text:
Bicycle culture

Bicycle culture can refer to a mainstream culture that supports the use of bicycles or to a subculture. Although "bike culture" is often used to refer to various forms of associated fashion, it is erroneous to call fashion in and of itself a culture.

Cycling culture refers to cities and countries which support a large percentage of utility cycling. Examples include the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium (Flanders in particular), Sweden, Italy, China, Bangladesh and Japan. There are also towns in some countries where bicycle culture has been an integral part of the landscape for generations, even without much official support. That is the case of Ílhavo, in Portugal. North American cities with strong bicycle cultures include Madison, Portland, San Francisco, Little Rock, Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Lincoln, Peoria, and the Twin Cities. In Latin America, Bogotá is often regarded as one of the most bike-friendly cities.

A city with a strong bicycle culture usually has a well-developed cycling infrastructure, including segregated bike lanes and extensive facilities catering to urban bicycles, such as bike racks.

Advocacy and activism subcultures
In some cities and countries, transportation infrastructure is focused on automobiles, and large portions of the population use cars as their only local mechanical transport. Bicycling advocates include those who advocate for an increase in population-wide commuting, acceptance of cycling, and legislation and infrastructure to promote and protect the safety and rights of cyclists.

Cycling advocacy often aims to improve community bike infrastructure, including aspects such as bike lanes, parking facilities, and access to public transportation.

Within the cycling community, activism may take many forms, and may include creative and practical approaches. These include bike-related music, bike-related films, international exchange of hospitality (Warm Showers), organized bike rides (often noncompetitive—i.e. Critical Mass and World Naked Bike Ride), art bikes displays, printed-word materials (such as blogs, zines and magazines, stickers, and spoke cards), and the publication and distribution of books (such as: Thomas Stevens's Around the World on a Bicycle, Mark Twain's essay "Taming the Bicycle" and H. G. Wells's novel The Wheels of Chance). There are hundreds of bicycle cooperatives offering spaces for cyclists to replace their own bikes and socialise.

Examples
Many cities contain subcultures of bicycle enthusiasts that include racers, bicycle messengers, bicycle transportation activists, mutant bicycle fabricators, bicycle mechanics, and bicycle commuters. Some such groups are affiliated with activism or counterculture groups. These hybrid groups often organize activities such as competitive cycling, fun rides, protests, and civil disobedience, such as Critical Mass. Some groups work to promote bicycle transportation (community bicycle program); others fix bicycles to give to children or the homeless (Bikes Not Bombs). There are also feminist groups of women of color who promote the empowerment of women through their rides such as Ovarian Psycos.

Bicycle magazines and organizations give awards to cities for being "bicycle friendly". Examples include Boulder, Minneapolis, Austin, Philadelphia, Madison, Seattle, and Portland—all cities that promote bicycle culture.

Midnight Ridazz is a group of bicycle enthusiasts who ride every second Friday of the month in Los Angeles, California to inspire more people to ride bicycles. Rides often exceed 1,000 cyclists. Similar midnight rides such as the Midnight Mystery rides of Portland and Victoria, the bi-monthly Midnight Mass of Vancouver BC, and similar rides across the US and Europe have been growing in popularity.

San Jose Bike Party is another example of a large monthly social ride that regularly exceeds a thousand riders. It occurs on third Fridays of each month after the evening commute. Typically there are two regroup points allowing slower riders to catch up, which include music and food trucks.

Mainstream bike cultures
Cycling is the norm in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark. In Denmark, 16 percent of all trips are made by bike—and as much as 50 percent of urban populations cycle to work and school. In the Netherlands, 63 percent of Amsterdam residents ride their bikes every day. Strong cycling infrastructure helps encourage cycling in these cities, and so cycling is the fastest, most convenient way to get from one place to another.

Mainstream bike cultures are characterized by notions of function over form. In mainstream bike cultures, there is less of a differentiation between cyclists and the rest of the population. People of all demographics cycle regularly, and most are less concerned about cycling attire and bike performance. It is not uncommon to see people cycle in business attire or on an old rusty bike.

title: Bicycle culture


text:
List of cartridges by caliber

Calibers in the size range of (mm, inches):
 * 2 mm (.079+ caliber)
 * 3 mm (.118+ caliber)
 * 4 mm (.157+ caliber)
 * 5 mm (.197+ caliber)
 * 6 mm (.236+ caliber)
 * 7 mm (.276+ caliber)
 * 8 mm (.315+ caliber)
 * 9 mm (.354+ caliber)
 * 10 mm (.394+ caliber)
 * 11 mm (.433+ caliber)
 * 12 mm (.472+ caliber)
 * 13 mm (.511+ caliber)

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

title: List of cartridges by caliber


text:
Air Force Satellite Control Facility

The United States Air Force's Air Force Satellite Control Facility (AFSCF) was a space command and control unit located at Onizuka AFS, California. It has the distinction of being heavily involved in the world's first reconnaissance satellite program, CORONA. Due to geological hazards (i.e. earthquakes), and the terrorism threat from its proximity to a major transportation link (California Highway 101), the facility's command and control functions were moved to Schriever AFB, Colorado.

History
The Air Force Satellite Control Facility (AFSCF) was originally activated at Los Angeles AFS, California on 18 Jun 1965. It was first assigned to the Space Systems Division of Air Force Systems Command, with later moves under the Space and Missile Systems Organization, and Space Division organizations.

On 15 October 1961, Air Force Systems Command designated the Thule Tracking Station (TTS, 76.51583°N, -68.6°W), a Remote Tracking Station (callsign: Polar Orbiting Geophysical Observatory (POGO)) of the Air Force Satellite Control Network near Thule Air Base in Greenland. It became Operating Location 5, 6594th Test Wing (Satellite). The Thule Tracking Station reached operational status on 30 March 1962, with "transportable antenna vans parked in an old Strategic Air Command bomb assembly building." The permanent RTS equipment was emplaced in 1964, and a communications terminal was emplaced on Pingarssuit Mountain—Thule Site N-32.

In 1992 the Thule Tracking Station became Detachment 2, 22nd Space Operations Squadron.

Previous designations

 * Consolidated Space Test Center (2 Oct 1987 – 27 Aug 1993)
 * Air Force Satellite Control Facility (18 Jun 1965 – 1 Oct 1987)
 * 6594th Aerospace Test Wing (1 Nov 1961 – 1 Jul 1965)
 * 6594th Test Wing (Satellite) (15 Jan 1960 – 1 Nov 1961)
 * 6594th Test Wing (6 Apr 1959 – 15 Jan 1960)
 * Field Office of Air Force Ballistic Missile Division (15 Aug 1958 – 6 Apr 1959)

Major Command/Field Operating Agency

 * Air Force Space Command (??-27 Aug 1993)
 * Air Force Systems Command (1 Jul 1965-27 )

Elements assigned

 * 6594th Aerospace Test Wing (6 Apr 1959 – 1 Jul 1965)
 * Detachment 1, Donnelly Radio Relay Site, Delta Junction, Alaska (15 Apr 1962 – 1 Jul 1965)
 * 6594th Support Group (1 Jul 1965 – 1 Oct 1987)
 * 6594th Recovery Control Group (1 Jul 1965 – 30 Sep 1986)
 * 6594th Launch Squadron (1 Jun 1959 – 15 Jul 1961)
 * 6594th Data Processing Squadron (1 Jul 1959 – 1 Oct 1960)
 * 6596th Instrumentation Squadron, Vandenberg AFB, California (1 Jul 1959 – 30 Jun 1972)
 * 6594th Instrumentation Squadron (1 Oct 1959 – 1 Jul 1965)
 * 6595th Test Squadron (20 Feb 1961 – 1 Jul 1965)

Detachments

 * Det 1 – Sunnyvale, California (1 Jul 1965 – 1 Jul 1977)
 * Det 2 – Vandenberg Tracking Station, California (1 Oct 1979 – 1 Oct 1987)
 * Det 3 – Thule Tracking Station, Greenland (1 Oct 1979 – 1 Oct 1987)
 * Det 4 – Mahé, Seychelles (15 Jul 1972 – 1 Oct 1987)
 * Det 5 – Guam Tracking Station, Guam (1 Oct 1979 – 1 Oct 1987)
 * Det 6 – Hawaii Tracking Station, Hawaii (1 Oct 1979 – 1 Oct 1987)
 * Det 7 – Sunnyvale AFS (later Onizuka AFS), California (17 Apr 1987 – 30 Sep 1987) (later moved to Los Angeles AFS, California from 30 Sep 1987 until inactivation on 15 Jul 1991)

Bases stationed

 * Sunnyvale AFS (later, Onizuka AFS/AFB), California (8 Jul 1977 – 27 Aug 1993)
 * Los Angeles AFS, California (18 Jun 1965 – 8 Jul 1977)

Spacecraft operated

 * Global Positioning System (GPS)
 * Fleet Satellite Communications System (FLTSATCOM)
 * Various satellites of the Space Test Program

title: Air Force Satellite Control Facility


text: User talk:65.106.30.82

title: User talk:65.106.30.82


text: User talk:81.193.13.89

title: User talk:81.193.13.89


text:
Brazilian cruzeiro

Brazilian cruzeiro refers to any of four distinct Brazilian currencies:

 * Brazilian cruzeiro (1942–1967), worth 1000 Brazilian réis.
 * Brazilian cruzeiro (1967–1986), denominated cruzeiro novo between 1967 and 1970 in the transition from the previous standard banknotes to the new banknotes issued by Casa da Moeda do Brasil to avoid confusion between the old and the new currency, worth 1.000 old cruzeiros.
 * Brazilian cruzeiro (1990–1993), redenomination of cruzado novo stemming from the Plano Collor.
 * Brazilian cruzeiro real (1993–1994), currency with a view to facilitating accounting transactions in the transition between the 1990–1993 cruzeiro and real, necessary due to the difficulties of accounting values at the time due to inflation.

title: Brazilian cruzeiro


text:
Kuskokwim Mountains

The Kuskokwim Mountains is a range of mountains in the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska, United States, west of the Alaska Range and southeast of the Yukon River. The Kuskokwim Mountains begin in the interior west of Fairbanks. The mountain range extends from Canyon Creek and Chikuminuk Lake in the southwest over a distance of about 400 km long to the Tanana River in the northeast and reach a width of up to 80 km.

