text:
Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old)

Format
Voting on this policy closed some time ago.

Introduction
Although No personal attacks is a good policy, it meets its limit in the form of enforcement. Currently, it can only be enforced by the arbitration committee, and thus long-standing and excessively vicious edit wars are often allowed to fester for longer than they should, or pages need to be chronically protected far more than they should. This policy is an attempt to give the personal attacks policy some teeth without dramatically increasing the powers of sysops. Long-term blocks for personal attacks must still be made by the arbitration committee or by Jimbo. However, this policy allows short term blocks to enforce cool-down periods and to forcibly dissuade users from taking potshots at each other that they might otherwise get away with due to the difficulty and time involved in an arbitration request.

Proposed policy
Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. At their discretion, and only after warning the user, sysops may use temporary blocks to enforce a “cooling down” period for users who repeatedly make personal attacks. Blocks made under this policy should be short term – one to three days normally, and a week at most. Although blocks may be reapplied if personal attacks continue, repeated violations should be referred to the Arbitration committee. Sysops blocking under this policy may not block users for making personal attacks in the course of disputes that the sysop is involved in, and especially not for personal attacks made against them, unless the personal attacks also constitute clear and unambiguous vandalism (i.e. replacing their userpage with “U SUCK!!1!1!!”).

Voting
Please do not add new polling options.

Support

 * 1) Snowspinner 04:02, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) blankfaze | (беседа!)  04:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Skyler 22:41, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutralitytalk 22:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Gregb 05:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Trilobite (Talk) 17:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) With reservations, as I can see this being abused.
 * 7) Cyrius|✎ -- Personal attacks poison the well for other contributors, and are far more harmful than the simple vandalism we allow sysops to block people for. If we don't trust sysops to use their judgement, why have they been given the power to block?
 * 8) Of course. Wikipedia controls over trolls and vandals are too lenient.  This is a step in the right directioin.  RickK 18:25, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Angela. There's no point having a no personal attacks policy if it is not enforceable.
 * 10) 24-hour blocks for continued attacks after a warning are presently working quite well against the egregious - David Gerard 21:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Jallan 21:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) The current policy as applied is to not make too many personal attacks against the wrong people in the wrong places. Either change the written policy to fit what is actually happening or enforce it. The same goes for other unenforced mock policies.
 * 12) I suppose sysops only can ban users when they do a personal attack listed under "Specific examples of personal attack include:" in No personal attacks. --Conti|✉ 23:17, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Fred Bauder 01:02, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Ambi 01:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Asiananimal 04:33, Aug 24, 2004 We can't tollerate personal attacks, there is potential for slander suits agenst Wikipedia
 * 16) JamesMLane 01:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) Although I understand the concerns expressed by those voting against, I favor going ahead with the proposal to see what actually happens.  After a few months, the policy could be abandoned, tweaked, or retained, in light of experience with it.
 * 17) Sean Curtin 04:40, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC) For the time being, at least.
 * 18) [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 05:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) Everything depends on basic courtesy.
 * 19) Andris 07:31, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Jimbo Wales 15:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) I agree with JamesMLane regarding the notion that we should try this temporarily. The problem of potential sysop abuse should be handled separately and should not hold up the adoption of policies that we desperately need today.  Indeed, if this policy change leads to more cases of sysop abuse, then this will presumably be effective in driving the development of formal sysop-discipline policies as a counterbalance.  I vote here as an ordinary user, this is not a decree.
 * 21) BCorr | Брайен 20:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) Yes -- let's give this a try and evaluate its effectiveness and consequences in about three months.
 * 22) Jordan Langelier 22:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) And let those who abuse this policy be dealt with. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね)
 * 24) Danny 01:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) sannse (talk) 11:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Michael Snow 20:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Support a trial run, with emphasis on authorizing blocks only after repeated personal attacks, and only by an admin with no personal involvement. For future consideration, would prefer limiting all such blocks to 24 hours at a time.
 * 27) older ≠ wiser 20:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)Support, cautiously. The potential for sysop abuse is a concern, but I think uncivil behavior is a bigger problem for a project like Wikipedia that relies on a community of volunteer editors working cooperatatively in good faith.
 * 28) Twinxor 02:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) — Matt 03:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC); reasoning similar to, e.g., Bkonrad's comment above.
 * 30) Nunh-huh 00:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC); no policy is perfect but this one seems likely to improve Wikipedia's editing environment.
 * 31) Antandrus 23:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) --After much thought. It's not perfect but it would probably help.  How about implementing it for a month, and then putting it up for review to see if it worked for everyone?
 * 32) Solver 00:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Support, sysops are there because they're trusted, and will do more good this way. Personal attacks can scare people away from wikipedia, and uncivil behaviour in general will probably be limited more that way. If a sysop wants to abuse the system, he can always do so anyway.
 * 33) Kevin Baas | talk 17:42, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC) - Enforcement of policy on wikipedia is currently way too lax. When assanine, stubborn, and just plain crass behavior is given a place in debate against reasoned argument, there's a serious problem.
 * 34) LegCircus
 * 35) uc 23:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 36) cherry_scented 11:28, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC) - I'm new here, but definitely in support of this idea.

