text:
William Dorsey Pender

William Dorsey Pender (February 6, 1834 – July 18, 1863) was a general in the Confederacy in the American Civil War serving as a brigade and divisional commander. Promoted to brigadier on the battlefield at Seven Pines by Confederate President Jefferson Davis in person, he fought in the Seven Days Battles and at Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville, being wounded in each of these engagements. Lee rated him as one of the most promising of his commanders, promoting him to major general at twenty-nine. Pender was mortally wounded on the second day at Gettysburg.

Early life
Dorsey Pender, as he was known to his friends, was born on February 6, 1834, at Pender's Crossroads, Edgecombe County, North Carolina, to James and Sally Routh Pender, the youngest of four children, with two brothers and a sister. His father was a planter who owned more than 500 acres and 21 slaves in the vicinity of Tarboro, making the family a member of the local elite. Though descended from Virginians, Pender's parents were longtime residents of Edgecombe County. He spent his youth on the farm, hunting, fishing, and riding, before becoming a teenaged clerk in the Tarboro store owned by his older brother Robert.

He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1854, 19th out of 46 in his class, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the 2nd U.S. Artillery. He served later in the 1st Dragoons (heavy cavalry), where he demonstrated personal bravery in Washington Territory, fighting in the Indian Wars.

Civil War
On March 21, 1861, Pender resigned from the U.S. Army and was appointed a captain of artillery in the Confederate States Army. By May he was a colonel in command of the 3rd North Carolina Infantry (also designated the 13th North Carolina) and then the 6th North Carolina. Tried in combat successfully in the Battle of Seven Pines in June 1862, he was promoted to brigadier general and command of a brigade of North Carolinians in Maj. Gen. A. P. Hill's Light Division. Confederate President Jefferson Davis personally promoted Pender on the Seven Pines battlefield.

During the Seven Days Battles, Pender was an aggressive brigade commander. He was wounded in the arm at the Battle of Glendale, but recovered quickly enough to rejoin his brigade and fight at Cedar Mountain, Second Manassas (where he received a minor head wound from an exploding shell), Harpers Ferry, and the Battle of Sharpsburg. At Sharpsburg, Pender arrived in the nick of time with A.P. Hill after a 17-mile march to save the Army of Northern Virginia from serious defeat on its right flank.

At Fredericksburg, he was wounded again, in his left arm, but the bone was unbroken, so he continued in command, despite the spectacle of him riding around bleeding. At Chancellorsville, on May 2, 1863, A.P. Hill was wounded in Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's famous march and attack on the flank of the Union XI Corps; Pender assumed command of the division. On the following day, Pender was wounded in the arm yet again, this time a minor injury from a spent bullet that had killed an officer who stood in front of him.

Following the death of Jackson, Gen. Robert E. Lee reorganized his army and promoted A.P. Hill to command the newly formed Third Corps. Pender, at the young age of 29, was promoted to major general and division command. He was well regarded by his superiors. Lee wrote to Jefferson Davis, "Pender is an excellent officer, attentive, industrious and brave; has been conspicuous in every battle, and, I believe, wounded in almost all of them."

Death
Dorsey Pender's promising career ended at the Battle of Gettysburg. On July 1, 1863, his division moved in support of Maj. Gen. Henry Heth's division down the Chambersburg Pike towards Gettysburg. Heth encountered stronger resistance from the Union I Corps than he expected and was repulsed in his first assault. Uncharacteristically for the normally aggressive Pender, he did not immediately charge in to assist Heth, but took up positions on Herr Ridge and awaited developments. In Heth's second assault of the day, Hill ordered Pender to support Heth, but Heth declined the assistance and Pender once again kept his division in the rear. For the second time in the day, Heth got more than he bargained for in his assault on McPherson's Ridge. He was wounded in action and could not request the assistance from Pender he had earlier refused. Hill ordered Pender to attack the new Union position on Seminary Ridge at about 4 p.m. The 30-minute assault by three of his brigades was very bloody and the brigade of Brig. Gen. Alfred M. Scales was almost completely destroyed by Union artillery canister fire. In the end, Pender's men forced the Union troops back in and through Gettysburg.

On July 2, Pender was posted near the Lutheran Seminary. During the en echelon attack that started with James Longstreet's assault on the right, from the Round Tops through the Peach Orchard, Pender's division was to continue in the attack sequence near Cemetery Hill, to the left of Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson's attack on Cemetery Ridge. Pender was wounded in the thigh by a shell fragment fired from Cemetery Hill, and turned command over to Brig. Gen. James H. Lane. His division's momentum was broken by the change in command and no effective assault was completed. Pender was evacuated to Staunton, Virginia, where an artery in his leg ruptured on July 18. Surgeons amputated his leg in an attempt to save him, but he died a few hours later.

His superiors wrote in their official reports of the Gettysburg Campaign about Pender's death:

Legacy
He is buried in the graveyard at Calvary Episcopal Church, Tarboro, North Carolina. He is memorialized in the name of Pender County, North Carolina, founded in 1875. He is the posthumous author of The General to his Lady: The Civil War letters of William Dorsey Pender to Fanny Pender, published in 1965.

During World War II, the United States Navy commissioned a Liberty Ship, the SS William D. Pender, in honor of the fallen general.

title: William Dorsey Pender


text:
Lidzbark

Lidzbark (Lautenburg) is a town with 8,670 inhabitants in the Warmia-Masurian Voivodeship in Poland. It is located on the Wel river and Lake Lidzbark. The postal code for the entire area is 13-230. The town is popularly referred to as Lidzbark Welski, to distinguish it from Lidzbark Warmiński.

History

Lidzbark was founded in 1301. The town's Roman Catholic parish church was constructed in 1350.

Władysław II Jagiełło led his army through Lidzbark on July 9, 1410 before the Battle of Grunwald. On September 29, 1413, some of the Teutonic Knights in the town revolted against Heinrich von Plauen the Elder; they were only appeased with Plauen's replacement with Michael Küchmeister von Sternberg. The town joined the Prussian Confederation, which opposed Teutonic rule, and upon the request of which King Casimir IV Jagiellon reincorporated the territory to the Kingdom of Poland in 1454. In May 1454 Lidzbark pledged allegiance to the Polish King in Toruń. At the Second Peace of Thorn (1466) the Teutonic Knights renounced claims to the town and recognized it as part of Poland. Administratively it was located in the Chełmno Voivodeship in the province of Royal Prussia in the Greater Poland Province of the Polish Crown. A large portion of the city was destroyed by fire in 1764.

During the First Partition of Poland, the town was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1772. During the Napoleonic Wars it was part of the Polish Duchy of Warsaw from 1807 to 1815, but was reannexed by Prussia afterwards.

In 1772, the town had 510 inhabitants and 83 timbered buildings. Agriculture was common in the area along with crafting. In 1789, the population reached 802 of which 41 families were craftsmen.

In the beginning of the 20th century, the city had breweries, sawmills, iron mill, engine works and dairy products. In 1920, the area was reintegrated with Poland after it regained independence.

During World War II, it was under German occupation. The population in 1943 was 4,329. 70% of the city was destroyed during the war.

Sports
The local football team is, which competes in the lower leagues.

Twinnings

 * Oebisfelde, Germany
 * Co op municipality: Guttau, Germany
 * Sovetsk, Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia

Address of administration

 * Urząd Miasta i Gminy
 * 13-230 Lidzbark
 * ul. Sądowa 21
 * Tel.: (+48 23) 696-15-05
 * Fax.: (+48 23) 696-21-07

Notable people

 * Roman Antoszewski (1935–2017), plant physiologist

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

title: Lidzbark


text:
Category:3C objects

This contains astronomical objects in the 3C catalogue.

title: Category:3C objects


text:
FM (Canadian band)

FM is a Canadian progressive rock music group formed in 1976 in Toronto, by Cameron Hawkins and Jeff Plewman (renamed Nash the Slash). The band existed from 1976 to 1989, 1994–1996, 2006, and 2011–present. They have had periods of inactivity during their existence. Their music has been categorized as space rock, and lyrics are dominated by science fiction themes. In November 2011, Hawkins reformed the band with two new players.

Hawkins / Plewman "Nash the Slash" lineup
The band's original 1976 lineup consisted of two people: Cameron Hawkins on synthesizer, occasional bass guitar, and lead vocals, and Jeff Plewman (later known as Nash The Slash) on electric violin, electric mandolin, and backing vocals. The group did not use guitars. The duo first met each other while jamming with a band called Clear.

The group first recorded in July 1976. A few months later, TVOntario recorded an in-studio performance for the Night Music Concert TV show, first broadcast on November 3. It is very likely this was also the date of recording. The half-hour show, shown with no commercial breaks, presented the band playing three long pieces: "Phasors on Stun", "One O'Clock Tomorrow", and "Black Noise". It also included a nonsensical biography of the group resembling free-association poetry, recited by David Pritchard (electronic musician, record producer, and CHUM-FM DJ, 1960s-1970s), accompanied by electronic background music and a collage of photos and artwork by Paul Till, appearing between the first and second songs. Neither this music, nor any performances by the original two-person lineup, were released on an album until 2001.

FM's first public performance took place in November 1976 at the A Space art gallery in Toronto shortly after the TV show first aired.

Hawkins / Plewman "Nash the Slash" / Deller lineup No. 1
Some time after February 1977 the group became a trio when they added Martin Deller on drums. Deller had worked with Nash earlier in 1976 when they and David Pritchard played a 13-minute improvised piece titled "An Admission of Guilt" for Pritchard's album, Nocturnal Earthworm Stew.

