text:
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal

The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) is a military award of the United States Armed Forces, which was first created in 1961 by Executive Order of President John F. Kennedy. The medal is awarded to members of the U.S. Armed Forces who, after July 1, 1958, participated in U.S. military operations, U.S. operations in direct support of the United Nations, or U.S. operations of assistance for friendly foreign nations.

Appearance
The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is issued as a bronze medal, 1 $1/4$ inches in diameter.

The obverse side of the medal consists of an eagle, with wings addorsed and inverted (representing the strength of the United States Armed Forces), standing on a sword loosened in its scabbard, and super- imposed on a radiant compass rose of eight points, (representing the readiness to serve wherever needed) all within the circumscription "ARMED FORCES" above and "EXPEDITIONARY SERVICE" below with a sprig of laurel on each side. On the reverse side of the medal is the shield from the United States Coat of Arms above two laurel branches separated by a bullet, all within the circumscription "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

The ribbon is 1 $3/8$ inches wide and consists of the following stripes: $3/32$ inch Green, $3/32$ inch Golden Yellow, $3/32$ inch Spicebrown, $3/32$ inch Black, $7/32$ inch Bluebird, $1/16$ inch Ultramarine Blue, $1/16$ inch White, $1/16$ inch Scarlet, $7/32$ inch Bluebird, $3/32$ inch Black, $3/32$ inch Spicebrown, $3/32$ inch Golden Yellow and $3/32$ inch Green.

Ribbon devices

A bronze service star is authorized for participation in subsequent U.S. military operations authorized for award of the AFEM (only one award is authorized for each designated U.S. military operation). A silver service star is worn in lieu of five bronze service stars.

The Arrowhead device is authorized for United States Army, United States Air Force, and United States Space Force personnel who are awarded the medal through participation in an airborne or amphibious assault.

The Fleet Marine Force Combat Operation Insignia is authorized for U.S. Navy service members assigned to Marine Corps units that participate in combat during the assignment.

Criteria
The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal may be authorized for three categories of operations: U.S. military operations; U.S. military operations in direct support of the United Nations; and U.S. operations of assistance for friendly foreign nations. The medal shall be awarded only for operations for which no other U.S. campaign medal is approved, where a foreign armed opposition or imminent threat of hostile action was encountered.

Since its original conception in 1961, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal has been awarded for United States participation in over forty five designated military campaigns. The first campaign of the AFEM was the Cuban Missile Crisis and the award was issued for military service between October 1962 and June 1963. Following this original issuance, the AFEM was made retroactive to 1958 and issued for actions in Lebanon, Taiwan, Republic of the Congo, Quemoy and Matsu, and for duty in Berlin between 1961 and 1963.

During the early years of the Vietnam War, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal was issued for initial operations in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal was intended to replace the Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal and Navy Expeditionary Medal, but this never occurred and both services continue to award their service expeditionary medals and the AFEM, though not concurrently for the same action.

In 1965, with the creation of the Vietnam Service Medal, the AFEM was discontinued for Vietnam War service. As the Vietnam Service Medal was retroactively authorized, those personnel who had previously received the AFEM were granted the option to exchange the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for the Vietnam Service Medal. In 1968, the AFEM was awarded for Naval operations in defense of the USS Pueblo (AGER-2), which was seized by North Korea, as well as for Korean Service, and awarded for Thailand and Cambodia operations in 1973. Because of these awards during the Vietnam War period, some military personnel have been awarded both the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal & the Vietnam Service Medal. Some military advisers involved in the 1973 Arab–Israeli War were also awarded the medal for their involvement in the supply and training of the IDF on the use and deployment of anti-tank weapons.

In the 1990s, it was awarded to numerous Naval ships such as USS Simpson (FFG-56) who enforced the Dayton Peace Accords and operated in the Adriatic Sea enforcing UN arms embargo against Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and participating in Operation Sharp Guard and Operation Joint Endeavor up through and during the Bosnian crisis.

In 1993, Somalia, (The Battle of Mogadishu), also known as the Black Hawk Down Incident, was part of (Operation Gothic Serpent). Operation Gothic Serpent was a military operation conducted in Mogadishu, Somalia, by an American force code-named (Task Force Ranger) during the Somali Civil War in 1993. The (Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal) was awarded to numerous Naval ships in the Amphibious Squadron 5, the USS New Orleans (LPH-11), USS Denver (LPD-9), USS Comstock (LSD-45), and USS Cayuga (LST-1186).

In 2003, with the creation of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the AFEM was discontinued for Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. After 18 March 2003, some personnel became eligible for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, as well as the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Only one medal may be awarded, however, and individuals or units that deployed to the Gulf for Operation Southern Watch, and then immediately transitioned to Operation Iraqi Freedom, are not eligible for both medals.

Beginning in 1992 an effort was begun to phase out the AFEM in favor of campaign specific medals and the newly created Armed Forces Service Medal. The Armed Forces Service Medal was also originally intended to be a replacement for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, however the two awards are currently considered separate awards with different award criteria. The primary difference between the two is that the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal is normally awarded for combat operations and combat support missions.

U.S. military operations
After the close of the Vietnam War, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal was issued for various military operations in Panama, Grenada, and Libya Operation El Dorado Canyon.

U.S. operations in direct support of the United Nations
The medal is also authorized for several United Nations actions, such as peacekeeping efforts in Somalia.

U.S. operations in direct support of NATO operations
The medal is also authorized for NATO peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia.

U.S. operations of assistance for a friendly foreign nation
The AFEM has been issued for numerous operations in the Persian Gulf, most notably Operation Earnest Will, which began in 1987 and lasted until the eve of Operation Desert Shield. Following the close of Desert Storm, and the engagement in peacekeeping and sanction missions against Iraq, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal was issued again for several operations such as Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch, and Operation Vigilant Sentinel.

Similar awards
Similar awards of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal:

The Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal (the AFEM is no longer issued for operations in the Middle East, but may be reactivated for future campaigns which may not qualify for either the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, and Afghanistan Campaign Medal). Similar in nature to the AFEM, the GWOTEM is awarded for deploying abroad on or after Sept. 11, 2001 (and a future date to be determined), for service in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Service stars are also authorized for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal effective February 9, 2015, retroactive to September, 11, 2001. Each service star represents a deployment in support of an approved GWOT operation. Only one GWOT-EM is awarded for each operation (five bronze service stars are authorized for six approved deployment operations). The GWOT-EM approved operations by inclusive dates are:

 * Enduring Freedom: September 11, 2001 – present
 * Iraqi Freedom: March 19, 2003 - August 31, 2010
 * Nomad Shadow: November 5, 2007 – present
 * New Dawn (Operation Iraqi Freedom renamed): September 1, 2010 – December 31, 2011
 * Inherent Resolve: June 15, 2014 – present
 * Freedom's Sentinel: January 1, 2015 – present

The Navy Expeditionary Medal and the Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal. In the modern era, service members who were authorized one of these medals are occasionally permitted to choose between receipt of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal or the service specific expeditionary medal. The AFEM and the Navy/Marine Expeditionary Medal cannot be bestowed simultaneously for the same action.

The Air and Space Expeditionary Service Ribbon. Although similar in name, this award is unrelated to the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and is presented for duty performed on U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force deployments.

title: Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal


text:
USS Miller (DD-535)

USS Miller (DD-535) was a World War II-era Fletcher-class destroyer in the service of the United States Navy, named after Medal of Honor recipient Acting Master's Mate James Miller.

Miller was laid down 18 August 1942 by Bethlehem Steel Co., San Francisco, California; launched 15 February 1943; sponsored by Mr. William P. Upshur; and commissioned 31 August 1943.

