glossary (by today's standards a dictionary) by Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange. The multivolume set had many editions and expansions by other authors subsequently. The title varies somewhat; most commonly used was Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis. It has been translated by expressions of widely different meanings. The uncertainty is understanding what media, "middle", and infima, "low", mean in this context.

The term media is securely connected to Medieval Latin by du Cange's own terminology expounded in the Praefatio, such as scriptores mediae aetatis, "writers of the middle age". Du Cange's Glossary takes words from authors ranging from the Christian period (Late Latin) to the Renaissance, dipping into the classical period if a word originated there. Either media et infima Latinitas refers to one age, which must be the middle age covering the entire post-classical range, or it refers to two consecutive periods, infima Latinitas and media Latinitas. Both interpretations have their adherents.

In the former case, the infimae appears extraneous; it recognizes the corruptio of the corrupta Latinitas du Cange said his Glossary covered. The two-period case postulates a second unity of style, infima Latinitas, translated into English as "Low Latin" (which in the one-period case would be identical to media Latinitas). Du Cange in the glossarial part of his Glossary identifies some words as being used by purioris Latinitatis scriptores, such as Cicero (of the Golden Age). He has already said in the Preface that he rejects the ages scheme used by some: Golden Age, Silver Age, Brass Age, Iron Age. A second category are the inferioris Latinitatis scriptores, such as Apuleius (Silver Age). The third and main category are the infimae Latinitatis scriptores, who must be post-classical; that is, Late Latin, unless they are also medieval. His failure to state which authors are low leaves the issue unresolved.

He does, however, give some idea of the source of his infima, which is a classical word, "lowest", of which the comparative degree is inferior, "lower". In the preface, he opposes the style of the scriptores aevi inferioris (Silver Age) to the elegantes sermones, "elegant speech", the high and low styles of Latinitas defined by the classical authors. Apparently, du Cange was basing his low style on sermo humilis, the simplified speech devised by Late Latin Christian writers to address the ordinary people. Humilis (humble, humility) means "low", "of the ground". The Christian writers were not interested in the elegant speech of the best or classical Latin, which belonged to their aristocratic pagan opponents. Instead, they preferred a humbler style lower in correctness, so that they might better deliver the gospel to the vulgus or "common people".

Low Latin in this view is the Latin of the two periods in which it has the least degree of purity, or is most corrupt. By corrupt, du Cange only meant that the language had resorted to nonclassical vocabulary and constructs from various sources, but his choice of words was unfortunate. It allowed the "corruption" to extend to other aspects of society, providing fuel for the fires of religious (Catholic vs. Protestant) and class (conservative vs. revolutionary) conflict. Low Latin passed from the heirs of the Italian renaissance to the new philologists of the northern and Germanic climes, where it became a different concept.

In Britain, Gildas' view that Britain fell to the Anglo-Saxons because it was morally slack was already well known to the scholarly world. The northern Protestants now worked a role reversal; if the language was "corrupt", it must be symptomatic of a corrupt society, which indubitably led to a "decline and fall", as Edward Gibbon put it, of imperial society. Writers taking this line relied heavily on the scandalous behavior of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the bad emperors reported by Tacitus and other writers and later by the secret history of Procopius, who hated his royal employers to such a degree that he could not contain himself about their real methods and way of life any longer. They, however, spoke elegant Latin. The Protestants changed the scenario to fit their ideology that the church needed to be purified of corruption. For example, Baron Bielfeld, a Prussian officer and comparative Latinist, characterised the low in Low Latin, which he saw as medieval Latin, as follows: "The fourth age of the Latin tongue is that of the remainder of the middle age, and the 1st centuries of modern times, during which the language fell by degrees into so great a decadency, that it became nothing better than a barbarous jargon. It is the style of these times that is given the name of Low Latin.... What indeed could be expected from this language, at a time when the barbarians had taken possession of Europe, but especially of Italy; when the empire of the east was governed by idiots; when there was a total corruption of morals; when the priests and monks were the only men of letters, and were at the same time the most ignorant and futile mortals in the world. Under these times of darkness, we must, therefore, rank that Latin, which is called lingua ecclesiastica, and which we cannot read without disgust."

As 'Low Latin' tends to be muddled with Vulgar Latin, Late Latin and Medieval Latin and has unfortunate extensions of meaning into the sphere of socioeconomics, it has gone out of use by the mainstream philologists of Latin literature. A few writers on the periphery still mention it, influenced by the dictionaries and classic writings of former times.

As Teuffel's scheme of the Golden Age and the Silver Age is the generally accepted one, the canonical list of authors should begin just after the end of the Silver Age, regardless of what 3rd century event is cited as the beginning; otherwise there are gaps. Teuffel gave the end of the Silver Age as the death of Hadrian at 138 CE. His classification of styles left a century between that event and his final period, the 3rd–6th centuries CE, which was in other systems being considered Late Antiquity. Starting with Charles Thomas Crutwell's A History of Roman Literature from the Earliest Period to the Death of Marcus Aurelius, which first came out in 1877, English literary historians have included the spare century in Silver Latin. Accordingly, the latter ends with the death of the last of the five good emperors in 180 CE. Other authors use other events, such as the end of the Nervan–Antonine dynasty in 192 CE or later events. A good round date of gives a canonical list of nearly no overlap.