After appearing on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation TV variety show Who's New, FM was approached by the CBC to make an album, ultimately titled Black Noise, which the group presumed would be distributed in stores like a normal release. But the CBC chose to sell it by mail order and only announced its availability during several radio shows. Only 500 copies were pressed, which was sufficient to meet the demands of this limited promotion. The CBC edition's black and white cover shows a picture of a manhole cover; a different cover by Paul Till was used for later reissues on other labels.

Sometime in 1977, Plewman, after recovering from a severe car/bike accident, decided to leave the band and resumed his solo career as Nash the Slash stating that the addition of a drummer gave the band a sound which was too commercial for his liking.

Hawkins / Mink / Deller lineup
Before the end of 1977, Plewman [now 'Nash The Slash' solo artist] was replaced by Ben Mink, who also played electric violin and electric mandolin. Their first record was Direct to Disc (also released as Head Room, or Headroom), and was made using the direct to disc recording method, in which recording tape is not used. Several editions of the album exist.

Later in 1978, the group got its first proper record contract with Visa Records in the USA, and Passport Records in Canada, the latter distributed by GRT Records. (Passport was a sub-label of Visa, although Passport was the more prolific of the two labels.) Their first release for these labels was a reissue of the CBC album, Black Noise, now made available in stores for the first time. The USA edition was released in the summer of 1978, while the Canadian edition came out near the end of the year. A single from the album, "Phasors on Stun" helped to promote the album, for which the group were presented a gold record award. However, Cameron Hawkins claims they never received royalty payments from any of the Canadian LP editions, as their contract specified all payments were to come through Visa Records in the USA, and none of the three Canadian distributors passed royalties on to Visa.

Black Noise was followed by Surveillance in the summer of 1979, the first widely released album with the group's then-current lineup, although it was delayed because GRT Records went out of business one week before the intended release date. Canadian distribution of the Passport label was bought out by Capitol Records who subsequently released both albums. In 1981 the Passport label declared bankruptcy, but was rescued again the following year by new Canadian distributor A&M Records, who reissued Black Noise again.

In 1980, FM released another album, City of Fear, produced by Larry Fast who under the name "Synergy" released a series of electronic music albums as well as playing keyboards on Peter Gabriel's early albums. Ben Mink also recorded an instrumental solo album, Foreign Exchange with the other members of FM as his backing band. Ben Mink left FM in 1983.

Hawkins / Nash the Slash / Deller lineup No. 2
In 1983, Nash the Slash proposed a future double bill tour with FM, as the two artists seemed to share a common audience, since FM's best known previous album was the one he made with them in 1977. But they had still not found a replacement for Ben Mink. Nash resolved the problem by rejoining the band. Just as work was beginning on a new album in 1984, Passport Records folded for the third and final time. Nash had been signed to Quality Records as a solo artist in 1983, and was about to release his solo album American Band-ages, which the originally proposed tour had been intended to promote, and was able to get FM signed to the label as well. The other two members of FM also play on Nash's album. The double bill concept was retained, with Nash playing a solo set as the opening act for FM concerts. The FM album, released in 1985, was titled Con-Test. Ben Mink also appears on the album.

A live show at the Masonic Temple in Toronto was videotaped and aired by the CBC as one of its Rock Deluxe TV specials in 1985.

FM seemed to be cursed by record labels going out of business. The Quality Records company had existed since the early 1950s, and by the 1960s was Canada's biggest domestic label; but they ceased operations shortly after the album was released. MCA Records picked up the reissue rights for Con-Test, as well as Nash's American Band-ages, but the abrupt change in record labels led to a near-absence of promotion for both records. Martin Deller left the band at the conclusion of its 1986 tour.

Hawkins / Nash the Slash / Brierly / Critchley lineup
In 1986, FM replaced Deller with Greg Critchley (ex The Partland Brothers and The Spoons) on drums, and added Simon Brierley (ex Lee Aaron's band and Strange Advance) on guitars. Before this time, FM (and Nash as a solo artist) were notable for not using electric guitars, therefore this change made a significant alteration to their sound. They recorded Tonight for Duke Street Records, with the first pressing issued on green vinyl. Duke Street also issued the album on CD, with five bonus tracks from Con-Test, followed by a CD edition of the earlier album. Five songs were also used in the horror film Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988).

Hawkins / Nash the Slash / Brierly / Cooke lineup
In 1988, Randy Cooke replaced Greg Critchley on drums. This lineup disbanded after touring the Tonight album.

Hawkins / Shaw / Brierly / Marangoni lineup
In 1989, FM consisted of Hawkins and Brierly, augmented by the new members Martin Shaw (also known as Marty Warsh) on mandolin and violin and drummer Paul Marangoni. Information on this lineup is scarce, and though Marangoni has stated that this line-up planned to record, they disbanded in the early 1990s. Marangoni has since shared footage of this lineup on YouTube.

Hawkins / Nash the Slash / Deller lineup No. 3
In 1994, Cameron Hawkins created a new record company called Now See Hear Records (initially self-distributed, but later distributed by MCA Records as of 1996), and purchased the rights to Black Noise which was still owned by the CBC, but ownership was set to expire that year. Hawkins was surprised to find a competitor bidding for the rights, but his label emerged as the winning bidder. By this time, the CBC no longer possessed a master tape of the album. A search for the tape at the CBC turned up a reel tape box with an inferior cassette copy inside. Hawkins then travelled to the USA to search the former Passport Records vaults for the tapes of this, and the other Passport albums, without success. Ultimately, the Now See Hear reissue of Black Noise was made from a transfer from vinyl. Now See Hear also licensed the recording to One Way Records, a company specializing in reissues, which released an American edition.

The reissue was followed by a reformation of the group's classic lineup for a series of concerts from 1994 to 1996, resulting in a new live CD titled RetroActive recorded November 1994 in Toronto, and issued on Now See Hear in 1995. The album included some previously unrecorded songs.

In 2001, Nash the Slash compiled unreleased and live FM recordings from the 1970s and 1980s on a CD titled Lost in Space on his own Cut-throat Records label. This release was not approved by the other members, and did not mention the name FM; the artist was listed as "Nash the Slash, Cameron Hawkins & Martin Deller". It includes recordings made by the original Hawkins / Nash the Slash lineup in 1976 and 1977, and demo versions of songs for Con-Test recorded in 1984.

Hawkins / Vena / Deller lineup
In 2006, FM reformed again for a live performance at NEARfest in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA on June 24, and also gave a concert prior to this in Toronto on June 16. The new lineup included Italian musician Claudio Vena on electric violin and electric mandolin. New CD and DVD recordings by this lineup have been issued, and the band's website has not been updated since 2006.

In 2010, Martin Deller uploaded a video on YouTube, advertising for drumming and recording lessons. The video consists of clips from the NEARfest 2006 performance which is also mentioned as being an upcoming release.

2011 to 2014
Since 2011, Cameron Hawkins has worked on material with a new incarnation of FM. Joining Hawkins are Paul DeLong on drums, Aaron Solomon on violin, and Ed Bernard of Druckfarben on viola and mandolin. The band is putting the finishing touches on songs for a new album that is to be released by Esoteric Recordings.

On May 12, 2014, Nash the Slash died at age 66.

2015
FM's first studio album in 28 years, Transformation, was released in April, 2015 via Esoteric/Cherry Red Recordings. The lineup was Hawkins (bass, keyboards), Paul DeLong (drums), Edward Bernard (viola, mandolin), and Aaron Solomon (violin).

Current members

 * Cameron Hawkins - keyboards, lead vocals, bass (1976–1989, 1994–1996, 2006, 2011–present)
 * Paul DeLong - drums (2011–present)
 * Edward Bernard - viola, mandolin (2011–present)
 * Aaron Solomon - violin (2011–present)

Past members

 * Nash the Slash - violin, backing and lead vocals, mandolin, harmonica (1976–1977, 1983-1989, 1994–1996)
 * Martin Deller - drums, percussion, keyboards (1977-1986, 2006)
 * Ben Mink - violin, backing vocals (1977-1983)
 * Simon Brierly - guitars, backing vocals (1986-1989)
 * Greg Critchley - drums, backing vocals, occasional lead vocals (1986-1988)
 * Randy Cooke - drums (1988)
 * Martin Shaw - mandolin, violin (1989)
 * Paul Marangoni - drums (1989)
 * Claudio Vena - violin, mandolin (2006)
 * Ivana Popovic

Studio albums

 * Black Noise (1977)
 * Direct to Disc (1978) (also reissued as Head Room (1980), with different takes of some tracks)
 * Surveillance (1979)
 * City of Fear (1980)
 * Con-Test (1985)
 * Tonight (1987)
 * Transformation (2015)

Live albums

 * RetroActive (1995)
 * Lost in Space (artist listed as Nash the Slash, Cameron Hawkins & Martin Deller) (2001)
 * Live @ NEARfest 2006 (2014)

Singles

 * "Phasors on Stun" / "Dialing for Dharma" – Passport Records, 1978
 * "Shapes of Things" – Arista Records 0477 (USA), 1979
 * "Just Like You" – Quality Records, 1985 – Canadian chart No. 38
 * "All of the Dreams" – 1986 – Canadian chart No. 86
 * "Why Don't You Take It" / "Just Like You" – MCA Records 52840 (with cover), 1986 – Canadian chart No. 90
 * "Why Don't You Take It (Flight Mix)" / "Just Like You (Fun Mix)" – MCA Records 23634 (12 inch single with cover), 1986
 * "She Does What She Wants" – MCA Records, 1986 – this song later appeared on the Duke Street album Tonight, 1987
 * "Good Vibrations" / "Good Vibrations (instrumental)" – 1987 – only available with fan club membership
 * "Dream Girl" / "The Real Thing" – Duke Street Records (with cover), 1987 – Canadian chart No. 41
 * "Magic (in Your Eyes)" / "I'm Not Mad (Ready for the World)" – Duke Street Records, 1988 – Canadian chart No. 52
 * "She Does What She Wants" / "She Does What She Wants (Front and Main Mix, A cappella version)" – Duke Street Records 10042, 1988
 * "Hideaway" / "Hideaway (Edited for broadcast)" - Now See Hear 1095, 1995 - Mixed mode CD containing CD-Rom and CD-Audio data

title: FM (Canadian band)


text:
Dusky grouse

The dusky grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) is a species of forest-dwelling grouse native to the Rocky Mountains in North America. It is closely related to the sooty grouse (Dendragapus fuliginosus), and the two were previously considered a single species, the blue grouse.