1944
Miller, assigned to the Pacific in Destroyer Squadron 52 (DesRon 52) throughout her World War II service, departed 20 November 1943, for Pearl Harbor. There she conducted exercises until 22 January 1944, interrupted by an escort mission to Makin. On the 23rd she got underway and sailed west with Task Force 51 (TF 51). For the next month she provided screening and gunfire support services as that force assaulted and occupied Kwajalein and Eniwetok. She departed the latter 24 February for Majuro where she joined the Fast Carrier Task Force (then 5th Fleet's TF 58, later 3rd Fleet's TF 38), with which she operated for the remainder of the war.

On 22 March the aircraft carriers, supported by battleships and cruisers, and screened by a ring of destroyers, departed Majuro with Miller in the outer ring of steel. Completing strikes at Palau, Yap, Ulithi, and Woleai (29 March–1 April) they returned briefly to Majuro and then headed for New Guinea where they supported Army assault forces with raids on Hollandia, Wakde, Sewar, and Sarmi (21 April–22 April) and then raided Truk, Satawan, and Ponape (29 April–1 May).

Next the force hit Marcus and Wake Islands (19 May–23 May) and then prepared for the Marianas campaign. On 6 June the carrier force sortied from Majuro again. From the 11th through the 17th its planes and ships ranged from the Volcano and Bonin Islands to the southernmost Marianas, supporting the assault on Saipan and preventing Japanese reinforcements from reaching that beleaguered island and the next target, Guam. On the 17th, after screening the carriers during flight operations for strikes against Saipan, Tinian, Rota, and Guam, Miller received word of a Japanese Fleet approaching from the Philippines. On the 18th she continued to cover the assault forces on Saipan while waiting for the expected engagement. On the 19th she was on the starboard quarter of USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) as enemy dive bombers opened the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Throughout the 2-day battle, which tore the muscle from the Japanese naval air arm, she remained in that carrier's screen, splashing one enemy plane and damaging another.

After brief upkeep at Eniwetok, Miller got underway to rendezvous with the remainder of the task force for further strikes on Iwo Jima and Chichi Jima (3–4 July) and Palau, Ulithi, and Yap (23–27 July). On 30 August the force sailed to support the landings in the Palaus by conducting raids against Palau, Mindanao, Leyte, Luzon, and Samar (7–24 September). In October, operating from Ulithi, the task force prepared for the return to the Philippines with strikes on enemy installations in shipping in the Ryūkyūs, on Taiwan, and in the South China Sea. On the 20th, it commenced support of amphibious operations on Leyte and Samar. Five days later Miller joined the screen of Task Group 34.5 (TG 34.5), then operating with TG 38.2. The two groups then sailed to assist TF 77 which had engaged an enemy force in Surigao Strait in an opening phase of the epic Battle of Leyte Gulf.

Shortly after midnight, while patrolling the waters at the eastern end of San Bernardino Strait, TG 34.5 sighted an enemy destroyer. After several exchanges of gunfire, Miller and USS Owen (DD-536) closed in to finish off the target, accomplishing their missions in under 20 minutes.

Miller then rejoined TF 38 which had resumed air operations against the Philippines. The force raided air installations on Luzon, Leyte, and Samar into November, receiving, on the 19th, its first taste of a new Japanese tactic, the kamikaze. Six days later several of the suicide planes broke through the screen of planes and destroyers to score hits on the carriers USS Hancock (CV-19), USS Intrepid (CV-11), and USS Essex (CV-9). With slight damage, except to Intrepid, the force retired to Ulithi. Thence the force sortied, 11 December, to support amphibious operations on Mindoro, and keep Japanese air forces pinned to the ground. Next came strikes on Taiwan, followed by another return to the Philippines to support amphibious operations, this time in Lingayen Gulf.

1945
After the Luzon landings, the force stepped up its sorties into the South and East China Seas. It struck repeatedly at enemy installations from Saigon to the Ryukyus and frequently sailed northeast to raid the industrial heart of the Japanese Islands. On 19–21 February 1945 they supported the invasion of Iwo Jima and then steamed west again towards Tokyo. By 1 March they had begun an intensified raiding campaign against the Ryukyus and Japan, again preparing the way for an invasion force.

Miller, participating in these raids on Okinawa, Kyūshū, and Honshū, was near USS Franklin (CV-13) when an enemy dive bomber penetrated the screen to drop several 500-pound bombs on the carrier, 19 March. The destroyer went alongside to aid in the rescue and firefighting operations and then covered the carrier's withdrawal, for which actions she was awarded the Navy Unit Commendation. Her captain LCDR Dwight L. Johnson was awarded the Navy Cross.

Miller rejoined the fast carriers 8 April as they provided air cover for ground forces embattled on Okinawa. Into June she screened the carriers and rescued downed pilots as the force struck at military and industrial concentrations from the southern Ryukus to Kyūshū. On the 20th, she was detached from TF 38 and ordered back to the United States for navy yard availability. She arrived at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 9 July, and was still moored there when the war ended.

1945–1964
On 19 December 1945 Miller decommissioned and joined the Reserve Fleet at San Diego, California. She remained there until 19 May 1951, when she recommissioned and joined the Atlantic Fleet with Newport, Rhode Island as her homeport. On 6 September 1952 the destroyer departed the East Coast for Korea and a round-the-world cruise. Arriving at Sasebo, Japan, 11 October, she got underway for gunfire support and interdiction fire duty with TF 95 off the Korean coast. Remaining on station in the combat area almost continuously until February 1953, Miller also served with TF 77 screening carriers as they conducted air operations against North Korean ground forces. On 11 February she departed for home, via the Mediterranean. After her return to Newport she resumed operations along the East Coast with periodic deployment in the Mediterranean. In 1958, while serving with the 6th Fleet. she participated in that fleet's swift response to the request of President Camille Chamoun of Lebanon for tangible aid to prevent a threatened coup d’etat.

In 1959 Miller was detached from service with the active fleet and reported for Naval Reserve training duty at Boston 9 March. Whilst in Boston, a cadet from the training ship MV Rakaia swam across the harbour at night and raised the Soviet flag on her flag mast as a joke. As a training ship, USS Miller conducted cruises for more than 11,000 reservists. October 1961 President John F. Kennedy activated her reserve crew during the Berlin Wall Crisis. On 30 March 1964 she sailed for Norfolk, Virginia. There, on 30 June, she was decommissioned and reentered the Reserve Fleet.

Miller was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 1 December 1974. She was sold 31 July 1975 and broken up for scrap.

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

title: USS Miller (DD-535)


text:
Category:Optical illusions

An optical illusion is any illusion that deceives the human visual system into perceiving something that is not present or incorrectly perceiving what is present.

title: Category:Optical illusions


text:
Cavanal Hill

Cavanal Hill (officially Cavanal Mountain), located near Poteau, Oklahoma, is described by a sign at its base as the "'World's Highest Hill' – Elevation: 1,999 feet". The actual summit elevation is 2385 ft above sea level; the difference in elevation between the summit and the Poteau River 3 mi to the north is 1960 ft.

Hill / mountain
The billing is based on a delineation between a hill and a mountain, that being if the geographical feature were 2,000 feet or higher than its base, then it would be classified as a mountain instead of a hill. However, the United States Geographic Names Information System contains thousands of summits with "hill" in their names which are higher than 2,000 feet.

Etymology
One source claims that the name is derived from a French word meaning "cave":. Oklahoma historian Muriel H. Wright wrote that cavanol is a corruption of the French word, meaning "cavernous."

History
Cavanal Hill was a notable landmark for French explorers who traveled this area in the 18th century and gave the landmark its name. During the late 1700s, French fur trappers established a camp at the base of Cavanal and named it Poteau, for "Post". Thomas Nuttall studied plant life here in 1819, and learned about other natural wonders from local French trappers and Indians who were living here.

During territorial times Cavanal Hill was along the border of Skullyville County and Sugar Loaf County, two of the constituent counties making up the Moshulatubbee District of the Choctaw Nation.

In the late 1800s, Walter Beard established a health resort at the summit of Cavanal Hill. This was a modest wood-frame structure that catered to visitors in the area. Besides the view, the major draw was the natural springs that occur throughout the region.

