text:
Tubax

The tubax is a modified contrabass saxophone developed in 1999 by the German instrument maker Benedikt Eppelsheim. Although it has the same fingering as the saxophone, Eppelsheim's design reduces the amount of expansion of its conical bore in relation to the length of tubing, resulting in a smaller volume of resonant air column. This allows for it to use a smaller mouthpiece (baritone or bass, instead of a larger contrabass mouthpiece), and more compactly folded tubing. The tubax exists in E♭ contrabass and B♭ or C subcontrabass sizes. Its name is a combination of the words "tuba" and "saxophone".

History
Eppelsheim's first conception of the tubax came in 1992 or 1993, while working at Bavarian instrument maker Münchner Blech. Prior to this time, while working in Franz Traut's workshop in Munich, he had spent much time experimenting with S-bows and repairing saxophones, and built two experimental instruments. At Münchner Blech he was able to work on contrabass and bass saxophones, as well as sarrusophones. Noting that there were no contrabass saxophones in modern production, he had the idea to build one in a shape reminiscent of the sarrusophone, or the saxophone bourdon on Adolphe Sax's original patent drawing.

The process from idea to production took about seven years. The initial design took about a week, followed by four weeks of building a prototype. Most of the time was spent calculating the scale length and tone hole positions, based on principles described in Cornelis Johannes Nederveen's Acoustical aspects of woodwind instruments and Arthur H. Benade's Fundamentals of musical acoustics.

The first size of tubax to be developed was the E♭ (contrabass) tubax, introduced at the Musikmesse Frankfurt in 1999 and intended as a more practical alternative to the contrabass saxophone. The larger B♭ (subcontrabass) tubax appeared soon after and is equivalent to the subcontrabass saxophone (which, although envisioned as the saxophone bourdon by Adolphe Sax in his 1846 patent, was only first built in 2010 by Brazilian manufacturer J'Élle Stainer). The subcontrabass tubax is also available in C, but only one model has been manufactured, sold to Thomas Mejer of Switzerland in July 2002.

Construction
The E♭ and B♭ tubax have the same lengths of tubing as the contrabass and subcontrabass saxophones respectively, but are much more compact. They are built with a narrower conical bore, somewhere between a regular saxophone and a contrabass sarrusophone, and use comparatively smaller baritone or bass saxophone mouthpieces. While saxophones are folded a maximum of three times, rendering saxophones larger than the baritone tall and unwieldy, the tubax is folded four times, to stand only 114 cm high for the E♭ tubax, not much taller than a baritone saxophone, yet an octave lower. Similarly, the B♭ tubax stands 145 cm tall, nearly half of the enormous 2.74 m height of an equivalent subcontrabass saxophone. Despite this, the tubax retains identical fingering to a standard saxophone, including an altissimo F♯ key. This required completely redesigned keywork, which also brings the hands to a more comfortable position. The smaller size and more accessible key placements result in more portable and ergonomic instruments. The tubax also has a more focused and compact timbre than that of the full-sized saxophones.

Repertoire and performance
Given its short history and rarity, little has been specifically written for the tubax, but it can readily be used for any material intended for bass or contrabass saxophone. The tubax, like the saxophone, is a transposing instrument notated in treble clef. The E♭ and B♭ models have identical ranges to the contrabass and subcontrabass saxophones, respectively. Built without the low A key found on some low saxophones, the lowest note of the E♭ tubax is thus D♭$1$, an octave below the lowest note of the baritone saxophone. The lowest note of the B♭ tubax is A♭$0$, a semitone below the lowest note on the piano keyboard (A$1$).

Notable performers:
 * Paul Cohen
 * Dror Feiler
 * Blaise Garza
 * Vinny Golia
 * Mats Gustafsson
 * Uwe Ladwig
 * Pat Posey
 * Jarno Sarkula
 * Steffen Schorn
 * Jim Sheppard
 * Marcus Weiss

title: Tubax


text:
Lucian of Antioch

Lucian of Antioch (Greek: Λουκιανός Αντιοχείας c. 240 – January 7, 312), known as Lucian the Martyr, was a Christian presbyter, theologian and martyr. He was noted for both his scholarship and ascetic piety.

History
According to Suidas, Lucian was born at Samosata, Kommagene, Syria, to Christian parents, and was educated in the neighbouring city of Edessa, Mesopotamia, at the school of Macarius. However, this tradition might be due to a conflation with his famous namesake, Lucian of Samosata, the pagan satirist of the second century.