Description
Adults have a long square tail, gray at the end. Adult males are mainly dark with a purplish throat air sac surrounded by white, and a yellow to red wattle over the eye during display. Adult females are mottled brown with dark brown and white marks on the underparts.

Males are larger than females, with a male mean body mass of 1.21 kg (2.67 lbs.) compared to a mean 0.91 kg (2.01 lbs.) in females.

Distribution and habitat
The breeding habitat of the dusky grouse is the edges of conifer and mixed forests in mountainous regions of western North America, from southeastern Alaska and Yukon south to New Mexico. Their range is closely associated with that of various conifers. Their nest is a scrape on the ground concealed under a shrub or log.

Taxonomy
The dusky grouse has four recognized subspecies:

 * D. o. obscurus (Say, 1822)
 * D. o. oreinus (Behle & Selander, 1951)
 * D. o. pallidus (Swarth, 1931)
 * D. o. richardsonii (Douglas, 1829)

Migration
They are permanent residents but move short distances by foot and short flights to denser forest areas in winter, with the odd habit of moving to higher altitudes in winter.

Diet
Dusky grouse forage mainly for plant matter on the ground, as well as in trees and along branches (in the winter). During the coldest months, they mainly eat fir and douglas-fir needles, occasionally consuming hemlock and pine needles, as well. Then, in the spring and summer, the fresh green growth of various herbaceous perennials (Pteridium, Salix) and berry plants (Gaultheria, Mahonia, Rubus, Vaccinium), as well as invertebrates (particularly larger ants, beetles, crickets and grasshoppers), become more available and thus more readily consumed. Chicks are almost entirely dependent on insect prey for several weeks after hatching.

Breeding
Males sing with deep hoots on their territory and make short flapping flights to attract females. Females leave the male's territory after mating.

title: Dusky grouse


text:
Talk:Bryozoa

Picture
Can we get a picture of a living one? -FZ 01:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I just tried to post a video of a live one, but it got denied because of the nazi mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgiacchetti (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy help request
Could we have a taxobox on this? I'd do it myself if I knew the slightest thing about the topic. Soo 02:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Nervous System
I understand that bryozoa have a simple nervous system. Can somebody include brief information on it? Jyoshimi 00:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can Bryozoa fresh water types grow in golf course irrigation systems
I have been told that our irrigation system on our golf course has the Bryozoa organism growing in it and they are flushing it with some type of fungicide. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.125.239 (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Ectoprocta into Bryozoa
I propose that Ectoprocta simply be made a redirect to Bryozoa. The terms are generally synonymous today, and the Bryozoa article already includes a paragraph describing Endoprocts and their former placement within Bryozoa. This isn't really a question of which term is better, but whether it is better to have one article or two. Kingdon 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I have now done this. Kingdon 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources & notes
Hopefully useful for getting this to GA --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

General

 * The Phylum Ectoprocta (Bryozoa) - very probably not WP:RS, but useful checklist of points, incl. specialisation.
 * What is a Bryozoan? - nice dgms
 * Bryozoans - excellent dgm of encrusting species, get Graphics Lab on this.
 * The Fossil Book - how to distinguish from corals; dgm of fossil; hard parts not exposed
 * The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (Nielsen; 2002; Integrative and Comparative Biology, 42(3):685-691; doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.685)
 * The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (Nielsen; 2002; Integrative and Comparative Biology, 42(3):685-691; doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.685)

Classification

 * ITIS Standard Report Page: Ectoprocta - the "official" name

Feeding

 * A Model of Particle Capture by Bryozoans in Turbulent Flow: Significance of Colony Form (Eckman & Okamura; Am Nat 1998. Vol. 152, pp. 861–880; DOI: 10.1086/286214) - effects of zooid spacing & waterflow on feeding.
 * Living where the flow is right: How flow affects feeding in bryozoans - effect of flow rate; invasive
 * Effect of Zooid Spacing on Bryozoan Feeding Success: Is Competition or Facilitation More Important? (Pratt; 2004; Biol. Bull. 207: 17–27) - also at JSTOR and Bio Bull
 * Versatile ciliary behaviour in capture of particles by the bryozoan cyphonautes larva (Strathmann; 2006; Acta Zoologica)

Reproduction & life cycle

 * Paradoxical polyembryony? Embryonic cloning in an ancient order of marine bryozoans (Hughes et al; 2005; Biol. Lett.; 1, 178–180; doi:10.1098/rsbl.2004.0259)

Ecology

 * Living where the flow is right: How flow affects feeding in bryozoans - effect of flow rate; invasive
 * Heavy Predation on Freshwater Bryozoans by the Golden Apple Snail, Pomacea canaliculata Lamarck, 1822 (Ampullariidae)
 * Molecular data implicate bryozoans as hosts for PKX (Phylum Myxozoa) and identify a clade of bryozoan parasites within the Myxozoa (Anderson, C. L., Canning, E. U., Okamura, B.;)
 * Symbiotic relationships between hydroids and bryozoans (Puce et al; International Symbiosis Society Congress, 2007)
 * Global diversity of bryozoans (Bryozoa or Ectoprocta) in freshwater (Massard & Geimer; 2008; Hydrobiologia) - updated at Global diversity of bryozoans (Bryozoa or Ectoprocta) in freshwater: an update (Massard & Geimer; 2008; Bull. Soc. Nat. luxemb.)
 * Infection of bryozoans by Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae at sites endemic for salmonid proliferative kidney disease (Tops & Okamura; Diseases of aquatic organisms; 2003)
 * Versatile ciliary behaviour in capture of particles by the bryozoan cyphonautes larva (Strathmann; 2006; Acta Zoologica)

And humans

 * Professional photosensitive eczema of fishermen by contact with bryozoans: disabling occupational dermatosis
 * Applied palaeontology by Robert Wynn Jones, pub. : "Dogger bank itch", possibly due to chemical defences (p. 116) --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Marine Life of the Pacific and Indian Oceans - rapid colonisers->they foul boats, etc.
 * Bryozoans as southern sentinels of ocean acidification: a major role for a minor phylum (Smith; 2009; Marine and Freshwater Research 60(5) 475–482; DOI: 10.1071/MF08321) - measuring "the next global challenge: ocean acidification"
 * I've seen hints of medicinal uses.
 * Infection of bryozoans by Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae at sites endemic for salmonid proliferative kidney disease (Tops & Okamura; Diseases of aquatic organisms; 2003) - serious for salmon fisheries & farms

Fossil record

 * The oldest Bryozoans: new evidence from the Late Tremadocian (early Ordovician) of East Yangtze Gorges in China (Journal of Paleontology, Nov 2007; Xia et al; main url)
 * Horizon of the oldest known bryozoans (Ordovician) (Zhang & same Chinese team; Palaeoworld Volume 18, Issue 1, March 2009, Pages 67-73)
 * The role of bryozoans in fossil reefs—an example from the Middle Devonian of the Western Sahara - early colonisers, stabilise surfaces
 * Coexistence of symbiotic hydroids (Protulophila) on serpulids and bryozoans in a cryptic habitat at Chrtníky (lower Turonian, Czech Republic) (Zágoršek et al; 2009; Bulletin of Geosciences 84(X), xx–xx; Czech Geological Survey, Prague; ISSN 1214-1119)
 * Bryozoan mud-mounds from the Upper Ordovician Jifarah (dDjeffara) Formation of Tripolitania, north-west Libya (Buttler et al; 2007;Palaeontology)
 * Bryozoan studies 2001 (ch "Deconstructing bryozoans ..", pp 93ff; Dewel et al; 2002) - nice statement of phylo problems; "highly derived"; poss explanation of why late in fossil record
 * Paleozoic Bryozoa from Severnaya Zemlya (Russian Arctic) (Nekhorosheva; 2002; Geodiversitas) - mid-Ordov Russian bryozoa
 * Monophyly of brachiopods and phoronids: reconciliation of molecular evidence with Linnaean classification (the subphylum Phoroniformea nov.) (Cohen; 2000; Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 225-231) - "This inference [lophotrochozoa hypothesis], if true, undermines virtually all morphology-based reconstructions of phylogeny made during the past century or more."
 * Devonian Bryozoan Diversity, Extinctions, and Originations (Horowitz et al; 1996; Journal of Paleontology) - anything more recent?