Oppose

 * 1) Blocking/banning for personal attacks is a power of the Arbitration Committee, no one has demonstrated that personal attacks are so common as to require immediate punishment by sysops, and granting this power to sysops significantly changes the reponsibilities of the sysop role: not all those I trust to block vandals necessarily exercise the calm deliberation required to play judge in cases of personal attack. In other words, this is a solution in search of a problem that can lead to abuses of power, and for those reasons, I oppose. -- orthogonal 12:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't believe this is the right method. Too much power for sysops, not enough fairness in enforcement, too many potential problems. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:22, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with Meelar, the wording isn't right, to much power to the sysops. --Dittaeva 17:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Too vague, and so open to abuse. Some work required. James F. (talk) 18:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) There is way to much subjective judgement in personal atacks for it delt with in this manner Geni 19:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) If I have a disagreement with a sysop, what's there in preventing him from blocking me for any flimsy case? nichalp|Talk 19:47, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Repeated intemperate and inappropriate use of blocks so far persuades me that this is unwise until there's some prior review system for it in place. If it really meant "sysops" plural, instead of "a single sysop acting alone", that would be a different matter. Jamesday 20:41, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) My problem is that we're immediately hit with the problem of interpretation. In the old days, sexual harassment juries used to listen on the side of the speaker.  "When I told her she had great tits, I meant it as a compliment."  Then we moved over to siding with the recipient.  "When he said I looked nice, it made me think I was only valuable as a sexual object, and he should be fired."  The same is true of insults.  We have to determine intention, and that's impossible without community consensus.  I.e. I do not agree that an Administrator should be able to make the call, whether it is the target of the personal attack or not.  The only way we can determine intention is by relying upon community code, and that means a panel of deliberators.  In other words, ArbCom.  We may well have problems with ArbCom's speed and with the amount of work it takes to get an action heard, but that is a problem with the particular group of Wikipedians and not with the process design.  I agree that personal attacks should be a grounds for a ban, but only on repetition, and only when determined by a group.  We can't allow someone to say, "Well, whatever he said, I heard it as a personal attack" nor someone say, "When I called him a sh*thead, I meant it in fun," and the only way out is with a committee. Geogre 01:02, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Since cases are all different, and could be seen in different ways by different people, I don't think giving the power for sysops to act alone on issues like this would be appropriate, so I oppose this proposition as is. Darksun 17:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) While strengthening of the enforcement is a good idea IMO, this proposal isn't a good one. For one thing, several recent personal attacks have been made by sysops. This particular measure will just make things worse IMO. Andrewa 17:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Proposal gives too much leeway to sysops in determining when to block for personal attacks. I've seen people point to the "no personal attacks" rule even in the slightest of cases.  We don't want wikipedia to become a police state.   Siroxo 20:41, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) A general sysop accountability policy is needed first. Gzornenplatz 15:16, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) I agree with General Patton's neutral vote. In theory, this is a very nice policy. In addition, I have faith in our administrators. However, I think that the policy is rather vaguely worded. At the worst, an administrator with a vendetta against a user or one simply angered by what he or she views as personal attacks and/or disruption of the Wikipedia can block a user and justify this action under an interpretation of the policy. The main problem is that, unlike vandalism, personal attacks are very subjective. Hypothetically, someone could make a joking reference to Godwin's law on a user's Talk page, and the user, whose grandparents were killed in the Holocaust, may take this as a personal attack and ask for a ban, when in reality there was no malicious intent on the part of the first user. I would support a rewritten version of this policy with specific limits upon bans and other measures, and a requirement for some sort of consensus that a user's comments constitute a personal attack before action is taken. I also think that the threshold for taking a case to the ArbCom should be established. After how many attacks/bans should a user be taken to ArbCom for a longer ban and/or other measures? Can a user remain banned under this policy for continuing to engage in personal attacks while ArbCom is considering his or her case? --Slowking Man 05:28, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Blocking is a harsh measure and should be used sparingly and not without arbitration, but for the most blatant cases. Also, provision must be made against paranoia: an admin who is trigger-happy must be held accountable as well. Mikkalai 00:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) I do not believe a user should, or can be, blocked from the entire Wikipedia because of an arguement or contest with a single user or groups of users. --Oldak Quill 03:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) There is absolutely no reason to have a block for more than 24 hours imposed by a single person. anthony (see warning) 03:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) The Blocking policy states: "Specific examples of personal attack include: Negative personal comments". This can be interpreted to include almost any comment on another user's behaviour, even if justified. Thus this policy could potentially open the door wide-open to admin abuse, especially if a single admin is free to make this decision (although I am convinced that the large majority of admins would of course not do this). We need an effective way of making admins accountable to Wikipedians first. Other than that, I think this is a good and important policy. I will vote in favour of this policy once a simple and effective way to hold admins to account is in place (such as Administrators/Administrator_Accountability_Policy) - pir 09:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Taku 13:25, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Perhaps if the Sysops are comprised only of thoughtful, self-disciplined, emotionally self-contolled persons and the blocks were imposed in 1,2 or three day units only... Other than that, I'd say probbaly not. Rex071404 15:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Our current policy is good enough for me.--Plato 22:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Too risky. --Nanshu 06:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Blocking should be used only for vandalism. Personality-related issues should be negotiated or sent to ArbCom. Zocky 23:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) The passionate writing and discussion I have found on Wikipedia will be stifled by sysops running around banning talk that gets too heated. The idea of banning users is something I would expect if a school was running this site, but the optimist in me says that we're all grownups around here, and the realist in me says that this ain't no church social. Please leave this forum as open and inviting as I found it. One man's passion is another's offense. --DV 12:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) This sounds like a strikingly bad idea. RSpeer 17:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) I fall in with the Nays on this one. Sounds like too much power to the sysops, for a project of this size and scope. I feel strongly that we have to accept some degree of abuse in a project aimed at recording all human knowledge, lest it be less than human. MasterDirk 23:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) We need to be more concerned about users who "attack" articles as opposed to users whose language can be curmudgeonly from time to time. 172 02:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I consider this proposal too vague, thus open for all kinds of abuse. I agree on all the points, but I’d add an abuse safeguard policy that the block can only be enforced for more than 24 hours if four or more admins agree, as well that the block can’t be enforced for more than 24 hours if four or more admins disagree. Also, the maximum duration of the block should be defined and certainly no more than one week. For everything longer the Arbcom should be used. GeneralPatton 00:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Personal attacks are bad. I would support this policy if:
 * 3) the maximum blocking time was reduced to a maximum of 1 day for first time offenders and only upto a week for repeat offenders and
 * 4) No block should be enforced without a warning and an attempt to calm the discussion first. Erich 06:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) *I agree with Erich, in that I would support this policy if the maximum block was reduced to 24 hours. anthony (see warning) 13:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Prior to a "block" being imposed, a "pre-block dialog" page for the potential offendee should be set-up as a safe place to air comments. Perhaps if the concerns of the upset person were heard, the "attacks" would cease Rex071404 15:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC
 * 7) Excellent point. Better to find a compromise and heal strife than punish and increase bitterness. -- orthogonal 20:37, 28 Aug 2 (UTC)
 * 8) As phrased, that just sounds like appeasement and encouragement - David Gerard 16:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) No personal attacks needs teeth that don't take a month to act, yes, so some mechanism of swift enforcement would be beneficial. However I agree with Siroxo's comment above; this policy has too much room for abuse. The unavoidable unpleasantness of cliques and alliances makes the restriction on using one's powers in one's own disputes effectively hollow, though with checks like those GeneralPatton suggests, this would not be such a problem—questionable blocks could easily be undone. I am also concerned with unjustified threats being used as tools of intimidation, as recently happened in a flap over Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy. The user threatened there was a veteran sysop and knew he could safely ignore the threat, but a new user who was unfamiliar with policy might not be so lucky. That kind of abuse could have a real chilling effect, and since it is not logged as publicly as blocking and deletion, the only way to correct it would be to have another, savvier user notice it and point out its emptiness. —No-One Jones 19:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) One notes a further irony: the sysops making the threats (in order to, in the words of one of the threateners, to "scare" another user from editing a page) are the number 1 and number 2 signers in support of this blocking policy. The worry that this policy night be abused seems less far-fetch in light of this. -- orthogonal 20:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) I am afraid that this policy will not be used in the same manner for all. It would be nice if there would be a public poll so everyone could decide if the attack was ban-worth instead of one person blocking users however it wishes. It sounds like it starts to lean to stallinist methods in some future policies. Altough I was attacked several times and been called an idiot and cunt I would like to see no "drveni advokat" syndrom. The third party shouldn`t join and block if it was not invited to do it. Only if affected user complains, blocks should be used.[[User:Avala|Avala| ★ ]] 09:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Heated debates often include intemperate remarks from all participants, and politicized selective prosecution (where sysops block only the users with whom they disagree) could easily be a problem under this policy. —No-One Jones 01:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculously stupid argument, Avala. The third party shouldn`t join and block if it was not invited to do it.  That's like saying if a policeman comes across two people preparing to duel with guns, that he shouldn't stop it because no-one asked him to.  We have a policy here.  A law, if you will.  Personal attacks are NOT tolerated. Period.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  23:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I would like this policy to be tried on blanfaze because he wrote "That's a ridiculously stupid argument, Avala." which offeneded me and I think it is personal attacks if someone calls my thoughts "ridiculously stupid" [[User:Avala|Avala| ★ ]] 20:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
Considering the importance of this vote and the fact that so far only about 50 users have voted, a number that even some RfA’s surpass, and this policy is orders of magnitude more important, I suggest that the voting be extended until 00:00 UTC September 1st. GeneralPatton 03:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I concur. blankfaze |  (беседа!)  05:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this, but I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to extend it myself. Snowspinner 05:37, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why, may I ask? blankfaze | (беседа!)  06:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * As there is not going to be a consensus shown in this particular poll, I don't see the point of extending the vote. Fix the policy to address the dissent, and try again. anthony (see warning) 13:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I feel this issue is too important to be decided by just 55 votes. GeneralPatton 23:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever, I don't object to extending the poll. I just think it's pointless. anthony (see warning) 15:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I concr that the vote should be extended. Kevin Baas | talk 18:30, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
 * Considering that I just learned about this poll about 15 minutes ago, it might be useful to extend it a couple of days. Or advertise it better: I've been depending on a notice at Special:Recentchanges, which has only listed a trivial poll for the last few weeks. (Some of us don't poke down every possible path in Wikipedia every day, & as the structure changes/evolves, we find that the places we to look to for news quietly go silent & are unaware when new ones are created.) -- llywrch 20:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Very good point, llywrch. What sort of extension and advertising do you suggest? (I hope if we extend we also advertise, because it's becoming clear that extending without advertising isn't working.) -- orthogonal 23:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Hypothetical question for the proponents of this policy: would calling another user "an asshole" constitute a personal attack, and if the proposed blocking policy passes, would you block a user for it? If so, for how long would you block him? -- orthogonal 20:35, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would (and does at current) constitute a personal attack
 * Not on the first offence... I'd warn the offender, just as I would in a case of vandalism, then if the user made another personal attack, I would block him/her for 24 hours. Users need to understand that personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, the system we have now (slap on the wrist, or RfC/Arbcom after about 1000 personal attacks) just isn't working.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  07:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for your intellectually honest answer (blankfaze knew I was making reference to his having referred to another user an "asshole", and to his credit blankfaze didn't let himself off the hook). Second, how long does the warning last? I assume you wouldn't immediately block a user you'd first warned a month ago for a second attack a month latter? But what about a user warned a week ago? Yesterday? And, I apologize if I'm making you too much of an example, but what about blocking sysops, such as yourself, who can unblock themselves? -- orthogonal 01:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh. Yeah.  I regret making that attack.  I was pissed off but that is no excuse and I shouldn't have erred in judgement so.  Me, personally, warnings should last about 24 hours, no more.  Certaintly not a month!  As far as sysops go, blocking is ineffective, as they can unblock yourself.  If an admin is making personal attacks, there's not much that can be done at present.  However, if Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy passes, then such actions have consequences... blankfaze |  (беседа!)  02:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Huh. I'd been assuming that a sysop who unblocked himself would be somehow punished. But you're right, this policy (in the absence of additional policies) only realistically applies to non-sysops. Wow. -- orthogonal 02:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That's an overstatement. A sysop who's blocked under this policy, then self-unblocks, is not in anything like the same situation as someone who's never been blocked.  The whole incident would be available as part of a pattern of conduct by the sysop.  (I agree that a sysop who slipped once, got blocked, and self-unblocked, but was otherwise not a creator of problems, would effectively suffer no consequences, but that's a minor defect I can live with.) JamesMLane 19:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Slipped once? But I thought we weren't blocking until after a warning is given? So that's what, attack, warning, attack, block, self-unblock for a sysop, and attack, warning, attack, 24 to 168 hour block for a non-sysop. And, there's the possibility that out of some form of "professional courtesy" a sysop would be more reluctant to block or more likely to cut a break for, a fellow sysop. I mean, how many cops get traffic tickets? The problem with this is even if it's mere perception that sysops get a better break, that will increase tensions between the sysop class and the "plebs", leading to more accusations about cliques and cabals. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to argue that this policy is so vague and so open to both abuse and loopholes, and to subjective interpretation, as to be unworkable. Even if it works flawlessly, people are going to wonder if it's fairly applied. Any sense that it's not -- as sysops being able to self-unblock -- will add to the enmity, the enmity which this policy is meant  to decrease. -- orthogonal 19:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I hear marketing and sales folks calling each other "asshole" all the time, and it just slides right off. The answer for offensive speech is always more speech. I am inspired by the great efforts of the folks who clean up vandalism around here. But this notion of name calling being a "personal attack" is political correctness run amuck. If someone attacks me for no good reason, they just make themselves look bad to everyone else. But if I did something stupid or wrong, and someone is angry about it, I'll take my lumps while they call me a few choice words, and then I'll move on. I have strong beliefs about this because I've seen the corrosive effects of restraint of speech too many times, and it would be a shame if the open and inviting environment Wikipedia offers to authors were to be lost. --DV 13:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I more than understand your concerns about free speech. The idea is to provide a policy that will protect against excessive badmouthing. Some people really dislike being called names. Normally it should suffice to ask an offender to take his words back, and in vast majority of cases people come to their senses. The idea would be to provide a policy against people who persist in offense, after being asked not to do so. Here comes the clash between the freedom of speech and the right to be left alone. There is a good deal of grey zone here. Therefore a significant grey zone must be left in the policy, not to overstrike in any direction.
 * There are two diametral ways to deal with a rude person: to immediately slam him down or to politely explain you don't like the attitude. I have reasons to believe that at least in the environment of wikipedia the latter way ultimately increases the number of polite people. Really obnoxious people are seldom good contributors. And real trolls have been identified so far without much effort. Mikkalai 20:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply Mikkalai. I think there is a third way to deal with a rude person. Roll your eyes, ignore him or her, and move on. This notion of a "personal attack" is a "I know it when I see it" kind of thing, leading to endless arguments over whether a criticism is legitimate or not. Rather than creating a black hole, that sucks in all available time that folks could be using to edit and create new articles, I encourage those folks who find each other offensive to simply ignore the other, and move on.
 * It's startling to see some of the strange bedfellows as I look through the user pages of some of the folks who are voting for and against this policy, so there will be no easy detente. Nevertheless, the answer for offensive speech is always more speech, or it is all too easy for the powerful to suppress the weak. Thanks for your thoughts, Mikkalai. --DV 05:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