At Antioch, Lucian was ordained presbyter. Eusebius of Caesarea notes his theological learning and Lucian's vita (composed after 327) reports that he founded a Didaskaleion, a school. Scholars following Adolf von Harnack see him as the first head of the School of Antioch, with links to later theologians Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, but that contention is unrecorded in the extant sources.

After the deposition of Antioch's bishop Paul of Samosata, he fell under suspicion for heresy, and was excommunicated. According to Alexander of Alexandria, he remained in schism during the episcopates of three bishops, Domnus, Timaeus and Cyril, whose administration extended from 268 to 303. Lucian was reconciled with the Church either early in the episcopate of Cyril (perhaps about 285), which seems more likely, or under Cyril's successor Tyrannus.

During the persecution of Maximinus Daia, Lucian was arrested at Antioch and sent to Nicomedia, where he endured many tortures over nine months of imprisonment. He was twice brought up for examination, and both times defended himself ably and refused to renounce his Christian faith.

His death is uncertain. He might have been starved to death. Another, more likely, possibility is that he was beheaded. The traditional date ascribed to his execution is January 7, 312, in Nicomedia. There is a late tradition of uncertain origin that he had been drowned in the sea and that his body was returned to land by a dolphin.

He was buried at Drepanum on the Gulf of Nicomedia, which was later renamed Helenopolis to honour Helena, mother of Constantine the Great.

He is also commemorated as a saint, with a feast day of January 7 in the Roman Catholic Church and October 15 in the Orthodox Church.

Theology
Lucian's theological position is a matter of contention. Attempts to reconstruct his theology from the extant sources have led to contradictory results.

Because Arius in a letter addressed Eusebius of Nicomedia as "sylloukianistes" ("Fellow-Lucianist"), Lucian's theology came to be associated with the Arian controversy. Following Adolf von Harnack, many scholars have interpreted the word (which only appears in this instance) as denoting a theological school and have therefore seen not only Eusebius but also Arius and other Arian leaders (among them Maris, Theognis of Nicaea and Asterius) as pupils of Lucian and have transferred Arian views unto Lucian. The first writer to clearly attest such a discipleship for a number of Arian sympathisers—but not for Arius and his closer associates—was the Anomoean church historian Philostorgius.

Others have interpreted the word as indicating not a theological link but the special veneration accorded to Lucian by Eusebius, who by that time headed the church of Nicomedia, the place of Lucian's martyrdom. Lucian's veneration increased during the latter half of Constantine's reign, in particular due to the patronage of the Empress Helena.

Opponents of Arianism, such as Alexander of Alexandria, countered this veneration by noting Lucian's schismatic past. Marcus Victorinus identified the Eusebian party with Lucian. Epiphanius associates Lucian with heretical views about Christ's human soul held by Arians (but also by others) and relates that the Arians venerated Lucian as their martyr and that Lucian lived together with Eusebius at Nicomedia.

Associated with Lucian's name is also the Creed of the Dedication passed at the Council of Antioch in 341. This association is unknown to Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilarius of Poitiers, but known and accepted by later writers. It was most likely brought up by the Homoiousian party. In their opposition against the Homoian party supported by Emperor Constantius II, the Homoiousians claimed the legacy of Lucian and adopted the definition of 341 as their creed.

Other attempts to reconstruct Lucian's theology have started out with Paul of Samosata, whose rejection of the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrian School, and especially those of Origen, was transferred to Lucian.

Because these identifications created a contradictory picture of Lucian, some scholars have proposed the existence of two Lucians, the first being a follower of Paul of Samosata, the second being Lucian the martyr, a theologian in the Origenist tradition and the teacher of Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. However, this proposal has now been largely rejected.

Whatever his theology had been, his status as a martyr and a saint was not impacted by concerns of orthodoxy. In the words of Philip Schaff: "The contradictory reports are easily reconciled by the assumption that Lucian was a critical scholar with some peculiar views on the Trinity and Christology which were not in harmony with the later Nicene orthodoxy, but that he wiped out all stains by his heroic confession and martyrdom".

Biblical text
Lucian is credited with a critical recension of the text of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. The resulting manuscript was popular in Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople and was later used by Chrysostom and the later Greek fathers, and which lies at the basis of the textus receptus. However, Lucian took it upon himself to "fix" the manuscripts he received, saying he was correcting errors that had snuck in over time. He undertook to revise the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew. For this, he received criticism. Jerome mentions that copies of his work on the Greek Old Testament were known in his day as "exemplaria Lucianea" but in other places he speaks rather disparagingly of the texts of Lucian. Jerome also wrote: "This (Testament) certainly differs in our language, and is led in the way of different streams; it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead. I pass over those books which are called by the name of Lucian and Hesychius, for which a few men wrongly claim authority, who anyway were not allowed to revise either in the Old Instrument after the Seventy Translators, or to pour out revisions in the New; with the Scriptures previously translated into the languages of many nations, the additions may now be shown to be false." In the absence of definite information it is impossible to decide the merits of Lucian's critical labors. The 6th century Gelasian Decree, a work of the Latin Western Church rather than the Greek Eastern Church where Lucian's work was more popular, contains a list of apocryphal books "to be avoided by Catholics" that includes "the Gospels which Lucianus forged." Modern scholars mark Lucianic rescensions with an L, to indicate that when variant readings arise, they may have been from Lucian's adjustments.

