text:
Mao Zemin

Mao Zemin (April 3, 1896 – September 27, 1943), also using Zhou Bin as his alias, was born in Xiangtan, Hunan province. He was the head of the state bank of the Chinese Soviet Republic in Ruijin and also the Minister of National Economic Department. He was a younger brother of Mao Zedong and joined the Chinese Communist Party early on. During World War II, he was sent to Xinjiang by the Party central committee in 1938. He and Chen Tanqiu were arrested by the warlord Sheng Shicai while at Ürümqi, Xinjiang. Zemin was executed on September 27, 1943.

Life
Mao Zemin (who took Runlian 润莲 as his courtesy name) was a brother of communist leaders Mao Zedong and Mao Zetan. He joined in the CCP in 1922. He was appointed the minister of the economic department in the Fujian-Guangdong-Jiangxi (闽粤赣, "Minyuegan") area in 1931 and the manager of national bank later in the year. Mao Zemin studied in school for only 4 years.

In the autumn of 1921, Mao Zemin studied in the Hunan self-study University which was founded by Mao Zedong and raised money for the CCP. At the end of the year he joined the Chinese Communist Party.

In November 1922, Mao organized the workers’ strike in Changsha. At the end of 1922, he went to promote the workers’ movement in Anyuan, and served as chief of the workers economy club. In February 1923, he involved in organizing the establishment of joint-stock economic entities under the leadership from the party, known as the Anyuan Road miners’ consumer cooperatives. In August, he was elected as the general manager, while maintained the interest and expanded the welfare of workers at the same time, he also accumulated and prepared funds for the party's activities.

In February 1925, Mao Zemin went to Xiangtan, Xiangxiang for workers’ movement with his brother, built the first countryside party organization. In September, he went to Guangzhou for workers’ Movement study.

In July 1931, Zemin went into the central revolutionary area, he served as Minister of economic department in Fujian, Guangdong and Jiangxi. In December 1931, he was appointed as the Finance Committee member and the manager of the National Bank by the Central Government. at the meantime, he was a part-time manager of the Chinese company which produced tungsten ore.

In October 1934, Mao Zemin as the president of the National Bank to participate in the Long March with the Central Red Army and served as political commissar of the Central 15th brigade, helped to collect food, funds and the whole supply work for the army during the Long March. In November 1935, the Long March reached the northern of Shaanxi province, he was appointed as the economy minister of the government and led the national economic Ministry to break the military blockade of Yan Xishan in Shanxi, helped to transport the cloth and cotton and organized workers to make cotton cloth for the army. In April 1937, he went to Shanghai to perform specific financial tasks.

On September 17, 1942, Mao Zemin along with fellow communist Chen Tanqiu was arrested by the warlord Sheng Shicai, who had been working closely with the Soviet Union but then turned against them. In prison, Sheng Shicai used torture to force Zemin to confess to a Chinese Communist Party plot against the government and to force him to quit the Communist Party. He refused to yield and was executed.

His son, Mao Yuanxin, was important in Mao's last years.

title: Mao Zemin


text:
Wail al-Shehri

Wail Mohammed al-Shehri (وائل الشهري, Wāīl ash-Shehrī; also transliterated as Alshehri) (31 July 1973 – 11 September 2001) was a Saudi terrorist hijacker. He was one of five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, which was flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center as part of the 11 September attacks in 2001.

Wail al-Shehri was an elementary school teacher from Khamis Mushait in the Asir region of Saudi Arabia. In early 2000, he traveled to Medina to seek treatment for mental problems. He and his younger brother Waleed traveled to Afghanistan in March 2000 and joined an Al-Qaeda training camp. The brothers were chosen, along with others from the same region of Saudi Arabia, to participate in the 11 September attacks. Once selected, al-Shehri returned to Saudi Arabia in October 2000 to obtain a clean passport, then returned to Afghanistan. In March 2001, he recorded his last will and testament on video.

Al-Shehri arrived in the United States in early June 2001, staying in budget motels in the Boynton Beach area of south Florida. On 5 September 2001, al-Shehri traveled to Boston and checked into a motel with his brother. Six days later, al-Shehri arrived early in the morning at Boston's Logan International Airport and boarded American Airlines Flight 11. Fifteen minutes after takeoff, al-Shehri, along with his brother and three others, hijacked the airliner. They deliberately crashed it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m.

In the aftermath of the attacks, some news reports mistakenly reported that al-Shehri was the son of a Saudi diplomat and was still alive and well. The al-Shehri family in Khamis Mushait spoke to the media, denying those early reports, saying that the al-Shehri brothers had disappeared and have not been heard from since.

Background
Wail al-Shehri and his younger brother Waleed were from Khamis Mushait in the Asir province, which is an impoverished area in southwestern Saudi Arabia, along the Yemeni border. Al-Shehri was born in Annams, and grew up in the Um Saraar neighborhood in Khamis Mushait. He had ten brothers and one sister. Several of al-Shehri's brothers joined the Saudi military, while his uncle may have been a major in the army and director of logistics. Al-Shehri's father, Mohammed Ali Asgley Al Shehri, worked as a car dealer. On weekends, the family often spent time together at the Red Sea. The family strictly adhered to the Wahabi school of Islam, which forbids many elements of modernity. As such, the al-Shehri family did not have satellite television or Internet, nor did his parents permit music or contact with girls. Some of Wail al-Shehri's elder brothers had visited the United States and could speak English; however, he knew little English.

During high school and college, al-Shehri was deeply religious and attended Al-Seqley Mosque, which his family had built as the local mosque. Al-Shehri also frequented government-supported religious camps in Saudi Arabia. At this time, there were strong religious feelings in Saudi Arabia, especially in the Asir region. Many young people in the region idolized Osama bin Laden, who had family ties to the area. Al-Shehri's father was a friend of Bin Laden's father, Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden. Ahmed al-Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi, who were both hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93, came from the same area in Saudi Arabia as the Shehri family.

After graduating from Abha teachers college in 1999, Wail al-Shehri took a job as an elementary school physical education teacher at the Khamis Mushait airbase. Five months into the job, al-Shehri took leave due to mental illness and depression. Rather than conventional therapy, al-Shehri sought consultation with Muslim clerics, and hoped that a visit to Medina would help. His treatment involved verses from the Qur'an read to him by a sheikh. He traveled to Medina together with Waleed. After the 11 September attacks, others recalled seeing the al-Shehri brothers in Medina.

Afghanistan
Wail and Waleed al-Shehri disappeared after going to Medina, calling their father just once; in the conversation, the brothers were vague about when they would return. Both had expressed interest in joining the jihad in Chechnya, though may have been diverted to Afghanistan. Before disappearing, the al-Shehri brothers went to Al-Seqley Mosque to swear an oath and commitment to jihad, as did Ahmed al-Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi. Wail al-Shehri presided over the ceremony, dubbing himself Abu Mossaeb al-Janubi after one of Muhammad's companions.

In March 2000, he left for Pakistan with Waleed and Ahmed al-Nami; later, they went on to Afghanistan. Wail al-Shehri followed the standard path for new al-Qaeda recruits in Afghanistan, spending time in the Khalden training camp and then Al Farouq training camp near Kandahar. Details on how the non-pilot ("muscle") hijackers were chosen for the 9/11 attacks are vague, though the hijackers appear to have been selected by senior al-Qaeda leaders in 2000 from the thousands of recruits at training camps in Afghanistan. The most capable and motivated volunteers were at al-Farouq, and Saudi citizens were good candidates, since it would be easy for them to obtain visas to travel to the United States. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet later said that the muscle hijackers were probably told little about their mission in the United States.

Once al-Shehri and the other muscle hijackers completed their training in Afghanistan, they received $2,000 so they could return to Saudi Arabia to obtain new passports and visas. The al-Shehri brothers may have been assisted by a relative who worked in the Saudi passport office. Wail and Waleed al-Shehri received passports on 3 October 2000, and then obtained United States visas on 24 October. On his visa application, Wail al-Shehri provided vague information, stating his employer/school as "South City", and his destination as "Wasantwn". Al-Shehri indicated his occupation as "teacher", and that he would be traveling with his brother on a four-to-six month vacation, which would be paid for with al-Shehri's teacher salary. Although he would not be working while on vacation, consular officials nonetheless did not question if the al-Shehri brothers had the financial means to support themselves while in the United States.

In late 2000, al-Shehri traveled to the United Arab Emirates, where he purchased traveler's checks, presumed to have been paid for by Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. Five other hijackers passed through the United Arab Emirates and purchased traveler's checks, including Majed Moqed, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Haznawi and Ahmed al-Nami. The 9/11 Commission believes that in mid-November 2000, three of the future muscle hijackers, including the al-Shehri brothers, traveled in a group from Saudi Arabia to Beirut and then onward to Iran where they could travel through to Afghanistan without getting their passports stamped. An associate of a senior Hezbollah operative is thought to have been on the same flight, although this may have been a coincidence.

Wail al-Shehri appeared together with hijackers Ahmed al-Nami, Hamza al-Ghamdi, and Ahmed al-Ghamdi on a video recorded in March 2001, and aired on Al Jazeera in September 2002. Al-Shehri was seen studying maps and flight manuals, but he did not speak in the video; it also included a segment of Abdulaziz al-Omari reading his last will and testament. While in Afghanistan, another video was recorded that showed al-Shehri reading his last will and testament. This video was released on 7 September 2006.