Phylogeny

 * 18S rRNA suggests that Entoprocta are protostomes, unrelated to Ectoprocta (Mackey et al, 1996; Journal of Molecular Evolution; doi: 10.1007/BF02352285)
 * Evidence from Hox genes that bryozoans are lophotrochozoans (Passamaneck and Halanych; 2004; Evolution & Development, 6:4, 275–281 )
 * Lophotrochozoan phylogeny assessed with LSU and SSU data: Evidence of lophophorate polyphyly (Passamaneck and Halanych; July 2006; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 20-28)
 * Spiralian Phylogenomics Supports the Resurrection of Bryozoa Comprising Ectoprocta and Entoprocta (Hausdorf et al; 2007; Molecular Biology and Evolution; 24(12):2723-2729; doi:10.1093/molbev/msm214)
 * The higher phylogeny of Phylactolaemate bryozoans inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA sequences (Wood & Lore; Bryozoan Studies, 2004)
 * The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (Nielsen, 2002; Integrative and Comparative Biology 42(3):685-691; doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.685 ) - agin Lophophorata on morphological grounds
 * Defining phyla: morphological and molecular clues to metazoan evolution (Nielsen; 2003; Evolution & Development)
 * Phylogenomic analyses of lophophorates (brachiopods, phoronids and bryozoans) confirm the Lophotrochozoa concept (Helmkampf et al; 2008; Proc. R. Soc. B)
 * The first comprehensive molecular phylogeny of Bryozoa (Ectoprocta) based on combined analyses of nuclear and mitochondrial genes (Fuchs et al; 2009; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution)
 * First molecular estimate of cyclostome bryozoan phylogeny confirms extensive homoplasy among skeletal characters used in traditional taxonomy (Waeschenbach; July 2009!; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution)
 * Phylogenetic relationships of freshwater bryozoans (Ectoprocta, Phylactolaemata) inferred from mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences (Okuyama et al;2006; Zoologica Scripta)
 * Summarizing discussion looks like a ch of a book, poss conf proceedingsl latest cited works are 2007 - useful if can pin down.
 * The new view of animal phylogeny (Halanych; 2004; Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.) - good on hist of theories
 * Multigene analysis of lophophorate and chaetognath phylogenetic relationships (Helmkampf et al; 2008; Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution)
 * Bryozoan studies 2001 (ch "Deconstructing bryozoans ..", pp 93ff; Dewel et al; 2002) - nice statement of phylo problems; "highly derived"
 * Convergence in the Feeding Apparatuses of Lophophorates and Pterobranch Hemichordates Revealed by 18S rDNA: An Interpretation (Halanych; 2006; The Biological Bulletin) - Pterobranch's "lophophores" aren't
 * Lophotrochozoan mitochondrial genomes (Vallès & Boore; 2006; Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 46, Number 4, pp. 544-557) - good descr of phylo history --Philcha (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

 * Bryozoa -Moss or lace animals the best I saw in Google images
 * Bryozoa --Philcha (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
"[edit] Interaction with humans Bryozoa Bryozoa generally do not interact with humans as something of a rule. This is due to a longstanding feud with humans after an incident in 1922 when a colony of Bryozoa were involved in a scuffle with an unknown man over a disagreement regarding coleslaw. Charles McRogersonstone - a member of the colony - was quoted after the incident as saying It was truly awful. I had no idea that soggy carrot could inflict such damage. "

Removing this bullshit because it reeks of vandailsm to me. Sorry for my non wikipedian style of informing you of this, I'm new to the concept of spreading knowledge in a positive manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Ectoprocta
moved Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Rationale:
 * The contents of "Bryozoa" have fluctuated ever since the discovery of the Entoprocta (another phylum with a similar feeding structure) in the mid-19th cent, and the debate continues. So "Bryozoa" is ambiguous,as it could refer to Ectoprocta+Entoprocta or to Ectoprocta alone.
 * Nevertheless "Bryozoa" has been synonymous with "Ectoprocta" in most literature since 1869, both neoontological and paleontological, including 101-level textbooks. Thus readers will generally be more familiar with "Bryozoa" than with "Ectoprocta" (or "Entoprocta", which seems to have received even less study). The scope for confusing readers is huge.
 * Since the debate continues, the safest course is to use the unambiguous although confusingly similar "Ectoprocta" and "Entoprocta" for the main articles. This is in line with ITIS, which treats "Ectoprocta" as the valid name and "Bryozoa" as "invalid - junior synonym"
 * Simply redirecting Bryozoa to Ectoprocta would be misleading, as it would not warn readers of the potential for confusion. Hence I'd make Bryozoa a summary of the history of the taxonomic and phylogenetic debates, largely as a "health warning" for readers.
 * Bryozoa can then be modified in either direction if the debate is actually resolved and ITIS concurs. Philcha (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Per ratioale. --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bryozoa vs. Ectoprocta
(I posted this on the "move" discussion page. I'm not sure it will be seen there, so I've repeated it here.)

This move catches me by surprise. I should have been reading the discussions. Are the editors here aware that taxonomic priority rules are not relevant to phyla? Here is a very recent quotation on the issue by bryozoologists --

 * Other phylum names that have been used for the Bryozoa are Polyzoa and Ectoprocta. Polyzoa (Greek for ‘many animals’, referring to their colonies of a few to millions of individuals) was once commonly used for the phylum in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. English naturalist J. V. Thompson invented the name in 1830, a year earlier than German scientist Gottfried Ehrenberg introduced Bryozoa, but rules of priority do not apply to higher taxa. Majority usage of the name Bryozoa in Europe and America, plus the birth of the International Bryozoology Association in Stockholm in 1965, have fixed Bryozoa as the ‘official’ phylum name among bryozoologists. (Gordon, Taylor and Bigey, 2009; New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity, Volume One: Kingdom Animalia, p. 271)

I work on fossil bryozoans and can assure you that in universities, museums and research labs around the world "Bryozoa" is the accepted phylum name. This move to "Ectoprocta" seems to me to confuse the public, especially students using Wikipedia as a resource. Wilson44691 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I got into zoology articles via my interest in paleontology (arm-chair), so I sympathise. However as a paleontologist you're mainly dealing hard parts, and there are no known mineralised entoprocta, so for paleontologists "Bryozoa" can only mean Ectoprocta. Neontologists face a more complicated situation. The main problems with "Bryozoa" are whether the term includes Entoprocta - an old idea but resurrected by a molecular phylogeny study in 2009. I prefer "Ectoprocta" for now rto denote the critters with cystids and polypides - if mol phylo supports "Bryozoa = Ectoprocta + Entoprocta" 5 years from now, then Bryozoa can be developed to support the combination; if not, we can always redirect Bryozoa to Ectoprocta. --Philcha (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The rules are the same for paleontologists and neontologists when it comes to taxonomy and systematics, and our standards are the same. I'm as much a zoologist as a paleontologist when it comes to some groups, including bryozoans.  There are no separate naming conventions for paleontologists and neontologists.  I belong to the International Bryozoology Association, for example, virtually all the members of which (if not all of them) consider "Phylum Bryozoa" to be the proper  and "official" name (as in the quotation above).  (There are fossil entoprocts, by the way.)  Here are the relevant sections from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature):

 * 23.2. Purpose. In accordance with the objects of the Code (see Preamble), the Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and it is not intended to be used to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning by the introduction of a name that is its senior synonym or homonym (for certain such cases see Article 23.9), or through an action taken following the discovery of a prior and hitherto unrecognized nomenclatural act (such as a prior type fixation; for such cases see Articles 70.2 and 75.6).

 * 23.3. Application to Synonymy. The Principle of Priority requires that a taxon formed by bringing together into a single taxon at one rank two or more previously established nominal taxa within the family group, genus group or species group takes as its valid name the name determined in accordance with the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.1] and its Purpose [Art. 23.2], with change of suffix if required in the case of a family-group name [Art. 34]. (Boldface is mine.)