The southeast flank of the Kuskokwim Mountains borders the rivers Kantishna, Kuskokwim, Holitna and Kogrukluk. In the northwest lie the Kaiyuh, Russian and Kilbuck Mountains as well as the rivers Innoko, Dishna and Iditarod.

The range takes its name from the Kuskokwim River, which flows through the mountains, as well as Aniak and Nowitna rivers.

Reported and defined in 1898 by Josiah Edward Spurr of the USGS. Spurr applied the name "Tanana Hills" to the low mountains at the northeast end of what are now the Kuskokwim Mountains.

Sub-ranges

 * Ahklun Mountains
 * Eek Mountains
 * Wood River Mountains
 * Russian Mountains
 * Kilbuck Mountains

title: Kuskokwim Mountains


text:
Reeds–Sloane algorithm

The Reeds–Sloane algorithm, named after James Reeds and Neil Sloane, is an extension of the Berlekamp–Massey algorithm, an algorithm for finding the shortest linear-feedback shift register (LFSR) for a given output sequence, for use on sequences that take their values from the integers mod n.

title: Reeds–Sloane algorithm


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Bellinson

Ben Bellinson
This page and the redirect "Ben Bellinson" are an advert. 11 google hits for Ben Bellinson. Non-notable ad. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:25, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ad. Jayjg 22:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Ad. Geogre 01:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just another corporate dude, ad, not notable.--Ianb 05:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Horton in Ribblesdale

Horton in Ribblesdale is a small village and civil parish in the Craven district of North Yorkshire, England. It is situated in Ribblesdale on the Settle–Carlisle Railway to the west of Pen-y-ghent.

Its population in the 2001 census was 498 people in 211 households; decreasing to 428 at the 2011 Census.

History
It is first attested as Horton in the Domesday Book of 1086, with in Ribblesdale being added already in the 13th century to distinguish it from Horton, Lancashire. The place-name Horton is a common one in England. It derives from Old English horu 'dirt' and tūn 'settlement, farm, estate', presumably meaning 'farm on muddy soil'.

Horton in Ribblesdale was historically a part of Ewcross wapentake in the West Riding of Yorkshire. It became a parish town in the early 12th century when the church of St. Oswald was established. This church was historically associated with the Deanery of Chester, and was part of the Diocese of York – though today it is part of the Diocese of Leeds. The surviving parish records date back to 1556.

In the 13th century the village and parish were ruled by rival monastic orders at Jervaulx Abbey and Fountains Abbey. Their dispute stemmed from a 1220 transfer of property here by William de Mowbray to the Fountains monks, which challenged the primacy of an earlier grant by Henry III to Jervaulx's predecessors at Fors Abbey. Not until 1315 was this dispute firmly settled, when Edward II confirmed the Abbot of Jervaulx as Lord of Horton in Ribblesdale.

During the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the monks' interests at Horton in Ribblesdale was attributed with an annual income of £32 and 5 shillings; and was given to the Earl of Lennox. He, in turn, disposed of the manor lands about 1569 or 1570 to a syndicate consisting of John Lennard, Ralph Scrope, Ralph Rokebie, Sampson Lennard, William Forest, Robert Cloughe and Henry Dyxon.

It seems the manor lands were eventually held solely by the family of John Lennard, the first named member of the syndicate. His daughter Lady Anne Lennard married Sir Leonard Bosville of Bradburne in Kent and together they sold their interests at Horton in Ribblesdale during the reign of Charles II to a partnership consisting of Lawrence Burton, Richard Wigglesworth and Francis Howson.

In 1597 Horton in Ribblesdale, like so much of northern England, was struck by a killer plague. This is confirmed by the parish burial register, which lists 74 deaths that year compared to just 17 deaths during the preceding and succeeding years. Those lost to this pandemic amounted to roughly one-eighth of the parish's population.

In 1725, local squire John Armistead left an endowment to establish a free grammar school here.

Governance
The civil parish contains the hamlet of High Birkwith.

Visitor attractions
Horton in Ribblesdale is the traditional starting (and finishing) point for the Three Peaks walk. The Pennine Way and Ribble Way long-distance footpaths pass through the village.

The region is also popular for caving and potholing, with Alum Pot and the Long Churn cave system just to the north of the village, and Hull Pot and Hunt Pot on the western side of Pen-y-ghent in England.

The Three Peaks walk is an endurance challenge of 26 mi distance, including 5,000 ft of ascent and descent of the mountains of Pen-y-ghent, Whernside and Ingleborough all to be completed in under 12 hours which attracts thousands of walkers each year. The circuit is also used for a fell race in April, while the Three Peaks cyclo-cross race also visits the three summits in the course of a longer 61 km route on the last Sunday in September. Participants in both the running and cycling race regularly achieve winning times of around three hours, and sometimes both races in the year are won by the same competitor.

Local architecture and amenities
The village has two pubs, the Crown Hotel and the Golden Lion. In 2006 a villager controversially installed a radio telescope.

The Grade I listed village church is dedicated to St. Oswald. It has a complete Norman nave, south door and tub-font and is the most complete of the Norman churches built in the Yorkshire Dales after the Norman conquest and the Harrying of the North that followed. The square tower was built later. The lychgates to enter the churchyard are roofed with slabs of Horton slate.

Other buildings in Horton are typical of the area. 17th-century yeomen's farmhouses can be found on the edge of the village, and later cottages can be seen nearer the centre of the village. In the 1870s the new railway prompted the building of Victorian terraced housing. Later the local quarrying of limestone led to the building of housing for the quarrymen.

title: Horton in Ribblesdale


text:
.475 Linebaugh

The .475 Linebaugh (12.1x36mmR) is a rimmed revolver cartridge developed by John Linebaugh in the late 1980s in response to the scarcity of the .348 Winchester brass required to form his .500 Linebaugh cartridge. The cartridge is based on the .45-70 Government case trimmed to 1.4 inches and loaded with .475 in bullets. While dimensionally similar to the older .45 Silhouette cartridge, the .475 Linebaugh is loaded to considerably higher pressures, resulting in significantly different ballistic performance.

The .475 Linebaugh was first announced in the May 1988 issue of Guns & Ammo in an article written by Ross Seyfried. In 1991, Linebaugh announced a 1.6 inch variant of the .475 Linebaugh for use in converted Ruger .357 Maximum revolvers. This cartridge is known as the .475 Linebaugh Long or .475 Linebaugh Maximum, and produces somewhat greater ballistic performance than the shorter round.

Usage
The .475 Linebaugh is intended primarily for hunting and defense against big game. The .475 is capable of propelling a 400 gr bullet at a muzzle velocity of 1400 ft/s, developing 1741 ftlb of muzzle energy from a 5.5" barrel. These figures compare favorably to those of the popular .44 Magnum, which fires a 240 gr bullet at 1475 ft/s, producing 1160 ftlb of muzzle energy from a 7.5" barrel. The .475 Linebaugh is ballistically comparable to the .454 Casull, .500 Linebaugh, and "Trapdoor level" loadings of the .45-70 Government, though it is less powerful than the .460 S&W Magnum, .500 Wyoming Express, .500 S&W Magnum, and .500 Bushwhacker rounds, as well as Linebaugh's own .475 and .500 Maximum cartridges. With the exception of the .500 Wyoming Express, however, the .475 Linebaugh is generally chambered in lighter and more compact revolvers than such "super magnum" cartridges, lending itself to easier carry and field use. This results in a relatively high power-to-weight ratio which, in the absence of a muzzle brake, often entails greater felt recoil than produced by heavier firearms chambered in more powerful cartridges.

In 2003, Ruger introduced the .480 Ruger, which is essentially a .475 Linebaugh shortened to 1.285 inches with a marginally lower pressure ceiling (48,000 psi for the .480 Ruger vs. 50,000 psi for the .475 Linebaugh). The performance and recoil generated by the .480 Ruger with standard loadings are comparatively less than those of the .475 Linebaugh. Furthermore, just as the .38 Special cartridge will chamber and fire in revolvers chambered for the more powerful .357 Magnum, the .480 Ruger will chamber and fire in revolvers chambered for the .475 Linebaugh. However, given their comparable operating pressures, the two rounds are far closer in performance than such a comparison would seem to suggest.

The .475 Linebaugh remains a relatively obscure cartridge, owing in part to the commercial success of Smith & Wesson's more powerful .460 S&W Magnum and .500 S&W Magnum cartridges. However, while the .475 Linebaugh was once an exclusively custom proposition, both the Freedom Arms Model 83 and the Magnum Research BFR are currently available in the cartridge.

title: .475 Linebaugh


text:
TLA

TLA may refer to:

Organisations

 * Tennessee Library Association, a professional organization for librarians in Tennessee
 * Texas Library Association, a professional organization for librarians in Texas
 * Tour de las Américas, a professional golf tour in Latin America
 * The Littlehampton Academy, a school in Sussex, England

Entertainment

 * Theatre of Living Arts, a music venue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. US
 * TLA Entertainment Group, a movie retailer and distributor spinoff from the former
 * TLA Releasing, its film distribution division
 * Avatar: The Last Airbender, an animated TV series that aired on Nickelodeon from 2005 to 2008

Places

 * Tlaxcala (ISO 3166-2:MX code MX-TLA), a Mexican state

Science and technology

 * Temporal light artefacts, undesired visual effects caused by light modulations
 * Temporal logic of actions, a logic used to describe behaviours of concurrent systems
 * Top-level await, an async/await language feature for JavaScript
 * Tom Lord's Arch, a revision control system now known as GNU arch

Transport

 * Teller Airport (IATA code), Alaska, US

Other uses

 * Three-letter acronym or abbreviation
 * Teaching & Learning Academy, an English teacher training programme
 * Southwestern Tepehuán language (ISO 639-3 code), from North-Western Mexico

title: TLA


text:
Declaration and forfeiture

In the sport of cricket, a declaration occurs when a captain declares their team's innings closed and a forfeiture occurs when a captain chooses to forfeit an innings without batting. Declaration and forfeiture are covered in Law 15 of the Laws of Cricket. This concept applies only to matches in which each team is scheduled to bat in two innings; Law 15 specifically does not apply in any form of limited overs cricket.