United States
On 5 June 2001, Wail al-Shehri obtained an International Driving Permit, which was issued in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. Al-Shehri arrived together with fellow al-Qaeda member Ahmed al-Haznawi at Miami International Airport, via London, from Dubai on 8 June. Both were admitted as tourists for six months. Al-Shehri opened a bank account at SunTrust Bank in Florida on 18 June, with a deposit of $8,000 that came from American Express traveler's cheques purchased on 7 June in the United Arab Emirates.

Al-Shehri moved into the Homing Inn, a budget motel in Boynton Beach, on 21 June 2001, sharing a room with his brother Waleed, and Satam al-Suqami. Wail al-Shehri and al-Suqami both used this hotel as their address when they received Florida state non-driver identifications on 3 July. Al-Shehri checked into the Panther Motel & Apartments, in Deerfield Beach, with his brother and al-Suqami on 2 August, staying there until August 10. While in Florida, al-Shehri was a member of the World Gym in Boynton Beach, where he trained with Waleed and al-Suqami. During the summer of 2001, al-Shehri regularly used computers at the Delray Beach Public Library.

On 28 August 2001, Wail and Waleed al-Shehri made reservations on American Airlines Flight 11, using the Mail Boxes Etc. in Hollywood, Florida, as their address. The al-Shehri brothers contacted American Airlines on 3 September by telephone to change their first-class seat assignments for American Airlines Flight 11, selecting seats on the side of the aircraft that offered a direct view of the cockpit. Wail and Waleed al-Shehri left Florida for Boston on 5 September, traveling together on Delta Air Lines Flight 2462.

Wail al-Shehri checked in together with Waleed at the Park Inn Hotel in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, on 5 September 2001, staying in room 432. While staying at the Park Inn, the brothers may have called a prostitute. Wail al-Shehri accompanied his brother on 9 September to the Travelex at Logan International Airport, where Waleed attempted to wire $5,000 to the United Arab Emirates. Waleed had insufficient documentation, so the brothers returned the next day to complete the transaction. Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad received the funds on 11 September at Al-Ansari Exchange in Sharjah. Hijacker Abdulaziz al-Omari possibly spent a night at the Park Inn before leaving with Mohamed Atta for Portland, Maine, on 10 September. When Wail and Waleed al-Shehri checked out on 11 September, they left a sheet of instructions for flying a jet behind in their hotel room.

Attacks
Wail al-Shehri, his brother Waleed, and Satam al-Suqami arrived together at Logan Airport at 06:45 on 11 September 2001. Upon check-in, all three men were selected by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) for further screening of their checked baggage. As the CAPPS was only for luggage, the three hijackers did not undergo any extra scrutiny at the passenger security checkpoint.

By 07:40, all five hijackers were aboard the flight, which was scheduled to depart at 07:45. Wail and Waleed al-Shehri sat together in first class in seats 2A and 2B respectively. The aircraft taxied away from Gate 26, and departed Logan International Airport at 07:59, following a 14-minute delay. Flight 11 was hijacked at approximately 08:14, which is when the pilot stopped responding to air traffic control. It is suspected that the brothers stabbed two flight attendants in the hijacking. At 08:46:40, Mohamed Atta, who was flying the plane, deliberately crashed Flight 11 into the northern facade of the North Tower (Tower 1) of the World Trade Center between floors 93 and 99. The immediate damage destroyed any means of escape from above the impact zone, trapping 1,344 people. The North Tower collapsed at 10:28, after burning for 102 minutes.

Aftermath
Waleed al-Shehri was reported to have been found alive by a BBC News article on 23 September 2001, and other news reports in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks. Reports said that the al-Shehri brothers were the sons of a Saudi diplomat stationed in New Delhi, Ahmed al-Shehri. The diplomat's son was trained as a pilot at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, and was working as a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. At the time of the attacks, he was in Morocco for a training program. There were also reports that Wail al-Shehri was a trained pilot. In the aftermath of the 11 September attacks, Saudi officials suggested that Wail and Waleed al-Shehri were victims of identity theft, but the diplomat's son was the victim of mistaken identity.

Jamal Khashoggi, of Al-Watan and ArabNews in Saudi Arabia, spoke with Muhammad Ali al-Shehri in Khamis Mushait, who said his sons Wail and Waleed had been missing for months. He denied reports that Wail had an aeronautics degree, as some news reports said, "My son Wail was 25 years old and had a BA in physical education from the Abha Teacher’s College. He was mentally ill and had gone to numerous clerics for assistance in overcoming this instability. He had asked the school, where he taught, for a 6-month leave to go to Madinah." His father also told reporters that he dreaded having to believe that his sons were involved in the 11 September attacks, "If that turns out to be the truth, then I'll never, never accept it from them. I'll never forgive them for that." Family members said that Wail and Waleed became very religious in the months before they disappeared, had expressed interest in going to Chechnya, and hoped for martyrdom. In a report entitled "A Saudi Apology" for Dateline NBC aired on 25 August 2002, John Hockenberry traveled to Asir, where he interviewed another al-Shehri brother, Salah, who agreed that Wail and Waleed were deceased. Salah described them as not very religious, and suggested they had been brainwashed.

Saudi officials later stated that the names of the hijackers were in fact correct, and that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. In response to 9/11 conspiracy theories surrounding its original news story suggesting hijackers were still alive, the BBC stated in 2006 that later reports on the hijackers superseded the original story. The BBC also explained that confusion arose with the Arabic names that were common.

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

title: Wail al-Shehri


text:
User:MattTM

My name is Matt. I have been a registered Wikipedia user since July 23rd, 2004. If you have anything you'd like to tell me, please head over to my talk page.

Contributions
Ali G, Bill Maher, Borat, Bruno, Da Ali G Show, G4techTV, Mutable Realms, Phil Keoghan, Ronn Owens, Sacha Baron Cohen, The Amazing Race, The Amazing Race 1, The Amazing Race 2, The Amazing Race 3, The Amazing Race 4, The Amazing Race 5, The Amazing Race 6, The Apprentice, The Apprentice 1, The Apprentice 2, The Apprentice 2 Candidates, Wish

Image:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png, Image:TheAmazingRace-yield.png

title: User:MattTM


text:
Talk:Mudra

Broken link
This external link is broken: http://www.livemaster.org/archive/KujiIn_front_low.wmv {{user Birmingham, Alabama}} 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Content
There was a large, unattributed excerpt from a webpage that was sloppily pasted into the article. I got rid of it. Was this the right thing to do? Sengge 20:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup. Melchoir 09:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

the articles should be seperated
the music article and the religious one should be seperate.
 * Good call. Done. Sengge 02:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abhisheka mudra?
Could someone knowledgeable have a look at Image:VairochanaMingCopper.jpg? The plaque in the museum says "Vairochana is seated with his hands in the gesture of anointing (abhisheka mudra)." There is only confusing information online and none here; an explanation would be great. Melchoir 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hand seals used in other religions and disciplines
I heard that this kind of hand seals are used in many other areas, e.g. these are used in Buddhism, Taoism, Ninjutsu etc. The article should probably expand on these areas. ,   Kowloonese 01:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe your last link is about Naruto, which uses fact and fiction about ninjustu. I am not sure if mudras (does that plural work?) really are used, but I would research real ninjutsu. Best not to mix up the facts... 69.192.62.63 00:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mudra with the body?
I found exist these other mudras (Ashvini Mudra, Maha Mudra, Viparitakarani Mudra, Yoga Mudra), they involve the use of the entire body but there is no mention of them in the article; is there someone that can explain it? I know almost nothing about yoga or Hinduism.--Dia^ 09:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * There are scores, if not hundreds, of other mudras. See the external links. I have flagged the list as incomplete.--Shantavira 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Request: a call to Wikikin to populate a section of "Cross-cultural correlates" with...
An informing cross-cultural correlate to Mudra is evidenced in the technique of anchoring within Neuro-linguistic programming... the correlation is intuitive and pointed...deixis: martial arts discourse may furnish a marriage of anchoring with mudra.