 * It is simply incorrect by taxonomic principles and the overwhelming conventions of invertebrate biologists to subordinate "Bryozoa" to Ectoprocta". I suggest the move be reversed and the bryozoan page be returned to its proper title.  I request this with respect knowing how much good work you have put into this article, but the group is the Phylum Bryozoa and the article should be titled appropriately.  Wilson44691 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Note that, although the main article was moved as per the proposal above, the second part of the proposal -- that "I'd make Bryozoa a summary of the history of the taxonomic and phylogenetic debates, largely as a 'health warning' for readers" -- has not been done; instead, Bryozoa is a disambiguation page that is likely to leave most readers extremely confused, since it doesn't indicate which group is commonly known as "Bryozoa." Furthermore, there are some 300 articles that contain links to Bryozoa that now need to be reviewed individually to determine which group they meant to refer to (and I suspect that, in a large percentage of cases, this will be almost impossible to ascertain).  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I looked around before proposing the move and found the situation is messy and currently looks unstable. While many authors use "Bryozoa" to mean ectoprocts, others add an explanatory "(Ectoprocta)" after "Bryozoa" and some recent analyses group ectoprocts and entoprocts under "Bryozoa". In addition some authors prefer "Kamptozoa" to "Entoprocta", presumably to avoid confusion with "Entoprocta". Some examples:
 * Many sources use "Bryozoa (Ectoprocta)" or ""Bryozoa (Ectoprocta, Polyzoa)", e.g. The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality, p. 217, The first comprehensive molecular phylogeny of Bryozoa (Ectoprocta) based on combined analyses of nuclear and mitochondrial genes (2009)
 * Some use "Ectoprocta" as the primary name, e.g. Monophly of brachiopods and phoronids (2000)
 * Martin Helmkampf, Iris Bruchhaus and Bernhard Hausdorf conclude that Bryozoa = Ectoprocta + Entoprocta, see Spiralian Phylogenomics Supports the Resurrection of Bryozoa Comprising Ectoprocta and Entoprocta (2007) and Phylogenomic analyses of lophophorates (brachiopods, phoronids and bryozoans) confirm the Lophotrochozoa concept (2008), using molecular phylogeny. Claus Nielsen produces the same conclusion on morphological grounds at The Phylogenetic Position of Entoprocta, Ectoprocta, Phoronida, and Brachiopoda (2002).
 * There was a debate, mainly in Systematic Zoology]], in the late 1960s and early 1970s - summarised with citations at [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2412681 On Changing the Names of Higher Taxa (1977), about proposals to make "Ectoprocta" the name of the critters with cyctids and polypides, on the grounds that "Bryozoa" is ambiguous.
 * The ITIS entry for "Bryozoa" says "invalid - junior synonym" and that the valid name is "Ectoprocta".
 * In addition authors that prefer "Kamptozoa" to "Entoprocta" include, and all writings by Kerstin Wasson, who appears to be the most prolific researcher on this phylum (see citations at Entoprocta).
 * I have not yet made the article Bryozoa an explanation of the difficulties because the move of Bryozoa to Ectoprocta was done yesterday and Wilson44691 immediately expressed concerns. When we reach a consensus, I can easily make Bryozoa "a 'health warning' for readers" based on material currently in Ectoprocta.
 * Depending on the conclusion, I agree that linked articles may have to be changed. --Philcha (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 * This item should be removed from consideration here: 'The ITIS entry for "Bryozoa" says "invalid - junior synonym" and that the valid name is "Ectoprocta".' ITIS is simply wrong according to the ICZN as cited above.  Priority is not an issue for the names of phyla.  As for the "instability", such is the nature of scientific research and discourse, especially in systematics.  It is crucial that we use a taxonomic language which is consistent and universal -- this is what the ICZN is all about, and it has a long history.  "Phylum Bryozoa" is the name accepted by those who study these remarkable animals.  This, like anything else in science, may change in the future, but right now the consensus is for "Bryozoa".  Wikipedia should reflect that consensus, especially in the title of the article.  The issue can be discussed in the article, of course, but the proper title is critical.  Please start the process for reversing this move. Wilson44691 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I've undone the previous move as it seems to be contentious and was aparantly only supported by one editor. If the current discussion is resolved and consensus forms to rename the article that can be done. Vsmith (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture
if a video would be of interest... http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2009/07/01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKEdwards (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

cephalods??
Is the redlink in the article supposed to be cephalopods? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, thanks. I fixed it and also added "modern". Wilson44691 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What classes?
The intro says "Some colonies of classes have various types of non-feeding specialist zooids". What does classes mean in this context? In some classes there are species where many individuals form colonies where ...; In some colonies (namely the colonies of particular species) each individual belongs to one of several classes. There are differences in form an function between individuals of different classes. OR ... --Ettrig (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Oops, thanks for pointing that out! Is "Colonies of some classes have various types of non-feeding specialist zooids,..." better? --Philcha (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * This implies that division into types is the same for all species in the class, for all classes. Is this true? --Ettrig (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the answer may be in the main text, complete with refs - the phrase you rightly questioned was in the lead, which is a ( ? light-weight ?) summary. --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, it seems I must keep reading. Pterobranchs ==> Pterobranches ? This word is linked to a redirect page. Change link to Pterobranchia? --Ettrig (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * "Pterobranchs" is correct and is the name for the actual animals. "Pterobranchia" is the name of the classification. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A few comments
After the Cheilostomata are introduced in the lead, the following sentences refer to all bryozoa, not just the Cheilostomata, right? I think that could be made clearer—for instance, "A few bryozoan species can creep..." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "Autozooids supply nutrients to non-feeding zooids by channels that vary between classes" signals the switch from one class (Cheilostomata) to all classes. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, now that you mention it, but I think it needs to be signaled one sentence earlier, as I'd say the reader could easily think that only Cheilostomata species can creep. (Or is that true?) I'll reply to your comments below later. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "legs" are a specific application of "vibracula" zooids, peculiar to Cheilostomata, which has the largest repertoire of zooids. --Philcha (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. I think the sentence in the lead about creeping (if it belongs in the lead at all) should say that it's pecular to Cheilostomata. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, the paragraph about the Entoprocta is relatively uninteresting, and it could go at the end, unless there's a real danger that contemporary readers might be confused. In general I like to see these naming issues addressed at the end. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think there's a real danger that contemporary readers might be confused: the term "bryozoa" has a slim majority over "ectoprocta", but not be much, and many sources play safe by using mentioning both terms in their introductions; and some sources have revived the older idea that "bryozoa" includes both ectoprocts and entoprocts :-( --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I'd suggest mentioning in that paragraph in the lead that the old idea has been revived, maybe with "In the taxonomy followed here, though..." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Both morphological and molecular phylogeny analyses disagree over..." This means morphological analyses disagree with each other and molecular-phylogeny analyses disagree with each other, right? If so, I'm not sure the "both" is enough to keep readers from thinking that morphology is on one side and molecular phylogeny on the other, as I thought at first. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I saw "Both ..." I expect a statement that applies to both approaches. I suggest the alternative would be e.g. "morphological analyses indicate that ..., while molecular phylogeny analyses ...." However, if you can suggest wording you find less ambiguous but clear and concise, I'd be interested. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying here. I agree that "both", as in the present article, means the statement applies to both approaches, so "Both A and B disagree" means "A disagrees and so does B".  If you mean that morphological analyses indicate one thing and molecular-phylogeny analyses indicate something different, I'd suggest "Morphological analyses disagree with molecular-phylogeny analyses about bryozoans' relationships with entoprocts," etc.  Another possibility is "Morphological analyses and molecular-phylogeny analyses disagree..." but I think my first suggestion is clearer. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammar of a sentence
The article currently has the sentence, 'The more recently discovered group were given the name Entoprocta, while the original "Bryozoa" called "Ectoprocta".'

This is not grammatical—there are no "while" clauses without complete verbs. ("Called" here is a past participle, as you don't mean that the original Bryozoa called the Ectoprocta.) If you don't see it, you might ask someone else. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 * They're surprisingly advanced, but too modest to claim credit for the telephone :-)
 * Oops! Fixed. --Philcha (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bryozoa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.marinebiotech.org/bryostatin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325233234/http://www.wooster.edu/geology/Taylor%26Wilson2003.pdf to http://www3.wooster.edu/geology/taylor%26Wilson2003.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bryozoa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015183508/http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html to http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015183508/http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html to http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/bryozoa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720172410/http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/bryozoa/index.html to http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/bryozoa/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What is this thing called Bryozoa?
I read some of the article. I gather that these are marine invertebrates of some kind. There is a hint that they live only in colonies of mutually dependent individuals, so probably they are very small. I don't find a single sentence that makes clear sense to me as someone who is not a marine invertebrate zoologist. Is there no one who knows how to write, at the least, an introduction that is in language suitable for a general encyclopedia? Zaslav (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Well, I'd say the article provides an admirably comprehensive introduction to a little-known group of small sea-beasties. We're told that they are widespread, have many predators, and are nearly all static and colonial. The article is well-illustrated, and any reader who wanted to skim the text would get a good quick overview from the photographs, diagrams, tree of relationships, and perhaps (at a more advanced level) a glance at the table of comparisons with related groups. Given the amount of information being put across from the hundred-odd technical sources, I'd say (as a contributor to many similar articles, but not this one) it was rather well done. I'd agree that the lead is a bit long, and the first paragraph perhaps a bit complicated, but I certainly don't think the authors incompetent or illiterate. Happy New Year. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your opinion. No one is saying the authors are "incompetent or illiterate".  They have failed to convey basic information in the introduction in a way accessible to ordinary readers.  We don't know they are small, we don't know they are static (this could be said in plainer English in the introduction: "they are small invertebrates that live in large, sessile colonies in which individual members take on differentiated functions", for example.  How does that compare with the existing introduction?  I would do it myself but I don't know that I would be accurate.
 * I want to ask whether you are any kind of expert, or are an ordinary reader, so I know how to interpret your impression. Zaslav (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 * It is not really done here to make discussions personal as that can easily lead - does often lead - to personal attacks. However, I know some general biology; I have an amateur naturalist's interest in the sea and things in rock pools. I am certainly not an expert in Bryozoa. I was once taught that to write well about biology, one should write for a geologist: the idea was to assume he or she was intelligent and capable, but knew nothing of maxillae or messenger DNA. I feel that my geologist would see this article as quite detailed but certainly comprehensible. In other words the authors did a good job. I think the lead, especially the first paragraph, could be simplified a little, but it's already to a good standard. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Bryozoans. Some are solitary but all are colonial. Wait.
The article says, "One genus is solitary and the rest are colonial." (Introduction)

It also says, "They are the only major phylum of exclusively clonal animals, and they are all colonial ..."