Halfway up Cavanal Hill, George Witte established the town of Witteville. This was a coal mining company town. The mines were located three miles east of the town. Witteville is still marked on some maps, and can be found at the "Y" leading up to the top of Cavanal Hill. Much of the road leading up to the top of the hill was part of the original railroad that led to Witteville.

In the 1960s, Senator Robert S. Kerr established a summer residence at the summit of Cavanal Hill. This summer house was located on the same site where Walter Beard first established his health resort.

Recreation
Cavanal Hill is now the site of mountain bike races and the Cavanal Hill Killer 5-Mile Walk. A 4.5 mile blacktopped road leads to the summit where visitors can enjoy picturesque views of the Poteau River Valley. Reportedly, one can see Mount Magazine in Arkansas from here on a clear day.

title: Cavanal Hill


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solstice BBS

was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Solstice BBS - see below

Yet Another Internet Forum. Guys - you have a listing here: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Bulletin_Board_Systems/Individual_Systems/. Wikipedia is not the place to duplicate it. Unless you can measure yourselves with the likes of Slashdot. Ianb 19:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is not just an advertisement, and is NPOV.  -- Merovingian  ✍  Talk  12:14, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not an ad, it's not POV - it's just not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oooh, 3000 users, woooow. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Better to have a page that talks about BBS's on a high level then links externally to maintained lists elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is high-level the actual content (source documents) are elsewhere. Like, the entry for the Constitution does not contain the entire Constitution in Wikipedia, it links to it. Stbalbach 08:13, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would it be better if I had an entry for every BBS? -- Merovingian ✍  Talk  07:59, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, Merovingian, but I have to vote delete on this. I do think, in fact, that we have had some years to separate us from the old BBS systems, and articles on those are interesting.  However, an article on a current concern seems like boosterism, no matter how carefully written.  To me, this seems like advertising, even though it attempts to be descriptive.  The systems as opposed to a board, in other words, seem NPOV entities. Geogre 20:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article has popped unexpectedly back onto my watchlist. It seems to have been deleted per above, although there is no note of the deletion taking place, and has now been recreated.

Alas, however nice / worthy the site may be, it still does not appear notable in any shape or form and I see no reason for its reappearance in this online encyclopedia. I also not it has no Alexa ranking. Ianb 16:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Can't this be speedied? Articles that suddenly show back up after being deleted like this usually are. -- [[User:Bobdoe| Bob Doe ]] 21:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought I had rewritten it to make it less advertisement-like. I guess we are basing this on encyclopedic-ness?  It's certainly more encyclopedic than some other things that have been accepted into Wikipedia.  What are the Alexa ratings of the other BBS's in Category:Bulletin board systems?  If just one of them is as low as Solstice's I think we should examine all of them on an all-or-nothing basis.  -- Merovingian [[Image:Atombomb.gif|]] Talk  00:54, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: SolsticeBBS shouldn't be in Category:Bulletin board systems anyway. It's not a true Bulletin board system, just another Internet forum, of which there are very, very many, and only the really notable (the kin of Slashdot) deserve an entry, IMHO. Otherwise Wikipedia is going to end up as a self-service DMOZ. Ianb 17:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep, seems marginally notable. Rhymeless 02:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. 3000 users doesn't make it notable. I'd need evidence of some other form of notability. Average Earthman 08:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable BBS.   — Gwalla | Talk 16:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - advert - no mention of any fame in the article even - Tεx  τ  urε  18:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with haste. --Golbez 08:15, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rewriting adverts to make them less obviously adverts comes close to being sneaky vandalism. It is still an advert and still, as far as I can tell, no more notable than thousands of other internet forusm. Jallan 15:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:LVMH

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KwokHy98. Peer reviewers: Sleep by 11.

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

Two of the sections in the "Controversy" section aren't about LVMH
The first two subsections of the Controversy section ("John Galliano's anti-semitism" and "Sebastian Suhl") don't seem offhand to be about LVMH, at least not directly. Should they be removed? Carnivalier (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Why do LVMH give free advertising to rival TAG?
Why do they allow or order their Heuer watch brand to carry the name of TAG on the dial, rather than LVMH Heuer on the dial, or just Heuer on the dial? If they don't want their own name on the dial, why do they think Heuer's origins should be diluted by someone else's name other than Heuer, in this case being TAG, on the dial? Can anyone research this information? Middle More Rider (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by XiaoyuChennyu (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Ryan1232378 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:LVMH


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craft's Journey

Vanity. Entry for a movie not listed in IMDB, with cast & crew not listed in imdb, and which only specifies that it makes "groundbreaking" use of depicting things as penises. Luvcraft 19:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find anything about this on Google (except sites with mirrored data from Wikipedia). Also, if this is deleted then it's companion page RAT editing should be VfDed, I can't find anything on that and the name Fitzo McGriggen is completely fabricated. Avorcent Smythe and Fitzo McGriggen, what a pair! - Eisnel 06:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Talk about booshwah. Probably more BS from the jerk who hit us up with that "Hollywood Jam" crap a couple of months ago.  "RAT editing?"  One wouldn't "edit" to get that implied style of theirs.  Patent nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 06:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is absurd as a joke.  Delusional vanity.  N.b. the "Alan Smythie" homonymn name. Geogre 13:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Put the camera down and hit delete. - UtherSRG 15:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Argh. Ianb 21:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Full stop

Unicode
Shouldn't the Unicode  character be mentioned here and in the Sentence spacing article? Encyclopedant (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned here in . For Sentence spacing, ask in Talk:Sentence spacing. Guy Harris (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Since this is an American website, why is the uncommon full stop promoted to the standard?
Just what the title says. Full stop is almost never used in the U.S. Why is it being elevated above the word period? This website was created in the United States, therefore, we should be adhering to the country of origin's standards.

--Snippert (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, are you. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:7418:968A:9293:632E (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Chances are that more English speakers, including the 400 million or so in India, call it a full stop. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes https://en.wikipedia.org an "American" web site? Guy Harris (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a forthright response to this question on pages where these disputes are common. Although the English Wikipedia is hosted by an American non-profit, the project aims to serve all English speakers. Barring considerations not relevant to this article, the Manual of Style states that when an article may be titled in either an American or a British style, the original title should be maintained. The article 'Full Stop' referred to the punctuation mark before 'Period' did. The same policy recommends consistency within an article, which resulted in "full stop" being used rather than "period" throughout the article. Maltice (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm more befuddled by "full point" which TIL was purportedly a thing. Local Potentate (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * discusses the use of "full point", but use elsewhere in the article (other than in the introductory sentence of the lede) of "full point" should perhaps be replaced with "full stop", so the reader only has to deal with two terms, rather than having to deal with a third term that I suspect is less common than either "full stop" or "period". Guy Harris (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Full point is the name of the character; full stop the role it plays at the end of a sentence but not otherwise (e.g. at the end of an abbreviation).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish oh. that's interesting. that should be on the page... is it's already there, it is not as clear as this. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, someone's got to dig up a source for it. I'm sure I have one or more around somewhere, but have a lot going on right now. If someone else doesn't get to it within a few weeks, ping me about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

usage in text section identifiers and software versions
i have seen text section identifiers like "5.3", "4.2.9", also, like that, software versions. please add about that in the usage section. --Qdinar (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * you have written only about software versions: . --Qdinar (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean multilevel numbering? This time, it's your turn to do some work. A quick and superficial web search comes up with many pages saying how to do it in MsWord but none that define it or say where, when and why it is used, This one (https://www.roberttaylorcommunications.com/tmc-general/paragraph-numbering/ ) comes close but it is not obviously an authoritative source. It will do if you can't find better but doubtless given time you can. Over to you! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022
The third sentence of this article repeats the words “used to” in error. Please change:

Although full stop technically applies only when the mark is used to used to end a sentence, the distinction – drawn since at least 1897[1] – is not maintained by all modern style guides and dictionaries.