Declaration
The captain of the batting side may declare an innings closed, when the ball is dead, at any time during a match. Usually this is because the captain thinks their team has already scored enough runs to win the match and does not wish to consume any further time batting which would make it easier for the opponents to play out for a draw. Tactical declarations are sometimes used in other circumstances.

Frank May proposed at the Annual General Meeting of the Marylebone Cricket Club on 2 May 1906 that in a two-day match, the captain of the batting side has power to declare their innings closed at any time, but such declaration may not be made on the first day later than one hour and forty minutes before the hour of drawing stumps. After some discussion the resolution was passed.

A captain considering declaration must balance the risks of declaring too early (thus setting too low a target for the opposing team) against those of declaring too late or not at all (thus making it easier for the opponents to force a draw preventing the completion of the match).

The first captain to declare was Charles Wright in 1890. In a game against Kent at the Bat and Ball Ground in Gravesend, Wright declared Nottinghamshire's second innings closed on 157 for 5 to set Kent a target of 231 to win. The tactic nearly paid off as the game was drawn with Kent on 98 for 9 and Nottinghamshire requiring one more wicket to win.

Before declarations were made legal, batsmen of a team that wanted to get the other team to bat again would deliberately get themselves out, leading to some farcical situations, where the fielding side would make no attempt to dismiss a batsman who was trying to be dismissed.

Forfeiture
Under the current Laws, a captain may forfeit either of their side's innings. A forfeited innings shall be considered as a completed innings. Usually this happens in shorter competitive two-innings matches, where captains need to agree with each other how to set up the match so that there is a reasonable chance of a result. Winning a game gains a team considerably more points than drawing it, so captains are often willing to risk giving the opposition an opportunity to win that they otherwise would not have had as long as they are getting a similar opportunity in return.

In August 2020, in a rain-affected match between Durham and Leicestershire in the 2020 Bob Willis Trophy, both teams agreed to forfeit an innings in an attempt to produce a result.

Test cricket
Only one innings has been voluntarily forfeited in Test cricket. This was on 18 January 2000 at Centurion, South Africa, in the fifth and final Test between South Africa and England. South Africa had already won the series, as they were up 2–0 (with 2 matches drawn) after the first four matches. After South Africa scored 155 for 6 on the first day, rain washed out the next three days. With only one day remaining, the match was set for a certain draw.

That was until Hansie Cronje, the South African captain, entered into a deal with his English counterpart, Nasser Hussain, that South Africa would continue batting till they reached about 250 and then declare. England and then South Africa would then both forfeit an innings, leaving England approximately 250 to win (in the event the target was 249). At that time, the laws only permitted a side to forfeit its second innings, so England's first innings was treated as having been declared at 0 for 0 after 0 balls. England went on to score 251 for 8 and win by 2 wickets. Many of the South African team criticised Cronje at the time for setting too low a target.

It later emerged that Cronje had been approached by a bookmaker, and asked to ensure the game would end with a positive result. Nasser Hussain and the England team were not aware of this at the time, taking the South African request at face value.

title: Declaration and forfeiture


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shorne and Fred Bauder

Case Closed - subject to reactivation should Shorne return

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint
User:Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. Extensive discussions on article talk pages have been to no avail, see especially Talk:People's Republic of China, for example this edit:. Mediation has been refused, see Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Indictment of Fred Bauder and the rest of the arbitration committee for corruption
My position on this matter has been discussed elsewhere. User Fred Bauder filed this complaint in response to my own complaint against User VeryVerily. My own complaint has, to date, received only two votes, both quite recent, while subsequent complaints have received prompt attention—votes within seven minutes of posting, for example. Furthermore, neither the mediation committee nor the arbitration committee has yet answered any of my numerous questions about the manifest bias of favouring some complaints over others. I charge both committees with partiality and state categorically that they should be disbanded and created anew.

Bauder, taking advantage of his status as an arbitrator, has pushed ahead with arbitration, disregarding my statements that our own dispute could be resolved quickly once VeryVerily was finally brought under control and that mediation or arbitration of our dispute would have to wait for my prior dispute with VeryVerily to be resolved. Lying Bauder sold this to the committee as my "refusal" of mediation. He's merely trying to get me banned, as his response ("Yes and no") to my question "Is this [request for mediation] just your attempt to satisfy some bureaucratic requirement on the road to getting me expelled?" (see my talk page, Oct 11) suggests. In fact, it is I who have done the majority of the discussing. On talk pages, I have often written multiple paragraphs full of data and references only to see Bauder dismiss the lot with a single sentence characterising it as a minority opinion.

Anyone who really wants to know who has been trying to discuss things and who has been insisting on his own POV will read the talk pages and edit histories of such articles as Communism, Communist state, Joseph Stalin, and Collectivisation in the USSR. Fred Bauder constantly asserts that his POV belongs in the article (communism as guilty of "mass murder", for example) and that it should even predominate because it is supposedly shared by the majority of some unstated population (the US's, presumably). Despite many lectures by me on the subject (obviously delivered to deaf ears), Bauder still does not understand that NPOV means that articles should not reflect any point of view, not that the putative majority gets to assert its opinions as facts so long as an opposing side is mentioned in a couple of sentences, its adherents crassly labelled as "Stalinist apologists". How POV-pushing Bauder ever became an arbitrator I can only guess, but his high rank within the Wikipedia hierarchy bodes ill for the site.

Bauder seldom has anything substantive to say. He cites The Black Book of Communism far and wide, working its claim of "100 million killed" under communism into countless articles despite being fully aware that I and others (including two of the book's co-authors) have refuted that wild claim (with no counterargument from Bauder): see The Black Book of Communism, Talk:Communism, Talk:Communist state, and other articles. Anyone else's sources, however, he dismisses as "Stalinist" "propaganda", calling their authors "revisionists". (He has even done so within the articles themselves.) When challenged, however, about the validity of sources such as The Black Book of Communism, Bauder mysteriously goes quite mute. He moves on to another article and starts preaching his gospel of "100 million" again. He is not concerned about the truth; he only wants to have an anticommunist POV predominate. (As if Wikipedia were not already hopelessly tainted with right-wing bias.)

The preceding is for the benefit of anyone who cares to know the facts. Anyone who does not should proceed to honour Bauder's request to have me banned. I do not recognise the kangaroo court that is framing me here, and I refuse to participate in this show trial. Go ahead and ban me; that's clearly what you want to do. If you were serious about achieving a fair resolution to this dispute, you would have told Bauder to get in line behind me and to try mediation first. The fact that you gave priority to him and bought his lie about my "refusal" of mediation shows your true colours.

I shall say nothing else on this matter. Don't expect me to take part in any discussions of it. This "Statement by affected party" was written to expose the corruption of Bauder and the rest of the committee, not to defend myself or to present my grievances against Bauder in an organised way. Indeed, I shall not even read the discussion here. Anyone who wishes to speak with me may do so via my talk page. Shorne 20:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

 * 1) Recuse Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept. James F. (talk) 16:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept. The Cunctator 06:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'd love to see more evidence...
 * 4) Abstain until more evidence is presented -- Fred, I need more than one diff to tell if there is a pattern of behavior in need of addressing. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) Thanks for the additional evidence -- I hesitantly accept (would have preferred mediation, but Shorne refused). Jwrosenzweig 20:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Accept. →Raul654 06:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 3

Case Closed on 20 Nov 2004

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint
User is being a royal pain, again. See contribs, and in particular his comments towards myself and other sysops, including his legal threat on Sam Spade's RFA, for no really obvious reason. Actually, just click through all his contribs from say Oct 10-11, and it'll be pretty obvious why I'm taking him here. Pakaran. 21:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (4/0/1/0)

 * Recuse, obviously. Jwrosenzweig 21:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. *sighs* James F. (talk) 21:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. The Cunctator 22:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 14:42, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept the Epopt 04:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Final decision
Same numbering as used at /Proposed decision

Findings of Fact
1) Irismeister has violated the parole set on him in the last arbitration case dozens of times, and as a result has been given multiple temp-blocks.

3) Irismeister has knowingly and repeatedly violated ArbCom rulings:
 * 4.2.2 Editing restrictions
 * A. Editing by User:Irismeister of the article Iridology is prohibited for an indefinite period. order from Irismeister 1,  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Iridology&action=history page history of Iridology (4 edits in violation)
 * C. User:Irismeister is instructed to desist from attempting to intimidate other users by making unfounded legal threats or by any other means. order from Irismeister 1, example diff

Remedies
1) The personal attack parole on Irismeister is altered, such that if he makes further personal attacks or legal threats in the future, admins may ban him for a period of up to one month, or up to one year in more extreme cases.

7) Irismeister is banned for one year from editing Wikipedia.


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/66.20.28.01 and other accounts

User:66.20.28.21 contribs and other accounts
The above user has engaged in a edit war that's epic in scope (stretching from June 2004) and completely flies in the face of consensus. Specifically, he has targeted the articles Phil Gingrey and Rick Crawford, inserting material that is extremely POV (he asserts that Gingrey is a war criminal for his role in Guantanamo Bay) (diff). Upon first seeing this material, I reverted in June 2004 and attempted to discuss the matter on Talk:Phil Gingrey (June 23 version of Talk). However, no matter how much discussion was done, there was never any willingness to compromise. I believe the material to have essentially no place in an article on Gingrey, and so removed it. I considered the matter closed, as the anon user did not edit again for some time.

In July 2004, he returned (I believe) as User:168.9.250.3 (contribs). He repeatedly inserted the same material into the two articles, and was reverted by several users, including myself, User:Hcheney, User:Alteripse, and User:TacoDeposit. This pattern continued through August and September, during which he was also reverted by User:Khalid and User:Isomorphic. No users wanted to include any of his material.

In September, several new accounts began editing the two articles, such as User:GreatLeapForward, User:Dreisshh, User:AMoll, User:InHere, and User:EasyMassood. They all made exactly the same edits to the articles, and all displayed the same refusal to discuss their edits, despite repeated requests (User talk:AMoll, User talk:EasyMassood). I believe them to be sockpuppet accounts.