text:
Category:Lesbian writers

This category lists notable writers who identify, or who have been identified, as lesbians. Many of them have written about the nature of same-sex love and desire using fictional, autobiographical, or journalistic forms.

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

title: Category:Lesbian writers


text:
List of assets owned by the Coca-Cola Company

The following is a list of assets owned by the Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola Company had equity positions in 51 unconsolidated bottling, canning and distribution operations which produced approximately 58% of volume. Significant investees include:

Former assets

 * Beverage Partners Worldwide (50%; co-owned with Nestlé)
 * Columbia Pictures
 * Columbia Pictures Television
 * TriStar Pictures
 * TriStar Television
 * RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video/RCA/Columbia Pictures International Video (Half owned by RCA)
 * Coca-Cola Telecommunications
 * Embassy Pictures
 * Merv Griffin Enterprises


text:
Ottumwa

Ottumwa may refer to:

 * Ottumwa, Iowa
 * Ottumwa, Kansas
 * Ottumwa, South Dakota
 * Ottumwa (YTB-761), a United States Navy large harbor tug named for Ottumwa, Iowa
 * Ottumwa (crater), an impact crater on Mars named after Ottumwa, Iowa

title: Ottumwa


text:
Talk:Modern pentathlon

I'm not sure where comments on style are supposed to go...
This article is very poorly written by Wikipedia standards for a topic of this importance. Someone with editing skills please have a look. 98.229.65.91 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)JH

Untitled
There is a conflict between this article and the Jim Thorpe article about who won the pentathalon in the 1912 Olympics. The Jim Thorpe article says that Thorpe initially won, with Ferdinand Bie was second. The article goes on to say that Thorpe was later stripped of his medal due to professionalism, and Bie was given the honor. However this pentathalon article lists Gosta Lillehook as the winner. One or the other article appears to be wrong. Perhaps someone with access to the original results can clarify this.
 * The Thorpe article says in 1912 he won a pentathlon comprised of the following events: long jump, javelin throw, 200-meter dash, discus throw and 1500-meter run. This is not the modern pentathlon.  However I thought the modern pentathlon was the only Olympic pentathlon from 1912 on.  I hope someone can shed some light on this. Taco Deposit 13:59, (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Gosta Lillehook won the first Olympic 'Modern' pentathlon, and the Jim Thorpe article seems correct. You are confusing 'modern' and 'ancient' (athletics) pentathlon.
 * Pentathlon (athletics version) results can be found at http://www.gbrathletics.com/ic/ogm.htm
 * long jump, javelin, 200 metres, discus, 1500 metres

 * 1906# standing long jump, discus (greek style), javelin, 192 metres (one stade), graeco-roman wrestling
 * Jim Thorpe* - re-instated in 1982

Correction about the range that the targets are shotat
I have made a correction about the range that the targets are shot at (100 metres to 10 metres). 202.146.253.4 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

specifically for the modern Olympics

 * its status as the only event created specifically for the modern Olympic Games

Wasn't the marathon also created specifically for the modern Olympics? - Fundamentisto (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be right. I corrected the article accordingly (it only took 4 years for you to get eared! wow! :-)
 * The marathon is an event in athletics, not a separate sport. And long distance running already existed before the start of the modern Olympic games. It's just that the distance used for the 1912 London games somehow became the standard distance. 2001:985:5AA4:1:88D1:59CC:C6AD:13B0 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Brief
Isn't this article... a little too short by English Wikipedia standards? I can think of reasons why (its low popularity in English speaking countries), but a sport that has been Olympic since 1912 deserves a little more attention. Should we ask fluent speakers to translate the Hungarian or Czech article? Steinbach (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This was recent vandalism - check the history. I've restored the body of the article back to a previous version. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 14:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Steinbach (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We must have been hitting the "save page" button at the same time, I saw the same vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.26.50 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

other pentathlon
There seems to be some kind of "sea pentathlon" (direct translation from Finnish language) in which women's team world championship was held today. Yet nothing about that discipline in the article. Finnish federation of this sport has three disciplines apart the normal: sea pentathlon, air pentathlon and military pentathlon. 82.141.66.2 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Found them. They are presented in Pentathlon. 82.141.66.2 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

athletes have to successfully shoot five targets, loading the gun after each shot.
How do you load a laser pistol? Or have they gone back to "proper" guns? Unclear, confusing.