Count ur blessings! B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 * "the correlation is intuitive..." - that's called original research and is not permitted. You must find someone who has written about the correlation and cite them. IPSOS (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The correlation is patently apparent. Like the relationship between breath, food and life.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * According to Verifiability "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Can you find a WP:RS that supports the point you are trying to make? Buddhipriya 07:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Twilight language: godsmacked
Twilight language (and the Sanskrit term from which it is rendered) is a valuable categorisation term that fords dialogue between mutually informing technologies and processes. I am godsmacked how you can dismiss it out of turn.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 * But what's it got to do with this article? The quote is vague and has no infomation specific to mudra. It a non sequitur in the lead section of this article. The way you frame it, it seems to belong in an article about the differnce between Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. This leads away from the actual topic of the article and there is no followup to show how it connects. It just "out there" and "ungrounded", to use a couple more "hippy" terms. IPSOS (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 * This is a case of content spamming. The material seems to me to be irrelevant to the topic of the article, and it is not clear how the source specifically qualifies as a WP:RS with regard to the subject of the article, which is Mudra.  This may also be a case of WP:OR, with subsequent spamming of the same idea on multiple articles. Buddhipriya 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd agree with that assessment. When the same thing is pasted into multiple articles, I don't see how it can possibly fit any of them. IPSOS (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 * We have continued content spamming of the same material again, with no discussion on the talk page to try to get a dialog: . We have established that this "twilight language" terminology is a technical term in Buddhist tantra, and I object to its general use here as a form as type of WP:UNDUE emphasis on a marginal issue.  Since the editor persists in this content spamming, I now that that an RfC or other measure is called for.  What do others feel should be done to deal with this ongoing content dispute where one editor refuses to engage in dialog? Buddhipriya 22:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of Harvnb template
Would there be any objection to use of the Harvnb template for citations, placed within footnotes (not as visible inline Harvard-style citations)? Since there are almost no references for this article, it seems like a good time to add some and install better critical apparatus. Buddhipriya 04:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced article makes no distinction between uses in Hinduism and Buddhism
This unsourced article makes many general statements and gives an impression of being mainly concerned with Buddhist iconography. Uses of these gestures in Hinduism may differ. Most of the sources that I have on hand that could be used for this article pertain to Hinduism. I am unsure how to proceed on some of these specific gestures, because of lack of familiarity with Buddhist art. Since it is almost entirely unsourced, are there any feelings about how to deal with this issue? Buddhipriya 03:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * there is more difference within traditions than there is between them...well in regards to Mudra anyway :-D
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

 * This does not address the issue I brought up on your talk page, and yet you have reverted without discussion again. Why? GlassFET 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh?
What does "the left hand hanging down on the right side of the while standing" mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Epopt (talk • contribs).

Lead
This is not only near-incomprehensible, but incorrect:

 * Mudrā (Sanskrit) is a 'spiritual gesture' and energetic 'seal of authenticity' employed in the iconography and sadhana of Dharmic Traditions and Taoic Traditions; particularly those influenced by Tantra, Shinto and Shamanism.

What is the basis for the last sentence? In the meantime, I've rewritten the lead as follows:

 * A mudrā (Sanskrit: मुद्रा, lit. "seal") is a symbolic or ritual gesture in Hinduism and Buddhism. While some mudras involve the entire body, most are performed with the hands and fingers.

Comments welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you removed it, but it reappeared almost immediately. But I agree, & will refactor. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Namasté
Is Namasté not a mudra? __meco (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Some people use it synonymously with anjali mudra while many others say "prayer hands" to describe its connotation. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Mudra
the word "mudra" is a gay lingo for mother in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.247.76 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Illustration
I find it difficult to understand many the descriptions. I think it would help to have illustrations (drawings or photographs) to illustrate each mudra discussed?--Gak (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree! Can someone who understands these mudras provide illustrations or photos? DBlomgren (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I will create some illustrations. Stay tuned.Riwo (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Christianity
There are examples of what look (to me anyway) like mudras in the art of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Christ is often portrayed with his index and middle fingers extended, like the Cub Scout sign, or with his fingers in other (apparently intentional) arrangements. - User:WillWare
 * http://www.orthodox-icon.com/icon_gal/icon004.jpg
 * http://www.replicoins.com/assets/images/Web-Byz-Good-Christ.jpg
 * http://images.auctionworks.com/hi/47/46577/framed_christ_teacher.jpg

 * Yes, this is Surya (Sun) mudra, seen on many icons. The artists understood the position of JC as the Adi Surya, original Sun God, Surya Narayana. See
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_the_Julii
 * http://www.sahajayoga.com.au/news/2006/12/19/agnya-chakra/
 * If someone knows some studies about this, add this info to the article. (Btw, your first two links are already dead.)
 * Jan 90.177.206.31 (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These are blessing gestures in which the position of the fingers is intended to represent the Christogram, or initials of "Jesus Christ" in Greek. I think there are more conventions than our article fully covers. I don't think they are entirely the same thing, but maybe worth a sentence, as also the Jewish Priestly Blessing. Any connection with chakras etc is totally fringe, frankly. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * There're too many connections between Israel and India. In the priestly blessing is interesting the V shape of fingers since the V or U sign was used as the forehead symbol among various theistic groups in Mediterranean area and beyond (http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi1113/html/ch-15.htm), Israelites included (see 'Greek and Roman Slavery' by Thomas Wiedemann) and can be seen on many icons, including Turin Shroud ('Vignon markings'). Jan 90.177.206.31 (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mudras"(hand-finger gestures) certainly existed in Europe. You see them on statues and paintings/murals of saints. Or in case of the tarot "The Devil" card.

Ted

Content removal
I had to remove the following section because it was misleading. The research is about interpretation of hand gestures and not about performing hand gestures. The articles states that recognizing hand gestures stimulates the same regions of the brain as interpreting a language. Performing hand gestures does not do the same.

 * A brain research paper published in the National Academy of Sciences in November 2009, demonstrated that hand gestures stimulate the same regions of the brain as language.

Gyana Mudrā ("mudra of wisdom")
For some time, this mudra was spelled as "Dhyāna Mudrā", a different mudra which has its own subsection. Having attempted to amend this, I don't know the proper accent marks for Gyana Mudrā, and the subsection's title spelling now has different accent marks from the subsection's text's spelling of Gyana. Is either spelling correct? Expert help requested, and thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello, it is gyān and can also be written as gyaan. Let me know if I can help with anything else! Hemmingweigh (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

To list or not to list?
Given that there are related articles called "List of mudras (dance)" and "List of mudras (yoga)," it would stand to reason that this article is not a place to list mudras, but rather to give an overview of what they, where they come from, and to compare various mudra traditions. I recommend removing the lists here, expanding the lists in related articles, and adding some references to support al of it. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. More, the examples should be diverse rather than all about pretty hand gestures. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I completely agree! Moving both of the lists here will make the information easier to find. Hemmingweigh (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Mudra has been an English word since before 1900
Merriam-Webster records Mudra used in English in 1811, so it's had over 200 years to assimilate into English: it's an English word now, wherever it came from.

Mudra has been widely used in English since before 1900, see this Ngram. As such it is different from the foreign word that it was borrowed from; asserting that it's still foreign is an Etymological fallacy: both the spelling and the meaning are free to shift with patterns of English usage, which may (fortunately or unfortunately according to taste) differ from usage in Hinduism or Buddhism (and those two are different from each other).

To save having this discussion at 100 talk pages, I suggest we continue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yoga.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Taoist Mudras
Mudras in Taoist tradition not mention. There are some overlap with Buddhist/Hindu traditiional mudras. Main difference is there is more weaving of fingers (and complex weaving of fingers).

2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:F9FB:7822:6AEA:A659 (talk)Ted2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:F9FB:7822:6AEA:A659 (talk) 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:F9FB:7822:6AEA:A659 (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi, if you have any sources I would be happy to help include them! Hemmingweigh (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mudra


text:
Linné (crater)

Linné is a small lunar impact crater located in the western Mare Serenitatis. It was named after Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus. The mare around this feature is virtually devoid of other features of interest. The nearest named crater is Banting to the east-southeast. The estimated age of this copernican crater is only a few tens of millions of years. It was earlier believed to have a bowl shape, but data from the LRO showed that it has a shape of a flattened, inverted cone. The crater is surrounded by a blanket of ejecta formed during the original impact. This ejecta has a relatively high albedo, making the feature appear bright. In 1824 Wilhelm Lohrmann (1786-1840) of Dresden had drawn Linné as an 8 km diameter crater in his acclaimed lunar atlas, and in 1837 Wilhelm Beer and Johann Heinrich Mädler had described Linne in Der Mond as a 10 km crater. In 1866, the experienced lunar observer and mapmaker Johann Friedrich Julius Schmidt made the surprising claim that Linné had changed its appearance. Instead of a normal, somewhat deep crater it had become a mere white patch. A controversy arose that continued for many decades. However, this crater size tests the limit of visual perception of Earth-based telescopes. In conditions of poor visibility this feature can appear to vanish from sight (see also transient lunar phenomenon).

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Linné.

The following craters have been renamed by the IAU.

 * Linné E — See Banting (crater).

title: Linné (crater)


text:
User:MeltBanana

Melt Banana is the perfect chillout music for after too much wiki.

 This page has a collection of quotations by or about: Things I wish I'd said.