On September 25, Phil Gingrey was protected; it was unprotected on October 8. During the interval when it was protected, the same edits continued to be made on Rick Crawford. Immediately upon unprotection, the pattern continued on Phil Gingrey.

Recently, the intensity of the editing has increased; over a few days, a reader had an equal chance of encountering the neutral version and the POV version (which includes sentences like "Gingrey's single-minded focus on social issues misses the mark" diff). He has also taken to attacking articles that I have listed on my user page, such as inserting his own opinion of the electoral college in swing state (diff). In addition, he has begun using misleading edit summaries, such as "New link", for inserting the same inaccurate and biased material (diff).

I really don't know what to do about this. There would seem to be a few options, none of them very palatable--permanent blocking of the IPs, permanent protection of both pages--so I'm hoping the arbitration process will provide a solution. If there is no possibility of discussion, then permanent blocking would seem best, but I'm willing to defer to the wisdom of the committee--any ideas would be helpful.

After repeated requests on article talk and user talk, there has never been any compromise or, recently, even willingness to engage in dialogue, and thus I believe mediation would not be helpful. I respectfully request arbitration. Thank you. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I support banning this editor and sockpuppets, not because of his political views, which are probably shared by many here, but because of offensive behavior.
 * He refuses to honor or even acknowlege our NPOV policy.
 * He usually refuses to discuss changes.
 * He reverts without negotiating content even when factual errors have been pointed out.
 * His edit summaries are frequently dishonest, misrepresenting reversions as new material.
 * Ample examples in the history of Phil Gingrey and Medical torture.
 * Very few of his edits add anything of value to the articles.
 * This person does not appear to be here for any reason other than political advocacy, if not just to exasperate and annoy, and has been given many explanations, requests for improved behavior and warnings.
 * He has no respect for this project and the other editors here and I resent the time wasted for the rest of us.

This is the kind of behavior that drives away good editors. Please, can we show that we can protect ourselves from this? Alteripse 19:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. My first introduction to this guy was an edit marked 13th October "revert: OK lets stop the edit war by leaving it this way" on the medical torture page. At that time, he at least gave one or two good edits. Since 19th October, it has been a pure revert war. As far as I know from his comments, the version I revert to does not contain anything he finds objectionable. It is the lack of Phil Gingrey he finds objectionable. He has used two new sockpuppets in this fight, User:ShepsleH and User:PippaNipple, the latter of whom has created the Representative Gingrey article, a copy of the Phil Gingrey article with the disputed POV edits inserted. Kyz 17:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
W.D. & H.O. Wills

W.D. & H.O. Wills was a British tobacco manufacturing company formed in Bristol, England. It was the first British company to mass-produce cigarettes. It was one of the 13 founding companies of the Imperial Tobacco Company (of Great Britain and Ireland); these firms became branches, or divisions, of the new combine and included John Player & Sons.

The company was founded by Henry O. Wills in 1786, and went by various names before 1830 when it became "W.D. & H.O. Wills". Tobacco was processed and sold under several brand names, some of which were still used by Imperial Tobacco until the second half of the 20th century. The company pioneered the use of cigarette cards within their packaging. Many of the buildings in Bristol and other cities around the United Kingdom still exist with several being converted to residential use.

The brand "Wills" was withdrawn by Imperial Tobacco in 1988 for the majority of its products.

History

Henry O. Wills arrived in Bristol in 1786 from Salisbury, and opened a tobacco shop on Castle Street with his partner Samuel Watkins. They named their firm Wills, Watkins & Co.. When Watkins retired in 1789, the firm became Wills & Co. Next, the company was known from 1791 to 1793 as Lilly, Wills & Co, when it merged with the firm of Peter Lilly, who owned a snuff mill on the Land Yeo at Barrow Gurney. The company then was known from 1793 up until Lilly's' retirement in 1803 as Lilly and Wills.

In 1826, H.O. Wills's sons William Day Wills and Henry O. Wills II took over the company, which in 1830 became "W.D. & H.O. Wills". William Day Wills' middle name is from his mother Anne Day of Bristol. Both W.D. and H.O. Wills were non-smokers. Other members of the family entered to the business, such as Henry O. Wills III in 1846, and William Henry Wills in 1858. When William Day Wills died in May, 1865, two days after stepping in front of a horse drawn carriage, necessitating the amputation of his left leg, 2000 people attended his funeral at Arnos Vale Cemetery.

During the 1860s, a new factory was built to replace the original Redcliffe Street premises, but the firm quickly outgrew it. The East Street factory of W.D. & H.O. Wills, in Bedminster, opened in 1886, with a high tea for the 900 employees in the Cigar Room. The new factory was expected to meet the needs of the company for the remainder of the century but, it was doubled in size within a decade and, early in the 1900s, a further Bristol factory was created in Raleigh Road, Southville.

That growth was largely due to the success of cigarettes. The firm's first brand was "Bristol", made at the London factory from 1871 to 1974. Three Castles and Gold Flake followed in 1878, but the greatest success was the machine-made Woodbine ten years later. Embassy was introduced in 1914 and relaunched in 1962 with coupons. Other popular brands included Capstan and Passing Clouds. The company also made cigar brands such as Castella and Whiffs, several pipe tobacco brands and Golden Virginia hand-rolling tobacco.

In 1901, the Wills family organised a concerted response by British tobacco manufacturers to the aggressive entry into the UK market by the American Tobacco Company. This initiative on the part of 13 companies resulted in the incorporation of the Imperial Tobacco Company on 10 December 1901, and its consolidation as the predominant producer in the UK; seven of its directors were members of the Wills family. In 1902 the subsequent truce with American Tobacco saw the creation of the jointly owned British-American Tobacco; the new subsidiary, which was established with Wills's export factory, was allocated markets outside the USA and the UK.

Imperial Tobacco remained one of the world's largest tobacco companies until it was acquired by the Hanson Trust in 1986. A decade later, in 1996, Hanson demerged its tobacco manufacturing assets to a new company floated on the Stock Exchange, the Imperial Group.

Wills major factories and offices were located in Bedminster, Bristol, with other facitilities in Holborn, London, Swindon, Newcastle and Glasgow.

Up until 1920, only women and girls were employed as cigar-makers. One clause in the women's contract stipulated: "She shall not contract Matrimony within the said Term, nor play at Card or Dice Tables, or any other unlawful Games."

In 1898 Henry Herbert Wills visited Australia which led to the establishment of W.D. & H.O. Wills (Australia) Ltd. in 1900. The largest cigarette factory in Europe was opened at Hartcliffe, Bristol, designed in 1974 by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, but closed in 1990. It proved impossible to find a new use for the premises and the building was demolished in 1999. Its site is now the Imperial Park retail complex, but the associated offices became Lakeshore, residential apartments, created by Urban Splash.

The facade of the large factory in Bedminster, and the bonded warehouses at Cumberland Basin, remain prominent buildings in Bristol, although much of the existing land and buildings have been converted to other uses, such as The Tobacco Factory Theatre.

The Newcastle factory closed in 1986 and stood derelict for over a decade, before the front of the Art Deco building – which was preserved by being Grade II listed – reopened in 1998 as a block of luxury apartments. (See main article: Wills Building) The factory in Glasgow has similarly been converted into offices.

The last member of the Wills family to serve the company was Christopher, the great great grandson of H.O. Wills I, who retired as sales research manager in 1969.

In 1988 Imperial Tobacco withdrew the Wills brand in the United Kingdom, except for the popular Woodbine and Capstan Full Strength brands, which still carry the name.

When Princess Elizabeth visited the Bedminster factory on 3 March 1950 she was given cigarette cards as a gift for Prince Charles.

Benevolence
The company pioneered canteens for the workers, free medical care, sports facilities and paid holidays. Wills commissioned portraits of long-serving employees, several of which are held by Bristol Museum and Art Gallery and some of which can be seen on display at the M Shed museum. In 1893, the W.D. & H.O. Wills Ltd Association Football Team was established, and the company also held singing classes for the younger workers and women that year. In 1899, wives of Wills employees serving in the Boer War were granted 10 shillings per week by the factory.

Archives
Bristol Archives holds extensive records of W.D. & H.O. Wills and Imperial Tobacco (Ref. 38169) (online catalogue). In addition there are photographs of the Newcastle factory of W.D. & H.O. Wills at Tyne and Wear Archives (Ref. DX1363) (online catalogue ). M Shed in Bristol holds the Wills Collection of Tobacco Antiquities, consisting of advertising, marketing and packaging samples from the company's history, photographs and artefacts relating to the history of tobacco. (online catalogue)

Notable products
From the early 20th century to April 1951 "Pirate" was one of the most recognized cigarette brands in China. In Chinese it was commonly referred to as 'lao dao pai', meaning 'Old Knife Brand' in reference to the sword the pirate was carrying on the brand's key visual. The brand had a short revival in China under different ownership in 1994 but was eventually discontinued in 1997.

In 1959 the company launched the short-lived Strand brand. This was accompanied by the memorable but disastrous, You're never alone with a Strand television advertisement.

In India, the Gold Flake, Classic and Wills Navy Cut range of cigarettes, manufactured by ITC, formerly the Imperial Tobacco Company of India Limited, still has W.D. & H.O. Wills printed on the cigarettes and their packaging. These lines of cigarettes have a dominant market share.

Cigarette cards
In 1887, Wills were one of the first UK tobacco companies to include advertising cards in their packs of cigarettes, but it was not until 1895 that they produced their first general interest set of cards ('Ships and Sailors'). Other Wills sets include 'Aviation' (1910), 'Lucky Charms' (1923), 'British Butterflies' (1927), 'Famous Golfers' (1930), 'Garden Flowers' (1933) and 'Air Raid Precautions' (1938).

Wills also released several sports sets, such as the cricket (1901, 1908, 1909, 1910), association football (1902, 1935, 1939), rugby union (1902, 1929) and Australian rules football (1905) series.