Lucian integrated a number of important minuscule manuscripts of 3 Maccabees.

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

title: Lucian of Antioch


text:
Bob Spencer

Robert F. Spencer (born 5 September 1957) is an Australian rock guitarist. He was a latter day member of Skyhooks (1977–1980) and the Angels (1986–1992). Spencer joined Rose Tattoo in 2017. As a songwriter he co-wrote tracks for the Angels, including sole writer for their single "Finger on the Trigger" (1988), which reached the ARIA Singles Chart top 40.

Early life
Robert F. Spencer, grew up in Sydney's Eastern suburb, Maroubra and attended Our Lady of Annunciation Primary School, at Pagewood, New South Wales from 1963 to 1965 and Marist Brothers, at Daceyville from 1966 to 1969. In 1970, he started secondary education at Marist Brothers Pagewood (later named Marist College, and then called Champagnat Catholic College Pagewood).

Career
Spencer was a founding member of the rock band Finch in 1973  while attending Marist Brothers Pagewood, where he completed his Higher School Certificate in 1975.

He left Finch in 1977 to replace Red Symons on guitar in Skyhooks. He left that group in 1980. In 1986 he joined the Angels on guitar to replace John Brewster. He remained with the band until 1992. While a member of the Angels, he was also a co-songwriter of their material including sole writer for their single, "Finger on the Trigger" (1988). It peaked in the ARIA Singles Chart top 40.

Other bands in which he played were Mystery Band (1980–82), Fandango (1981), Honeymoon, Young Lions (both in 1984), Black Cat Moan (1989–90), the Puppy Bashers (1991), the Temple Gods (1992–93) and the Choirboys (1996).

He lived in Melbourne and was active in the band Raw Brit playing covers from the 1960s and 1970s, originally made famous by English rock bands, Cream, Free, Deep Purple and Slade. He is also a coach for professional bands and helps mature amateurs as part of the Weekend Warriors program.

In August 2013, Spencer revealed on his Facebook page that he had been diagnosed with cancer, but confirmed that it was not life-threatening.

Bob Spencer has been a guitarist in the hard rock band, Rose Tattoo, with which he has absolutely no political allegiance, since 2017, and retired from the band in September 2022 for personal and political reasons, after the recently completed European tour

title: Bob Spencer


text:
User talk:WLKP

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 00:35, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Kilka spraw
Czołem! Bardzo się cieszę, że ktoś w końcu zabrał się za tworzenie stubów o województwach Najjaśniejszej. Sam miałem się tym zająć już dawno temu, ale czasu zabrakło... Mam jednak kilka uwag: --Pozdrawiam [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Uważaj na anachronizmy. Nazywanie województwa Tarnopolskiego województwem Tarnopilskim jest równie błędne co nazywanie bitwy pod Stalingradem bitwą pod Wołgogradem. Niby miejsce to samo, ale nazwa nie ta.
 * 2) Regiony historyczne to nie to samo co województwa. Mazowsze a Województwo Mazowieckie to dwa różne byty, tylko częściowo się pokrywające. Nie zmieniaj proszę linków w Template:Principal cities of Poland na złe.
 * 3) Czym jest to coś co wklejasz na strony dyskusji artykułów? Jakiś długi tekst po polsku, bez komentarza...

kategoria
Chyba sie nie obrazisz jak zmienie kategorie historycznych wojewodztw na Polish historical regions :)--Emax 14:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * dobra robota z wojewodztwami, moze jeszcze zrobisz powiaty? :)

województwa
Małopolska Lesser Poland to nie to samo co województwo małopolskie Lesser Poland Voivodship. Według mnie powinny być dwa odrębny artykuły. Teraz wygląda jakby województwo małopolskie obejmowało całą historyczną Małopolską. Tym samym twój redirect jest chyba błędny. Slawojarek 19:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Languages
Given that this is the English Wikipedia, it's really incredibly rude to discuss articles in a language that most of the editors here cannot understand, as you did on Talk:Royal Prussia. (Having private conversations in other languages on User_talk: pages is of course fine, but article Talk: pages are a whole different kettle of fish; by definition, they are an open conversations with all members of the Wikipedia community.) We also have a Polish Wikipedia: if you want to discuss articles in Polish, please head over there. Noel (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Grand_Duchy_of_Poznan.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Grand_Duchy_of_Poznan.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:WLKP


text:
FarmHouse

FarmHouse (FH) is a social fraternity founded at the University of Missouri on April 15, 1905. It became a national organization in 1921. Today FarmHouse has 33 active chapters and four associate chapters (formerly colonies) in the United States and Canada.