The first man to use abusive language instead of his fists was the founder of civilization.
 * -- Sigmund Freud

All the historical books which contain no lies are extremely tedious.
 * -- Anatole France, Le Crime de Sylvestre Bonnard

When smashing monuments, save the pedestals -- they always come in handy.
 * -- Stanisław Jerzy Lec, Unkempt Thoughts

The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.
 * -- William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

For the credit of human nature, I am always pleased to discover some good qualities in those men whom party has represented as tyrants and monsters.
 * -- Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, XXI

Ever since poets have written and women have read them (for which the poets should be most deeply grateful) women have been called angels so many times that, in very truth, in their simplicity of soul, they have believed the compliment, forgetting that, for money, the same poets have glorified Nero as a demigod.
 * -- Mikhail Lermontov, A Hero of Our Time

Make your friends from Lego Cause Lego make a wall Write your love letters on rice paper At least you'll feed the poor
 * -- The Beautiful South, Foundations

Independence? That's middle class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth.
 * -- George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion

Sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality.
 * -- Carl Jung, Reflections

If your morals make you dreary, depend upon it they are wrong. I do not say "give them up," for they may be all you have; but conceal them like a vice, lest they should spoil the lives of better and simpler people.
 * -- Robert Louis Stevenson, Across The Plains

I think, for the rest of my life, I shall refrain from looking up things. It is the most ravenous time-snatcher I know. You pull one book from the shelf, which carries a hint or a reference that sends you posthaste to another book, and that to successive others..
 * -- Carolyn Wells, The Rest of My Life

Indeed, you cannot receive a shock unless you have an electric affinity for that which shocks you.
 * -- Henry David Thoreau, A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers

The wise learn many things from their foes.
 * -- Aristophanes, The Birds

I write what I would never dare tell anyone.
 * -- Primo Levi, If This Is a Man

Reality is a bitch. And that is hardly surprising, since it is the product of stupidity's fornication with the spirit of calculation — the dregs of the sacred illusion offered up to the jackals of science.
 * -- Jean Baudrillard, The Perfect Crime

The phrases men are accustomed to repeat incessantly, end by becoming convictions and ossify the organs of intelligence.
 * -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it.
 * -- Don Marquis, New York Sun

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
 * -- W. B. Yeats, The Second Coming

There's room at the top they are telling you still, But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
 * -- John Lennon, Working Class Hero

In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts: they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.
 * -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

If you want a happy ending that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.
 * -- Orson Welles

Any movement in history which attempts to perpetuate itself, becomes reactionary.
 * -- Josip Broz Tito

Well might the Dead who struggled in the slime Rise and deride this sepulchre of crime.
 * -- Siegfried Sassoon, ''On Passing the New Menin Gate'

So they bought us freedom, not at little cost therefore we must watch for kings, lest our gain be lost Over all things certain, this is sure indeed Suffer not the old king, for we know the breed.
 * -- Rudyard Kipling, The Old Issue

This article does not cite its references or sources. You can help MeltBanana by including appropriate citations.

title: User:MeltBanana


text:
Bindha railway station

Bindha railway station is located on the Shorncliffe line in Queensland, Australia. It is one of the two stations serving the Brisbane suburb of Virginia, the other being Virginia railway station on the Caboolture line.

Adjacent to the station is the Golden Circle cannery at Northgate, with the station originally built to provide a stop for the factory workers. Immediately north of the station lies the sidings for the Banyo railway workshops, which closed in 1995, years later reworked for the stabling of up to 4 six-car units.

Services
Bindha station is served by all stops Shorncliffe line services from Shorncliffe to Roma Street, Cannon Hill, Manly and Cleveland.

title: Bindha railway station


text:
Ghost Nation (album)

Ghost Nation is the sixth studio album by Australian rock band, Hunters & Collectors. It was co-produced by the band with Clive Martin and issued on White/Mushroom Records on 27 November 1989. It reached No. 10 on the ARIA Albums Chart, No. 29 in New Zealand and No. 31 in Sweden.

The album helped Hunters & Collectors win the award of Australian Band of the Year (1990) by Rolling Stone Australia. The band were nominated for six awards at the Fourth Annual ARIA Music Awards in 1990, but they won just one category – Best Cover Art for Ghost Nation by Robert Miles.

Background
Hunters & Collectors line up in 1987 was John Archer on bass guitar, Doug Falconer on drums, Jack Howard on trumpet, Robert Miles on live sound, Mark Seymour on lead vocals and guitar, Jeremy Smith on French horn, and Michael Waters on keyboards and trombone. Early in 1988 Barry Palmer (also a member of Harem Scarem, ex-Stephen Cummings Band) joined the group on guitar. Ghost Nation, their sixth studio album, was co-produced by the band with Clive Martin. It was released in November 1989 on White Label/Mushroom in Australia and New Zealand and Atlantic in Europe and North America, and was their second Australian Top Ten appearance on the ARIA Albums Chart, peaking at No 10 in February 1990. In New Zealand it reached the top 30 and also charted in Sweden reaching No. 31 on the Sverigetopplistan. It provided four singles, beginning with "When the River Runs Dry", appearing in September and peaking at No. 23 in Australia in December and No. 5 on Billboard Modern Rock Tracks in 1990. The album also includes a cover version of Eric Gradman: Man and Machine's 1979 single, "Crime of Passion".

The album was remastered and re-issued by Liberation Records on 7 July 2003.

Reception
Australian musicologist, Ian McFarlane, enthused "[it] was perhaps the band's finest album to date". However Allmusic's Mike DeGagne declared that it was "one of this Australian band's weakest attempts, [it] suffers greatly from bland lyrics and gray instrumental work through the entirety of the album". Ed St John in Rolling Stone Australia states "The first thing that strikes me about Ghost Nation is its sound. The band plays with impressive spirit, the grooves flowing with a spontaneous grace that far surpasses much of their earlier work. Moreover the music is beautifully recorded and intelligently, thoughtfully mixed."

The album helped Hunters & Collectors win the award of Australian Band of the Year (1990) by Rolling Stone Australia. The band were nominated for six awards at the ARIA Music Awards of 1990, but won just one category – Best Cover Art for Ghost Nation by Miles.

Personnel
Credited to:

 * Hunters & Collectors
 * John Archer – bass guitar
 * Doug Falconer – drums, percussion
 * John "Jack" Howard – trumpet, keyboards
 * Robert Miles – live sound, art director
 * Barry Palmer – lead guitar
 * Mark Seymour – lead vocals, guitar
 * Jeremy Smith – French horn, keyboards, guitar
 * Michael Waters – trombone, keyboards

 * Additional musicians
 * Jenn Anderson – strings
 * Linda Bull – backing vocals
 * Vika Bull – backing vocals
 * Chris Dyer – trumpet
 * Neil Finn – backing vocals
 * Alex Pertout – percussion
 * Jex Saarelaht – keyboards
 * Ben Taylor – washboard
 * Cindy Watkins – strings
 * Paul Williamson – saxophone

 * Production details
 * Producer – Hunters & Collectors, Clive Martin
 * Engineer – Clive Martin
 * Assistant engineers – Peter Edwards, Tony Salter (Platinum Studios); Joe Pirrera (Hit Factory)
 * Mixing – Eric Thorngren
 * Studio – Platinum Studios, Melbourne (recording); The Hit Factory, New York (mixing)
 * Mastering - Rick O'Neil Festival Records
 * Cover art – Robert Miles

title: Ghost Nation (album)


text:
Banyo railway station

Banyo railway station is located on the Shorncliffe line in the suburb of Banyo in the City of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

History
The station was built in 1882 on the Sandgate railway line (now the Shorncliffe line). At that time, it was expected that this station would be the junction for the future North Coast railway line and was named Clapham Junction railway station. However it was later decided that junction would be at Northgate railway station and in 1897 it was renamed Banyo railway station.

2012 truck collision
On 14 September 2012, a loaded semi-trailer was stuck on the level crossing at the station, when a northbound train collided with the vehicle, which caused it to be thrown into a southbound service. Rail services on the Shorncliffe railway line were disrupted for the rest of the day while the rail safety regulator investigated the collision.

2024 station upgrade
Banyo station temporarily closed on 22 January 2024 for an accessibility upgrade, which will include a new footbridge with lift access and full-length, high-level platforms. It is expected to reopen in late 2024. During the accessibility upgrade, services do not stop at the station.

Services
Banyo station is served by all stops Shorncliffe line services from Shorncliffe to Roma Street, Cannon Hill, Manly and Cleveland.

title: Banyo railway station


text:
Nudgee railway station

Nudgee railway station is located on the Shorncliffe line in Queensland, Australia. It serves the Brisbane suburb of Nudgee.

Services
Nudgee station is served by all stops Shorncliffe line services from Shorncliffe to Roma Street, Cannon Hill, Manly and Cleveland

title: Nudgee railway station


text:
Reynolds v. Sims

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.

Prior to the case, numerous state legislative chambers had districts containing unequal populations; for example, in the Nevada Senate, the smallest district had 568 people, while the largest had approximately 127,000 people. Some states refused to engage in regular redistricting, while others enshrined county by county representation (like the U.S. constitution does with state by state representation) in their constitutions. The case of Reynolds v. Sims arose after voters in Birmingham, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature; the Constitution of Alabama provided for one state senator per county regardless of population differences.

In a majority opinion joined by five other justices, Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to establish state legislative electoral districts roughly equal in population. Warren held that "legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II argued that the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to apply to voting rights. The decision had a major impact on state legislatures, as many states had to change their system of representation.

Historical background
Before the industrialization and urbanization of the United States, a state senate in most states was understood to represent rural counties as a counterbalance to towns and cities. Of the forty-eight states then in the Union, only seven twice redistricted even one chamber of their legislature following both the 1930 and the 1940 Censuses. Illinois did not redistrict between 1910 and 1955, while Alabama and Tennessee had at the time of Reynolds not redistricted since 1901. In Connecticut, Vermont, Mississippi, and Delaware, apportionment was fixed by the states' constitutions, which, when written in the late eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, did not foresee the possibility of rural depopulation as was to occur during the first half of the century. In New Hampshire the state constitutions, since January 1776, had always called for the state senate to be apportioned based on taxes paid, rather than on population.

Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court ruled to correct what it considered egregious examples of malapportionment; these were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government. Before Reynolds, urban counties nationwide often had total representations similar to rural counties, and in Florida, there was a limit to three representatives even for the most populous counties.