Trivia
The factory in Hartcliffe, Bristol, was used for location filming for the UK television series Doctor Who, for the 1977 serial 'The Sun Makers'. Filming at the Wills Factory spanned 13 to 15 June 1977. In addition to the roof and tunnels, scenes were also filmed in the lift and the roof vent.

title: W.D. & H.O. Wills


text:
User talk:JFuchs

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

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Please stop making personal attacks on Xed, or you'll be blocked. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 23:56, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:JFuchs


text: User talk:129.19.1.130

title: User talk:129.19.1.130


text:
.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire

The .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire, also known as the .22 WMR, .22 Magnum, .22 WMRF, .22 MRF, or .22 Mag, is a rimfire cartridge. Originally loaded with a bullet weight of 40 gr delivering velocities in the 2000 ft/s range from a rifle barrel, .22 WMR is now loaded with bullet weights ranging from 50 gr at 1530 ft/s to 30 gr at 2200 ft/s.

History
The .22 WMR was introduced in 1959 by Winchester, but was not used by Winchester until the Winchester Model 61 slide rifle could be chambered for it in 1960. The first rifle to be offered in the new chambering was the Marlin Levermatic rifle in 1959, because its design was easily modified to accept the more powerful cartridge. By the time of the introduction of the Winchester 61, Smith & Wesson and Ruger had revolvers for it, and Savage had come out with the Model 24 and since late 2012, the Model 42, a more modern update than the 24, a .22/.410 rifle/shotgun combination gun. It was the only successful rimfire cartridge introduced in the 20th century.

Dimensions and loading
The .22 WMR uses a larger case than the more popular .22 LR, both in diameter and length. The .22 WMR case is a lengthened version of the older .22 WRF and both of these cartridges have the bullet seated within the case, instead of using a heeled bullet as in the .22 LR. In the most common modern .22 WMR loadings using a 40 gr bullet, the combination of more powder and higher sustained pressures gives velocities of 1875 ft/s from a rifle and 1500 ft/s from a handgun. A .22 WMR round will not fit into the chamber of a .22 LR firearm due to the greater length and width of the case dimensions.

Although the bullet diameters are the same, the larger .22 WMR chamber does not support the smaller .22 LR cartridge. Firing the smaller .22 LR round in a .22 WMR chamber results in swollen or split cartridge cases, high-pressure gas leakage from the rear of the chamber, and bullets striking the chamber throat out of alignment, which can result in injury to the shooter or bystander and which does result in poor ammunition performance.

Gun makers offer .22 revolver models with cylinders chambered either in .22 LR or in .22 WMR and as convertible kits with both cylinders which allow the shooter to easily switch calibers on the same firearm.

Uses
Since the .22 WMR uses bullets comparable in weight to the .22 Long Rifle, but is considerably faster, it shoots flatter and farther and hits harder at all ranges. The same 40 gr bullet from a .22 WMR at 100 yard still has 50% more kinetic energy than .22 LR at the muzzle. The .22 WMR provides improved penetration and more reliable expansion at longer ranges with expanding bullets.

If sighted in for maximum point blank range on a 3 in high target, the 40 gr .22 WMR has an effective range of nearly 125 yard. This makes the .22 WMR an effective short to medium-range varmint rifle and hunting rifle cartridge. The .22 WMR can effectively kill small game such as rabbits, hares, groundhogs, prairie dogs, foxes, raccoons, opossums, and coyotes. The relatively quiet report and negligible recoil also make it a very pleasant target and plinking round to shoot for extended periods.

Firearms using .22 WMR
It first appeared in the Marlin Model 57M Levermatic carbines in 1959, which was followed by the .22 WMR over .410 gauge Savage Model 24 combination gun, followed by Winchester's own Model 61 and 275 pump-action rifles and Model 255 lever-action rifle. The Chiappa Double Badger combination gun also comes with a .22 WMR over .410 gauge option. The Springfield Armory M6 Scout is also made in .22 Magnum over .410 gauge. The Chiappa M6 Survival Gun is similar combination gun that comes with a 12 gauge or 20 gauge shotgun barrel over a .22 Magnum barrel.

A number of single-shot and repeating rifles were offered in .22 WMR. The .22 WMR operates at pressures beyond what normal blowback actions typically handle, but the self-loading Jefferson Model 159 was introduced for the cartridge. Until the 1990s, most .22 WMR firearms were bolt-action rifles. In 1977-1985 Harrington & Richardson produced the first American-made semi-automatic .22 WMR. In the 1990s semi-automatic .22 WMR rifles were also introduced by Ruger (10/22) and Marlin, and are currently produced by Remington (Model 597) and Tanfoglio Appeal Rifle as well as the Excel Arms Accelerator Rifle and Savage arms A22 magnum.

Revolvers in .22 WMR are made by Smith & Wesson, Colt, Taurus, North American Arms, Heritage Arms, and Sturm Ruger. Semi-automatic pistols for this cartridge are (or were) produced by Kel-Tec, Grendel and AMT, the latter two now defunct (AMT has been since resurrected by High Standard). The Grendel, AMT and Kel-Tec designs used specially designed chambers with flutes or gas ports, designed to lubricate the long, thin cartridge with gases from the chamber, overcoming the Blish effect and allowing easy extraction of the cartridge. High-Standard produced various models and versions of their classic two-shot over/under derringer in both .22 WMR and .22 LR.

The Marlin Model 25MG is a smooth bore, eight-shot, magazine-fed, .22 WMR, bolt-action shotgun manufactured by Marlin Firearms. It was specifically designed to use snake shot, and marketed as a "garden gun" for use in dispatching small garden and farm pests. It has an effective range of about 15 yards when using snake shot. Based on earlier Marlin .22 caliber designs, the garden gun was equipped with a high-visibility front sight but no rear sight.

The Argentine EDDA submachine gun uses the .22 WMR round.

In 2014 Kel-Tec released the CMR-30, a PDW-style rifle chambered in .22 WMR with a 16" barrel and a 1:14 twist rate. It uses the same double stack 30-round magazine as the PMR-30.

In 2018 Standard Manufacturing introduced an 8-round .22 WMR revolver at the Las Vegas Shot Show. The revolver was originally introduced as the Volleyfire. The gun has side-by-side barrels, and fires 2 rounds of .22 WMR (1 bullet per barrel) with every pull of the trigger. In 2019 the gun went into production and was renamed "Thunderstruck".

In recent years, a few UK companies such as Guncraft Ltd have been making semi-automatic AR-15-style rifles chambered in 22 WMR, marketed to civilian shooters who, due to the UK's restrictive gun laws, do not have access to self-loading center-fire rifles.

Ammunition
The .22 WMR is an enlarged, more powerful version of the much earlier .22 WRF. Despite frequent claims to the contrary, it cannot be safely used in any firearm except those specifically chambered for it. Even firearms chambered for the .22 WRF are not suitable; for one thing, the case lengths are different, and the fact that the cartridge fits into the chamber does not guarantee that using the wrong cartridge is either safe or effective.

The .22 WMR was for a time the most powerful rimfire round available; it even outperformed the .22 WCF. It has since been eclipsed in velocity and overall kinetic energy by the .17 Winchester Super Magnum.

Commonly available in retail stores, the selection and availability of the .22 WMR nevertheless does not match the popular .22 Long Rifle. Furthermore, .22 WMR is typically much more expensive than .22 LR per round, though it is comparable to .17 HMR, which is much more similar in overall performance, and is less expensive than .22 caliber centerfire ammunition.

Because many of the rifles that are chambered for the .22 WMR have tubular magazines, the bullet noses generally are flat or at least blunt to allow smooth feeding and reduce damage to the bullet. Although a pointed bullet in a rimfire cartridge will not contact the primer of the round in front of it (which is a hazard with centerfire cartridges in a tubular magazine), the manufacturer's stamp is in the middle of the base of a rimfire cartridge, and this may interfere with pointed metal bullets in a tube. However, Remington, CCI, and Hornady now produce bullet designs with 30 or 33 gr polymer plastic ballistic tips that reduce the hazards of pointed ammunition in tubular magazines.

Bullets for the .22 WMR are generally unlubricated lead with heavy copper plating, in either solid nose or hollow point style designed for small game hunting or pest control (varmint hunting).

The limited selection of commercial ammunition for the .22 WMR has inspired specialist wildcatters to select the .22 WMR case for handloading high performance rimfire ammunition. Generally they load the wildcat cartridges with pointed bullets for the aerodynamic advantages, using the same bullets as those in .22 caliber centerfire cartridges. Though such bullets are generally heavier than standard .22 WMR, the sharp nose and tapered tail conserve energy better, delivering greater impact at longer ranges.

Other wildcatters neck the .22 WMR down to smaller calibers, such as .20 (5 mm) and .17 (4.5 mm) or even smaller, in an attempt to get maximum velocity and the flattest possible trajectory. An example of such an experimental design is the Swedish 4.5×26mm MKR.

title: .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire


text:
List of places in Bedfordshire

 * Map of places in Bedfordshire compiled from this list
 * See the list of places in England for places in other counties.

This is a list of all the towns and villages in the county of Bedfordshire. See the List of Bedfordshire settlements by population for a list sorted by population.