History
FarmHouse was founded as a professional agriculture fraternity on April 15, 1905, by seven men at the University of Missouri, who had met at a YMCA bible study and had decided that they wanted to form a club. The seven founders were D. Howard Doane, Robert F. Howard, Claude B. Hutchison, Henry H. Krusekopf, Earl W. Rusk, Henry P. Rusk, and Melvin E. Sherwin. Doane conceived the basic ideas which led to FarmHouse and is considered the father of the fraternity.

The name FarmHouse was chosen for the following reasons:

"Given their agricultural background and rural upbringing, the house in which they resided began to be referred to as the farmer's house, by other students in a derogatory or demeaning way. The men living in the house however felt the name was appropriate as they knew the farm home to be a welcoming place for people to gather, to enjoy each other’s fellowship, to share a meal together, after a hard day’s work. This same welcoming environment of a farm home could be offered on a college campus, for studious men majoring in agriculture who possessed a strong work ethic. And so the group proudly took on the name FARMHOUSE."

A second chapter, founded independently of the Missouri chapter but sharing the same ideals, was founded at the University of Nebraska in 1911. After communication between the two groups, a third chapter was founded at the University of Illinois in 1918. FarmHouse became a national organization in 1921 by approval of each of the active chapters. On April 20, 1974, the FarmHouse Club at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was the first chapter established outside the United States. With the establishment of the Alberta chapter, FarmHouse became an international fraternity.

FarmHouse joined the North American Interfraternity Conference as a junior member in 1944. Because of its size at the time, eight chapters, it was not considered eligible for full membership. With twelve chapters and three colonies, FarmHouse became a full-fledged member on March 25, 1953. FarmHouse dropped out of the NIC from 1971 to 1981, as did many other national and international fraternities.

In 1974, the fraternity re-affirmed its alcohol-free housing stance by passing the stance in the bylaws at the conclave of that year. In 1998, the NIC awarded FarmHouse the NIC Laurel Wreath for leading the path in alcohol-free housing.

At the 1984 conclave, the fraternity unanimously passed a "Proposal for the Establishment of an Agricultural Sorority". Three of the women's groups which had been affiliated with FarmHouse for at least the previous two years (Colorado State University, University of Alberta, and California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) indicated that they wanted to be a part of forming the proposed ag-related women's fraternity or sorority. In 1985, the first chapter of Ceres was chartered.

Mission and ritual
The mission of FarmHouse Fraternity is primarily prescribed within what is known as "The Object" of the fraternity:"“The object of our Fraternity is to promote good fellowship, to encourage studiousness, and to inspire its members in seeking the best in their chosen lines of study, as well as in life. Progress shall mark our every step, the spirit of congeniality shall reign at all times, and every member shall be honest with himself, as with his brothers. Men elected to our membership are considered to be of good moral character, to be high in scholarship, to have the capacity for meeting and making friends, and to give promise of service to their fellow men and to the world. To be and become such may at times require a sacrifice of time, pleasures and comforts.”"The object is recited members at all chapter rituals and regular chapter meetings.

The motto of FarmHouse is "Builders of Men". The fraternity seeks to build men with "Fourfold Development", encouraging growth in the intellectual, physical, social/moral and spiritual aspects of their lives.

The name FarmHouse is an acronym standing for Faith, Ambition, Reverence, Morality, Honesty, Obedience, Unity, Service, and Excellence. FarmHouse does not have greek letters and contrary to some rumors, does not have "secret" greek letters.

The ritual of FarmHouse is open and non-secretive. Families of members are often encouraged to attend initiations.

Membership
To become a member of FarmHouse Fraternity, an undergraduate must be extended a bid, or offer of membership, by a chapter of the fraternity at their university. Chapters regularly host recruitment, or rush, events to get to know potential new members, in addition to inviting them over to dinner or a tour of the chapter facility. Every chapter has an officer in charge of recruitment in addition to the responsibility for all chapter members to identify and recruit new members who live by FarmHouse values.