to

Although full stop technically applies only when the mark is used to end a sentence, the distinction – drawn since at least 1897[1] – is not maintained by all modern style guides and dictionaries. 2603:6080:DD02:3000:A48F:30D:347E:63C2 (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  09:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't get it
How do you english-speaking people distinguish a full stop that ends a sentence from a full stop that ends a paragraph? In spanish we have "Punto y aparte" for the latter, and "Punto y seguido" for the former. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't. The full stop that ends the last sentence of a paragraph is also the full stop that ends the paragraph.  Paragraphs are separated by blank lines. Guy Harris (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * . So, let's say a teacher is dictating a piece of text. Does he or she say, "full stop, blank line" when you have to shift to a new paragraph? Or maybe something like, "full stop, next line"? Or how does that work? I'm curious. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been decades since I was in school, and I never was a teacher, but it's probably something like "full stop, new paragraph". Guy Harris (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * . Interesting. Thanks. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joaquin89uy never had a teacher dictate. Secretaries take dictation, and there aren't any secretaries anymore. Everyone types their own stuff now. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A person dictating English would say "Full-stop, New paragraph." Please note that paragraphs are not separated by blank lines in novels. In novels, and also some business letter styles, the first line of a new paragraph indented by typically 3 or 5 spaces (referred to as 1 stop). Most modern business documents, user guides etc don't do this and instead insert the blank line. It's a purely personal and stylistic choice. Blitterbug 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023
Please insert the following section under the §Full stops in other scripts section:—

Thank you. 104.246.222.128 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't be added even with reliable sources, because periods/full stops/full points are not cantillation marks or vice-versa. Hebrew cantillation marks are a form of end mark; WP doesn't have an article on them, though they are mentioned in the journalistic context at End mark (disambiguation).  Periods/stops can be a considered a sub-class of end marks in the broad sense, namely ones that pertain to the narrow class of section called "a sentence".  The anonymous editor above would be better off doing an hour or two of research, with proper sources, and creating a short article on sectional end marks in general, with a section on Hebrew cantillation marks, and a hightly compressed section on period/stop that is a WP:SUMMARY of the gist of the Full stop article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Q
Is putting a "full stop" necessary at the end of non-sentence captions? We have many differences and variant methods here on the Encyclopedia's countless articles. Please ping, if you are going to leave a comment. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Note: I got the answer here. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Usage of Full Stops in Chinese and Japanese

 * “When used with traditional characters the full stop is generally centered on the mean line; when used with simplified characters, it is usually aligned to the baseline.”

This statement is correct for Chinese, but it is inaccurate for Japanese, so it needs to be corrected. Mochimkchiking (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

American usage of the term "full stop"
I was introduced to the term "full stop" with the meaning that is used at the disambiguation page Full Stop: a form of punctuation to end a sentence. While the British use appears to be as a synonym for period dot, the American definition is intended to refer generically to a class of punctuation marks that also includes the question mark and exclamation point (with the comma rated as a "quarter stop", the semicolon as a half and the colon as a three-quarter stop). Why does the Full stop article ignore this definition while the Full Stop article leads with it? 71.105.190.227 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This Australian (familiar with what you describe as the British usage) has never come across your "American" definition. Can you provide a reliable source that documents it? HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I imagine the definition is not used in Australia.
 * I mainly recall someone speaking from a position of expertise online but not any particular educational or textbook setting.71.105.190.227 (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This American has also never heard of the purported American definition. What indicated that the person claiming that as the American usage had expertise in this matter?
 * And the Full Stop disambiguation page says that "A full stop is a form of punctuation to end a sentence." That doesn't say "a full stop is any punctuation that ends a sentence"; a period dot is, indeed, a form of punctuation to end a sentence, just as a question mark is a form of punctuation to end a sentence, as is an exclamation point. Guy Harris (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed; "a" and "any" are not synonymous. If the anon is quoting an actual source somewhere, then its wording wasn't very clear, but that doesn't give us license (per WP:NOR) to reinterpret it in the broadest possible way just because one of us would like to. PS: For anyone curious, this "stop" terminology appears to been popularized and solidified in meaning by telegraphy, with a comma dictated aloud as "stop" and a period/full-point as "full stop" (thoug some of this terminology is older and was just  telegraphy). It might be worth adding to the article somewhere, though as usual a source would be needed for it. I likely have one or more around somewhere, but it would take considerable effort to go through all these style and punctuation and history-of-English and history-of-writing and history-of-printing and history-of-telecommunications books to find something that specific (even if most of them are text-searchable e-books at this point, as I modernize, and downsize the footprint of my physical library; at my age, my back couldn't make moving 5,000+ books again, even to another unit in the same building).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

is full stop only for ending a sentence?
some say that full stop is by definition the punctuation that ends a declarative sentence. and that the character used is the full point. further the full point is used for other things like abbreviation. is that correct?

so full stop isn't a character per se. it's a grammatical element.... for which the full point char is used.

i ask since the article is not consistent with that. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See thread above that is already about this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not as clearly as I want.
 * Full point is the name of the character; full stop the role it plays at the end of a sentence but not otherwise (e.g. at the end of an abbreviation)
 * So, full point is the char and a declarative sentence ends with a full stop. Or is it more correct to say that full stop and full point both refer to the same character; and that full point always applies but full stop applies only when used to end a sentence?
 * I assume (but am not sure) that a full stop is always rendered as a full point.
 * You're wording is not clear about what full stop means WRT full point. Are you saying that a full point is never considered a full stop _unless_ it ends a sentence? Stevebroshar (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

what words are synonymous?
is period synonymous with full stop?

is full point synonymous with: dot? point?

is period NOT synonymous with dot? Stevebroshar (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See thread above that is already about this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't answer all my questions, no. But, your info is helpful. And I have learned more since I posted the topic.
 * Based on the article and other sources, I think that full stop and period are synonymous (even though that is not made clear in the article). Seems that the latter is used in American English and full stop in other variants.
 * If, as you say, full point is the name of the character (little dot on the baseline), then I think that dot and point also refer to this same character (all three synonymous). The article and other sources say that point is commonly used when describing a number delimiter and dot is commonly used for an alpha delimiter (like in a URL).
 * If, as you say, full stop is more abstract than the character, describing what ends a declarative sentence, then they are not synonymous. And by transitive properties, period is not synonymous with dot. But it's muddied since a period (full stop) is always rendered as a dot (full point). So, sorta synonymous.
 * All that, if correct, should be clearly stated in the article. Stevebroshar (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

and continues in much digital media
WRT ''Two word spaces ... This spacing method was gradually replaced by the single space convention in published print, where space is at a premium, and continues in much digital media''

Does it mean: a) single spacing replaced double in print media, _but_ double is still used in digital media; the practice of double continued in digital despite changing in print or b) single spacing replaced double in print media, and single replaced double in digital media too; the pattern of replacement continued from print to digital Stevebroshar (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 * And are we talking about monospaced type (where one and two spaces are clearly distinguishable)? or proportionally spaced type (where the width of a space may not be so clear)? or cleverly [computer] typeset type that plays with the word spacing to avoid crying a river (typography).
 * Citation needed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the section is talking about characters typed at the keyboard regardless of how they are rendered. The section is about that rule I learned in school to put two spaces after a period. But, today we only use one. I assume the text _means_ b, but it is unclear. Stevebroshar (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

ASCII value
@JMF WRT change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Full_stop&diff=1226113725&oldid=1226023003 ASCII value already given, redundant/UNDUE in this list, the ASCII value is not elsewhere. ... Not that the info (ASCII value) is all that important, but am confused by your change comment. Stevebroshar (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A cock-up, not a conspiracy. I was sure I had seen the ASCII code-point mentioned earlier. But where?
 * I suppose I should have reverted but I think that I did the right thing, albeit for the wrong reason. IMO, it would be DUE in an article about the history of Unicode but here it just seems too incidental. Reinstate if you insist, I won't challenge again. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is interesting in that there is one Unicode codepoint that is directly related to the (one and only) ASCII period. It hints that at least for boring English speakers like myself, that Unicode codepoint is the one I should use. Stevebroshar (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying the terms
I'd like to clarify the various terms by adding something like this:

The various terms including full stop, period, dot, point, decimal point, full point, full dot all refer to the same character -- a small, solid dot at the baseline. The terms apply based on context.
 * 1) Full stop and period refer to the character when used to end a sentence; period is more commonly used in North American English and full stop in other English variants
 * 2) Both point and decimal point apply when it delimits two numbers that represent whole and fractional values
 * 3) Point is often used when it delimits numbers (i.e. software version number)
 * 4) Dot (or full dot in a typographical context) applies when used to delimit text (i.e. URL) or [maybe] in any context

---

That Unicode uses the term full stop for the character is a misnomer. Then again, there does not seem to be one term that is without question the name of the character. Stevebroshar (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (I trust that you won't mind that I have changed your bullet points to numbers)
 * I agree with the proposal in principle
 * Agree
 * A correctly-written decimal points is a middot or interpunct ·; using a full stop [sic] for this purpose is a "draft stage" convention.
 * 'Point' is rarely used for "major release" delimiters, eg "X is Twitter two dot oh". But yes for development phases Windows 3.5.3125 is three point five point 3125.
 * The article says that the dot after Dr. in "Dr. Doolittle" is a point.
 * Agree
 * -User:JMF
 * Not following on the middot/interpunct/draft stuff. I guess there are typography issues that are outside what I'm interested in. I'm interesting in the text that I type at a keybaord. ... IDK about Point is rarely used for "major release" delimiters, but it might be rather mixed between point and dot for version numbers. I think I say "two point oh". Hard to know since I'm overthinking it rn. Stevebroshar (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoops, mid-dot as decimal point is "cultural". According to Glossary of mathematical symbols, mid-dot is a multiplication symbol. Stricken from the record. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoops, mid-dot as decimal point is "cultural". According to Glossary of mathematical symbols, mid-dot is a multiplication symbol. Stricken from the record. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Full stop


text:
User talk:Scumbag

Hi. Great picture of your intermittent divergent squint! Can I use in a lecture at Royal Society of Medicine? 185.58.166.44 (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to like... post stuff here.

 Post new stuff at the top, please.  I know most people like it on the bottom, but I like it on the top.

 Post it on the top  I'm going to warn you that I'll delete it if its at the bottom, but I never really have the heart to.

The Future of WP:40k
Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough
This and this are not appropriate. Please do not warn off every user I come in contact with, especially when you aren't involved in any way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is very appropriate to warn users of your deleting whole sections instead of trying to improve them yourself. --Mjrmtg 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, nor was that what he was doing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though I'm pretty sure you'll get upset by this line, it's too funny to not use it: you should be going down on one knee and thanking my surprisingly-firm rear end for explaining the situation to others. After all, an editor who realizes your modus operandi early is one less who won't violate 3RR trying to save the pages you purge, no? Scumbag 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I'm not thanking you for poisoning the well with every user I interact with. Don't do it again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not 'poisoning any well', nor is it my intention to do so. All I've done is left messages for people that I fear would wind up experiencing the same unpleasantness that I did. Perhaps I should have just linked to your User Contribs instead of putting my own take on the situation, and for that I am a little sorry. I'm honored, though, that you think that something I could do would cause people to turn against you. Scumbag 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AMiB - Reply
I know, I've dealt with him before. What makes me mad personally is how he makes such changes to pages he has no knowledge of. What's more, with the Zeratul page, days ago I made a large overhaul to increase the quality of page, including making it in-universe, adding sources, etc.

But yeah, he rarely, if ever, listens to arguments against his edits, so I'm not worried. I'll rv him in a couple days and be done with it. There's no pleasing some people. The Clawed One 02:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't in rather insulting to assume I know nothing about Starcraft? Give me a break.

 * Go do some research. The Blizzard devs were blabbermouths for years. There's probably plenty of critical reaction and developer conception to add to that article; it doesn't have to be 99% "I played the game and this is what happened!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's plenty of critical reaction, I'm sure you can find it fairly effectively. Of course, since the issue is really that there's a better source in fan reaction, we simply see another problem with Wikipedia's citing policies. Scumbag 18:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a compliation of facts that have been published. The opinion of every single person ever isn't needed as part of that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cybran.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cybran.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!
For your efforts with Tiberium and User:A Man In Black. GeeCee 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to respond to this - thank you. It feels good that there's more than just me feeling the same way. Scumbag 17:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gathering evidence on MiB
Hello, I'm thinking of starting RfC on User:A Man In Black, and currently gathering evidence of his bad behavior. Can you help me with links, diffs and so on. The page is here: User:Grue/workshop.  Grue  21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, at least on most of my events with him. Scumbag 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your advocacy request with AMA
Hello, I'm a relatively new AMA member considering taking your case. It sounds like your difficulties involve a number of other articles besides the Tiberium one. Could you identify a few other articles where you've experienced difficulties? Please reply on the case page and/or feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiberium Edits
Those idiots are reverting your edits which are significant even though you correctly sourced them too. So I am moving one of the version of your edits on the tiberium page to The Encyclopedia Gamia. When I checked in The C&C games I owned the information was CORRECT! So feel free to make an account and sign up. --Cs california 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Mister Tough Guy
Here is a hypothetical situation for you. A movie about world without children closes with the first baby born in 20 years in a rowboat, waiting for rescue. The sounds of children's laughter and playing are heard in the background, and continue through the credits and soundtrack (but are not a part of the latter). Should it be included in the synopsis, as it is an observable part of the "movieworld," or should it be left out, as most reviewers consider it a part of the movie. Another question for you: why does the plot of a film not require citation? I know why, but cannot find a reference within WP to clarify it for me.Arcayne 03:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the way I figure it, you could put it in there as long as its got that spoiler tag on it. If someone reads past the 'warning, this spoils shit' thing, and discovers it, its their problem. As for the second question, I don't know. I would guess that because anyone could watch the movie to confirm it. But hell if I know. Scumbag 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for edit warring. User:Scumbag/Scumpolicies is just mindboggling. Editors here follow Wikipedia's policies, not their own made up ones. You are more than welcome to go elsewhere if you don't like the policies here. – Steel 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I had expected to be blocked for edit warring the previous night when AMiB and the other guy were. Hell, I suggested it. But I'll be cool from now on. Scumbag 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy
After looking at the issues with Tiberium and the magic card pages, I've decided that I need to step in and comment. Please view the policy of attribution, which states that content should be attributable to a reliable source. Although what is reliable is constantly under debate, it usually not good to simply cite the game as a source throughout an entire article; the game should only be cited itself in plot summary cases, and articles cannot be entirely plot summary unless they are a general subarticle (which Tiberium is not). Also, the "notable cards" section is POV; instead, it's best to cite cards as examples of card mechanisms; for example, explaining the storm ability would cite the card brainfreeze, and suspend can be cited with lotus bloom. If our policies are not followed by the bulk of a section of content, then editors may remove or consolidate that section unless it can be neutralized and attributed to a reliable source while avoid what Wikipedia is not. — Deckiller 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know its not the best fix to simply cite the game, but AMiB asked for me to cite sources, and I did to the best of my ability. I suppose I could have cited specific videos in the game... As for the Notable Card section... I guess I just disagree. Scumbag 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I get what you're getting at with the MTG cards, and it's not strictly a bad idea (and is a very open-source way of looking at things). The problem...well, it's illustrated by your removal of the list at the Planeshift article. Someone, clearly, thought that those cards were notable enough to include. You didn't. How would we resolve that issue if there was a disagreement? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Citing notable cards
Unfortunately WP:V needs the claims such as "notable" as it would be used in a card list to be cited. What you suggest boils down to Wiki acting as the arbiter of which cards are notable with the Project engaging in WP:OR. That's counter to Wiki's policies and guidelines, it's supposed to present the information, not create it. — J Greb 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pfft. If doing as I propose is counter to Wikipedia's polices and guildlines, it shows the failures of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Remember, I see original research as inevitable and valueable, and this is a prime example of it. Nobody is creating the information that certain cards are notable. Nobody makes a research paper that proves that the Power Nine are notable. That happens naturally. I suppose this also tries into Understand The Topic Or Don't Edit, since only someone completely foreign to Magic would actually assume people are creating this information. Remember, many of the sections we're discussing are over 5 years old. If some of them weren't really Notable, wouldn't someone have already purged the Cards In Question from the Lists In Question? The answer is - of course - that they would have. Scumbag 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men
Okay, I am willing to give you the opportunity to prove your point about editing an article to make it better, in spite of Wikipedia's policies. The Children of Men (film) article has been essentially dominated by one editor (driving off two others). As you may recall, the end of the movie has the sound of children laughing and playing, and there are the words "shantih shantih shantih" (a Hindi prayer) at the very end, after the credits. Except for a short sentence about the shantih thing, these elements appear nowhere else in the article. Show me how you would include them via edits.Arcayne 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to abide by my Understand the Topic Or Don't Edit policy. I haven't seen the movie, and know little about Hindi prayers. I know it looks like a cop-out - and lord knows I'd love to do it to prove my point - but I really don't have the requisite background to edit that information - a background that the one editor obviously has. If I had to, I'd just slap it at the bottom of the plot synopsis, link shantih to inner peace, and give the editing reason as "its at the end of the film, and it's interesting.". I suspect that doing so wouldn't be against Wikipedia's policies tho. I know, it's pretty much a cop-out. Scumbag 07:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's already on the article - it's in the Themes section. Scumbag 07:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Scumbag/Scumpolicies
Have you considered Everything2? What you're describing is a more personal, more establish-your-credibility-based-on-the-quality-of-your-writing style, and that's E2's thing far more than it is WP's. E2 doesn't have NPOV, doesn't require references, and doesn't mandate writing style (other than "interesting").