I'm pretty sure that those sentences do not agree. IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Indeed not, I chopped the second bit. Most of us discovered early in our editing careers that the word "all" was to be used with extreme caution, if ever... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bryozoans are now known from the Early Cambrian
I don't have time or skills to do the update here, but bryozoans are now known from the Early Cambrian of China and Australia: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04033-w

Wilson44691 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Which animals are bryozoans and what class are they in
What animals are in Bryozoa and what class are they in? 100.8.89.159 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Bryozoa is a phylum. It includes several classes. "Classes" is in the article's table of contents. IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Citation 12 is not a professional source
Citation 12 'introduction to bryozans' seems like it's not a very informative source 70.189.72.110 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 * The source is the University of California Museum of Paleontology. It's hard to know how independently vetted the site is, so it would be nice to have an additional reliable source for any statements solely supported by this source. However, it's not a source I'd reject out of hand. Note that the page being linked has further links to other parts of the site, so there's more information than what is just on the front page. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bryozoa


text: Talk:Blizzard of 1888 (disambiguation)

title: Talk:Blizzard of 1888 (disambiguation)


text:
Alopen

Alopen (, ; also "Aleben", "Aluoben", "Olopen," "Olopan," or "Olopuen") is the first recorded Assyrian Christian missionary to have reached China, during the Tang dynasty. He was a missionary from the Church of the East (also known as the "Nestorian Church"), and probably a Syriac speaker from the Sasanian Empire or from Byzantine Syria. He is known exclusively from the Xi'an Stele, which describes his arrival in the Tang capital of Chang'an in 635 and his acceptance by Emperor Taizong of Tang. His is the earliest known name that can be attached to the history of the Church of the East in China.

History
Alopen's name is known only from the Chinese of the Xi'an Stele. This may be a transliteration of the Semitic "Abraham" or aloho punoya, "the conversion of God." Amy Chua posits that his name could be a transcription of "Ruben".

According to the Stele, Alopen and his fellow missionaries came to China from Daqin (or Ta Tsin – the Byzantine Empire) in the ninth year of Emperor Taizong (Tai Tsung; 635), bringing sacred books and images. He would have come to China via the Silk Road. The Church of the East mission benefited from Taizong's policy of religious tolerance, which reversed measures his father Gaozu had taken against Buddhism and other foreign religions and influences.

"太宗文皇帝，光華啓運，明聖臨人，大秦國有上徳曰阿羅本，占青雲而載真經，望風律以馳艱險. 貞觀九祀，至扵長安. In the time of the accomplished Emperor Taitsung, the illustrious and magnificent founder of the dynasty, among the enlightened and holy men who arrived was the Most-virtuous Olopun, from the country of Syria. Observing the azure clouds, he bore the true sacred books; beholding the direction of the winds, he braved difficulties and dangers. In the year AD 635 he arrived at Chang-an."

- Extract from the Xi'an Stele, about the arrival of Alopen.

According to the Stele, Taizong welcomed Alopen and arranged for the translation of the holy writings he had brought with him at the Imperial Library. Upon studying them, Taizong, a great scholar and patron, found them most acceptable and arranged for their dissemination. Indeed, four documents from the early period of Christianity in China date to around Alopen's time. Three years later, in 638, Taizong issued an official declaration protecting the Church of the East. He erected China's first Christian church and recognized twenty-one priests, likely all Persians, to administer it. Under Taizong's son and successor Gaozong, who continued this policy of toleration, Alopen's status expanded even further, and he was appointed bishop over the many churches built by the emperor.

Emperor Taizong believed in Jesus as a Taoist hero and Confucian sage, and incorporated elements of Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, and other Middle Eastern religions in his personal religion that was enforced by laws that demanded his subjects practice tolerance. Alopen and Emperor Taizong respected each other, and Alopen may have thought highly syncretized Chinese forms of Christianity were valid religious beliefs or at least had enough merit to be tolerated because of this, along with other religions such as Taoism and Judaism.

After Alopen's time, the Church of the East was prominent in China for the remainder of the Tang Dynasty's power. Different emperors treated it differently, with some showing it the tolerance it received in the early decades, and some openly persecuting it. The Church of the East disappeared with the fall of the Tang Dynasty in the early 10th century. It did not return for three centuries, when it was reintroduced by the Mongols. The story of Alopen became prominent again in the 17th century, when the Xi'an Stele was rediscovered and the Chinese were surprised to find that the "new" religion being preached by the missionaries, had actually been in existence in China more than 1,000 years earlier.

title: Alopen


text: Template:PD-USGov-DOT

title: Template:PD-USGov-DOT


text:
Numerical differentiation

In numerical analysis, numerical differentiation algorithms estimate the derivative of a mathematical function or function subroutine using values of the function and perhaps other knowledge about the function.

Finite differences
The simplest method is to use finite difference approximations.

A simple two-point estimation is to compute the slope of a nearby secant line through the points $(x, f(x))$ and $(x + h, f(x + h))$. Choosing a small number $h$, $h$ represents a small change in $x$, and it can be either positive or negative. The slope of this line is $$\frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h}.$$ This expression is Newton's difference quotient (also known as a first-order divided difference).

The slope of this secant line differs from the slope of the tangent line by an amount that is approximately proportional to $h$. As $h$ approaches zero, the slope of the secant line approaches the slope of the tangent line. Therefore, the true derivative of $f$ at $x$ is the limit of the value of the difference quotient as the secant lines get closer and closer to being a tangent line: $$f'(x) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h}.$$

Since immediately substituting 0 for $h$ results in $$\frac{0}{0}$$ indeterminate form, calculating the derivative directly can be unintuitive.

Equivalently, the slope could be estimated by employing positions $x − h$ and $x$.

Another two-point formula is to compute the slope of a nearby secant line through the points $(x − h, f(x − h))$ and $(x + h, f(x + h))$. The slope of this line is $$\frac{f(x + h) - f(x - h)}{2h}.$$

This formula is known as the symmetric difference quotient. In this case the first-order errors cancel, so the slope of these secant lines differ from the slope of the tangent line by an amount that is approximately proportional to $$h^2$$. Hence for small values of $h$ this is a more accurate approximation to the tangent line than the one-sided estimation. However, although the slope is being computed at $x$, the value of the function at $x$ is not involved.

The estimation error is given by $$R = \frac{-f^{(3)}(c)}{6} h^2,$$ where $$c$$ is some point between $$x - h$$ and $$x + h$$. This error does not include the rounding error due to numbers being represented and calculations being performed in limited precision.

The symmetric difference quotient is employed as the method of approximating the derivative in a number of calculators, including TI-82, TI-83, TI-84, TI-85, all of which use this method with $h = 0.001$.

Step size

An important consideration in practice when the function is calculated using floating-point arithmetic of finite precision is the choice of step size, $h$. If chosen too small, the subtraction will yield a large rounding error. In fact, all the finite-difference formulae are ill-conditioned and due to cancellation will produce a value of zero if $h$ is small enough. If too large, the calculation of the slope of the secant line will be more accurately calculated, but the estimate of the slope of the tangent by using the secant could be worse.

For basic central differences, the optimal step is the cube-root of machine epsilon. For the numerical derivative formula evaluated at $h$ and $x + h$, a choice for $x$ that is small without producing a large rounding error is $$\sqrt{\varepsilon} x$$ (though not when x = 0), where the machine epsilon $h$ is typically of the order of $ε$ for double precision. A formula for $2.2e−16$ that balances the rounding error against the secant error for optimum accuracy is $$h = 2\sqrt{\varepsilon\left|\frac{f(x)}{f''(x)}\right|}$$ (though not when $$f''(x) = 0$$), and to employ it will require knowledge of the function.

For computer calculations the problems are exacerbated because, although $h$ necessarily holds a representable floating-point number in some precision (32 or 64-bit, etc.), $x + h$ almost certainly will not be exactly representable in that precision. This means that $x + h$ will be changed (by rounding or truncation) to a nearby machine-representable number, with the consequence that $(x + h) − x$ will not equal $x$; the two function evaluations will not be exactly $h$ apart. In this regard, since most decimal fractions are recurring sequences in binary (just as 1/3 is in decimal) a seemingly round step such as $h = 0.1$ will not be a round number in binary; it is 0.000110011001100...2 A possible approach is as follows: h    := sqrt(eps) * x; xph   := x + h; dx    := xph - x; slope := (F(xph) - F(x)) / dx; However, with computers, compiler optimization facilities may fail to attend to the details of actual computer arithmetic and instead apply the axioms of mathematics to deduce that $dx$ and $h$ are the same. With C and similar languages, a directive that $xph$ is a volatile variable will prevent this.

Higher-order methods
Higher-order methods for approximating the derivative, as well as methods for higher derivatives, exist.

Given below is the five-point method for the first derivative (five-point stencil in one dimension): $$f'(x) = \frac{-f(x + 2h) + 8 f(x + h) - 8 f(x - h) + f(x - 2h)}{12h} + \frac{h^4}{30} f^{(5)}(c),$$ where $$c \in [x - 2h, x + 2h]$$.

For other stencil configurations and derivative orders, the Finite Difference Coefficients Calculator is a tool that can be used to generate derivative approximation methods for any stencil with any derivative order (provided a solution exists).