New membership
New members are men who have accepted a bid extended to them by a chapter of the fraternity. New membership is officially conferred during the course of the Star Ceremony. During the Star Ceremony new members are officially recognized by the chapter as brothers and are given their new member pin. The Star Ceremony is also considered to be the beginning of new member education. New member education is the period before initiation as a chapter member where new members learn about the history and values of the fraternity. New member education is led by an elected officer of the chapter known as the Director of New Member Education and lasts a maximum of twelve weeks. Once a new member completes new member education, he is considered for initiation as a chapter member.

Chapter membership
Chapter members are men who have been initiated as a member of a chapter of the fraternity. Members are elected to membership by a vote of the chapter, commonly referred to as the initiation vote. This vote reflects the new member's completion of new member education and that they are "considered to be of good moral character, to be high in scholarship, to have the capacity for meeting and making friends, and to give promise of service to their fellow men and to the world," as stated in the object. Membership is officially conferred during the Pearl Ceremony, where members are given the standard badge of the fraternity, pledge to uphold the principles and standards of the fraternity, and sign their name in the official chapter membership record, known as the Herd Book.

Alumni membership
Alumni members are men who have graduated from college or who have requested to leave the chapter prior to graduation but wish to maintain their membership in the fraternity. If a man wishes to obtain early alumni status prior to graduation, he may be granted it upon approval of the chapter, by two-thirds vote, and the International Executive Director. Alumni membership is officially conferred in the Ruby Ceremony and is considered to be the end of a member's chapter membership. Upon becoming an alumni member, the man automatically becomes a member of the alumni association affiliated with his previous chapter, and if he moves to another state, will have dual-affiliation with the alumni association within that state.

Associate membership
Associate members are men who having demonstrated the qualities of a FarmHouse man, shown interest in the fraternity, and having not joined a social fraternity while in college or afterwards, are granted membership in the fraternity. Associate membership is granted by a local chapter, which the man automatically becomes an alumni member of. In cases where no chapter exists, an association may grant alumni membership with the approval of the international executive director. Associate members, just like chapter members, officially receive their membership through observing the Pearl Ceremony.

Honorary membership
Honorary membership is conferred to men of high character and great professional achievement who embody the ideals of a FarmHouse man. It is usually conferred during a Pearl Ceremony at a biennial conclave chaired by the International President. Honorary members may be nominated by unanimous vote of a chapter, association board, or a special committee on honorary membership appointed by the International President. Upon nomination, the candidate must be unanimously elected by the International Executive Board to receive honorary membership. Honorary members have the full rights of any alumni member of the fraternity.

Awards
FarmHouse recognizes the outstanding contributions of both members and non-members of the fraternity.

The Master Builder of Men award is the highest honor that the international fraternity can bestow upon an alumni member. The award was created by the National Executive board in 1950. The award is given biennially at each regular conclave of the fraternity. Notable recipients included Cory Gardner (Colorado State '95) in 2018.

The Barnes Award for Outstanding Interfraternalism is given to individuals who have made a significant impact to the large fraternal movement. The award was created by the FarmHouse International Executive Board in 2012. It is not necessarily given to a member of FarmHouse but rather to those who have contributed to the larger sorority and fraternity community.

Controversies
In 2014 the FarmHouse chapter at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln was suspended after the alcohol related death of an 18-year-old freshman. Four FarmHouse members, including the chapter vice president, were brought up on felony procurement charges. The chapter is now reinstated. The death prompted State Senator Adam Morfeld to introduce a Good Samaritan law providing limited immunity to underage students who call for help in alcohol-related emergencies.

In October 2021, the FarmHouse chapter at the University of Kentucky contacted campus police "regarding reports of an unresponsive student." The student, later identified as Thomas "Lofton" Hazelwood, was taken to UK Albert B. Chandler Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, where he was pronounced dead. A statement from the Fayette County Coroner said the 18-year-old's cause of death was "presumed alcohol toxicity." On December 22, 2021, the Fraternity suspended the charter of the University of Kentucky chapter and issued a no-contact order prohibiting current members of the chapter from any contact with FarmHouse for a period of seven years.

title: FarmHouse


text:
User talk:Dansync

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 00:35, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Wikipedia Meetup
Hi there,

There will be an informal Wikipedia/Wikimedia meetup at 10.00am, Saturday 8th of September 2012 at Infusion Bar & Cafe' by Vanidol, 361A Macquarie street, South Hobart, Tasmania.

You are invited! Please consider coming along, and let me know if you are intending to. Email me if you would like my contact details, or to be added to a Facebook event.