The transition between Late Latin and Medieval Latin is by no means as easy to assess. Taking that media et infima Latinitas was one style, Mantello in a recent handbook asserts of "the Latin used in the middle ages" that it is "here interpreted broadly to include late antiquity and therefore to extend from c. AD 200 to 1500." Although recognizing "late antiquity" he does not recognize Late Latin. It did not exist and Medieval Latin began directly from 200 CE. In this view all differences from Classical Latin are bundled as though they evolved through a single continuous style.

Of the two-style interpretations the Late Latin period of Erich Auerbach and others is one of the shortest: "In the first half of the 6th century, which witnessed the beginning and end of Ostrogoth rule in Italy, Latin literature becomes medieval. Boethius was the last 'ancient' author and the role of Rome as the center of the ancient world, as communis patria, was at an end." In essence, the lingua franca of classical vestiges was doomed when Italy was overrun by the Goths, but its momentum carried it one lifetime further, ending with the death of Boethius in 524 CE.

Not everyone agrees that the lingua franca came to an end with the fall of Rome, but argue that it continued and became the language of the reinstituted Carolingian Empire (predecessor of the Holy Roman Empire) under Charlemagne. Toward the end of his reign his administration conducted some language reforms. The first recognition that Late Latin could not be understood by the masses and therefore was not a lingua franca was the decrees of 813 CE by synods at Mainz, Rheims Tours that from then on preaching was to be done in a language more understandable to the people, which was stated by Tours Canon 17 as rustica Romana lingua, identified as Romance, the descendant of Vulgar Latin. Late Latin as defined by Meillet was at an end; however, Pucci's Harrington's Mediaeval Latin sets the end of Late Latin when Romance began to be written, "Latin retired to the cloister" and "Romanitas lived on only in the fiction of the Holy Roman Empire." The final date given by those authors is 900 CE.

Through the death of Boethius

 * Domitius Ulpianus (170–228), jurist, imperial officer
 * Julius Paulus (2nd & 3rd centuries), jurist, imperial officer
 * Aelius Marcianus (2nd & 3rd centuries), jurist
 * Herennius Modestinus (3rd century), jurist
 * Censorinus (3rd century), historian, essayist
 * Quintus Gargilius Martialis (3rd century), horticulturalist, pharmacologist
 * Gaius Asinius Quadratus (3rd century), historian
 * Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (160–220), "the father of Latin Christianity", polemicist against heresy
 * Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus (200–258), converted rhetorician, bishop of Carthage, martyr, saint
 * Novatianus (200–258), theologian, rival pope, excommunicant
 * Quintus Serenus Sammonicus (2nd century, early 3rd century), scholar, educator
 * Commodianus (3rd century), poet, Christian educator
 * Lucius Caelius Firmianus Lactantius (240–320), converted rhetorician, scholar, Christian apologist and educator
 * Ammianus Marcellinus (4th century), soldier, imperial officer, historian
 * Claudius Claudianus (4th century), court poet
 * Gaius Julius Solinus (3rd or 4th century), topical writer
 * Nonius Marcellus (3rd or 4th century), topical writer
 * Marcus Aurelius Olympius Nemesianus (fl. 283), poet
 * Aquila Romanus (3rd century), rhetorician
 * Eumenius of Autun (3rd century), educator
 * Aelius Festus Aphthonius (3rd or 4th century), grammarian
 * Calcidius (4th century), translator
 * Gaius Marius Victorinus (4th century), converted philosopher
 * Arnobius of Sicca (4th century), Christian apologist
 * Constantine I (272–337), first Christian emperor
 * Nazarius (4th century), rhetorician, educator
 * Gaius Julius Victor (4th century), rhetorician
 * Gaius Vettius Aquilinus Juvencus (4th century), Christian poet
 * Nonius Marcellus (3rd and 4th centuries), grammarian, lexicographer
 * Julius Firmicus Maternus (4th century), converted advocate, pagan and Christian writer
 * Aelius Donatus (4th century), grammarian, rhetorician, educator
 * Palladius (408/431 – 457/461), saint, first bishop of Ireland
 * Sextus Aurelius Victor (320–390), imperial officer, historian
 * Eutropius (4th century), imperial officer, historian
 * Aemilius Magnus Arborius (4th century), poet, educator, friend of the imperial family
 * Decimius Magnus Ausonius (c. 310 – 395), poet, rhetorician, educator, friend of the imperial family
 * Claudius Mamertinus (4th century), imperial officer, panegyricist, embezzler
 * Hilarius (4th century), converted neo-Platonist, theologian, bishop of Poitiers, saint
 * Ambrosius (337/340–397), theologian, Bishop of Milan, saint
 * Lucifer (d. 370/371), theologian, Bishop of Sardinia
 * Priscillianus (d. 385), theologian, first person executed as a heretic
 * Flavius Sosipater Charisius (4th century), grammarian
 * Diomedes Grammaticus (4th century), grammarian
 * Postumius Rufus Festus Avienius (4th century), imperial officer, poet, translator
 * Priscianus Caesariensis ( 500), grammarian

title: Late Latin


text:
List of monarchs of Mercia

The Kingdom of Mercia was a state in the English Midlands from the 6th century to the 10th century. For some two hundred years from the mid-7th century onwards it was the dominant member of the Heptarchy and consequently the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. During this period its rulers became the first English monarchs to assume such wide-ranging titles as King of Britain and King of the English.