A

 * Aley Green
 * Ampthill
 * Apsley End
 * Arlesey
 * Aspley Guise
 * Aspley Heath
 * Astwick

B

 * Barton-le-Clay
 * Battlesden
 * Beadlow
 * Bedford
 * Beeston
 * Begwary
 * Biddenham
 * Bidwell
 * Biggleswade
 * Billington
 * Bletsoe
 * Blunham
 * Bolnhurst
 * Bourne End, Bletsoe
 * Bourne End, Cranfield
 * Box End
 * Brickhill
 * Brogborough
 * Bromham
 * Broom
 * Budna

C

 * Caddington
 * California
 * Campton
 * Cardington
 * Carlton
 * Castle
 * Cauldwell
 * Chalgrave
 * Chalton
 * Chaul End
 * Church End, Arlesey
 * Church End, Totternhoe
 * Chawston
 * Chellington
 * Chicksands
 * Chiltern Green
 * Clapham
 * Clifton
 * Clipstone
 * Clophill
 * Cockayne Hatley
 * Colesden
 * Colmworth
 * Cople
 * Cotton End
 * Cranfield

D

 * De Parys
 * Duck's Cross
 * Dunstable
 * Dunton
 * Denton

E

 * East Hyde
 * Eastcotts
 * Eaton Bray
 * Edworth
 * Eggington
 * Elstow
 * Eversholt
 * Everton
 * Eyeworth

F

 * Fairfield
 * Fancott
 * Farndish
 * Felmersham
 * Flitton
 * Flitwick

G

 * Goldington
 * Gravenhurst
 * Great Barford
 * Great Billington
 * Great Denham
 * Greenfield

H

 * Hall End
 * Harlington
 * Harpur
 * Harrold
 * Harrowden
 * Hatch
 * Haynes
 * Haynes Church End
 * Haynes West End
 * Heath and Reach
 * Henlow
 * Henlow Camp
 * Herrings Green
 * Higham Gobion
 * Hills End
 * Hinwick
 * Hockliffe
 * Hockwell Ring
 * Holme
 * Holywell
 * Honeydon
 * Houghton Conquest
 * Houghton Regis
 * How End
 * Hulcote
 * Husborne Crawley
 * Hyde

I

 * Ickwell
 * Ion
 * Ireland

K

 * Keeley Green
 * Kempston
 * Kempston Central and East
 * Kempston Hardwick
 * Kempston North
 * Kempston Rural
 * Kempston South
 * Kempston West
 * Kensworth
 * Kensworth Lynch
 * Keysoe
 * Keysoe Row
 * Kingsbrook
 * Knotting
 * Knotting Green

L

 * Langford
 * Leagrave
 * Leedon
 * Leighton Buzzard
 * Lidlington
 * Limbury
 * Linslade
 * Little Barford
 * Little Billington
 * Little Staughton
 * Lower Caldecote
 * Lower Dean
 * Lower Gravenhurst
 * Lower Shelton
 * Lower Stondon
 * Lower Sundon
 * Lower Woodside
 * Luton

M

 * Marston Moretaine
 * Maulden
 * Melchbourne
 * Meppershall
 * Millbrook
 * Milton Bryan
 * Milton Ernest
 * Moggerhanger

N

 * New Mill End
 * Newnham
 * Northill

O

 * Oakley
 * Odell
 * Old Warden

P

 * Pavenham
 * Pegsdon
 * Pepperstock
 * Pertenhall
 * Podington
 * Potsgrove
 * Potton
 * Pulloxhill
 * Putnoe

Q

 * Queens Park

R

 * Radwell
 * Ravensden
 * Renhold
 * Ridgmont
 * Riseley
 * Roxton

S

 * Salford
 * Salph End
 * Sandy
 * Seddington
 * Sewell
 * Sharnbrook
 * Sharpenhoe
 * Sheep Lane
 * Shefford
 * Shelton
 * Shillington
 * Shortstown
 * Silsoe
 * Skimpot
 * Slip End
 * Souldrop
 * Southcote
 * Southill
 * Stagsden
 * Stanbridge
 * Stanford
 * Steppingley
 * Stevington
 * Stewartby
 * Stotfold
 * Streatley
 * Studham
 * Sutton
 * Swineshead

T

 * Tebworth
 * Tempsford
 * The Hyde
 * Thorn
 * Thorncote Green
 * Thurleigh
 * Tilsworth
 * Tingrith
 * Toddington
 * Totternhoe
 * Turvey

U

 * Upper Caldecote
 * Upper Dean
 * Upper Gravenhurst
 * Upper Shelton
 * Upper Staploe
 * Upper Stondon
 * Upper Sundon

W

 * West End
 * Westoning
 * Wharley End
 * Whipsnade
 * Wilden
 * Willington
 * Wilshamstead
 * Wilstead
 * Wingfield
 * Wixams
 * Woburn
 * Wood End
 * Woodside
 * Wootton
 * Wootton Green
 * Wrestlingworth
 * Wyboston
 * Wymington

Y

 * Yelden

Places of interest
• Bedford Castle

• Bedford Corn Exchange

• Bedford Park

• Cardington (R101 hangar)

• Chiltern Hills

• De Grey Mausoleum

• Dunstable Downs

• Elstow Moot Hall

• The Higgins Art Gallery & Museum

• Houghton House

• Leighton Buzzard Light Railway

• Luton Hoo

• Luton Museum & Art Gallery

• Marston Vale Community Forest

• Mossman Collection

• Priory Country Park

• RAF Henlow

• RSPB The Lodge, Sandy

• Someries castle

• The Shuttleworth Collection

• Stockwood Craft Museum

• Wardown Park

• Waulud's Bank

• Whipsnade Wildlife Park

• Whipsnade Tree Cathedral

• Willington Dovecote & Stables

• Woburn Abbey

• Woburn Safari Park

• Woodside Farm and Wildfowl Park

• Wrest Park Gardens

title: List of places in Bedfordshire


text:
Brazilian cruzado

The cruzado was the currency of Brazil from 1986 to 1989. It replaced the second cruzeiro (at first called the "cruzeiro novo") in 1986, at a rate of 1 cruzado = 1000 cruzeiros (novos) and was replaced in 1989 by the cruzado novo at a rate of 1000 cruzados = 1 cruzado novo.

This currency was subdivided in 100 centavos and it had the symbol $$\mathrm{CzS}\!\!\!\Vert$$ and the ISO 4217 code BRC.

Standard
Stainless-steel coins were introduced in 1986 in denominations of 1, 5, 10, 20 and 50 centavos, and 1 and 5 cruzados, with 10 cruzados following in 1987. Coin production ceased in 1988.

Commemorative
Three designs of commemorative 100 cruzado coins, celebrating the 100th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the country (the Lei Áurea), were produced in 1988. Although very rare in circulation, the numbers' design was carried over into both Cruzado Novo and the third Cruzeiro.

Banknotes
The first banknotes were overprints on cruzeiro notes, in denominations of 10, 50 and 100 cruzados. Regular notes followed in denominations of 10, 50, 100 and 500 cruzados, followed by 1000 cruzados in 1987, 5000 and 10,000 cruzados in 1988.

title: Brazilian cruzado


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/VeryVerily

Case Open

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint
VeryVerily is endlessly reverting a controversial passage of the PNAC page. His version demolishes a strawman of the opposing side of the discussion, and falsely paints the issue as being resolved in favour of his own interpretations when in fact it's a matter of much debate even in mainstream media sources.

He also accuses me of just reverting everything he does, which I feel is a bit unfair because he was the first to revert (04:44 on the 25th of September). My version presents both sides of the issue, his presents only his own and the strawman.

I've tried to be reasonable but he just doesn't seem interested in any opinion but his own. He seems determined to make the article conform to his own worldview.

VeryVerily "rejects" mediation on the grounds it will be a waste of time and that the discussion isn't complete (when in fact, as a glance at the discussion page will reveal, it's just going around in circles). Is there anything that can be done? I'm a new Wikipedian and this annoying dispute is completely ruining my enjoyment of this place. Thanks. CK 13:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party
Utterly frivolous. Arbitration is obviously premature. His claim about me being the first to revert is demonstrably false. V V 22:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The remainder of the former content of this page has been moved to talk.

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

 * Accept, mediation requested but refused, Fred Bauder 12:56, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC) Recuse Fred Bauder 00:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept, though I hope a little more evidence will be presented? But what there is is sufficient to accept, I judge. Jwrosenzweig 14:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. Mediation was refused, and while I would be inclined to ask if this was an isolated incident, the sheer number of arbitration complaints concerning VeryVerily would seem to indicate that this wasn't. →Raul654 20:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 16:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept --the Epopt 13:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Mahler)

Combined amateur orchestras
I think it's interesting to note that, sometime in the 1970s, two amateur orchestra/chorus combinatins in San Diego, California--The San Diego Community Orchestra and chorus from San Diego Mesa College and the orchestra and chorus from the music department at the Universigy of California at San Diego--once combined forces for a single reading of Mahler's 3rd. I played string bass (Community Orchestra) at this reading. I fell in love with the work and it is still one of my favorites. Too bad we never carried through with a concert. Rsduhamel 22:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Orchestration
I updated the orchestration section to great detail. I have the score for reference. Justin Tokke 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit at 11:48, 12 September 2006 by Rsholmes is weird. Some instruments are capitalized while others are not. They are either all lower case or all capitalized (what Mr. Tokke recommends). The edit should be reverted or progressed further. Any comments?A Wang (talk/contrb.) 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I suggest all capitals because that is what the score indicates. All instruments are capitalized except two-word instruments like "English horn" where "horn" is not capitalized. I will change it back the way it was. Justin Tokke 23:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Longest of all symphonies?
Not that I’d want them to be known for their length, but there is at least one, if not a few, longer... Schissel‐bowl listen 03:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I've removed the comment that it is "the longest of all symphonies". I admit I can't think of a longer one myself (out of interest, what is it that you're thinking of?), but the problem is we can't really know whether it's true or not unless one of us knows every single symphony ever composed by everyone ever (I, at least, do not). --Camembert

I certainly don't, though I know everything about every other field. Hrmph. *vbg* Brian's Gothic sym is as long, I believe and I wouldn't be surprised if one of Sorabji's two orchestral syms will prove longer in performance. (And I wouldn't like them - one of them I know, the other not so - to be known leave alone foremost for such Gu. Book trivia either..) Schissel : bowl listen 01:16, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * The Bruckener 8th Symphony, depending on the recording (Munich Phil live 12-13/9/93     EMI CD 5566962 ................. 104:13) can be around 1hour 40 minutes.

 * I've read somewhere that Guinness names this as the longest regularly performed symphony. Alcuin 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The longest known symphony, when last I heard, was Richard Rodgers' symphonic arrangement of his film music Victory at Sea, which totals at about thirteen hours. I believe you can look it up on the Guinness World Records website. -- 5-27-06

It is the longest Symphony in the standard repertoire for orchestras. There are absolutely crazy long symphonies, but they are never performed as a whole or on a concert. They are performed on special occasions or in parts. This one, Mahler's third, usually amounts to 100 mins. or more (1 hr and 40 mins.). I have the Philharmonia recording and Benjamin Zander, the director, does mention this topic to quite detail in the commentary. Justin Tokke 04:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

the first symphony by Havergal Brian: almost 2 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.119.16 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Brian's "Gothic" is not standard repertoire. It has only been performed a few hundred times in its existence. Justin Tokke (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources Needed
I have seen this piece of music performed live 3 times (Lucerne Festival Orchestra, New York Philharmonic, and Boston Symphony Orchestra). In these 3 performances and the numerous DVD performances that I have seen, never have I seen a flugel horn used to substitute for the posthorn. Can anyone cite a performance by a major orchestra who used a flugel horn in place of the posthorn?