The case
Voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, home to the state's largest city of Birmingham, challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature. The Alabama Constitution provided that there be only one state senator per county. Ratio variances as great as 41 to 1 from one senatorial district to another existed in the Alabama Senate (i.e., the number of eligible voters voting for one senator was in one case 41 times the number of voters in another). The case was named for M. O. Sims, one of the voters who brought the suit, and B. A. Reynolds, a probate judge in Dallas County, one of the named defendants in the original suit. Reynolds was named (along with three other probate judges) as a symbolic representative of all probate judges in the state of Alabama.

Among the more extreme pre-Reynolds disparities claimed by Morris K. Udall:

 * In the Connecticut General Assembly, one House district had 191 people.
 * In the New Hampshire General Court, the Town of Ellsworth with a population of three people had a Representative in the lower house; this was the same representation given to Bedford, with a population of 3,636.
 * In the Utah State Legislature, the smallest district had 165 people, the largest 32,380.
 * In the Vermont General Assembly, the smallest district had 36 people, the largest 35,000.
 * In the Idaho Senate, the smallest district had 969 people; the largest, 93,400.
 * In the Nevada Senate, seventeen members represented as many as 127,000 or as few as 568 people.

Decision
The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote." In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." In addition, the majority simply denied the argument that states were permitted to base their apportionment structures upon the Constitution itself, which requires two senators from each state despite substantially unequal populations among the states.

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Potter Stewart also issued a concurring opinion, in which he argued that while many of the schemes of representation before the court in the case were egregiously undemocratic and clearly violative of equal protection, it was not for the Court to provide any guideline beyond general reasonableness for apportionment of districts.

In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote that the majority had chosen to ignore the language, history, and original intent of the Equal Protection Clause, which did not extend to voting rights. The dissent strongly accused the Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process: "the Court's action now bringing them (state legislative apportionments) within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment amounts to nothing less than an exercise of the amending power by this Court." The Court had already extended "one person, one vote" to all U.S. congressional districts in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) a month before, but not to the Senate.

Aftermath
Since the ruling applied different representation rules to the states than was applicable to the federal government, Reynolds v. Sims set off a legislative firestorm across the country. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois led a fight to pass a constitutional amendment allowing legislative districts based on land area, similar to the United States Senate. He warned that:

"[T]he forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties. Under the Court's new decree, California could be dominated by Los Angeles and San Francisco; Michigan by Detroit."

Numerous states had to change their system of representation in the state legislature. For instance, South Carolina had historically elected one state senator from each county. It devised a reapportionment plan and passed an amendment providing for home rule to counties. While allegations of state senates being redundant arose in the decision's aftermath, all states affected retained their state senates, with state senators being elected from single-member districts. This contrasted with the options of abolishing the upper houses, as had been done in Nebraska in 1936 (as well as the provinces of Canada), or electing state senators via proportional representation from either several large multi-member districts or from one statewide at-large district, as was done in Australia.

Reactions
In a 2015 Time Magazine survey of over 50 law professors, both Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean, UC Berkeley School of Law) and Richard Pildes (NYU School of Law) named Reynolds v. Sims the "best Supreme Court decision since 1960", with Chemerinsky noting that in his opinion, the decision made American government "far more democratic and representative."

title: Reynolds v. Sims


text:
North Boondall railway station

North Boondall railway station is located on the Shorncliffe line in Queensland, Australia. It is one of two stations serving the Brisbane suburb of Boondall, the other being Boondall station.

History
North Boondall station opened in 1882 as Cabbage Tree Creek, it was later renamed Nudgee College, then renamed as Boondall in 1923 until 1986. The station was renamed North Boondall upon opening of the Brisbane Entertainment Centre in 1986

Services
North Boondall station is served by all stops Shorncliffe line services from Shorncliffe to Roma Street, Cannon Hill, Manly and Cleveland

title: North Boondall railway station


text:
Bernardo Reyes

Bernardo Doroteo Reyes Ogazón (30 August 1850 – 9 February 1913) was a Mexican general and politician who fought in the Second French intervention in Mexico and served as the appointed Governor of Nuevo León for more than two decades during the Porfiriato. During Reyes's administration as Governor, the state made important economic, industrial and social advances, and he was one of the closest and most faithful allies of President of Mexico Porfirio Díaz. He was killed during a failed coup d'état (known as the Ten Tragic Days) against President Francisco I. Madero in the first stage of the Mexican Revolution.

Born in a prominent liberal family in the western state of Jalisco, he served in the army, rising to the rank of general. Like his political patron, General Porfirio Díaz, Reyes was a military man who became an able administrator. He helped in the modernization of that state, enabling local industrialization, improving public education and health, and supporting improvements in the lives of workers. While governor of Nuevo León, Reyes approved a workers compensation law.

In 1900, Díaz named Reyes the Secretary of War and Navy. He expanded the military, establishing the Second Reserve. However, he resigned from office after two years amid political conflict with the Cientificos, a circle of technocratic advisors to Diaz who saw the Second Reserve as a private army loyal to Reyes, and returned to Nuevo León, where his popularity grew. The Second Reserve was disbanded, but Reyes was considered a political counterweight to the Cientificos and a likely successor to Díaz. Reyista clubs supporting him for the presidency were formed, but he declined to challenge Díaz in the election of 1910.

After being forced from office in 1909, he embarked on a European tour and did not return until after Diaz was deposed in 1910 by Francisco I. Madero.

Early life and family
Bernardo Doroteo Reyes Ogazón was born on August 20, 1849, at 121 López Cotilla Street in Guadalajara, Jalisco to a prominent military and political family active in Liberal Party politics.

His father was Colonel Domingo Reyes Rovira, originally from Managua, Nicaragua. His mother Juana Ogazón Velázquez-Delgado was the younger sister of the colonel's first wife, Guadalupe. He was the eldest of his mother's four children and had two half-siblings from his father's first marriage. His maternal cousins Pedro Ogazón and Ignacio Vallarta both served as Governors of Jalisco between 1858 and 1875.

Reyes studied law in the public schools in Guadalajara before beginning his military career at age fourteen, when he enlisted to fight against the Second French Empire in the 1861 French intervention in Mexico.

Military career
In 1866, Reyes fought at Zacatecas and Calvillo as an ensign in the Centro Guías de Jalisco in the forces of General Trinidad García de la Cadena. The following year, at age seventeen, he joined the Jalisco lanceros and participated in the Siege of Querétaro, where he was wounded twice. He attended the execution of Emperor Maximilian I.

After the intervention was expelled, Reyes participated in the suppression of rebellions by regional caudillos and rose swiftly through the ranks. At the Battle of La Mojonera in Zapopan, he fought with Ramón Corona against the caudillo Manuel Lozada, and single-handedly returned valuable information from behind enemy lines, evading a surprise attack. Following the battle, he was made comandante. He worked briefly in 1873 as a secretary to General Francisco Tolentino before returning to wage active campaigns against Lozada's supporters. In September 1875, Reyes received a bullet wound to his neck while suppressing a mutiny of his own troops with twenty loyal soldiers. He successfully evicted the mutineers from the barracks and was made a lieutenant colonel.

In July 1880, Reyes defeated the rebel Ramírez Terrón at the Battle of Villa Unión in Sinaloa. Though outnumbered three-to-one, Reyes repelled Terrón's initial attack and returned the charge with only a few soldiers, delivering fictitious orders to give the illusion of a larger force. Though he was presumed dead, Reyes survived with three wounds, including permanent damage to his right wrist, which was nearly amputated. Believing his forces were surrounded, Terrón committed suicide during the battle, leaving word to Reyes to care for Terrón's family. Reyes did so, providing a monthly pension for his daughters and a job for his widow. In recognition of his victory at Villa Unión, President Porfirio Díaz personally awarded Reyes a rare double promotion directly to the rank of brigadier general. As brigadier general, Reyes led all Mexican forces in Sinaloa, Sonora, and Baja California from August 13, 1880 to March 11, 1883. From March 12, 1883 to October 1885, he was in charge of the Sixth Military District, headquartered in San Luis Potosí.

Political career and administration
The center of Reyes's political power was in his home state of Jalisco; Díaz's supporters closed Reyes clubs and jailed their leaders. His main support came from the middle class, many of whom had connections to the now disbanded Second Reserve. Reyes was seen as a reformer, anti-Científico, pro-business, with a strong following among professionals such as doctors and lawyers, and a viable candidate of the old order with both military and political experience who could manage a presidential transition. He was not an outsider or radical agitator.

Together with José Yves Limantour, he was considered one of the potential successors of Porfirio Díaz. With Francisco Madero's latter challenge to the dictator in the 1910 elections and, afterwards, initiation of the Mexican Revolution, previous notions of who should succeed Díaz were discarded.

Mexican Revolution and death
For a time Reyes was a supporter of Madero, but he later led the first rebellion against Madero. After this rebellion failed, Reyes was imprisoned in the Mexico City prison of Santiago Tlatelolco. General Félix Díaz was imprisoned at another Mexico City jail for rebellion, but the two were able to easily communicate despite that and plot a joint coup against Madero. They tried to get General Victoriano Huerta to join the plot, but he declined, despite Huerta's being a protégé of Reyes's. General Manuel Mondragón sent forces to free Reyes from jail on 9 February 1913, who freed Reyes from prison. Then, they marched on to the National Palace in the beginning of the Ten Tragic Days. Reyes was killed on day 1 of the coup, in an assault on the palace. He had expected to enter the National Palace and declare Madero ousted. Before he could enter the building, Reyes was shot dead along with 400 others, among them civilians.