Spellings varied widely in this period, even within a single document, and a number of variants exist for the names given below. For example, the sound th was usually represented with the Old English letters ð or þ.

For the Continental predecessors of the Mercians in Angeln, see List of kings of the Angles. For their successors see List of English monarchs.

Kings of the Mercians
The traditional rulers of Mercia were known as the Iclingas, descendants of the kings of the Angles. When the Iclingas became extinct in the male line, a number of other families, labelled B, C and W by historians, competed for the throne.

{{legend|#ffc|Iclingas}} {{legend|#def|B-dynasty (so-called – a conjectural grouping based on names alone)}} {{legend|wheat|C-dynasty (traditionally a branch of the Iclingas, probably instead descended from the West Saxon king Cenwalh and his Iclinga wife)}} {{legend|#cfc|W-dynasty (Wiglaf and his descendants, later intermarried with C)}} {{legend|#fff|Unknown dynastic affiliation}} {{legend|thistle|Mercia under external occupation}} {{legend|#ffe8e8|Æthelred II and family (recognising West Saxon overlordship)}}

All the following are kings, unless specified. Those in italics are probably legendary, are of dubious authenticity, or may not have reigned.

Ealdormen and Earls of the Mercians
The chief magnate of Mercia as an English province held the title of ealdorman until 1023/32, and earl thereafter. Both offices were royal appointments, but the latter in effect became hereditary.

{{legend|#fff|Ealdormen of the Mercians (non-dynastic)}} {{legend|#ffe8e8|Earls of the Mercians (descendants of Leofwine)}}

Earls of March
The title Earl of March (etymologically identical to 'Earl of Mercia') was created in the western Midlands for Roger Mortimer in 1328. It has fallen extinct, and been recreated, three times since then, and exists today as a subsidiary title of the Duke of Richmond and Lennox.

title: List of monarchs of Mercia


text:
Ron Glass

Ronald Earle Glass (July 10, 1945 – November 25, 2016) was an American actor. He was known for his roles as literary Det. Ron Harris in the television sitcom Barney Miller (1975–1982), and as the spiritual shepherd, Shepherd Book, in the science fiction series Firefly (2002) and its sequel film Serenity (2005).

Early life
Glass was born in Evansville, Indiana, the son of Lethia and Crump Glass.

After graduating from St. Francis Seminary in 1964, Glass attended the University of Evansville, where he received a Bachelor of Arts, double majoring in drama and literature. Years later, the university awarded him its Medal of Honor. Glass said in 2007 he knew while he was in college that he wanted to act. With a teacher's encouragement, he performed in a play and went on to an acting career.

Career
Glass made his stage debut at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, Minnesota, before moving to Hollywood. His earliest TV appearances include episodes of Sanford and Son in 1972, an episode of Hawaii Five-O in 1973, an episode of Maude in 1973, an episode of All in the Family in 1973, an episode of The Bob Newhart Show, and episodes of Good Times in 1974. In 1975, he landed the role of Det. Ron Harris in Barney Miller, which ran until 1982.

The following season, Glass co-starred with Demond Wilson on television in a remake of The Odd Couple, called The New Odd Couple. On December 13, 1985, he played a soul-collecting devil opposite Sherman Hemsley's mathematics professor in an episode of the revived Twilight Zone series. In 1992, he co-starred in the sitcom Rhythm and Blues, a kind of "black WKRP, playing "the fifth Top" opposite Roger Kabler.

In 1996, Glass was cast as uptight history teacher Roland Felcher in NBC sitcom Mr. Rhodes opposite comedian Tom Rhodes. In 1999, he appeared in two episodes of NBC sitcom Friends as Ross Geller's divorce lawyer, Russell.

After that, Glass appeared in dozens of television series, including sitcoms such as Family Matters and the series Teen Angel, where he played God's cousin Rod. He had a guest appearance in the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Nightingale". He was a series regular in the science fiction series Firefly (2002) and the sequel film Serenity (2005), in which he played Derrial Book, a Christian "Shepherd" with a mysterious past. Glass provided the voice of Randy Carmichael for the Nickelodeon series All Grown Up! and Rugrats, and the character Garth in the video game Fable II. In 2008 he appeared in the film Lakeview Terrace alongside Samuel L. Jackson and starred in the 2010 version of Death at a Funeral as Duncan.

Personal life and death
Glass never married, and though raised Catholic became a devout Buddhist, and a member of Soka Gakkai International. He died of respiratory failure on November 25, 2016, at the age of 71. He is interred at the Rose Hills Memorial Park in Whittier, California.

title: Ron Glass