OK, if no one objects, I am going to be deleting the "posthorn solo usually played on flugel horn" bit (as it is incorrect information). I'll give it another day before I do. --Sully2302 23:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The Horenstein recording uses flügelhorn, but it's not at all a common substitution...although rumor has it that the first edition of the score lists flügelhorn rather than posthorn. I've not seen it, though. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I think I've seen this but I'm not sure it's the original first edition. I'll look into it.Justin Tokke 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, this needs some serious clarification (orchestration section), as it only makes sense to trumpet players: "4 Trumpets in F, B-flat (2 or more high parts may be reinforced with E-flat Trumpets.)" Again, in all of the performances I have seen of Mahler 3 that I can recall, the entire trumpet section was using C rotary trumpets except for trumpet 1 who I have seen use Eb in place of or in addition to C.  I would propose changing this to: 4 trumpets, in F and B-flat (usually played on C or Eb rotary trumpets) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sully2302 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * No! This is not what is in the score. The usage of transpositions unwritten my Mahler varies from player to player. If a trumpetist wants to play an F Trumpet part on an E or even D-flat Trumpet, it's up to the player. Unwritten doublings should not be written for this reason. Justin Tokke 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks Justin for the input. So would you agree with me that the part in the instrumentation section, "2 or more parts may be reinforced with Eflat trumpets" is cumbersome and unnecessary"? --Sully2302 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 * No. This is actually written in the score.Justin Tokke 15:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure
I changed "What God tells me" back to "What Love tells me". Afaik God is completely out of place here. It has been introduced by an ip, reverted by user Andy_M._Wang, but then strangely reverted back by the same user!? I could not find any trace in a talk page why user Andy_M._Wang has been convinced that God is appropriate. Brontosaurus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can accept. Sorry if I messed up on all of that. Thanks for that note. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Carnegie Hall's program notes. That being said, he did label it "What love tells me" and only commented in a letter that it could be given the other name.  Perhaps this quotation should be added to the article somewhere (and it would also be the article's first citation).NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 07:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

MIDI FILES
about the Midi Files that I removed, see "discussion " in Mahler 9th symphony.

NPOV?
A lot of this article strikes me as being quite far from NPOV. While I may agree with certain descriptions such as its "construction...is masterful" and that certain things are done with "perfect grace and poise," they really aren't reporting fact. These should probably be sourced ("So-and-so praised this symphony for its..." would work). Thoughts? NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Length of First Movement
These two statements cannot both be true.

(under "Structure") "The first movement alone, with a normal duration of a little more than thirty minutes"

(under "Performance") "When it is performed, a short interval is sometimes taken between the first movement (which alone lasts around half an hour)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.56.190 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Why cannot both statements be true? I don't see the conflict. Supposing all known performances of this movement lasted between 29 and 34 minutes, would these not all satisfy both conditions, allowing for perhaps one abnormally short version?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lavish Praise
From the article: "It is in the finale, however, that Mahler reveals his true genius for stirring the soul. The construction of it is masterful, and the interplay of a developing chromatic harmony and sonorous string melody, developed and re-orchestrated with perfect grace and poise builds to a conclusion that, though seemingly overblown when heard in isolation, is, in the wider context of the symphony, both musically justified and emotionally overwhelming."

This is so utterly not the kind of thing that should be in Wikipedia, in my opinion. I don't think I need to argue for it, it speaks for itself. Can anyone think of a good reason not to delete that bit of overwrought subjective critique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.174.243 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 * You're completely right. I commented on this a few months ago, but I haven't had the time to properly research a rewrite.  It wouldn't be so bad if it was of the form "Sir Nigel Twitt-Thornwaite, dean of British conductors, said of the last movement etc."  But as it stands now it is nowhere near neutral POV and full of uncorroborated (and uncorroboratable) statements.NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 16:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Serious works of reference"
This edit troubles me a little. This very article starts out by referring to is as a symphony in D minor. That can only mean that WP is not a "serious work of reference", so it really doesn't matter what we say. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The New Grove table of titles and keys can be followed as a guide. The current WP entries on Mahler symphonies are not properly researched, sourced, or edited. They are in fact very poor. I have just noticed that the one on Mahler 9 even credits Schoenberg with a quote he never said. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The issue for me is this gap between the publications that are "serious works of reference" and those that are not. Who makes the decision that any particular publication is a "serious work of reference", and on what basis?  I've seen Mahler's 7th referenced under various keys in Grove, so that means it's not a "serious work of reference" any more? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm told that the New Grove second edition is the wiki standard. I trust you will happily stick to what appears in its tables...? Pfistermeister (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * You misunderstand me, I think. I have no plans to spurn Grove. I just intensely dislike this talk of what "serious works of reference" do or not do.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * How sweet. I myself intensely dislike wrong and misleading information proudly displayed in encyclopaedias. Now sit back and watch as a load of amateur assholes all start reverting the New Grove quotes I've put in these symphony articles... Pfistermeister (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish tune quote
The posthorn solo (in the 3rd movement) includes a large fragment of a popular Spanish tune that is the main theme of Glinka's Jota Aragonesa, and also appears in Liszt's Spanish Rhapsody -

So, what was Mahler up to in quoting a Spanish folk song? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 * That's a typical example of amateur over-interpretation. Mahler's long solo merely resembles part of the harmonically primitive 'popular Spanish tune' in a few of its phrases: there is no justification in saying that he 'quoted a Spanish folk song'. Don't muddy the water with amateurish pseudo-analysis. Pfistermeister (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Pfistermeister: it is your comment that is a typical example of cavalier rebuffing. Mahler's quote of that Spanish tune in the posthorn solo is evident to anyone with a pair of good and attentive ears. To be sure, others have singled this out before. So, the "muddying" here is only in your mind. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 * So go on then, cupcake: produce a musical example in which the fleeting and fortuitous resemblance *doesn't* vanish into accidental insignificance when you lay it out clearly. Go on: I challenge you. Show me how one theme 'quotes' the other. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your gross manners and aggressive stance are well known here, Pfistermeister, as is your addiction to grandstanding. What is perhaps a surprise is that you're also tone-deaf. But then, it's easy to be bullish when you hide behind a pseudonym. So, speaking of challenges, I have one for you: let's drop the covers and arrange a meeting. Then let's see if you have the nerve to call me cupcake to my face. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. Let us discuss matters civilly or not at all. "... anyone with a pair of good and attentive ears" - indeed, Musikverein. I happened to be listening to this symphony on the radio on Sunday, having not heard it in around 5 years, and the resemblance to a theme from Glinka's Jota Aragonesa struck me for the first time (I did not know at that time that the tune was not Glinka's own, but a folk tune he quoted). But was it just my ears playing tricks? Clearly others agree with me. I found ample confirmation of the resemblance, but nothing about why Mahler used this theme. Maybe it was entirely unconscious on his part. But I sort of doubt he was unfamiliar with the Glinka work or perhaps even the Liszt work. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. It's always good to have you on board. As to the theme, it may have been unconscious on Mahler's part. However, I do think it's unlikely that such a musically cultivated composer and conductor would have been unfamiliar with Glinka's and Liszt's works, which renders the "unconscious" quoting improbable (though it doesn't rule it out). In any event, whatever the reason for Mahler's quoting that Spanish tune, unsconsciously or not, the point first made here, with which I agree, is that he apparently did it. It is certainly interesting to inquire as to the motivations for the quote in that part of the symphony, if any. But that's a different side of the matter. I merely wanted to support the notion that the quote is there, which is clear to my ears. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I seriously misunderstand wikipedia policy, "clear to [your] ears" is original research. In other words, can somebody please find a citation?   NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 14:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, it would be original research if I were advocating the inclusion of this point as information in the relevant article, which is not the case. As you can see, I just added my opinion to an ongoing discussion on this talk page. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Structure" section rife with POV and peacocks...
I'd just love to plaster the section with ""...:

 * The opening movement, grotesque in its conception (much like the symphony itself)... (Now, now!) ...the themes are varied and developed with each presentation, and the typical harmonic logic ... is replaced here by something new. (What is it? Is it really new? If so, how?) The slow opening can seem to evoke... (Weasel) Innovation is present everywhere... (such as?)"

Really, this is quite unencyclopedic... wish I knew more about the symphony... -- megA (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; for all its brevity this article contains a remarkable amount of pferdescheiss. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to remove some of the blatant examples, and in the process expanded the description of the second part movements. Anyone feel free to work on the text... -- megA (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Premieres
Okay, so the list seems a little ridiculous. Is the list exhaustive? (i.e. have only the countries and orchestras listed in the section ever performed the piece?) I seriously doubt that, and I can't imagine why the premieres in Thailand, Singapore, and definitely Regina, Saskatchewan are more noteworthy than other performances. The others I can understand. Chuborno (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, this is one of the most ludicrous lists of performances I have seen. Regarding Saskatchewan, however, I do not see any other claim for Canada at all, so perhaps until an earlier performance is documented in Toronto, Coquitlam, Moose Jaw, or some other metropolis, this performance in Regina must stand as the Canadian premiere of the symphony, eh?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

PIcture
It would be really nice to see a picture (or more than one!) of the composer that is contemporary with the the composition. Does such a thing exist? And if so, perhaps it could be used in the article? quota (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Done, but you see less face. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Mahler)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Turrican and VeryVerily

Case Open

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement by affected party
Since going quickly to arbitration seems to be the "in" thing to do, and has been condoned by the two users who accepted CK's complaint, I will register a request for immediate banning here.

Turrican has stated on my talk page    and on Mackensen's  that he intends to be and has been carrying out a campaign of reverting my edits with out prejudice. Since this has nothing to do with content issues - some are just housekeeping edits (the most absurd is Kim Jong-Il) - I believe this constitutes vandalism.