 * It would be good to get that cleared up. Please research this and get back then?
 * Was this an air pistol from the very beginning or did they regular .22s at first? Kortoso (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Here's an article that explains how the lasers are "shot":

Kortoso (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Steeplechase?
Was the steeplechase in the original modern pentathlon or are authors confusing it with the show jumping discipline? Kortoso (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

2009 Innovation?
"However, an innovation was introduced in 2009 to make the finale of the pentathlon more exciting. The last event is the Combined event: laser pistol shooting and cross-country running. Competitors are ranked according to their score from the first three disciplines and given start times accordingly, with the leader going first, and other starting times being dependent on the number of points already scored. The first person to cross the finish line, therefore, will be the overall points leader and win the pentathlon" - I don't think this is entirely correct. I think the first person over the line has always been the winner (or at least, this has been in place for a long time), and the only innovation in 2009 was to mix the shooting with the running. Adpete (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've edited that now. Adpete (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern pentathlon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605032621/http://thesportjournal.org/article/special-edition-sport-journal-ioc-planning-drop-modern-pentathlon-olympic-games to http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/special-edition-sport-journal-ioc-planning-drop-modern-pentathlon-olympic-games
 * Added tag to http://www.pentathlon.org/images/Rules/ii%205%20combined%20event%2017%201%202012final.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern pentathlon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006203852/http://www.goodluckbeijing.com.cn/en/archives/sports/2007-03-10/2365.html to http://www.goodluckbeijing.com.cn/en/archives/sports/2007-03-10/2365.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Soldier? not exactly...
In the Army I finished basic training and was shipped to Ft Sam Houston TX for Xray school. The National training center for the Olympic Pentathlon team trained at Ft Sam Houston too.

We arrived a week early, so they lent us out to the Pentathlon team to help "Move things".

The officer who ran the team gave us a history of the modern pentathlon similar to that described in the text- except he specified the "soldier" as a "courier" who had to deliver by horseback, run if unhorsed, swim if reaching a body of water, fight wit a gun if encountered, fight with the foil should he not have or has exhausted his pistol.

I cannot offer his name, but I figured he would know- the US military has done well in the sport all through the 20th century

 * That (courier) is the way it was explained to me 20-odd years ago.

I heard that Baron de Coubertain got his inspiration from "Michael Strogoff: The Courier of the Czar" (French: Michel Strogoff) a novel written by Jules Verne in 1876. That courier had to make use of exactly those skills to make his way with an important dispatch. 83.223.9.100 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Bonus Fencing Round
The 2020 Olympic Games seem to have a bonus fencing round after the swimming. As far as I can tell, it's a direct elimination, with participants scoring one point per win. Someone who knows more of the details should add this to the article. 62.216.5.216 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. It's indeed a form of elimination round, but rather than a 'bracket' knockout (as with tennis tournaments, etc), it's a single-elimination ranked ladder, starting at the bottom.  The article on that topic actually describes it in reasonable detail, and seems to have decent sources, and I believe it's a general part of the MP format now, so should be at least mentioned here too.  OTOH, competition formats may vary, so the scope of such a statement would have to be double-checked against the sources.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent events
removed the criticism section due to WP:Recentism. While he might have a point that it was maybe a little too detailed, there should be such a section, as changes to the current competition format are demanded by many due to those recent events. 95.91.222.218 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies
— Assignment last updated by Wikiforschoolhomework (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Who wrote this $#@!
This entire article needs rewritten due to the nonsensical inclusion of winners of the pentathlon, without naming the winners just when Team USA did. Wikipedia is for everyone not just Americans. The same goes for the Olympics. ThaddeusThomas (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Modern pentathlon


text:
Arc-fault circuit interrupter

An arc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCI) or arc-fault detection device (AFDD) is a circuit breaker that breaks the circuit when it detects the electric arcs that are a signature of loose connections in home wiring. Loose connections, which can develop over time, can sometimes become hot enough to ignite house fires. An AFCI selectively distinguishes between a harmless arc (incidental to normal operation of switches, plugs, and brushed motors), and a potentially dangerous arc (that can occur, for example, in a lamp cord which has a broken conductor).

In Canada and the United States, AFCI breakers have been required by the electrical codes for circuits feeding electrical outlets in residential bedrooms since the beginning of the 21st century; the US National Electrical Code has required them to protect most residential outlets since 2014, and the Canadian Electrical Code has since 2015.

In regions using 230 V, the combination of higher voltage and lower load currents lead to different conditions being required to initiate an arc fault that does not either burn clear or weld to a short circuit after a short time, and there are different arc characteristics once struck. Because of this, in Western Europe (where in many countries a domestic supply may be 400V 3 phase ) and the UK (where domestically a single phase 230V supply is common), adoption is slower, and their use is optional, only being mandated in specified high risk locations. The Australian and New Zealand regulations – Wiring Rules (AS NZS 3000:2018) do not require installation of AFDDs in Australia. However, in New Zealand all final sub-circuits with ratings up to 20 A will require protection by an AFDD if they supply locations with significant fire risk, locations containing irreplaceable items, certain historic buildings, and socket-outlets in school sleeping accommodation. Most sockets in these countries are on circuits rated at 20 A or less.

In the US, arc faults are said to be one of the leading causes for residential electrical fires. Each year in the United States, over 40,000 fires are attributed to home electrical wiring. These fires result in over 350 deaths and over 1,400 injuries each year.

Conventional circuit breakers respond only to overloads and short circuits, so they do not protect against arcing conditions that produce erratic, and often reduced current. AFCIs are devices designed to protect against fires caused by arcing faults in the home electrical wiring. The AFCI circuitry continuously monitors the current and discriminates between normal and unwanted arcing conditions. Once detected, the AFCI opens its internal contacts, thus de-energizing the circuit and reducing the potential for a fire to occur.

Operating principle
The electronics inside an AFCI breaker detect electrical current alternating at characteristic frequencies, usually around 100 kHz, known to be associated with wire arcing, which are sustained for more than a few milliseconds. A combination AFCI breaker provides protection against parallel arcing (line to neutral), series arcing (a loose, broken, or otherwise high resistance segment in a single line), ground arcing (from line or neutral to ground), overload, and short circuit. The AFCI will open the circuit if dangerous arcing is detected.

When installed as the first outlet on a branch circuit, AFCI receptacles provide series arc protection for the entire branch circuit. They also provide parallel arc protection for the branch circuit starting at the AFCI receptacle. Unlike AFCI breakers, AFCI receptacles may be used on any wiring system regardless of the panel.

US and Canada
Starting with the 1999 version of the National Electrical Code in the United States, and the 2002 version of the Canadian Electrical Code in Canada, the national codes require AFCIs in all circuits that feed outlets in bedrooms of dwelling units. As of the 2014 NEC, AFCI protection is required on all branch circuits supplying outlets or devices installed in dwelling unit kitchens, along with the 2008 NEC additions of family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, laundry areas, and similar rooms and areas. They are also required in dormitory units. This requirement may be accomplished by using a "combination type" breaker—a specific kind of circuit-breaker defined by UL 1699—in the breaker panel that provides combined arc-fault and overcurrent protection or by using an AFCI receptacle for modifications/extensions, as replacement receptacles or in new construction, at the first outlet on the branch. Not all U.S. jurisdictions have adopted the NEC's AFCI requirements so it is important to check local code requirements.

The AFCI is intended to prevent fire from arcs. AFCI circuit breakers are designed to meet one of two standards as specified by UL 1699: "branch" type or "combination" type (note: the Canadian Electrical Code uses different terminology but similar technical requirements). A branch type AFCI trips on 75 amperes of arcing current from the line wire to either the neutral or ground wire. A combination type adds series arcing detection to branch type performance. Combination type AFCIs trip on 5 amperes of series arcing. AFCI receptacles are an alternative solution to AFCI breakers. These receptacles are designed to address the dangers associated with both types of potentially hazardous arcing: parallel and series. AFCI receptacles offer the benefit of localized test and reset with such buttons located on the face of the device. This can save a journey to the breaker panel but can also encourage simply resetting by a user without investigating the underlying fault, as would presumably happen if someone with access to the electrical panel was notified.

In 2002, the NEC removed the word "receptacle", leaving "outlets", with the effect that lights and other wired-in devices such as ceiling fans within bedrooms were added to the requirement. The 2005 code made it clearer that all outlets must be protected despite discussion in the code-making panel about excluding bedroom smoke detectors from the requirement. "Outlets" as defined in the NEC includes receptacles, light fixtures and smoke alarms, among other things. Basically, any point where AC electricity is used to power something is an outlet.

As of January 2008, only "combination type" AFCIs meet the NEC requirement. The 2008 NEC requires the installation of combination-type AFCIs in all 15 and 20 ampere residential circuits with the exception of laundries, kitchens, bathrooms, garages, and unfinished basements, though many of these require GFCI protection. The 2014 NEC adds kitchens and laundry rooms to the list of rooms requiring AFCI circuitry, as well as any devices (such as lighting) requiring protection.