Higher derivatives
Using Newton's difference quotient, $$f'(x) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h}$$ the following can be shown (for $n > 0$): $$f^{(n)}(x) = \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{1}{h^n} \sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^{k+n} \binom{n}{k} f(x + kh)$$

Complex-variable methods
The classical finite-difference approximations for numerical differentiation are ill-conditioned. However, if $$f$$ is a holomorphic function, real-valued on the real line, which can be evaluated at points in the complex plane near $$x$$, then there are stable methods. For example, the first derivative can be calculated by the complex-step derivative formula: $$f'(x) = \frac{\Im(f(x + \mathrm{i}h))}{h} + O(h^2), \quad \mathrm{i^2}:=-1.$$

The recommended step size to obtain accurate derivatives for a range of conditions is $$h = 10^{-200}$$. This formula can be obtained by Taylor series expansion: $$f(x+\mathrm{i}h) = f(x) + \mathrm{i}h f'(x) - \tfrac{1}{2!} h^2 f''(x) - \tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{3!} h^3 f^{(3)}(x) + \cdots.$$

The complex-step derivative formula is only valid for calculating first-order derivatives. A generalization of the above for calculating derivatives of any order employs multicomplex numbers, resulting in multicomplex derivatives. $$f^{(n)}(x) \approx \frac{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}_{n^2-1}(f(x + \mathrm{i}^{(1)} h + \cdots + \mathrm{i}^{(n)} h))}{h^n}$$ where the $$\mathrm{i}^{(k)}$$ denote the multicomplex imaginary units; $$\mathrm{i}^{(1)} \equiv \mathrm{i}$$. The $$\mathcal{C}^{(n)}_k$$ operator extracts the $$k$$th component of a multicomplex number of level $$n$$, e.g., $$\mathcal{C}^{(n)}_0$$ extracts the real component and $$\mathcal{C}^{(n)}_{n^2-1}$$ extracts the last, “most imaginary” component. The method can be applied to mixed derivatives, e.g. for a second-order derivative $$\frac{\partial^2 f(x, y)}{\partial x \,\partial y} \approx \frac{\mathcal{C}^{(2)}_3(f(x + \mathrm{i}^{(1)} h, y + \mathrm{i}^{(2)} h))}{h^2}$$

A C++ implementation of multicomplex arithmetics is available.

In general, derivatives of any order can be calculated using Cauchy's integral formula: $$f^{(n)}(a) = \frac{n!}{2\pi i} \oint_\gamma \frac{f(z)}{(z - a)^{n+1}} \,\mathrm{d}z,$$ where the integration is done numerically.

Using complex variables for numerical differentiation was started by Lyness and Moler in 1967. Their algorithm is applicable to higher-order derivatives.

A method based on numerical inversion of a complex Laplace transform was developed by Abate and Dubner. An algorithm that can be used without requiring knowledge about the method or the character of the function was developed by Fornberg.

Differential quadrature
Differential quadrature is the approximation of derivatives by using weighted sums of function values. Differential quadrature is of practical interest because its allows one to compute derivatives from noisy data. The name is in analogy with quadrature, meaning numerical integration, where weighted sums are used in methods such as Simpson's method or the Trapezoidal rule. There are various methods for determining the weight coefficients, for example, the Savitzky–Golay filter. Differential quadrature is used to solve partial differential equations. There are further methods for computing derivatives from noisy data.

title: Numerical differentiation


text: Category:United States Department of Transportation images


text:
The Ed Schultz Show

The Ed Schultz Show was a progressive talk radio program hosted by Ed Schultz. It was formerly broadcast from KFGO in Fargo, North Dakota. It was heard on a network of over 100 stations, including seven of the ten largest radio markets. It was also on XM and Sirius satellite radio.

Schultz's radio show moved to New York City in May 2009, a relocation brought on by the launch of his new television show, The Ed Show, on MSNBC.

History
Schultz launched The Ed Schultz Show on January 5, 2004. Created and financed by Democracy Radio and distributed by Jones Radio Networks, the show started in two markets (Needles, California and Langdon, North Dakota) and quickly grew, signing another dozen stations in smaller, mostly upper Midwest markets. For a while, Schultz continued his News and Views broadcasts, though by February 2005 it was announced that Joel Heitkamp, a North Dakota state senator, was taking over that show. On February 1, 2007, Ed Schultz returned to hosting the News and Views show.

After growing to approximately 95 affiliates, Democracy Radio sold its majority stake in The Ed Schultz Show to Product First in June 2005, a company started by Randy Michaels and Stu Krane, who had previously been involved with launching Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Distribution continued with Jones Radio Networks and subsequently by its successor, Dial Global.

Schultz's flagship KFGO dropped The Ed Schultz Show between January 2006 and February 2007 due to an apparent conflict with the station's management which new ownership cleared up. Fargo's KQWB aired the program in the interim.

In 2009, Talkers magazine rated Ed Schultz as the 18th most important talk show host in the United States.

During his show on May 24, 2011, Schultz called Laura Ingraham both a "right-wing slut" and a "talk slut". Feminist organizations, including the Women's Media Center, called for his suspension. The following day he issued an apology, saying he "used vile and inappropriate language when talking about talk show host Laura Ingraham. I am deeply sorry, and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for and I recognize the severity of what I said. I apologize to you, Laura, and ask for your forgiveness," and offering an indefinite self-suspension without pay. MSNBC issued a statement saying that it had accepted Schultz's offer to take one week of unpaid leave.

In May 2014, Schultz announced he was replacing his three-hour weekday radio program with a one-hour program, and shifting to a Web format. Schultz continued to host his Ed Show television program, which was then aired on weekdays at 5 p.m. ET.

Show features
Ed Schultz may be best known for his pro-labor reputation, because he was one of the few remaining pundits who still frequently featured labor issues and promoted the labor movement, associating the health of "labor" with the health of the middle class.

Ed Schultz often brought Los Angeles lawyer Norman Goldman to his show for legal analysis, thus given the title of "Senior Legal Analyst" by Schultz. Goldman filled in on the radio show when Schultz was traveling or on vacation. Reliably holding Schultz's high ratings, Goldman now produces his own nationally heard talk show during the 3-6 PM West Coast time slot. Tony Trupiano also filled in on Schultz's show when Schultz was absent.

The third hour of every Friday show was dedicated to "recession busting" where small business owners called in to promote their business for the hour.

Like other popular polemic, political radio shows, Schultz used humorous, often somewhat derogatory nicknames for a number of public figures. These included "Slant Head" for conservative commentator Sean Hannity, "the Druggie" or "the Drugster" for Rush Limbaugh, "Shooter" for Vice President Dick Cheney, "Rotten Rudy" for former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, "The Mittster" for Mitt Romney, and "the pizza man" for Herman Cain. Schultz himself was perhaps best known by the nicknames "Big Eddie", and the "Big RedHead"

title: The Ed Schultz Show


text:
Talk:The Ed Schultz Show

split
I've split this into two articles, one for the host, one for the show. Chadlupkes 23:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Another "conservative" talk show!?
So it's just another so-called conservative talk show!? Cuz of no such hints in body, so I added: "liberal talk radio" (program.

Seeming due to this aversion of the show's thrust, this article is incomplete and borders on a stub. --71.138.23.59 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Last show data
I have provided the dates for the last two shows and details based upon personally listening to the shows and the dates of the podcast releases confirm the data. On his last appearance, he announced the webcast to be made available from his website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onediscdrive (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ed Schultz Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903062331/http://talkers.com/online/?p=267 to http://talkers.com/online/?p=267

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Ed Schultz Show


text:
Cantilever chair

A cantilever chair is a chair whose seating and framework are not supported by the typical arrangement of 4 legs, but instead is held erect and aloft by a single leg or legs that are attached to one end of a chair's seat and bent in an L shape, thus also serving as the chair's supporting base. Nearly a century after its inception, tubular steel remains the prime choice for the cantilever chair with Marcel Breuer being perhaps the greatest champion of this design technique; using the overhanging cantilever styling in both his furniture and architecture. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Alvar Aalto are other historical figures who contributed to the popularity of the cantilever chair.

With the creation of his Wassily Chair in 1925, Marcel Breuer holds the distinction of first using bent and polished tubular steel as both a supporting framework and a decorative element for furniture.

In the ‘30s, Thonet-Nederland summoned W. H. Gispen to court on account of breach of authorship of Mart Stam on the cantilever chair. According to the judge, because no patent was applied for, the ‘Stam’-chair enjoyed no legal protection. Gispen now tried to fight the patent granted to Mies van der Rohe on his cantilever chair. The trial dragged itself on, which only stopped when Mies’s patent ran out. Later it was Mart Stam who was awarded the European patent for the cantilever chair.

It has been suggested that Mart Stam might have been inspired by a cantilever tubular steel seat seen installed in a 1926 Tatra T12 two-door saloon car.