Personal life
On November 4, 1872, Reyes married Aurelia de Ochoa y Sapién, the daughter of an aristocratic family from Zapotlán el Grande. They had twelve children, seven of whom survived to adulthood:

 * Bernardo Reyes Ochoa (b. August 20, 1873), civil engineer who constructed the Temple of San Luis Gonzaga in Monterrey
 * Rodolfo Reyes Ochoa (b. May 16, 1878), attorney who participated in the overthrow of Francisco I. Madero
 * Maria Reyes Ochoa (b. 1880), wife of attorney Rafael Dávila Caballero, son of Governor of Nuevo Leon Narciso Dávila
 * Amalia Reyes Ochoa, wife of attorney Fermín Sada
 * Otilia Reyes Ochoa (b. 1888), wife of investor Ramón López León
 * Alfonso Reyes Ochoa (b. May 17, 1889), internationally renowned writer
 * Alejandro Reyes Ochoa

Five children died before reaching adulthood: Roberto, Aurelia, Eloísa, Guadalupe and Eva.

He was the grandfather of the painter Aurora Reyes.

title: Bernardo Reyes


text:
Deagon railway station

Deagon railway station is located on the Shorncliffe line in Queensland, Australia. It serves the Brisbane suburb of Deagon.

Services
Deagon station is served by all stops Shorncliffe line services from Shorncliffe to Roma Street, Cannon Hill, Manly and Cleveland

title: Deagon railway station


text:
Tachikawa Station

Tachikawa Station (立川駅) is a junction passenger railway station located in the city of Tachikawa, Tokyo, Japan, operated by the East Japan Railway Company (JR East).

Lines
Tachikawa Station is served by the Chūō Main Line, and is located 37.1 kilometers from the starting point of the line at Tokyo Station. It is also a terminus for both the Ōme Line and Nambu Lines. Although the Itsukaichi Line does not reach Tachikawa, a few trains on that line continue along the Ome Line tracks to serve this station.

Station layout
This station consists of four ground-level island platforms serving eight tracks, with an elevated station building located above the platforms. The station has a "Midori no Madoguchi" staffed ticket office. Tachikawa-Minami Station and Tachikawa-Kita Station on the Tama Toshi Monorail Line flank Tachikawa Station, and are connected to it by decks. The Lumine department store occupies the upper floors of the station building.

History
The Kōbu Railway, which later became the Chūō Main Line, opened the station on April 11, 1889. The Ōme Railway (presently the Ōme Line) and the Nambu Railway (presently the Nambu Line) were connected to the station on November 19, 1894, and December 11, 1929, respectively.

The Itsukaichi Line was also connected to the station from July 13, 1930, to October 11, 1944, via a separate track between Tachikawa and Haijima, which was closed following the integration of the operation of the Ōme and Itsukaichi lines under the Japanese Government Railways in April 1944.

With the privatization of Japanese National Railways (JNR) on April 1, 1987, the station came under the control of JR East.

Passenger statistics
In fiscal 2019, the station was used by an average of 166,636 passengers daily (boarding passengers only), making it the 16th busiest station in the JR East network. The passenger figures for previous years are as shown below.

title: Tachikawa Station


text:
Talk:Nambu Line

Moved from Nanbu Line to accord with JR's English spelling of its line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fg2 (talk • contribs)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nambu Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101017220950/http://www.townnews.co.jp/0206/2010/10/01/71075.html to http://www.townnews.co.jp/0206/2010/10/01/71075.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204141640/http://news.kanaloco.jp/localnews/article/1104090029/ to http://news.kanaloco.jp/localnews/article/1104090029/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * JR East E233-8500 Series N36 Rapid Tachikawa.jpg

title: Talk:Nambu Line


text:
Talk:George Lincoln Rockwell

Assassination or murder?
The lead says that Rockwell was murdered, but he was a public figure and the likely motive was political in nature. Public figures who are murdered for political reasons are commonly called victims of assassination (see MLK and Malcolm X). Is Rockwell's ideology being used against him as a reason to not accurately categorize his death? 47.137.183.192 (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Nowhere does the article explain how this was politically motivated, nor does it give any motive at all. The John Patler article doesn't either. This information would require reliable sources. Assassination is a subset of murder, so just saying "murder" is sufficient and more neutral until such sources are provided. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I've eliminated references to assassination from the article for these reasons. João Do Rio (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

On the entry for "American Nazi Party" Rockwell's killing is called an assassination and the murder an assassin throughout the entry. There isn't a reference given, but the media reported Rockwell's killing as an assassination. I'm not sure which is the right term to use, but there should probably be consistency between this entry and the one on the American Nazi Party? TheBlueTortoise (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Belatedly, I have changed that article, as explained at Talk:American Nazi Party. I agree that this term is not strictly incorrect, but still do not think it adds clarity. The information is better presented in direct, simple language. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Publications
I ran a Google search for "How Malcolm X Helped Aryans". Doesn't exist. The only results were three identical Wiki entries with basically the same contents of this article. There isn't even a source for this. Which one of you put that there?2600:1700:E710:5D20:30E0:A3AE:F616:6819 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 * It was added by an anonymous vandal. I've removed it. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * George-Lincoln-Rockwell.jpg

Assassinated Nazis category
I had reverted the addition of Category:Assassinated Nazis, but was reverted yesterday with the rationale "Ignore all precedents". I don't believe an essay is a valid reason to edit war over a category that doesn't even seem applicable here, as it seems to be used for people who actually worked for and/or collaborated with the actual Nazi party before or during WWII. Pinging to discuss. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The category is for Nazis, not simply Nazis from the 1940s. I think the category fits here, as Rockwell was a Nazi and he was assassinated. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Rockwell was a neo-Nazi, not an actual Nazi. There's an important difference. If there was a category/subcategory for that it would be appropriate, but it doesn't seem to fit here. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A neo-Nazi is a Nazi, and Wikipedia says so.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

title: Talk:George Lincoln Rockwell


text:
User:Ocon/Canned messages

Thanks to Angela from whom some of this was shamelessly ripped.

Out of Bounds
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your contributions are welcome, but your recent edits fell out of the bounds of the goals of Wikipedia. You may find the following Wikipedia articles useful: *Avoiding_common_mistakes *What_wikipedia_is_not *How to write a great article If you were just experimenting, please use the Sandbox for further tests. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing here. Thanks. ~

Tests
Your test at worked. It has now been deleted. Future tests should be done in the Sandbox. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing here. Thanks. ~

Unregistered User
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for all your contributions. Why not create an account so your user name will be attributed to your articles?

Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them: *How to edit a page *show preview *How to write a great article *Naming conventions *Help *Village pump

I hope you continue to enjoy editing here. ~

Vandalism
Your recent edits to appear to be vandalism. Please stop vandalising Wikipedia or you may be blocked from editing. Please read the welcome page if you are interested in contributing here. Thanks. ~

title: User:Ocon/Canned messages


text:
User talk:Naryathegreat/Archive 1

Archive for 6/29/04-7/11/04

Hi. I think you were trying to do #REDIRECT Causes of World War II Secretlondon 01:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi.

I wonder if you would mind explaining why you moved European Theatre of World War II? It is going to cause quite a bit of discussion and annoyance to say the least. The same applies to your other moves. Please stop doing them until we have discussed the issue.

DJ Clayworth 16:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Apology accepted. Welcome to the international world of Wikipedia. Hope you have fun; good editing in the future. If you edit lots of World War II] articles then we will probably meet again. I got started here because I found the [[Battle of Normandy article was pathetic, and I couldn't rest until it was brought up to a decent level. Then I found that the Allied invasion of Italy article was even worse... See you around. DJ Clayworth 13:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies
''This article has been listed on Votes for Deletion. Please cast your vote there, in favor of its deletion on grounds of POV.''

I see that you erased my pieces of advice. Hopefully you'll bear them in mind in the future.

As to your comments on my Talk page: please allow me to spend my time on what I want. From the number of replies at the Talk:Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies page I assume that the topic is much more popular than you think. Also, wikipedia is not about popular topics. Check the What is Wikipedia for more details.

As you already noticed, the article under construction is mostly focused on Poland. There are two reasons behind that:
 * Since the article describes a sociological and historical phenomenon rather than a deed or a person, the article is mostly focused on the country I know the most.
 * Also, in Poland the sense of betrayal by the Western Allies is the strongest (AFAIK). The purpose of this article is to explain why people feel/felt betrayed, not were the countries actually betrayed or could the Allies not betray Poland. I hope you get the difference. Also, you can ask any Pole here in English wikipedia if he heard of such phenomenon. I bet he )or she) would answer yes, despite of his or hers personal views or beliefs. If so, I believe that the topic is worth explaining.

It is somehow similar to the articles about psychology: the article on Agoraphobia explains why are people afraid of public spaces, not are public places dangerous or should public spaces be feared. That's not that clear in the present version of the article and that's why I decided to prepare a new one. So far the info about nations other than Poland is but a sketch. Hopefully some time later someone will drop in and explain the feelings of other societies better than I did.