Isaac Manz, Charles Gregory and I will definitely be attending, but it'd be great if we could get as many people as possible. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hobart meetup
Hello! This is a message to inform you of a Wikipedia Hobart meetup which will be held on 10 January. New and experienced editors are welcome! Please check the meetup page for more information. This message has been sent to members of Category:Wikipedians in Tasmania by Chuq (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hobart area articles
Hello, in advance of a possible project in the Hobart area, we're looking to identify and improve a specific range of articles, mainly those associated with locations in the Hobart City Council region. If you'd like to find out more, please join in the discussion at WikiProject Tasmania, or check out the list of articles at QR list. If you'd prefer to not receive these notifications in the future, please let me know.

This message has been sent to members of Category:Wikipedians in Tasmania, Category:Wikipedians in Hobart, and WikiProject Tasmania participants by Chuq (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dansync


text:
User talk:Mjlodge

This page intentionally left blank mjlodge 22:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) why?

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mjlodge


text:
Penlee Point, Mousehole

Penlee Point (Penn Legh, meaning ‘stone-slab headland’) is a promontory near the coastal fishing village of Mousehole in west Cornwall, England, UK. It was the launching point of the Penlee lifeboat, which was lost in the disaster of 1981.

In 1883, Mr J Runnalls employed seventy people at the Penlee quarries and stone-mills. The stone was wholly used for road-making and was claimed to be one of the most durable available. On one square inch of stone, it took a pressure of 29.011 lbs to crush the stone and on one square foot, it took 1365 tons. Stone was exported to Welsh ports instead of ballast and to Bristol, Ipswich, London and Lowestoft for roads. Stone to London was taken weekly by steamer from Penzance and by sailing vessels from Mousehole.

In 1990 Penlee Point was designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest for its geological interest. The SSSI includes two small disused quarries as well as the cliff and foreshore.

title: Penlee Point, Mousehole


text:
Palladium (classical antiquity)

In Greek and Roman mythology, the Palladium or Palladion (Greek Παλλάδιον (Palladion), Latin Palladium) was a cult image of great antiquity on which the safety of Troy and later Rome was said to depend, the wooden statue (xoanon) of Pallas Athena that Odysseus and Diomedes stole from the citadel of Troy and which was later taken to the future site of Rome by Aeneas. The Roman story is related in Virgil's Aeneid and other works. Rome possessed an object regarded as the actual Palladium for several centuries; it was in the care of the Vestal Virgins for nearly all this time.

Since around 1600, the word palladium has been used figuratively to mean anything believed to provide protection or safety, and in particular in Christian contexts a sacred relic or icon believed to have a protective role in military contexts for a whole city, people or nation. Such beliefs first become prominent in the Eastern church in the period after the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, and later spread to the Western church. Palladia were carried in procession around the walls of besieged cities and sometimes carried into battle.

Origins
The Trojan Palladium was said to be a wooden image of Pallas (whom the Greeks identified with Athena and the Romans with Minerva) and to have fallen from heaven in answer to the prayer of Ilus, the founder of Troy.

"The most ancient talismanic effigies of Athena", Ruck and Staples report, "were magical found objects, faceless pillars of Earth in the old manner, before the Goddess was anthropomorphized and given form through the intervention of human intellectual meddling."

Arrival at Troy
The arrival at Troy of the Palladium, fashioned by Athena in remorse for the death of Pallas, as part of the city's founding myth, was variously referred to by Greeks, from the seventh century BC onwards. The Palladium was linked to the Samothrace mysteries through the pre-Olympian figure of Elektra, mother of Dardanus, progenitor of the Trojan royal line, and of Iasion, founder of the Samothrace mysteries. Whether Elektra had come to Athena's shrine of the Palladium as a pregnant suppliant and a god cast it into the territory of Ilium, because it had been profaned by the hands of a woman who was not a virgin, or whether Elektra carried it herself or whether it was given directly to Dardanus vary in sources and scholia. In Ilion, King Ilus was blinded for touching the image to preserve it from a burning temple.

Theft

During the Trojan War, the importance of the Palladium to Troy was said to have been revealed to the Greeks by Helenus, the prophetic son of Priam. After Paris' death, Helenus left the city but was captured by Odysseus. The Greeks somehow managed to persuade the warrior seer to reveal the weakness of Troy: the city would not fall while the Palladium remained within its walls. The perilous task of stealing this sacred statue again fell upon the shoulders of Odysseus and Diomedes. The two stole into the citadel in Troy by a secret passage and carried it off, leaving the desecrated city open to the deceit of the Trojan Horse.