If you view his talk page, you will see I gave him repeated warnings, including quoting specific policies. Mackensen and GBWR also warned him. I thought he had maybe stopped, and so I was willing to drop the matter, but he has recently resumed.

He has also engaged in personal attacks on me, for instance recently calling me a "disgusting Nazi" (Talk:Henry Kissinger).

To stave off would-be counters:

 * 1) Re his complaints that I am "destroying his edits", this referred so far as I know to two (2) edits, one adding a dispute notice on a page after he added a questionable section (History of Italy), the other a revert of what I perceived as highly POV additions to an article, where I instead later resorted to a notice (History of Modern Greece).  Now he seems peeved that I removed an absurd claim that Kissinger killed 600,000 Cambodian civilians from the introductory paragraph of Henry Kissinger.
 * 2) My statement that "I am not negotiating" on User talk:Turrican is almost certain to be misinterpreted by someone, so I will clarify now.  I am not agreeing to any kind of "trade" in exchange for him not reverting my edits arbitrarily.  To do so is "negotiating with terrorists", allowing the threat of vandalism to be used as leverage.

To reiterate, request banning for vandalism and personal attacks. I do not think mediation is needed for someone who is so flagrantly violating Wikipedia rules.

V V 00:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Update: He has since vandalized my user page twice three times. V V 03:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)  (Editing anonymously also.) V V  05:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The vandalism of my user page continues (Fred Bauder provides a diff link below), as does the vandalism of near every article I touch, including reverting simple mechanical fixes. I have notified Turrican on his talk page now, for what it matters. Very Verily 22:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To re-emphasize the parenthetical above, the account Turrican has been inactive for close to a day, but (hitherto) five different IPs have carried on his legacy - 141.76.1.121, 141.76.1.122, 200.118.118.4, 203.150.225.117, 80.247.147.24. Very Verily 06:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)  Six, 80.58.33.46. Very Verily 20:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)  Seven, 200.14.206.166. Very Verily 22:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)  Eight, 210.249.82.66, but why worry? Very Verily 07:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)  (9) 198.165.90.75 (but what's the rush?). Very Verily 11:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)  Ten 195.185.151.235, and now a gazillion pages are protected. Action yet? Very Verily 22:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like, can we, like, get this, like, injunction, like, going? There needs be general authority to block and revert Turrican on sight. Very Verily 00:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Additional Turrican-like edits from 195.182.127.170. I'm blocking that IP for 24 hours and leaving a stiff note on the page. Besides carrying on a guerrilla war from anonymous IPs, one of his edit summaries made reference to a "nazi bastard", which is far beyond the bounds of simple disagreement. Mackensen 23:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The block having expired, he continues. Very Verily 12:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the one month plus since I first brought this case, not even the temporary injunction proposed has been implemented. Well, Turrican finally seems to have gone away, after weeks of me watching all of my even minor edits to make sure they weren't being vandalized and being wholly persistent in reverting the destruction (now evidence against me?), all while no official action was taken. A user who vandalized my page with swastikas and obscenities is free and clear, while I may be facing a temporary injunction for reverting trolls and troublemakers - at a request submitted a week later than mine. Do I laugh or cry? Very Verily 09:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

 * 1) Reject, no notice of arbitration on User talk:Turrican. Fred Bauder 14:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) Accept,  see  Fred Bauder 14:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) I believe swift action is justified with a temporary ban imposed in light of personal attacks. Fred Bauder 23:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC). I'm not sure that all the proxies cited by VeryVerily are vandals however, for example this edit seems reasonable, if controversial  Recuse Fred Bauder 00:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept; also support temporary injunction in this matter to restriction to editing of Arbitration case pages only. James F. (talk) 00:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept -- I think I would also accept the injunction. Jwrosenzweig 14:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Accept, with injunction the Epopt 04:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Accept, and I am inclined to agree with both of the previous users - put a temporary injunction on him restricting him to the arbcom pages only. However, user has not edited since Oct 5th, so is he still here? →Raul654 12:43, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic

Case Closed as of January 2, 2005

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint
Netoholic's propensity for conflict has gone on for some time now. Much of it is well-documented at Requests for comment/Netoholic. The RfC, however, was largely ineffective due to his assertion that, because no one certifying it had been involved with all of the disputes, its certification was invalid. Although I find the irony of the idea that Netoholic had done too many bad things to be actionable on RfC amusing, I find this disturbing, to say the least. To my knowledge, there are four central concerns with him.

 * 1) His edit war with JamesF and others, which culminated in him accusing JamesF and others of running a bot, and listing them on Vandalism in Progress with no meaningful cause.
 * 2) His edit war with Mintguy, in which he repeatedly removed a poll and reinstated an expired poll, demanding an extension of the poll until it gathered consensus. The poll, having majority opposition, was clearly never going to do this.
 * 3) His refactoring of comments, often removing informative information. One example is at, though really, you just want to look at the entire edit history of that page.
 * 4) Delisting of articles on VfD ( and.

His refactoring is, in many ways, the most severe problem, as he has continued it, most recently on my talk page at. As is often the case, what he is removing is not a personal attack.

Finally, and possibly not actionably, Netoholic opposed my request to run a bot to handle Templates for Deletion at Wikipedia Talk:Bots in the section titled Snowbot. The manner of his objection, particularly with its links to my edits, makes it clear that his only objection was that I had previously objected to his running a bot. Aggravating this was that he PMed me in IRC repeatedly while objecting to inform me that I was a "fuck." A sample exchange follows:

 *  lmao SnowBot. so if I object....
 *  If you object, I'll ask you what you object to about me running a bot.
 *  no, my objection should be enough, ya fuck.
 *  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=6173231&oldid=6172763
 *  How do I phrase "you're a fuck" in a nice way, to allow me to reply....

At one point, this spilled into the #wikipedia IRC channel:

 * 	Hey, I'm curious - someone just told me that there was a consensus that I was a fuck. Now, I'd probably vote neutral on a poll as to whether I'm a fuck, but I'm just curious - is there in fact consensus that I'm a fuck? Straw poll.
 * Well, we can all improve.
 * i would support that argument, as you are a member of teh sekret cebal
 * --> Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has joined #wikipedia
 * hi cantus
 *  I would say you are a fuck, but you're also a channel op.
 * hi cactus
 * <--	Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has left #wikipedia
 *  so i guess i can't say that

I know IRC is not presently actionable, but I contend that his vote against my bot was clearly meant to be construed by me as a claim that I am a fuck, and is thus a personal attack.

Mediation, in this case, will not prove fruitful, simply because I am not inclined to mediate with someone who has repeatedly called me a fuck. Snowspinner 19:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

My last comment there is perhaps more flippant than it needs to be. Let me clarify. I repeatedly told Netoholic that, if he would simply avoid any fracases like the ones listed above for a month, I would drop my objection to his bot and even apologize. I pointed him towards situations that I thought he'd handled badly.

Every time I did this, I was called a fuck.

Netoholic's continued abuse of me has driven me away from active editing on Wikipedia. This is not a situation that can be mediated. This is persistant harassment of the same level of ferocity and malice that characterized Kenneth Allen, Mr. Natural Health, Irismeister, and others, coupled with the cleverness to do it through unregulated channels. There is a level of abuse at which mediation is no longer useful or possible. Netoholic has passed that level. It is not reasonable to ask me to go into any negotiation that assumes good faith with a user who has reiterated, again and again, that he considers me to be a fuck. That level of contempt poisons the well far beyond what any negotiation based process can salvage. Snowspinner 21:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party
At this time, I'd rather not make any statement because I don't believe this case was accepted by ArbCom according to policy. This was accepted (on the action of Fred Bauder) on the basis of 3 Accepts and 2 Recusals. Arbitration policy specifies a requirement of 4 Accepts and with four ArbCom members yet to vote, it is possible that all could have voted to Reject in due time.

Please read and discuss on the talk page - Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic. -- Netoholic @ 03:19, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/2/0)

 * 1) Recuse (obviously). James F. (talk) 20:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Reject, try mediation Fred Bauder 20:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Abstain, for the moment. I'm torn between recommending for mediation and accepting. I'm discussing the matter with the mediation committee right now, so I recommend the other arbitrators don't vote until I get back. →Raul654 02:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Recuse. However, after having talked to both parties on several occasions, as well as several mediators, and I don't think there's any hope that mediation will be successful, and I would suggest the other arbitrators take the case. →Raul654 07:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Accept (with hesitancy - if any involved party objects to my involvement, I recuse. I was involved at the edges of this dispute, but not, I think, so much so that I am biased.  Again, if anyone disagrees, I will recuse for propriety's sake). Jwrosenzweig 22:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept to consider matters of etiquette. Fred Bauder 12:53, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept to get it out of the queue. --the Epopt 14:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Final decision
No verdict was reached on this case, as the major involved disputants have since worked out their differences.


text:
Douglas Campbell

Douglas Campbell may refer to:

 * Douglas Lloyd Campbell (1895–1995), Premier of Manitoba, 1948–1958
 * Douglas Campbell (actor) (1922–2009), Scottish-born Canadian actor and director
 * Douglas Campbell, Green Party candidate for governor in Michigan
 * Douglas Houghton Campbell (1859–1953), American botanist
 * Douglas Munro Campbell (1889–1986), politician in Ontario, Canada
 * Douglas Campbell (aviator) (1896–1990), American World War I flying ace
 * Douglas R. Campbell (born 1945), Canadian Federal judge
 * Douglas Campbell (soil conservator) (1906–1969), New Zealand teacher and soil conservator
 * Douglas Campbell (swimmer) (born 1960), Scottish swimmer
 * Doug Campbell, American guitarist
 * Dougie Campbell (1901–1991), Scottish-American soccer player
 * Dugald Campbell, Scottish doctor who set up a national health service in Hawaii
 * Alexander Douglas Campbell (1899–1980), British Army general
 * Douglas C. Campbell, COO of Sears Canada
 * William Douglas Campbell, lobbyist and FBI informant 2017–2018, associated with the Uranium One controversy

title: Douglas Campbell