Coming to Wikipedia, flouting its basic principles, and having your work replaced with work that meets Wikipedia's goals isn't going to be very rewarding. E2, on the other hand, is exactly what you're describing there, and, while it's never quite as informative, it's a damn sight more entertaining - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would I need to use E2, when much of what I do never gets modified to fit Wikipedia policy? The answer is, of course, because I know that the people who request the things you wish don't have the requistite knowledge to do whatever pointless fix they would like to see done. Scumbag 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, betting that things won't ever get cleaned up is generally a losing bet. It was just an idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicely said
I jumped to your user page from some edits you made on some Warhammer articles, and I must say, I quite like your My beliefs about Wikipedia and editing section. Nicely said.

See you around! --Falcorian (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars episodes
Excuse me? That was not vandalism. I reverted your edits because the cross-links are not needed. The titles have little in common other than the episode distictions. The only case where you would use cross-links is, for example, when have articles for the film called Serenity and an episode called Serenity. See what I mean? The actual titles aren't similar at all in your case. The Wookieepedian 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're correct, the titles have little in common. One is a Half-Life product called Episode One/Two/Three, and one's a movie called Episode One/Two/Three. Since I already changed it so a user isn't immediately spat into the Star Wars movies when they punch in Episode One/Two/Three, I went the extra mile to ensure that someone who did wander into the Star Wars movie articles can find their way into something they could have been looking for - the other thing named Episode One/Two/Three. If there's no point in removing it, as you did, it's vandalism. Scumbag 21:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, as WP:VANDALISM states it, stubbornness is not vandalism. However, Wookieepedian is not being stubborn, I find it highly unlikely that a user would somehow wander into a Star Wars article when they are attempting to find the article for the game spin-offs to Half-Life 2. Especially in the case of the titles, which are not specifically Episode One/Two/Three, but use roman numerals as opposed to words. In addition, the titles are specifically known by their Episode number; in fact among fan members they are more known by their subtitles, i.e. The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith. Therefore, these cross-links are unneccesary, and should be removed/left off. If you still disagree you can always put it to a vote on the talk page. The Filmaker 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your point fails; until I started editing redirecting pages, the only way to get to the Episode X articles were to type the entire "Half Life 2: Episode One/Two/Three" bit into the search engine - everything else redirected to the movies - an unacceptable situation. I'm just making the accessability of the HL episodes as available as possible. Fortunately, I've made it so that Episode X searches go to a disambiguation page instead of simply going to the Star Wars movie links, so there's no need to revert Wookie's vandalism again. Scumbag 00:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again I'll state the Wookiepedian's edit were not vandalism. Please do not simply edit articles before a consensus in discussion is reached, keep talking; otherwise as you will be violating the three revert rule and starting an edit war. I agree with your changing the redirects for Episode 1 and Episode 2 to allow users to choose between the films and the games. However you are making too wide of an assumption by putting a cross-link in the film articles just case a user should some how "wander in". I don't disagree with your wanting to making the HL games more accessible, but the cross-links in the SW articles are simply unneccesary. The Filmaker 01:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username
I happened across your name in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. My first take is that your choice of username is inappropriate, and I think it would be best for you to change it voluntarily. You say on your user page that it is your nickname outside Wikipedia, but I think it nonetheless gives the wrong impression. Specifically, in scanning through the thread, I did a double take in thinking someone was writing an insult rather than simply mentioning your username. LotLE × talk 19:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An understandable misconception... one that I've grown too fond of witnessing in my life, on the net and in real life. Scumbag 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

SS2 Citations
I would like to point out that regardless of our difference of opinion on certain points, the first peer review that this article gets will most likely see all those so-called "facts" removed simply because thay are not properly sourced. The goal of sourcing things in articles is to provide a reader who may be completely unfamiliar with the subject with some reference points and knowledge that the article wasn't just made up. Unless sources are found for those "facts" eventualy they will have to get removed. Look at any featured videogame article and the number of sources in it and things being sourced. Most of the time even things definitevly encountered in the game need to be sourced, let alone simple speculation such as tha name being based on certain something. I assure you, I am not trying to undermine your contributions, but this article has a lot of cruft which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Tani unit 12:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Let me understand your argument - you want proof that a rocket-powered starship by the name of Von Braun was named after something other than a rocket scientist, and other facts that were never flat-out stated because, unlike Wikipedians, the developers knew the player could put two and two together? Please provide an argument that actually convinces me that what I'm doing is wrong. Scumbag 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Uh, in case you don't understand the wikipedia guidelines and rules of common sence let me break it down for you. You claim that Von Braun is named after something. It is up to you to substantiate your claims, and not up to me to refute them. And yeah, unlike players, wikipedians do need proof and citations, that's what we have guidelines for. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site.

edit: In case you haven't done so yet, please take a look at featured articles, such as Shadow of the Colossus or Half-Life 2. Look at how many things are being sourced and what kinds of things are being sourced. I suppose you do know that Featured Article status implies that the article was heavily reviewed and selected as such by experienced editors? In an encyclopedia you don't take facts for granted, you source them. Tani unit 03:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * See, this is the fundamental flaw in your argument. I'm not claiming that the Von Braun is named for something. I've played System Shock 2. It's a space ship. The developers named it Von Braun. I can punch 'Von Braun' into Wikipedia, and discover that until you changed it to go to a disambiguation page, the word Von Braun either was a spaceship in System Shock 2, or Wernher von Braun. Rocket ship named Von Braun, a guy who worked in rockets. I suspect I stumbled onto a fact that the developers didn't put down in a "This Game For Morons and Wikipedians" FAQ, allowing me to do what I've done to discover that the Von Braun was named after Von Braun!. Give me a break.