As of January 2023, there are a total of 6 means of protection covered as part of 210.12(A). These include the following:

1. A listed combination-type AFCI which is the primary method used to meet these requirements.

2. A listed branch/feeder-type AFCI that is installed at the origin of the branch circuit working in combination with the listed outlet branch-circuit-type AFCI (OBC AFCI) installed at the first outlet box which must also be marked that it is the first outlet box of the branch circuit.

3. This option includes a listed "Supplemental Arc Protection Circuit Breaker" which does not exist. there is no standard for this device and so this is not an option that can be used.

4. This option does have a single manufacturer who has a solution on the market. This option includes a listed outlet branch-circuit-type AFCI that is installed on the branch circuit at the fist outlet in combination with a listed branch-circuit overcurrent protective device when the following 4 conditions are met: a. The "Home Run" circuit must be continuous from the branch circuit overcurrent device to the OBC AFCI. b. Maximum length for a 14 AWG conductor is 50 ft and the maximum length for a 12 AWG conductor is 70ft. c. the first outlet box has to be marked as such d. the circuit breaker and the OBC AFCI must be listed to meet the requirements of a system combination-type AFCI.

Options 5 and 6 are the same options as we've seen in this section in the past but just included as positive text instead of being an exception.

These options are required for the following areas in dwelling units:

(1) Kitchens

(2) Family rooms

(3) Dining rooms

(4) Living rooms

(5) Parlors

(6) Libraries

(7) Dens

(8) Bedrooms

(9) Sunrooms

(10) Recreation rooms

(11) Closets

(12) Hallways

(13) Laundry areas

(14) Similar areas

United Kingdom
In the UK, the Wiring Regulations 18th edition (BS 7671:2018) is the first edition to make any mention of arc fault devices, and indicate they may be installed if the design has an unusually high risk of fire from arc faults. The annexes relating to testing indicate that when AFDDs are installed, their correct operation must be verified before completion, but the method of testing is not described. This is in contrast to RCDs where a number of trip times at different fault current levels must be verified.

Germany
The German Wiring rules VDE 100, recommend AFDDs for high-risk situations and give as examples rooms with sleeping accommodation, rooms or places with a particular fire risk, rooms or places made of building components with combustible building materials, if these have a lower fire resistance than fire-retardant (< F30), and rooms or places with hazards for irreplaceable goods.

Australia and New Zealand
The Australian and New Zealand regulations – Wiring Rules (AS NZS 3000:2018) do not require installation of AFDDs in Australia. However, in New Zealand all final sub-circuits with ratings up to 20 A will require protection by an AFDD if they supply locations with significant fire risk, locations containing irreplaceable items, certain historic buildings, and socket-outlets in school sleeping accommodation.[4]. Most power circuits in these countries fall under this clause as the common sockets are 10 A and 15 A rating. The Australian standards are used in Argentina, Fiji, Tonga, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea.

Limitations
AFCIs are designed to protect against fires caused by electrical arc faults. While the sensitivity of the AFCIs helps in the detection of arc faults, these breakers can also indicate false positives by identifying normal circuit behaviors as arc faults. For instance, lightning strikes provide voltage and current profiles that resemble arc faults, and vacuum cleaners and some laser printers trip AFCIs. This nuisance tripping reduces the overall effectiveness of AFCIs. Research into advancements in this area is being pursued.

AFCIs are also known to be sensitive (false tripping) to the presence of radio frequency energy, especially within the so-called high frequency (HF) spectrum (3–30 MHz), which includes legitimate shortwave broadcasting, over-the-horizon aircraft and marine communications, amateur radio, and citizens band radio operations. Sensitivities and mitigation have been known since 2013.

AFCI circuit breakers include a standard inverse-time circuit breaker but provide no specific protection against "glowing" connections (also known as a high resistance connection), high line voltages, or low line voltages.

An AFCI does not detect high line voltage caused by an open neutral in a multiwire branch circuit. A multiwire branch circuit uses both energized wires of a 120–240 V split phase service. If the neutral is broken along the return path to the circuit breaker panel, devices connected from a 120 V leg to the neutral may experience excess voltage, up to twice normal.

AFCIs do not detect low line voltage. Low line voltage can cause electromechanical relays to repeatedly turn off and on, or "chatter". If current is flowing through the load contacts, it causes arcing across the contacts as they open. The arcing can oxidize, pit, and melt the contacts. This process can increase the contact resistance, superheat the relay, and lead to fires. Power fault circuit interrupters are designed to prevent fires from low voltage across loads.

Interference with power line networking
AFCIs may interfere with the operation of some power line communication technologies.

title: Arc-fault circuit interrupter


text:
Gillian Welch

Gillian Howard Welch (born October 2, 1967) is an American singer-songwriter. She performs with her musical partner, guitarist David Rawlings. Their sparse and dark musical style, which combines elements of Appalachian music, bluegrass, country and Americana, is described by The New Yorker as "at once innovative and obliquely reminiscent of past rural forms."

Welch and Rawlings have collaborated on nine critically acclaimed albums, five released under her name, three released under Rawlings' name, and one under both of their names. Her 1996 debut, Revival, and the 2001 release Time (The Revelator), received nominations for the Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Folk Album. Her 2003 album, Soul Journey, introduced electric guitar, drums, and a more upbeat sound to their body of work. After a gap of eight years, she released a fifth studio album, The Harrow & the Harvest, in 2011, which was also nominated for a Grammy for Best Contemporary Folk Album. In 2020, Welch and Rawlings released All the Good Times (Are Past & Gone), which won the 2021 Grammy Award for Best Folk Album.

Welch was an associate producer and performed on two songs of the soundtrack of the Coen brothers 2000 film O Brother, Where Art Thou?, a platinum album that won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year in 2002. She also appeared in the film attempting to buy a Soggy Bottom Boys record. Welch, while not one of the principal actors, did sing and provide additional lyrics to the Sirens song "Didn't Leave Nobody but the Baby." In 2018 she and Rawlings wrote the song "When a Cowboy Trades His Spurs for Wings" for the Coens' The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, for which they received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Original Song. Welch has collaborated and recorded with Alison Krauss, Ryan Adams, Jay Farrar, Emmylou Harris, Mark Knopfler, the Decemberists, Sam Phillips, Conor Oberst, Ani DiFranco, Robyn Hitchcock, Barry Gibb and Molly Tuttle.

Early life
Welch was born on October 2, 1967, in New York City, and was adopted by Mitzie Welch (née Marilyn Cottle) and Ken Welch, comedy and music entertainers. Her biological mother was a freshman in college, and her father was a musician visiting New York City. Welch has speculated that her biological father could have been one of her favorite musicians, and she later discovered from her adoptive parents that he was a drummer. Alec Wilkinson of The New Yorker stated that "from an address they had been given, it appeared that her mother ... may have grown up in the mountains of North Carolina". When Welch was three, her adoptive parents moved to Los Angeles to write music for The Carol Burnett Show. They also appeared on The Tonight Show.

As a child, Welch was introduced to the music of American folk singers Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, and the Carter Family. She performed folk songs with her peers at the Westland Elementary School in Los Angeles. Welch later attended Crossroads School, a high school in Santa Monica, California. While in high school, a local television program featured her as a student who "excelled at everything she did."

While a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Welch played bass in a goth band, and drums in a psychedelic surf band. In college, a roommate played an album by the bluegrass band The Stanley Brothers, and she had an epiphany:

"The first song came on and I just stood up and I kind of walked into the other room as if I was in a tractor beam and stood there in front of the stereo. It was just as powerful as the electric stuff, and it was songs I'd grown up singing. All of a sudden I'd found my music."

After graduating from UC Santa Cruz with a degree in photography, Welch attended the Berklee College of Music in Boston, where she majored in songwriting. During her two years studying at Berklee, Welch gained confidence as a performer. Welch met her music partner David Rawlings at a successful audition for Berklee's only country band.

Career
Upon finishing college in 1992, Welch moved to Nashville, Tennessee. She recalled, "I looked at my record collection and saw that all the music I loved had been made in Nashville—Bill Monroe, Dylan, the Stanley Brothers, Neil Young—so I moved there. Not ever thinking I was thirty years too late." Rawlings soon followed. In Nashville, after singing "Long Black Veil," the two first realized that their voices harmonized well and they started to perform as a duo. They never considered using a working name, so the duo were simply billed as "Gillian Welch." A year after moving to Nashville, Welch found a manager, Denise Stiff, who already managed Alison Krauss. Both Welch and Stiff ignored frequent advice that Welch should stop playing with Rawlings and join a band. They eventually signed a recording contract with Almo Sounds. Following a performance opening for Peter Rowan at the Station Inn, producer T-Bone Burnett expressed interest in recording an album. Burnett did not plan to disturb Welch's and Rawlings' preference for minimal instrumentation, and Welch agreed to take him on as a producer.