Odysseus, according to the epitome of the Little Iliad (one of the books of the Epic Cycle) preserved in Proclus's Chrestomathia, went by night to Troy disguised as a beggar. There he was recognized by Helen, who told him where to find the Palladium. After some stealthy killing, he won back to the ships. He and Diomedes then re-entered the city and stole the sacred statue. Diomedes is sometimes depicted as the one carrying the Palladium to the ships. There are several statues and many ancient drawings of him with the Palladium.

According to the Narratives of the Augustan period mythographer Conon as summarised by Photius, while the two heroes were on their way to the ships, Odysseus plotted to kill Diomedes and claim the Palladium (or perhaps the credit for gaining it) for himself. He raised his sword to stab Diomedes in the back. Diomedes was alerted to the danger by glimpsing the gleam of the sword in the moonlight. He disarmed Odysseus, tied his hands, and drove him along in front, beating his back with the flat of his sword. From this action was said to have arisen the Greek proverbial expression "Diomedes' necessity", applied to those who act under compulsion. Because Odysseus was essential for the destruction of Troy, Diomedes refrained from injuring him. Diomedes took the Palladium with him when he left Troy. According to some stories, he brought it to Italy; others say that it was stolen from him on the way.

Arrival at Rome
According to various versions of this legend the Trojan Palladium found its way to Athens, Argos, Sparta (all in Greece) or Rome in Italy. To this last city it was either brought by Aeneas, the exiled Trojan (Diomedes, in this version, having only succeeded in stealing an imitation of the statue) or surrendered by Diomedes himself.

An actual object regarded as the Palladium was undoubtedly kept in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum for several centuries. It was regarded as one of the pignora imperii, sacred tokens or pledges of Roman rule (imperium).

Pliny the Elder said that Lucius Caecilius Metellus had been blinded by fire when he rescued the Palladium from the Temple of Vesta in 241 BC, an episode alluded to in Ovid and Valerius Maximus. When the controversial emperor Elagabalus (reigned 218–222 AD) transferred the most sacred relics of Roman religion from their respective shrines to the Elagabalium, the Palladium was among them.

In Late Antiquity, it was rumored that the Palladium was transferred from Rome to Constantinople by Constantine the Great and buried under the Column of Constantine in his forum. Such a move would have undermined the primacy of Rome, and was naturally seen as a move by Constantine to legitimize his reign and his new capital.

The Athenian Palladium
The goddess Athena was worshipped on the Acropolis of Athens under many names and cults, the most illustrious of which was of the Athena Poliás, "protectress of the city". The cult image of the Poliás was a wooden effigy, often referred to as the "xóanon diipetés" (the "carving that fell from heaven"), made of olive wood and housed in the east-facing wing of the Erechtheum temple in the classical era. Considered not a man-made artefact but of divine provenance, it was the holiest image of the goddess and was accorded the highest respect. It was placed under a bronze likeness of a palm tree and a gold lamp burned in front of it.

The centerpiece of the grand feast of the Panathenaea was the replacement of this statue's woolen peplos (a garment) with a newly woven one. It was also carried to the sea by the priestesses and ceremonially washed once a year, in the feast called the Plynteria ("washings"). Its presence was last mentioned by the Church Father Tertullian who described it derisively as nothing but "a rough stake, a shapeless piece of wood". Earlier descriptions of the statue have not survived.

title: Palladium (classical antiquity)


text:
Mannlicher M1894

The Mannlicher M1894 was an early blow-forward semi-automatic pistol.

General features
The earliest Ferdinand Mannlicher pistol, manufactured by Fabrique D'Armes de Neuhausen, Switzerland, was designed to be self-loading and to use a special rimmed cartridge in 6.5 mm caliber. The design represented an entirely new utilization of mechanical principles in automatic action called "blow-forward action". In the standard type of automatic action for low-powered cartridges, the recoil (or blow-back) is utilized to drive back a movable breech face or block, but Mannlicher utilized the principle of a rigid standing breech with the barrel blowing forward to extract, eject, and prepare for reloading.

A special barrel housing which carries the sight covers the entire length of the barrel (6.49 in/165 mm) when the arm is closed. A heavy recoil spring is mounted concentrically around the barrel within this housing and is compressed between a shoulder at the forward end of the casing and a shoulder at the rear of the barrel.

An unusual element in this design is a three-armed "barrel-holding lever". It is pivoted above the trigger as shown in the drawing from page 188, Mannlicher Rifles and Pistols, Smith, 1947. Its bottom arm engages with the trigger. The forward arm holds the barrel forward for loading. The rear arm serves as a hammer catch.