As for your examples - don't use articles you've worked on (which I will dismiss) or articles that haven't actually gotten manhandled by ignorant editors. Do you actually think everything on those HL2 articles is cited? Obviously, since you're trying to argue that the article is well-cited, you obviously don't. Of course, I'm not going to add the citing requests in the relevent sections, because the concept of using an un-cited article as if it's cited properly is just too damnably funny. Scumbag 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I suppose I am also the one who named the lunar crater Von Braun. Oh wait, that's an actual crater. You're saying because wikipedia had only two articles for the name Von Braun it follows that the two are directly related? The logic astounds. Oh, and guess what.

I added the starship link to the already existing disambig page, which listed the crater as well, so there goes your argument. As far as featured articles - let me get this straight. You're saying that featured articles are written and rewied by ignorant editors, and sourcing/citing things is completely unnecessasry because they seem obvious to you? Who exaclty made you the authority on the matter? Tani unit 14:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The lack of authority from diehard Wikipedians gives anyone with a serious and proper knowledge of the subject the relevent authority. When a Wikipedian comes in and adds a bunch of "cite this" crap onto a page, it's a clear sign of not having a modicum of understanding about the topic at hand. If you think something is wrong, edit it or remove it. Someone who knows what he or she is doing will eventually come around and fix the mess.

And no, you didn't name the Lunar Crater. However, given that nobody wrote in the article says that the VB was named after the Lunar Crater, that's your clue to leave it to the ones who know what the VB was named for. Wikipedia is a fan site, because all the articles are written (and should be maintained) only by those who actually know what they are talking about - the fans. Scumbag 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Being a fan of the game does not empower you with the ability to read minds of the game developers the last time I checked. So your assumptions about things being named after something or other are groundless speculation and nothing but. If you're so certain about being right and such a big fan as you claim then contact the former devs and ask them what the name is really based on.

As far as citations you seem to miss the whole point. I and others could care less for your claims about being knowledgable on the matter at hand if you're unable to substantiate said claims other with chest-thumping. I could claim that Von Braun is named after a lunar crater and there is not a signle thing in the game that would point one way or another. The articles of any encyclopedia are written with the assumption that the reader does not know anything about the subject, hence why things need to be cited as to not appear as original research. I do know tha game and myself am a fan of it, but most people never played it and don't know anything about it, that's why we wrote the article. That's why any such claims in it need to be substantiated. Tani unit 17:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not missing the point. The point you're missing is that the name is not groundless speculation, nor am I reading the minds of the developers - I'm using critical thinking skills to understand connections and references that people either know, or people would be reading the article to learn. If you know the game as well as you claim, we would not be having this discussion. It's ok, I'll have a random TTLGer make the claim, and use it to cite the obvious for you. Scumbag 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What you're calling "critical thinking skills" wikipedia considers to be original research. You simply have to accept the fact that this isn't gameFAQs or gamewikis, this particular sites strives to be encyclopedic hence the guidelines along those of a real-world encyclopedia. In game, as far as I am aware, the origins of the name for Von Braun are never mentioned. Bearing in mind that these are game-developers we are talking about here, not actual rocket scientists, I somehow doubt that they would base any of the names used on rocket-ship pioneers. It's not impossible, but doesn't seem terribly likely either. It could have been inspired by one of their mother's maiden names for all we know. Again, you're not citing this for me, you're citing this for other editors who for the most part strictly abide by wiki policies. If the article was ever to be peer-reviewed they would remove most anything from trivia that doesn't cite it's sources. And they have full authority to do so because this policy is established by the wikipedia's founder. While in Rome be Roman, as simple as that. No hard feelings. Tani unit 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that Wikipedia is nothing more than a gameFAQs or Gamewiki - high-end idealistic statements being as worthless as citing the origins of the VB's name - anything that would be removed under a peer-review session would be inevitably added back into the article fairly quickly. Wikipedians, as much as they don't want to admit it, will discover that the fans of the series are the ones who did the original research in the first place. We're not the ones who need to cite... we're the ones who wrote the things that some need cited. And the source you can use is Wikipedia. You're right - when in Rome do as the Romans do, and when it comes to a System Shock article, or a Doom 3 article, or an Afterlife article, or a Half-Life article... we're the Romans. Obsequor, plebs plebis. j/k Scumbag 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think you understood (or bothered to read for that matter) what the original research means. I also don't think you're familair enough with wikipedia to know that users sometimes get banned and articles can be protected from editing. You are not the Roman, people who wrote the policy are. If you so strongly believe in your editing prowness then why not try to get this article peer-reviewed or better yet to get it to a higher class? Tani unit 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Why would I want to get this article peer-reviewed? I have a fairly strict no-vandallism rule for myself, and getting this article 'peer-reviewed' would be such a thing - you said it yourself, a lot of information would be deleted if such a thing would happen. Aside from the garish "cite this" bits, the article is of a sufficient class for a game overshadowed by Half-Life[This fact is not cited because the writer knows more than your average Wikipedian.]. Scumbag 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * See, the thing is, if you won't, others will. Because generally people strive to improve the articles according to given standards. Just a matter of time. Good luck fighting that. Tani unit 20:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Btw, in case I haven't made it clear yet (judging by your last post) request for citing does not question your knowledge or intelligence, it's a way for others less familair with the subject to verify facts stated in the article. Would you want to read an article on subject you aren't familiar with and that does not back up any of its claims? Would you be inclined to believe anything wirtten in it? Just food for thought. Tani unit 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I would believe a Wikipedia article, because 'anything that isn't correct would be removed quickly by those with the appropriate knowledge'. That's the glory of Wikipedia. Regardless, time is on my side. No matter how many times an ignorant Wikipedian will vandalize an article requesting pointless citations, fans of (whatever topic) will inevitably set the record - and the article - on the correct path. I don't know if anyone'll cite the Von Braun thing, but I know it'll remain there in the end. After all, the facts are only in dispute by those who don't know what they are editing. I think we can leave it at that, no? Scumbag 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * If that's the way you see it then so be it. Although I have trouble reconciling your trust into articles on wikipedia with your earlier statements about the Featured Articles being written by a bunch of ignorants. After all, those articles make it to the front page, and they have plenty of things cited, despite your belief about citing being a form of vandalizm. Reminds me of myself when I was 15, but hey, I could be wrong. Tani unit 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's easy to reconsile: People who originally wrote the relevent bits? Trustworthy. Those that've later messed it up later under the assumption that the people who originally wrote it didn't know what they were talking about? Vandalism, at best. If you want Wikipedia to be encyclopedic, the articles should be written by those who would be the ones who would write an encyclopedia on that subject. And I'm dissapointed with the insult; I would have gone with a "hopeless loser and or nerd" insult. Scumbag 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I see, so citing sources = messing things up? Yeah, I guess one way to look at it is that it really does mess things up for people who don't like substantiating their claims. Not that I care about them. Oh, and you think I was being insulting? I was merely pointing out a fact. Wait till you re-read your posts in this discussion a couple years down the road (assming you are still editing), now that going to be a real insult. (Tansie didn't sign this -s)

 * Given that you seem to have nothing to say other than disrespect, I think we're done here. Scumbag 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove unsourced statement warnings
Do not remove notices from articles without providing sources. All content on Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources for the statements I am challenging, please provide a link or a page number in a book that supports the claims; otherwise, the tags should stay until such time as the statements are sourced or are deleted. Captainktainer * Talk 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * A link, or page number, for something the developers never cited because they knew their player base was intelligent enough to need not have everything spelled out for them? Hah! Tycho was right about Wikipedia. Scumbag 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You specifically removed the fact tags here. None of the statements in that sectino have reliable sources provided, which is especially important when discussing opinions. As for the Von Braun/System Shock 2 flap, I truly don't care, although adding obviously renders the tone of the article unencyclpedic. Captainktainer * Talk 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right, I removed un-needed cite tags. The game's developers never sat down and wrote "yeah, we named our rocket ship after one of the father's of rocketry" on a "System Shock for Dummies and Wikipedians who'll read an article about it long after the game was forgotten by the gaming public" FAQ. Given that you freely admit to not caring about the VB/SS2 situation - and are obviously ill-equipped to know about the situation, why are you so quick to argue a topic you have absolutely no experience with? Feel free to remove the 'offending' facts if you're so offended, I'm sure someone who actually knows about System Shock 2'll stick it right back in. After all, that user knows System Shock 2 enough to properly deal with the piece.Scumbag 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the Doom3 article. Follow the first link. For that matter, while I haven't edited the System Shock 2 article, I am very familiar with the subject. But that's not the topic I was commenting on. Captainktainer * Talk 02:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I apologize for thinking you were mentioning the SS2 one. Regardless, it's not like anyone reading the Doom 3 article didn't know about all the "D3 sucks because it doesn't have the Gravity Gun" nonsense post-release. If someone actually needs someone to 'cite' that crap to believe it, then they shouldn't be editing the article in the first place. Oh well, that's what you get when fools can mess with things they shouldn't. Scumbag 02:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Brad Wardell
Hi there, Scumbag! I edited your version of this article and thought I would explain why in a little more depth than the edit box allows.