Also, whether the Allies could do more or not is a matter of personal opinion. And it's a fact that many Poles feel that way. Also, it has nothing to do with Polish nationalism. It's about feelings of a large part of Polish nationals. Get the difference? Halibutt 22:53, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, thanks for polishing your comments at my talk page. They are much more readable and civilized now. Using this tactics you'll find much more people willing to answer your arguments rather than quarrel with you. Cheers! Halibutt 23:02, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * As to the VfD - I won't do it for the simple reason that it's not needed. IMHO when the article is ready, the present version could be simply replaced with a redirect.

 * Also, the name was sort of a compromise with John Kenney since on early stages of development the article was still about actual Allied policies, not about different attitudes towards them. I'm thinking of naming the finished article Western betrayal, since that is how the phenomenon could be translated to English. AAMoF the title should be "Various attitudes towards Western Allies' policies towards Central Europe". However, this name, although descriptive, might be simply too long.

 * Finally, as to your main question whether the Allies should and could help Poland more in 1939: as you yourself probably know it's not an easy question. Most Poles believe (and public education gives countless arguments to back up this thesis) that the Allies could do more and promised to do more so they should've done more. It's hard to argue against such a logic since apparently the Western Allies knew perfectly well that they could not live up to their promises. Sadly enough, they did not notify Poland of their plans and used it as a cannon fodder. Oversimplifying a bit, the main cause of Polish defeat in 1939 was naivity and belief in Western promises. On the other hand - who would not believe in promises made by the two most powerful, influential and developed countries of the time?

 * It took me many years of studying various evidence (mostly of military and diplomatical nature, including various documents published only once during the WWII and in small numbers) to finally understand that the matter is much more complex and the Allies' behaviour includes much more than just a simple lack of good will.

 * Anyway, to make long thing short, the topic can be shortened by a series of short questions:

 * Did the Allies promise Poland more than they actually did - Yes
 * Did the Allies promise Poland more than they could live up to - Yes
 * Could the Allies help Poland with arms and supplies once the war started - No
 * Could the Allies help Poland with arms and supplies before the war, just as they promised in various pacts - Yes
 * Could the Allies start an offensive against Germany in 1939 - Yes
 * Could such an offensive be succesful - I'm not sure
 * Did the Allies have the doctrines and officers brilliant enough to carry out such an offensive - No
 * Did the Allies have the strategical advantage for such an offensive to succeed, at least to some extent - Yes
 * Did the Allies have an army powerful enough to seize the Rheinland and Ruhr by 1940 - Yes, I believe so
 * Could Poland be saved in 1939 by one, strong blow towards Berlin - No
 * Could Poland limit the losses in 1939 if only the Allies didn't give promises they knew they couldn't live up to - Yes
 * Could such an offensive shorten the war and limit the losses significantly - Yes
 * Could the Allies support Polish government-in-exile at least the same way they supported the French in 1944 - Yes
 * Could the Allies issue pressure on Stalin and save Polish sovereignity during the Teheran Conference and Yalta Conference - Yes
 * Once Germany attacked USSR could Poland's eastern border be saved - No
 * Could Poland be spared Soviet occupation and loss of Polish-inhabitated lands just outside of the present Polish eastern border if only the Allies tried - Yes
 * Could the Allies ensure at the Yalta Conference that a democratic elections are held in Poland after the war - Yes
 * Would it mean that the Soviets would not be able to take power in Poland a bit later (as they did in Czechoslovakia) - No

 * As you see the matter is complex and claiming that the Allies could or could not help Poland in 1939 (or later in the course of war) would be an oversimplification. Fortunately, it is not relevant to the article since, as I already said, it's not about whether the Allies could or should do more. It's about what the people here believe. Halibutt 00:51, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

I replied at this page. Halibutt 04:26, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hullo. Your addition to functional equation was not appreciated. Please do not add 'profanity' to pages, even if you are not an admirer of their content. And please do not mark such edits as minor. Charles Matthews 08:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Given a couple of further edits by you, can I indicate Civility as a guide to community norms?

Charles Matthews 19:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Naryathegreat/Archive 1


text:
Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

archive 1

 * 1) misuse of editing summaries
 * 2) Sock puppet discussion

archive 2

 * 1) Expiry of warnings
 * 2) Kudos! from Mav (thanks mav)
 * 3) Definition
 * 4) will long term users get adequate stern treatment when needed?
 * 5) misrepresenting the truth
 * 6) Appeals
 * 7) Voting formula
 * 8) Reincarnations
 * 9) an extra week... nah
 * 10) is any belief explicitly banned by Wikipedia policy
 * 11) Frivolous or vexatious complaints
 * 12) Precedent
 * 13) Definition of disruptive behaviour "includes but is not limited to:"

Introduction
Some feel the policy is too complicated, but others feel it is as simple as it can be. Regardless, this policy does need a bit of your time to consider it.

Have a read through the list of objections. If you have a concern which isn't addressed to your satisfaction please add it or your concern with the given response.

Please add discussion below the FRO's or help to clarify the FRO text for the benefit of others.

Frequently raised objections
This section is for collective editing. Try to use a NPOV style. No need to sign: just chip in and add and clarify. (This is a bit of an experiment). Try to express your objection clearly: responses such as "huh?" are not terribly helpful.

This gives sysops too much power
This gives sysops more power than they have every traditionally had and more than was granted to them when the community elected them to administer policy.

Sysops should only be agents who enforce the decisions made by the community (or top down from Jimbo, the arb committee, or the board). It is not clear that most sysops even necessarily are good at making these types of judgement calls themselves. Although these considerations have perhaps been considered to some extent lately, historically adminiship has been "no big deal". Even today, adminship is not considered a political position. "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." That's fine for choosing administrators who aren't making these kinds of decisions, but it's not appropriate for administrators who are judge, jury, executioner, and by the vagueness of definition even legislator, even when acting in groups of three or more.

Response: This policy makes sysops justify their actions and requires them to get peer review. In the event of controversy, at least 2/3s of the sysops must agree before action is taken. It seems most Wikipedian think sysops should be using more power, and are prepared to have 'trolls' (whatever that actually means) banned on sight! (see the voting at Dealing with trolls)

open community polling is better
Response: The concern about open community polling is making justice into a form of entertainment. This should NOT be a form of entertainment and the less people dragged into these sordid matters the better. Bans and blocks are serious matters that need considered action, but we don't need Wikipedia's equivilant of Jerry Springer. We already have AC forming as an ultimate arbitor of issues and the community should healthily conduct hearty debate on policy. But healthy debate on policy is different from community lynching. This is why the proposal limits voting to admins.

When bad decisions are made, as will happen, then, of course, everybody should get involved to satisfy themselves that remedial steps are taken... especially to try to avoid repeats... but that is different from having expectation that there will be wide involvement in decisions about who we hang today.

This policy will discourage consensus and encourage factionalisation among sysops
The necessity of having three sysops agree, and the voting aspect, encourages "block voting". This will encourage factionalism among sysops.

Response: This provides a forum for sharing evidence.

This policy will encourage further scaremongering
Sysops hungry for more power have been drumming up panic about a rising tide of trolling that doesn't exist. Supporting this policy will encourage them to keep doing it. There is no rising tide of trolling.

The problem is troll-baiting and troll hysteria, not trolls
Response: maybe... But the response to unproductive  behaviour may be just as much of a problem as the behaviour. Some politeness and assumption of good faith will help, and we hope a process and clear rules will actually lower the temperature. Some of us with kids know when the rules are clear there is a lot less conflict. Ambiguity in the rules leads people to 'experiment', out of boredom, or frustration.

This makes it too hard for sysops to do anything
Some other policy should be passed that makes it even easier for sysops to act.

Response: This adds to sysops powers and doesn't actually take any away (please point us at the policy giving sysop powers that isn't already mentioned in the introduction, if we've missed one)

This is unnecessarilly complicated
Many online communities survive trolling without resorting to anything this complicated. A simpler solution would be better.

Response: Unfortunately justice is not simple. It sounds simple, but isn't. Although quite frankly, cutting and pasting a template onto a couple of pages, and adding a list of URLs to the offending behaviour is hardly a big ask. The procedure really is simple. Notice a problem user, warn them, tell others you're watching them, gather URLs to offending difs, warn them again if the problem persists, gather more URLs, everyone agrees, slap a block on. This is quick, fair and transparent. If tree-hugging, whale kissing, bleeding heart sysops bleet "no! they're not bad, they are just misunderstood", well the three gun toting no-nonsense type syspops just need to try and reach a consensus with those that disagree with them. As a worse case scenario, it is going to come down to a vote.

We don't need this, sysops are already accountable
"We already have checks and balences in place. A sysop who bans too frequently should and will be taken to task for it, and if they persist will have their syop privileges removed. That's the right way to do it. "

Response: There is lot of conflict, directed at sysops and between sysops, about the extent to which banning powers are being used. Some sysops take it upon themselves to ban problem users; others disagree with their choices. The community needs a set of procedures for deciding when bans are viable in cases that aren't simple vandalism, yet aren't acceptable behavior.