Revival
For the recording sessions of Welch's debut, Revival, Burnett wanted to recapture the bare sound of Welch's live performance. Welch recalled, "That first week was really intense. It was just T-Bone, the engineer, and Dave and myself. We got so inside our little world. There was very little distance between our singing and playing. The sound was very immediate. It was so light and small." Later, they recorded several more songs and played with an expanded group of musicians: guitarist and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee James Burton, bassist Roy Huskey, Jr., and veteran session drummers Jim Keltner and Buddy Harman.

The album was released in April 1996 to mostly positive reviews. Mark Deming of Allmusic called it a "superb debut" and wrote, "Welch's debts to artists of the past are obvious and clearly acknowledged, but there's a maturity, intelligence, and keen eye for detail in her songs you wouldn't expect from someone simply trying to ape the Carter Family." Bill Friskics-Warren of No Depression praised the album as "breathtakingly austere evocations of rural culture." The Arlington Heights, Illinois Daily Herald's Mark Guarino observed that Revival was "cheered and scrutinized as a staunch revivalist of Depression-era music only because her originals sounded so much like that era." He attributed this to the biblical imagery of the lyrics, Burnett's threadbare production, and the plainly-sung bleakness in Welch's vocals. Ann Powers of Rolling Stone gave Revival a lukewarm review and criticized Welch for not singing of her own experiences, and "manufacturing emotion." Robert Christgau echoed Powers: Welch "just doesn't have the voice, eye, or way with words to bring her simulation off."

The song, "Orphan Girl," from Revival has been covered by Emmylou Harris, Ann Wilson, Karin Bergquist of Over the Rhine, Mindy Smith, Patty Griffin, Linda Ronstadt, Tim & Mollie O'Brien and Holly Williams.

Others who have recorded Welch's songs include Joan Baez, Grace Porter, Courtney Barnett and Kurt Vile, Punch Brothers, Mike Gordon, Bright Eyes, Calexico, Ani DiFranco, The Decemberists, Karl Blau, Jim James, and JD Pinkus.

Revival was nominated for the 1997 Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Folk Album, but lost to Bruce Springsteen's The Ghost of Tom Joad.

Hell Among the Yearlings
The duo's 1998 Hell Among the Yearlings continued the rustic and dark themes; the songs' subject matter varies from a female character killing a rapist, a mining accident, a murder ballad, and an ode to morphine before death. Like Revival, Hell Among The Yearlings featured a sparse style that focused on Rawlings and Welch's voices and guitars.

The album also received favorable reviews. Robert Wilonsky of the Dallas Observer observed that Welch "inhabits a role so completely, the fiction separating character and audience disappears". Thom Owens (Allmusic) stated that the album "lacks some of the focus" of Revival, but is "a thoroughly satisfying second album" and proof that her debut was not a fluke. No Depression's Farnum Brown commended the live and "immediate feel" of the album, Welch's clawhammer banjo, and Rawlings' harmonies. Similar to Revival, Welch was praised for reflecting influences such as the Stanley Brothers, but still managing to create an original sound, while Chris Herrington from Minneapolis's City Pages criticized the songs' lack of authenticity. He wrote "Welch doesn't write folk songs; she writes folk songs about writing folk songs."

O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Welch sang two songs and served as the associate producer for the Burnett-produced soundtrack to the 2000 film of the same name. She shared vocals with Alison Krauss on a rendition of the gospel song "I'll Fly Away." Dave McKenna of The Washington Post praised their version: the singers "soar together." Burnett and Welch wrote additional lyrics for the song "Didn't Leave Nobody but the Baby," sung by Welch, Emmylou Harris, and Krauss. The song is an elaboration of an old Mississippi tune discovered by Alan Lomax, and was nominated for the 2002 Grammy Award for Best Country Collaboration with Vocals. The platinum album won the 2002 Grammy Award for Album of the Year. The surprise success of the soundtrack gave Welch a career boost. Welch also made a cameo appearance in the film.

Time (The Revelator)
When Universal Music Group purchased Almo Sounds, Welch began her own independent label, Acony Records (named for the Appalachian wildflower, Acony Bell, subject of the song of that name on Revival). Rawlings produced the first release on Welch's new label, the 2001 album Time (The Revelator). All but one song on the album was recorded in the historic RCA Studio B in Nashville. "I Want To Sing That Rock and Roll" was recorded live at the Ryman Auditorium in the recording sessions for the concert film Down from the Mountain. Welch has said the album is about American history, rock 'n' roll, and country music. There are songs about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the Titanic Disaster, John Henry, and Elvis Presley. Time continues Welch and Rawlings' style of mellow and sparse arrangements. Welch explained, "As opposed to being little tiny folk songs or traditional songs, they're really tiny rock songs. They're just performed in this acoustic setting. In our heads we went electric without changing instruments."

Time (The Revelator) received extensive critical praise, most of which focused on the evolution of lyrics from mountain ballads. For Michael Shannon Friedman of The Charleston Gazette, "Welch's soul-piercing, backwoods quaver has always been a treasure, but on this record her songwriting is absolutely stunning." Critics compare the last track, the 15-minute "I Dream a Highway", to classics by Bob Dylan and Neil Young. Zac Johnson of Allmusic described I Dream ... as akin to "sweetly dozing in the [river] current like Huck and Jim's Mississippi River afternoons". No Depression's Grant Alden wrote, "Welch and Rawlings have gathered ... fragments from across the rich history of American music and reset them as small, subtle jewels adorning their own keenly observed, carefully constructed language." Time finished thirteenth in the 2001 Village Voice Pazz & Jop music critic poll. Time (The Revelator) appeared in best of decade lists of Rolling Stone, Paste, Uncut, The Irish Times, and the Ottawa Citizen. The album was nominated for the 2002 Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Folk Album, but lost to Bob Dylan's Love and Theft. Time peaked at No. 7 on the Billboard Independent Album chart.

The Revelator Collection DVD was released in 2002. It featured live performances and music videos of songs from Time, and some covers. The concert footage was filmed in 2001, and the music videos included Welch and Rawlings performing three songs at RCA Studio B. No Depression's Barry Mazor praised the DVD as an accompaniment for Time, calling it "one last exclamation point on that memorable and important project."

Soul Journey
For the 2003 release, Soul Journey, Welch and Rawlings explored new territory. Welch said: "I wanted to make it a happier record. Out of our four records, I thought this might be the one where you're driving down the road listening to it on a sunny summer day." Rawlings again produced the record. The album also reflected a change in the typically sparse instrumentation: Welch and Rawlings introduced a dobro, violin, electric bass and drums, and Welch later said, "Everything's not supposed to sound the same, you want it to reflect change and growth."

In three songs of Soul Journey, for the first time Welch and Rawlings recorded their own versions of traditional folk songs.

Soul Journey also garnered significant acclaim. John Harris of Mojo magazine described the album as "pretty much perfect", and Uncut's Barney Hoskyns favorably compared it to Bob Dylan and The Band's The Basement Tapes. Will Hermes of Entertainment Weekly wrote that Welch has "never sounded deeper, realer, or sexier." Soul Journey peaked at No. 107 on the Billboard charts, and reached No. 3 for Independent Albums.

David Rawlings Projects
In addition to their work released under the name “Gillian Welch,” Welch and Rawlings have continued to build upon their partnership with several releases under Rawlings’ name. The Rawlings releases generally feature a larger string band and more lush arrangements than their “Gillian Welch” material, and have usually been released under the band name Dave Rawlings Machine. Andy Gill of The Independent described the band’s 2009 debut album A Friend of a Friend as "akin to one of Welch's albums, but with the balance of their harmonies swapped to favour Rawlings' voice". Welch co-wrote five of the songs with Rawlings, and provided guitar and harmony vocals. Although ostensibly Rawlings' first solo album, Alex Ramon of PopMatters noted the similarities to Welch albums. Paste Magazines Stephen Deusner praised A Friend of a Friend for incorporating "a wide swath of traditional American music," comments echoed by Rolling Stones Will Hermes and in the PopMatters piece.

On September 18, 2015, the duo released their second album under the band title Dave Rawlings Machine, Nashville Obsolete. The band includes Willie Watson, Paul Kowert, Brittany Haas, and occasionally includes Jordan Tice.