title: Cantilever chair


text: User talk:64.231.155.72

title: User talk:64.231.155.72


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mediacrat

Mediacrat
Please do not refactor the discussion thread like that. It destroys the context of both the comments and the responses. That makes the eventual clean-up at the end of the discussion period extremely difficult. It also resulted in quite a few accidentally deleted comments. Suspicious votes may be noted as such in the discussion thread but should not be moved. This page is now unprotected. If I misplaced or mis-characterized someone’s comment, please move it appropriately. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Self-submission, non-notable, unencyclopediac—Trevor Caira 02:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) Who knew this would be the one thing that would lead to Encyclopedia Dramatica's formation? BruhmiusMomentum 3:05, Oct 10, 2021 (UTC)
 * VOTE NO -- DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE Jameth 02:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nine edits. --Slowking Man 02:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, 0 if this passes Vfd. Euphoria 02:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-submission, non-notable, unencyclopedic. --kooo 02:10, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't have time before the deletion swarm to make it more encyclopedic. -Jameth 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Do NOT delete pls. 66.108.250.30 02:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. kooo covers it. Euphoria 02:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete Internet Phenom.
 * Do not delete! 4.41.163.16 02:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE!!! unsigned vote by anon User: 68.44.34.197
 * Please do not delete this valuable historical reference. --68.104.109.88 02:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally undeserving of any mention.  An attempt by a livejournal user to push his personal INTERNET DRAMA LOL into higher profile. silsor 02:16, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's pushing it to the "OMGz next level" and not higher profile. -Jameth 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that anonymous users may not vote. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Consign to the great bit-bucket in the sky post-haste. --Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is, by far, the best "Delete" comment so far. -Jameth 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I take that back. Geogre's comment was much better :( -Jameth 04:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is irrelevant to an encyclopedia and non-notable. Rhobite 02:17, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: About here, User:Ugen64 added Anonymous voters may not vote. If you have comments, register them in the "comments" section. and moved several anon votes below that line.
 * Delete, delete, delete. Extremely, if possible. --Slowking Man 02:19, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE. 24.18.234.161 02:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - yet another reason friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, noted for future reference. -Jameth 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete! Much Historical Value!! --Youjustgroanboy 02:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Account's first edit. Sockpuppet. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why wasn't this speedied? Reene✎ 02:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE !!! This is internet history.  24.19.179.207 02:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE* -- This is as valid an internet phenomenon as "w00t"; or any other internet related entry on wikipedia. kekekeke 9:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Account's first edit. Sockpuppet. Euphoria 02:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE - This is a valuable example of internet pop culture in the post-American century. -gracecat 02:22 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Account's first edit. Sockpuppet. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. I am not a sockpuppet. I am a real person with real feelings.  Please consider re-posting my vote in the "valid" column.   -gracecat 02:42 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Apologies, and sorry. Most cases that look like this are, in fact, sock puppets at work. This one apparently is not. I was merely attempting to a) discourage the flood of largely spurious votes b) warn the user in question (later proven to be, in fact, multiple users) that this behaviour may be a blockable offence and c) identify to the aforementioned user that this was not helping the cause against deletion. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Even after going through the page history line by line, the context of this comment is uncertain.  If I guessed incorrectly, please move it and the reply below and remove this caveat.)
 * Aw, shucks, I was just posting a response to that, but you beat me to my point with your intelligent compassion stick. -gracecat 04:25 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE*--Youjustgroanboy 02:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Voting twice does not make your account any less of a sockpuppet. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sockpuppet =( --Youjustgroanboy 02:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes you are. Read the definition. We're not calling you names, it's just that you dont have any other edits in wikipedia. --kooo 02:33, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps technically the word for it is not "sock puppet", but "run-in voter" or so. Users who registered just to vote have generally not been counted before, IIRC. --kooo 02:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This 'historical reference' has about 200 google results . Patently uninteresting to anyone except the parties involved. Wikipedia is not a registry of petty internet conflicts. CXI 02:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Enochlau 02:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Amazingly formulaic "do not delete" votes from many anonymous parties and usernames with few edits. Please realize: The use of Sock_puppets to influence a vote is grounds to be blocked from editing and does not help your cause. Really, who do you think you're fooling? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A sock puppet is a fake identity of an existing user, these people are just creating accounts for a one-time vote after jameth requested his livejournal readers to do so. silsor 02:36, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd like it if we could add some text, either to Sock puppets or maybe to a new Run-in voters page, to explain that people showing up and registering just to get a vote isn't going to work. It's becoming more of a trend... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent idea. Where do we propose this formally? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. How about Astroturf voters, or is that a copyright violation? --Calton 04:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know. If there's an official process, I don't know where to find it.  What I've seen people do with proposed changes sometimes is to write up a draft version on a subpage and then ask experienced users for comments and support. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 02:29, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep the petty LiveJournal dramas to LiveJournal.  This did not "take over LiveJournal in the summer of 2004" except in the imaginations of the author(s). -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice - Taxman 02:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Relevent to only a tiny group that has it well documented elsewhere - Anarax 02:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * User:Mackensen moved this comment into the “disputed” section without comment. User:gracecat reverted the move.
 * Delete. Amazing the amount of effort that's been devoted to creating a totally pointless article and then to trying to prevent its deletion.  JamesMLane 02:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not pointless to the other 0.009% of the Internets. But thanks for recognizing my effort. -Jameth 03:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep omg this is teh awesomest article evar! Ugen624 02:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sadly, we do not permit plural voting for admins, nor the use of pocket boroughs. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't expect this kind of response. This is amazing. -Jameth 02:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hello, you must be new here. Read our guidelines on vanity pages. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being WikiElite like you -Jameth 03:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry on behalf of Fennec - he, like many others, may be jaded by the daily flood of dozens and dozens of people creating pages about themselves. I haven't been doing recent changes watch lately but I think we're starting to push the triple digits. silsor 03:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, understandable. I am assuming that some people on here don't get out of the house much and feel like the only authority they have in their lives is over the approval/deletion of entries on Wikipedia. That's ok. I used to feel the same way when I ran a BBS -- you know, that overwhelming sense of OMG SATISFACTION that you get when you are so OMG INTERNET POWERFUL!!! -Jameth 03:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't make personal attacks. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry -Jameth 04:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah. We have a policy against them. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Criticism of the cabal will not be tolerated. --Slowking Man 03:42, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no Cabal. fnord. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Sillydragon 02:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. GeneralPatton 02:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: About here, anon User: 24.16.37.28 vandalizes the page by deleting many votes.  Reverted by Mackensen
 * Delete with pwnage Rickyrab 03:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) This is my real vote - we don't need this crap on Wikipedia.
 * (Invalid) Keep. Sockpuppetisafake 00:00, 8 Dec 5281 (UTC) This is an invalid vote, of course.  (Rickyrab)
 * Comment: Here, anon User: 24.16.37.28 again vandalizes the page by deleting many comments.
 * Will this page remain up even after the article is deleted? I really want to save these comments for my site. Lol INTERNET DRAMA Lol. Jameth 03:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This page will stay here if the article is deleted. silsor 03:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I was asked to make a Wikipedia entry on these "events" because many people keep asking about it. I got sick of trying to explain it every single time. So, I decided Wikipedia would be an OK place for it. I guess it really isn't appropriate here. I sincerely apologize to anyone here who is annoyed/offended/whatever by the fact that I decided to write this up. After reading through Wikipedia policies and the above "Delete" comments, I also agree that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be removed. Sorry for the inconvenience, and I'll just stick this over on urban dictionary or something. -Jameth 03:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. You "guess" it isn't really appropriate? Your little story is your little story; don't now inflict it on "urban dictionary" (whatever that is); but, if it's so important to you and "many people", obtain your own website and upload it there. -- Hoary 05:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't be mean. Or at least be funny about it. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)****Cheers to Jameth for backing down and apologizing. Cdc 23:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Adolescent-seeming hyperventilation about an Internet ephemera. Geogre 03:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Best delete comment so far. -Jameth 04:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE. While quite detailed and well-written, this impacts such a negligable percentage of the Internet community that it fails to have relevance here. Feren 21:15, 7 Dec 2004 (CST)
 * Thank you! It only took a few hours and I had nothing better to do today. Besides, it's a good reminder to everyone out there that nobody else really cares about ZOMG INTERNET DRAMA. -Jameth 03:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't think it's the sort of thing people need to be reminded of. It's pretty clear already. -R. fiend 07:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. →Raul654 05:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Man, and I thought those Slashdot morons were bad. DELETE. -R. fiend 07:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Trash. Delete. In the destructor with it. Anthony Appleyard 09:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Enough reasons above. utcursch 13:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * How is this any less relevant or interesting than the "Hello My Future Girlfriend" Wikipedia entry? The Mediacrat drama also comes complete with songs, remixes, etc.  anon comment by User: 24.19.59.234
 * Delete and don't look back. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete. Do we really need a description of every online flamewar...? P Ingerson 18:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice, wiki is not a blog. Wyss 21:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * AAAAUGH! KILL IT BEFORE IT SPREADS! (that's a delete, for the record) [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 21:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, un-encyclopedic, and too many anons and socks. Jayjg 21:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, goodbye, adios, au revour, begone. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 03:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kill this damn thing before it comes out on DVD.  --Edeans 03:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd say "redirect to /dev/null", but there seems to be an article in the way. I guess I'll have to find some other bitbucket to put it in. --Carnildo 07:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least rewrite.   Having read the article I still don't know what Mediacrat means.  The article neither informs nor explains and therefore it has no place in any encyclopedia.    ping 07:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no place in encyclopedia for this crap. Delete the originator of this garbage and his/its sockpuppets also. jni 08:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete blogcruft. Fire Star 17:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to some page on media and government control. This page itself is neologism and blogcruft. --Improv 22:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kill it before it breeds.  :^P  Obvious vanity, a veritable plethora of talking hosiery...need I say more? - Lucky 6.9 21:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. A ridiculous and unencyclopedic piece of vanity that contains a neologism, and if that were not enough, a bunch of sockpuppets spamming the VFD. Indrian 02:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd consider reposting the entire thing as a BJAODN subpage, but this doesn't even deserve to be kept there.  --L33tminion | (talk) 21:18, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a web host or file repository. Do not BJAODN, do not collect $200. Gazpacho 14:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. —tregoweth 21:14, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * MOVED TO ENCYCLOPEDIADRAMATICA.COM THANK YOU VERY MUCH! comment made anonymously at 21:41, 12 Dec 2004 by 68.229.0.218
 * That's your privilege, but I wonder why you think people here would be interested. Oh, I notice that an article for the utterly unnoteworthy "Encyclopedia Dramatica" has just been created. (I've already voted to delete that page too.) -- Hoary 04:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and ban Janeth + socks for VFD flooding. JFW | T@lk  11:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't flood this page, nor did I encourage anyone to do so. -Jameth 01:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Paul August 22:51, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)


text: User talk:65.93.11.98

title: User talk:65.93.11.98


text: Template:CK Hutchison Holdings

title: Template:CK Hutchison Holdings


text:
Category:Propaganda organizations

This category is for organizations with articles which are described by Reliable sources as being associated with propaganda promoted by a cause, ideology, party or state.

title: Category:Propaganda organizations