This makes it too hard to fight vandalism
By "vandalism" this complaint means folks acting in bad faith - real vandals - not the rather legalistic term of art used at Dealing with vandalism and elsewhere in our policies

The definition of disruptive and antisocial behaviour is too vague
Response:Yes the definitions are vague and subjective. Characterisations of human behaviour are, but feel free to clarify them further. Ultimately the subjectivity is resolved by putting the behaviour forward for consideration by a small group of sysops. If it's simple then... well its simple. If it is complicated, (and the people we are talking about will try to make it complicated) then more discussion and more votes are needed. The proposal provides a framework for the sysops to work through these issues in a logical and transparent way. By forcing the collection of the URLs to back up the decision it ultimately builds up a more robust and fairer set of boundaries

Disruptive editors will try to evade the guidelines and find new ways to disrupt
And if you change the guidelines, then you'll be changing the rules to retrospectively target troublemakers.

Response: Definitions can be changed, and new definitions added as needed. An adaptive definition is indeed a can of worms. A major benefit of this policy, is that it moves away an adaptive definition. This response is somewhat inconsistent.

Better to just fix the arbitration committee
This is not addressing a real problem. It seems like the only problem we are trying to solve is that the arbitration committee is sometimes slow to act. Maybe we should add more members to it, or maybe we could add committees below them to take cases which require immediate attention. The committees could even be geared toward different types of problem behavior, if it becomes that big of a problem.

Dealing with trolls is the job of the AC.

Response: The AC are currently unwilling or unable to deal with trolls. Remember this policy only deals with short blocks that are rapidly applied the AC can overrule them.

Have a long slow read through some recent Arbitration Committee requests to find lots n lots of examples of behaviour that it would have been nice to have curtailed earlier, or (add your own favourite here) (I will be willing to name and show histories of several, just off the top of my head.) Could we have a few examples? Phil Gingrey. Nick Berg conspiracy theories. Plenty of others, I'm sure...

Many of us sympathise with these views, but have a look at the flurry of "troll polls". Many wikipedians are ready to let admins "shoot on sight". So if it is not a real problem it is definitely a perceived problem. The motivation is to give an alternative to summary justice and lynch mobs.

Voting is bad
"I don't like the "three sysops" provision. VotingIsEvil"

Response: "yes voting is bad and hopefully there will be consensus. The problem is at the momment there is no mechanism to deal with situations when the sysops vehemently disagree. Voting is surely better than mob rule, even if that is mob rule by the sysops... don't you think?"

 * False dilemma

Anarchy is better
Response: huh?

We should just give teeth to No personal attacks
This policy does 50 things, but all we really need to do is give teeth to our existing policy on "no personal attacks". Since users are already blocked, without complaint, for making extreme and repeated personal attacks, this really just formalises and endorses existing actions.

Sysop groups
"Sysop groups kind of bother me. It seems like the effect of this is to reinstitute quickpolls as a method of banning and blocking users, only to restrict voting to sysops. I'd prefer to either let sysops ban or to use quickpolls to ban."

Response: Requiring three admins to vote before taking action is a safety mechanism. And three votes will accumulate much faster than it takes the AC to even consider taking on a case.

The idea of this policy is to enable rapid action on difficult behaviour. It is not a magic box that will make all controversy away. All it can do in controversy is gather the evidence. What happens from that point is, at least transparent. All admins that vote put their name on the record.

counting disruptive edits is too rigid
"None of the other Wikipedia policies have sentencing requirements or anything along those lines. None of the others involve counting edits."

Response: maybe. We've worked pretty hard to make these rigid rules as reasonable as possible. If we have rules we can put our hands on hearts and say "justice was done". Without them we will always have trouble justifying our action. We can either simplify, clarify or expand the rules down the track depending on experience. This is just a starting point.

Mock Direction page
see (and please work on) a Mock Directions Page.

I thougth we could use it to explore examples and illustrate the mechanics of the policy Erich 23:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

non logged in users
I DO hope this is referring to logged-in users? This is totally unacceptable for anons, who hop from ID to ID and post and run. RickK 06:04, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * good point. can't say I have much sympathy for anons myself. a question: when you block an IP address does this also stop users at that address from creating an account? or logging on to an existing one? Erich 06:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * remembering that dealing with vandalism is dealt with separately... we could treat anons under the same rules as reincarnations? how does that sound? Erich 06:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object to you and ricks POV's regarding anons. That said, I am perfectly willing to see them excluded from this policy. Even tho they are a disrespected and mistreated group, they are a separate class, and should have separate policy standards. In conclusion I think you both could be alot more understanding (speaking mainly to rick here) of our hardworking underclass. Sam [Spade] 07:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * geez Sam, these aren't a discriminated against "class"... Anybody can create an account and log in. It's not hard. Erich 09:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This policy remains silent on non-logged in users. Personally I thing anons should be treated as reincarnations. What do others think? Erich 03:17, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

acting against consensus (reversion rule)
In my mind the best wording is still unresolved...

which is better, this:
 * "violation of neutral point of view, and engaging in multiple (more than three per 24 hour period) reversions or essentially the same text"

or
 * "violation of neutral point of view, and making edits known to be against a clear consensus"

--anon

 * The former is better. Sometimes a so-called "clear consensus" is wrong, because it ignores a good compromise that would be more neutral and satisfy everyone. Sometimes the only way to hammer this home is to be persistent about it. The latter is also prone to groupthink. Martin 23:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of my hasty opposition
This gives sysops additional authority. I don't think that can be avoided. But "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." Judgement calls should be made by people deemed to be good at judging, which is not part of the selection for administrators. "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant [admin] access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." anthony (see warning) 14:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony for this explanation, as your above post may apparently change at any time, let me respond to this statement:
 * "This gives sysops additional authority. I don't think that can be avoided.  But "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." Judgement calls should be made by people deemed to be good at judging, which is not part of the selection for administrators.  "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant [admin] access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community."

I accept your point about the admins not being chosen for theor judgement. However, it would be hard to argue that their judgement is worse than any quick poll participant. At the end of the day "somebody" has got to make these calls. In my mind this proposal is miles better than the summary justice of the troll polls. If this poll fails to get up then maybe the community will just go for lone ranger blocks without all the rules... I hope you can change your mind, but no hard feelings. best wishes Erich 19:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with troll polls either. Judgement calls should be made by those who were chosen for their skill at judging - the arbitrators. Lone ranger blocks, reviewable by the arbitration committee, would be better in my opinion. People generally are not held responsible for votes they make, so at least in a lone ranger block you'd have someone to blame. Not that I'm suggesting lone ranger blocks, except in emergency situations. Speaking of which, many of the given examples don't qualify as emergency situations. They can wait a week or even a month to be resolved through consensus, mediation, or arbitration.

In addition to the problem of this giving special authority to administrators, which violates longstanding written policy, I don't think blocks of longer than 24 hours are necessary. The purpose of these blocks I would think is for emergency situations where arbitration is not available, not for resolving the actual issues behind the behavior. 24 hours is plenty of time to diffuse the situation, and there is no reason the block cannot be repeated over and over again until the issue has been mediated or arbitrated, if the user refuses to cooperate. The overcomplication of this proposal will likely only increase trolling behavior.

If there are not enough arbitrators, we can add more. Alternatively, we could add subcommittees chosen to make judgement calls on certain behaviors, which can be appealed to the arbitrators in certain circumstances.

anthony (see warning) 20:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The voting formula makes it too hard to act at low numbers
I don't know...it's a difficult one, because the policy makes sense when more votes are included, but is just far too harsh when less people were involved. I'm somewhat pessimistic about the number of people likely to vote in these, and I don't like the idea of one person practically being able to shoot action down unless a bunch more users are rustled up. Ambivalenthysteria 14:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I dont share your pessimism AH. Every poll I've ever seen from quickpolls to RFA's to non straightforward VfD's has plenty of admins voting on it. I suspect we'll have little trouble getting votes for the easy cases (which is what this policy will be good at catching), the hard cases will probably IMO have loads of votes but if they don't get conmsensus then we can pass them over to the AC. Anyway we'll never be able to decide how many admins will vote by debating. This is a suck it and see situation, and there is nothing to stop us changing the numbers at a later date once we get the necessary experience of the policy in actiontheresa knott 23:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the current formula, but maybe still an issue for a secondary question? Erich 03:17, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blocked users should have a place to complain on wikipedia + 2 other issues
I tend to think that the whole trolling problem is a bit blown out of proportion, but since some users really are disruptive, I'm willing to support this for a trial period.

One issue I have with it is that blocked users can only complain to the admins, thus excluding the procedure from public view. IMO, there should be a page which even blocked users can edit and lodge their complaints. Abuses of this should be dealt with under "vandalism".

One minor issue I have i have is blocking on site by a single admin for repeated offenders, but this would be alleviated by the aforementioned idea. Another is continued block if a case is not accepted by ArbCom in a week. That means "guilty until judged innocent." I realize that answering to every complaint in certain time is sometimes hard, but that comes with the job. ArbCom should actively turn down cases, not let them expire. Zocky 13:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

unlocking
votings over and I've made an archive. Can somebody please unlock the page now? ta! Erich 07:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Tubular

Hello. Your introduction of incorrectly capitalized letters in relativistic equations caused some links not to work. Please don't capitalize words just because they're in a link. Michael Hardy 01:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My adminship request
Thanks for your support! --jpgordon{gab} 06:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Tubular