Released on August 11, 2017, Poor David’s Almanack was the first Welch/Rawlings collaboration to be released under the name David Rawlings, dropping the previous Dave Rawlings Machine moniker. The song “Cumberland Gap,” which features on the album, was nominated for the 2018 Grammy Award for Best American Roots Song. It was also utilized in the opening sequence of the 2019 Guy Richie film, The Gentlemen.

The Harrow & the Harvest
In a 2007 feature in The Guardian, critic John Harris expressed frustration that there had not been a Gillian Welch release in four years. Creation Records founder Alan McGee showed optimism about Welch and Rawlings testing out some new songs while opening some concerts for Rilo Kiley, and wrote in a 2009 blog entry "the long gestation period signals nothing less than a perfect album". In 2009, Rawlings said that recording for the next Gillian Welch album has started, but did not give a release date.

The Harrow & the Harvest was released on June 28, 2011. Welch attributed the long time period between releases to dissatisfaction with the songs they were writing. She explained: "Our songcraft slipped and I really don't know why. It's not uncommon. It's something that happens to writers. It's the deepest frustration we have come through, hence the album title." The writing process involved "this endless back and forth between the two of us," Welch said, stating that "It's our most intertwined, co-authored, jointly-composed album."

The album received praise from publications such as The Los Angeles Times, Uncut, and Rolling Stone. Thom Jurek of Allmusic wrote that the album "is stunning for its intimacy, its lack of studio artifice, its warmth and its timeless, if hard won, songcraft".

The album peaked at No. 20 on the US Billboard 200 and No. 25 on the UK Albums Chart. It was nominated for a Grammy for Best Contemporary Folk Album, as well as Best Engineered Album.

Boots No 1: The Official Revival Bootleg
Boots No 1: The Official Revival Bootleg, was released on November 25, 2016. It received the status of 'universal acclaim', receiving a Metascore of 79, based upon eight critic reviews of the album. The album celebrates the 20th anniversary of Welch's debut album, Revival, and includes outtakes, alternate versions, and demos of the songs featured on the original, as well as eight new unreleased tracks.

All the Good Times (Are Past & Gone)
In July 2020, Welch and Rawlings announced All the Good Times (Are Past & Gone), an album of covers and traditional songs recorded at their home during the COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020. All the Good Times is notably the first album in their decades-long history of collaboration to be released jointly in both of their names. The album won the 2021 Grammy Award for Best Folk Album.

Woodland
On July 19, 2024, Welch and Rawlings announced Woodland, to be released August 23, 2024 through Acony Records, and shared its first single, "Empty Trainload of Sky." The album is the first collection of original material from Welch since 2011's The Harrow & the Harvest, and the first from Rawlings since 2017's Poor David's Almanack.

Musical style
Welch and Rawlings incorporate elements of early twentieth century music such as old time, classic country, gospel and traditional bluegrass with modern elements of rhythm and blues, rock 'n' roll, jazz, and punk rock. The New Yorker's Alec Wilkinson maintained their musical style is "not easily classified—it is at once innovative and obliquely reminiscent of past rural forms".

The instrumentation on their songs is usually a simple arrangement, with Welch and Rawlings accompanying their own vocals with acoustic guitars, banjos, or a mandolin. Welch plays rhythm guitar with a 1956 Gibson J-50 (or banjo), while Rawlings plays lead on a 1935 Epiphone Olympic Guitar. The New Yorker's Wilkinson described Rawlings as a "strikingly inventive guitarist" who plays solos that are "daring melodic leaps". A review in No Depression by Andy Moore observed that Rawlings "squeezes, strokes, chokes and does just about everything but blow into" his guitar.

Themes
Many songs performed by Welch and Rawlings contain dark themes about social outcasts struggling against such elements as poverty, drug addiction, death, a disconnection from their family, and an unresponsive God. Despite Welch being the lead singer, several of these characters are male. Welch has commented, "To be commercial, everybody wants happy love songs. People would flat-out ask me, 'Don't you have any happy love songs?' Well, as a matter of fact, I don't. I've got songs about orphans and morphine addicts." To reflect these themes, Welch and Rawlings often employ a slow pace to their songs. Their tempo is compared to a "slow heartbeat", and Cowperthwait of Rolling Stone observed that their songs "can lull you into near-hypnosis and then make your jaw drop with one final revelation".

Reception
Geoffrey Himes of The Washington Post described Welch as "one of the most interesting singer-songwriters of her generation". In 2003, Tom Kielty of The Boston Globe observed that she was "quietly establishing one of the most impressive catalogs in contemporary roots music", and a 2007 piece in The Guardian by John Harris called Welch "one of the decade's greatest talents". Critic Robert Hilburn of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "At every turn, she demonstrates a spark and commitment that should endear her to anyone from country and folk to pop and rock fans who appreciate imagination and heart."

When Welch's first two albums came out, critics questioned the authenticity of her music, as she was raised in Southern California, but performed Appalachian themed songs. For Revival, Welch was criticized for "manufacturing emotion", and a review of Hell Among the Yearlings by Chris Herrington of City Pages stated, "Welch is someone who discovered old-time music in college and decided that her own sheltered life could never be worth writing about", and that she is "completely devoid of individuality". Other critics rejected the notion that her background affects the authenticity of her music. Music critic Mark Kemp defended Welch in a New York Times piece:

"The first-person protagonist of Ms. Welch's song ('Caleb Meyer') may be a young girl from a time and place that Ms. Welch will never fully understand, but the feelings the singer expresses about rape, and the respect she displays for her chosen musical genre, are nothing if not poignantly authentic. Likewise, it matters not whether Ms. Welch has ever walked the streets of 'the black dust towns of East Tennessee' about which she sings in 'Miner's Refrain' because the sense of foreboding that she expresses for the men who once labored in coal mines with futile hopes of a better life comes through loud and clear."

The Wall Street Journal's Taylor Holliday echoed this: "Stingy critics give Ms. Welch a hard time because she's a California city girl, not an Appalachian coal miner's daughter. But as Lucinda or Emmylou might attest, love of the music is not a birthright, but an earned right. Listen to Ms. Welch yodel, in a tune about that no-good "gal" Morphine, and you know she's as mountain as they come."

On September 16, 2015, the duo was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award for Songwriting by the Americana Music Association.

Influences and collaborations

Welch emphasizes music from a previous era as her major influence. She said that "by and large I listen to people who are dead. I'm really of the tried-and-true school. I let 50 years go by and see what's really relevant." Welch has acknowledged inspiration from several traditional country artists, including the Stanley Brothers, the Carter Family, the Louvin Brothers, and the Blue Sky Boys. She explained her relationship with traditional music by saying, "I've never tried to be traditional. It's been a springboard for me and I love it and revere it and would not be doing what I do without the music of the Monroe Brothers, the Stanley Brothers and the Carter Family. However, it was clear I was never going to be able to do exactly that; I'm a songwriter."

In addition to the strong country influence, Welch also draws on a repertoire of such rock 'n' roll artists as Bob Dylan, Chuck Berry, Neil Young, the Grateful Dead and the Velvet Underground. She has noted alternative rock bands Throwing Muses, Pixies and Camper Van Beethoven "don't directly inform my music, but they're in there." Her cover of Black Star by Radiohead became well-known and was released as a single in 2005.

Welch has recorded songs with a variety of notable artists, including Ryan Adams, Ani DiFranco, Emmylou Harris, Jay Farrar, Alison Krauss, Old Crow Medicine Show, Bright Eyes, Robyn Hitchcock, Steve Earle, Ralph Stanley, Sara Watkins, The Decemberists, Solomon Burke and Mark Knopfler. Welch and Rawlings' contributions on Hitchcock's album Spooked was described by Christopher Bahn of The A.V. Club as "subtle but vital". She later created the cover art for Hitchcock's 2014 album The Man Upstairs. Mark Deming of Allmusic wrote that their work on Ryan Adams' album Heartbreaker "brought out the best in Adams".

Artists who have recorded songs written by Welch include Jimmy Buffett, Alison Krauss and Union Station, Trisha Yearwood, Joan Baez, Brad Mehldau & Chris Thile, Allison Moorer, Emmylou Harris, Miranda Lambert, Madison Cunningham, Kathy Mattea and ZZ Top.

Performances
Welch and Rawlings have played many music festivals, including The Newport Folk Festival, Coachella Festival, The Telluride Bluegrass Festival, The Cambridge Folk Festival, Bonnaroo, MerleFest, The Austin City Limits Festival, and Farm Aid. They have toured North America extensively, and have played in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Concert reviews have praised the chemistry between Welch and Rawlings on stage. Tizzy Asher of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote "there was a startling unspoken intimacy between them. They anticipated each other's movements and shifted when necessary to fit each other." On August 6, 2022, they performed on the Grand Ole Opry.