While I do not disagree with the general thrust of your edit, I think that Brad's intent was not to demean the people making the suggestions. Realistically, it is likely that some people will not be satisfied with a game that is not exactly as they want it. It is true that he does not take the view of those who call things "broken" seriously. I suspect this view is actually shared by most game designers, but I know Brad tends to be more vocal about it than others.

I saw the word "fixes" as relating to this viewpoint - a game mechanic is an opinion, not something that is subject to "fixing", as it is not broken unless coded incorrectly in relation to the original design. It can, however, be changed, which is the word I used instead.

I also moved the links to the references section, as I felt they broke up the text a little as inline links. Thanks for taking the time to research them! GreenReaper 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the obsfuscation - Brad asked me to setup the GalCiv Wiki specifically for the purpose of helping people with game mechanics (as well as "other things", but that was the main objective). I don't think he would have done that if he didn't want people to know about them. GreenReaper 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

manus celer dei
Hi S... (do you really want to be called that??? ;-)), if you say it's from the Marathon game, I have to believe you; I don't know anything about such things, I'm afraid. The phrase is, however, poor Latin: manus is feminine (tribus, manus, porticus...), and the adjective then, should be celeris; however, that would make the phrase ambiguous, because celeris could go with dei as well. Any idea how "they" came up with the name? Greetings T.a.k. 21:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Putting Bungie Mythos into own article
Sounds like trivia to me from your description, but maybe you could make a /Triva link or something? Seems like it could be interesting.

Fallout Community
Your recent edits are clear POV pushing, like claiming that turn-based combat and isometric view are obsolete, while there are still many turn-based and isometric games around and in production. I also don't see how Roshambo's posts about Bethesda make him deserve a mention in Wikipedia - not to mention calling him "infamous" is yet another example of POV pushing. I also don't recall anyone seriously trying to force Bethesda into using 2D. As for me being an owner of Duck and Cover, you are simply wrong. I'd also like to see some proof of the alleged isolation of Fallout community, and it being to blame for the stuff you claim it is. Ausir 20:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The trick is actually not to confirm what you're arguing against
I never said turn based combat and isometric views are obsolete - I stated that these concepts have fallen into disuse among successful games. Looking back on it, I should have been clearer with that line, for those reasons you state: they do exist, but they have not been quite as well received by users.

But to deny that these concepts have fallen from grace so deeply to the point of removing it entirely is simply uncalled for. Edit it to admit that these concepts have faltered in the face of differing ideas, fine, but removing it entirely?

Calling Rosh infamous is hardly POV. He's a salient example of the topic you attempted to remove.

Forgive me if I called you the owner of Duck N Cover - I took the mention of Duck N Cover on your user page as one of "your websites" leaded me to believe you were the owner. I apologize if pointing this out offended you or was misleading, but Wiki readers should be informed when it appears that someone is deleting content specifically to protect their own interests.

If you'd like to see some alleged isolation of the Fallout community, I'd be happy to add that to the content that I've revived. I'll most likely link to examples of person(s) being treated poorly by those who disagree with the Fallout community, and I will likely be posting cashes of when the Fallout community overran Bethesda's forums.

Thanks for the feedback; I'm sure we can come to a mutually acceptable situation. If we don't, thats fine too - nothing on wikipedia can be deleted for long. Scumbag 01:51, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Unhinged
Nice work on Unhinged. It's the first Magic set article on wikipedia, and because you did such a fine job on it, it appears poised to survive Votes for deletion in spite of mild prejudice against such topics as "fancruft." Thanks. Cool Hand Luke  11:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, that you did Unglued too you may be interested to look here, where we're trying to make articles for every expansion set. Grue 07:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Editing my post and stuff
No problem on you editing my posts a little. My grammar and formating isn't perfect so I don't mind any changes as long as they don't alter the meaning of my post. Good on fixing some anonymous cowards vandalism.--Lord Yaar 14:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Almalexia
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Almalexia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of Almalexia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Vivec
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Vivec, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of Vivec. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sotha Sil
Sotha Sil, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Sotha Sil satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Sotha Sil and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Sotha Sil during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nerevar
Nerevar, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Nerevar satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Nerevar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Nerevar during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Numidium
Numidium, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Numidium satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Numidium and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Numidium during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Dumb Question
Hi, I am not particularly upset about TTN, I just think it's a shame sometimes when people like him who are trying to uphold the policy, are constantly being reported to administrators as if they had done something bad, it's the same for others such as betacommand. As for the nature of wikipedia the idea was that it would be an encyclopaedia, under the logo at the top left it says "the free encyclopedia". Jackaranga (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME
You user name is inappropriate and offensive. I'll post a note at Usernames for administrator attention. --Jack Merridew 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * declined with suggestion of: Requests for comment/User names. Up to you. --Jack Merridew 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll think about it. Maybe. Scumbag (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Unhinged_poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Unhinged_poster.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated
The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated! Protonk (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.
 * Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
 * New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
 * Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Project activity
This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox (User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Collapse (Deus Ex)

The article Collapse (Deus Ex) has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable gamecruft.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Makron phase two.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Makron phase two.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Warthog Jump listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Warthog Jump. Since you had some involvement with the Warthog Jump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scumbag


text:
Phinney Ridge, Seattle

Phinney Ridge is a neighborhood in north central Seattle, Washington, United States. It is named after the ridge which runs north and south, separating Ballard from Green Lake, from approximately N. 45th to N. 80th Street. The ridge, in turn, is named after Guy C. Phinney, lumber mill owner and real estate developer, whose estate was bought by the city and turned into Woodland Park in 1899. Phinney's estate had included a private menagerie, and the western half of the park became what is now the Woodland Park Zoo.

Routes
The rough boundaries of Phinney Ridge are Aurora Avenue N. (State Route 99) to the east, beyond which lies Green Lake and the eastern half of Woodland Park; N. 75th Street to the north, beyond which lies Greenwood; 8th Avenue N.W. to the west, beyond which lies Ballard, and N. 50th and Market Streets to the south, beyond which lies Fremont and Wallingford. Phinney Ridge's main thoroughfare, which runs atop the ridge south of N. 67th Street, is Phinney Avenue N. North of N. 67th Street, the arterial swings a block to the west and becomes Greenwood Avenue N. The route is lined with many small businesses and shops, as well as the Phinney Neighborhood Association, located at the corner of Phinney and 67th. It has occupied the former John B. Allen Elementary School building, which was built in 1904, since 1981, when the school closed.

Wildlife
Wildlife in the area, especially adjacent to Woodland Park, has always been a subject of discussion; at least two medium-sized (8-15 individuals) Coyote packs are known to inhabit the area feeding off the large population of released domestic rabbits that also called the park home until February 2006.

title: Phinney Ridge, Seattle