The Dave Rawlings Machine have toured North America, with the band originally composed of Rawlings, Welch and three members of Old Crow Medicine Show. The band is currently composed of Rawlings, Welch, Wilie Watson, Paul Kowert, and Brittany Haas. Welch and Rawlings also participate in group tours with notable musicians. In 2004, they were part of the Sweet Harmony Traveling Revue, a three-week US tour with Patty Griffin, Buddy Miller and Emmylou Harris. In 2009, The Dave Rawlings Machine joined Old Crow Medicine Show, the Felice Brothers and Justin Townes Earle for the Big Surprise Tour, a US tour described as a "roots-music extravaganza". In 2011, Welch was a support act for Buffalo Springfield, who reformed and toured that year.

Discography

 * Revival (1996)
 * Hell Among the Yearlings (1998)
 * Time (The Revelator) (2001)
 * Soul Journey (2003)
 * The Harrow & the Harvest (2011)
 * All the Good Times (Are Past & Gone) with David Rawlings (2020)
 * Woodland with David Rawlings (2024)

title: Gillian Welch


text:
SUNY Online

SUNY Online (known as Open SUNY before 2019 ) is an online program of the State University of New York.

SLN (prior to 2013)
SLN, or SUNY Learning Network, was an initiative that made online learning at the 64 SUNY schools accessible. SUNY Learning Network provided course design instruction and support from SUNY COTE, or Center for Online Teaching Excellence, as well as Learning Management System hosting and support with expansive helpdesk and application services.

Open SUNY (2013)
In 2013, Nancy Zimpher, the 12th Chancellor for the State University of New York, announced the launch of Open SUNY, shifting services and support of SLN under the new Open SUNY name. This announcement expanded online course and degree offerings across the SUNY System. At its launch in 2014, Open SUNY included 10 online bachelor’s degree programs in high-demand fields. Since its launch, Open SUNY degree and course offerings swelled to nearly 500 degree programs and certificates and 20,000 online courses. Open SUNY has three degree designations: Open SUNY and Open SUNY+. According to the Open SUNY, an Open SUNY+ degree is one that offers the following:

 * "Personal Concierge
 * HelpDesk and Tutoring
 * Experiential Learning.
 * Industry-Leading Teaching Practices
 * High-Need Areas

SUNY Online (2019 to current)
At her second State of the University address in 2019, SUNY's 13th Chancellor, Dr. Kristina M. Johnson, announced her vision for the university system with the launch of SUNY Online.

The announcement, according to Johnson, would expand the online offerings and deliver specialized program pathways for non-traditional students who wish to either pursue or finish a degree online. SUNY Online worked with campuses to offer program pathways in high-demand fields. The innovative idea not only laid out a specialized program pathways for adult and graduate students but for the first time SUNY System provided system-level support for students with the SUNY Online Success Coach. The first series of program pathways offered by SUNY Online includes:

 * Business and Accounting
 * Crime Analysis and Security Studies
 * Digital Security
 * Engineering
 * Healthcare Management
 * Psychology

SUNY Online students work with SUNY Online admissions coaches to apply, but all SUNY Online degrees are delivered and conferred by SUNY campuses. SUNY Online pathways allow students to complete a 4-year degree or pursue grad school in stages. Students can enter with some credits, no credits, or a degree already in hand. While SUNY Online students pursue a SUNY Online degree, their Success Coach stays with them through the transfer process, until graduation, and as they move on to grad school.

Not only did SUNY Online commit to program pathways for adult learners, but the announcement initiated a merger with Open SUNY. Open SUNY began the process of merging with SUNY Online in the summer of 2020, prior to the departure of Kristina M. Johnson, who announced she would the president of Ohio State University.

The merger of services and support was critical during the time of COVID-19 when Governor Andrew Cuomo announced all State University of New York campuses would go remote for the remainder of the spring 2021 semester.

During the pandemic, SUNY Online offered coaching support, expanded helpdesk services to SUNY campuses, drop-in hours for students and faculty who required technical assistance, and COVID-19 resources on its COVID-19 response page.

title: SUNY Online


text:
Johnny and the Dead

Johnny and the Dead (1993) is the second novel by Terry Pratchett to feature the character Johnny Maxwell. The other novels in the Johnny Maxwell Trilogy are Only You Can Save Mankind (1992) and Johnny and the Bomb (1996). In this story, Johnny sees and speaks with the spirits (they object to the term "ghost") of those interred in his local cemetery and tries to help them when their home is threatened.

Johnny and the Dead is a feature of some schools' English curriculum.

Plot summary
The story starts with Johnny Maxwell, a 12-year-old boy, taking a shortcut through the local Blackbury cemetery to reach his home. In the cemetery, Johnny meets the spirit of Alderman Thomas Bowler and realizes that he can interact with the spirits of the dead. Later, Johnny meets all the deceased occupants of the cemetery and discusses with them the council's sale of Blackbury's neglected cemetery to a faceless conglomerate, who plan to build offices on it. Various dead citizens, led by a former town councillor, ask Johnny to help stop it.

While Johnny (helped by his semi-believing friends) tries to find evidence of famous internees and speaks out at community meetings, the dead begin to take an interest in modern-day life and realise they are not, as they once believed, trapped in the cemetery.

Finally the council is forced to back down, but the dead are no longer interested; they have decided that instead of waiting for the Day of Judgement, they will make the decision themselves. Most of them depart the cemetery to continue their journey into the afterlife but, thanks to the campaigning of the Blackbury Volunteers, the town's living residents have rediscovered the cemetery as a link to their past. As one of the dead puts it before leaving: "The living must remember, and the dead must forget."

Ideas and themes
The book is loosely based on real events in Westminster in the 1980s, when the council sold three cemeteries as building land for 15p (Pratchett was working as a journalist at this time).

Part of the story deals with the last surviving member of the Blackbury pals, a Pals battalion with obvious parallel to the Accrington Pals. This man is called Tommy Atkins, the name given to the generic British soldier of the day.

A running joke in the book is that most of the Dead are "nearly famous", often being recognisable as very similar to a famous Briton. It is possible that Pratchett intends Blackbury Cemetery to be "nearly Highgate", especially as one of the most prominent ghosts (William Stickers) is described as "The man who would have invented communism if Karl Marx hadn't."

Adaptations
The book was made into a TV serial of the same name for CITV on ITV in 1995. It starred Andrew Falvey as Johnny, and featured Brian Blessed as William Stickers and George Baker as Alderman Bowler.

It was also adapted as a play by Stephen Briggs.

Translations

 * Johnny et les morts (French)
 * Nur Du kannst sie verstehen (i.e. "Only You Can Understand Them", German)
 * Johnny och döden (Swedish)
 * Джонни и мертвецы (Russian)
 * Johnny ve Ölüler (Turkish)
 * Joni a'r Meirwon (Welsh)
 * Johnny i zmarli (Polish)
 * Johnny a mŕtvi (Slovak)
 * Johnny y los muertos (Spanish)

title: Johnny and the Dead


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micronation

There's only a few real micronations out there, like Sealand. But most micronations are roleplay games and internet clubs. If the article were restricted to the few real ones it would be OK. But it isn't. Belgsoc 03:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. Yes, I agree that Micronation debates are the #1 cause of flame and edit wars here on Wikipedia, as every off-the-handle self-proclaimed "emperor" of his own micronation becomes hostile when his micronation is debated on this page.  Basically, Micronations are the 21-century-version of all those people in looney bins proclaiming "I am Napeleon!".  That said, this article could probably be worked out as long as we gent enough editors with the backbone and courage to stand up to all of the self-proclaimed Napeleons when they go ballistic.  Things like Sealand are certaintly notable enough.  That said, it is very important we make it clear that these micronations are delusions of the mentally ill, and that we don't take those people's fantasies seriously. Samboy 03:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I will not bother registering a vote for this VfD because the article's notability is already clearly established and will be supported by others. I will however point out that Belgsoc is a crank editor, registered for less than a week, who has maliciously listed this article as a direct result of the imminent successful VfD listing for Societas Via Romana, a group that he/she is apparently a member of, and the imminent failed VfD revenge listing for the Empire of Atlantium that was initiated by Belgsoc. If anyone wishes to initiate a temporary ban on Belgsoc on the grounds of abusing community standards I will be happy to support it.--Gene_poole 04:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrendale State Prison

Somebody please fill up or delete. (Ok, I'LL work on it but later,else feel free to delete)--Jondel 03:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)