Firing mechanism
To load this weapon the hammer is cocked. As the hammer rotates on its axis pin, it acts upon the trigger, and the sear snaps into the cocking notch, holding the hammer. The hammer axis pin also supports the center arm of the barrel holding lever, which arm emerges and is raised high enough by its spring to press into a slot under the barrel. The rising thumbpiece on top of the barrel over the breech is then pushed forward. The barrel moves forward until its muzzle emerges from the barrel housing, compressing the recoil spring. The barrel holding lever is snapped into the locking notch in the underside of the barrel, thereby holding it in forward position for charging.

The stripper clip (capacity five rounds) is inserted in the clip guide of the receiver and the cartridges are pressed into the magazine. The cartridges are stripped off the clip and pressed into the magazine-well in the body of the pistol, compressing the spiral magazine-spring. A lip at the top prevents the cartridges from emerging.

The preferred direction for holding this pistol requires that the index finger be positioned around the frame above the trigger guard, with the middle finger through the trigger guard and pressed against the trigger.

As the trigger is pulled, the sear is released of engagement to allow the mainspring to drive the hammer forward slightly, but the rear arm on the barrel holding lever catches in a notch in the hammer to hold the hammer in firing position. The lowering of the forward arm of the barrel holding lever frees the barrel, allowing the compressed recoil spring to drive the barrel back, stripping the top cartridge from the magazine, chambering the round, and pressing the cartridge head against the standing breech. The M1894 is a double action firearm; the hammer can either be cocked manually for each shot, with the trigger performing the single action of releasing the sear, or it can be fired double-action, in which the trigger pull both cocks the hammer and releases the sear, at the expense of a heavier trigger pull.

As the propellant combusts and expands, the standing breech (a rigid, immovable object) acts to prohibit rearward movement of the cartridge and causes the expanding forces to move against the bullet (a somewhat more movable object), propelling the bullet toward the muzzle. The friction of forward motion of the bullet projectile against the inside of the barrel causes the bullet to act as a quasi-plug in the barrel. The barrel (a very movable object) is pushed forward by the motion and direction of the expanding gases against the friction of the traveling projectile, until the bullet exits the muzzle, after which forward motion of the barrel is due to inertia. Forward motion of the barrel is arrested by the progressively increasing tension of the recoil spring. The recoil of this pistol is somewhat higher than that of a conventional semi-automatic handgun, as there are no rearward moving parts to absorb recoil energy and spread the forces out over a longer period of time. It is no worse, however, than a revolver of equivalent power.

The extractor is mounted on the left side of the barrel extension. As the barrel moves forward the extractor draws the empty case from the face of the standing breech to eject it. The barrel holding lever arm moves up by action of the trigger, and catches the barrel in forward position. The magazine spring, pushing against the follower, forces the cartridges up to present the next cartridge for loading. As the trigger is released and moves forward it acts on the bottom arm of the barrel holding lever causing it to pivot and its forward upper arm to release the barrel. The barrel is then driven back by the recoil spring to load the next cartridge.

Models
The 1894 was originally classed as a "half automatic or semi-automatic pistol". The overall length of the 6.5 mm model displayed in the photo illustrations on this page is 8.46 in (215 mm), dry weight is 30 oz (850 g).

There were several modifications of this pistol during its production until 1897. In some, the barrel catch does not operate during firing movement, so that the pistol closes to become fully self-loading. In no models, however, does the automatic action extend to cocking the self-loading pistol. In all variations the hammer must be cocked by thumb to fire or must be cocked and dropped in double action mechanical fashion by a pull on the trigger.

Experimental versions of this arm were also manufactured with a single action movement in which it was necessary to cock the hammer by thumb for each shot. Other types also used experimental forms of grip safeties. Late versions of these pistols were made to shoot a special 7.8 mm rimless cartridge with a straight sided case.

Historical references
The pistols were tested by the US Army at the Springfield Armory in June 1900. They did not recommend the use of the pistol, primarily because of the poor function during the test. Cartridges frequently jammed or misfired, and the barrel burst after the 281st round. "While this pistol is very simple in construction the operation of loading is very tedious and slow, and would be almost impossible for a man to load it while on horseback. The muscular exerts practically the same as for an ordinary double-action revolver, while the rate of fire is much slower."

The design similarly failed Austrian and Swiss military trials. Total production was approximately 150 by Steyr chambered for the 7.6 mm Mannlicher cartridge, and less than half as many by SIG in 7.5 mm caliber for Swiss military trials.

title: Mannlicher M1894


text:
50 Cent Is the Future

50 Cent Is the Future is the second mixtape by American rapper 50 Cent and first one by his rap group G-Unit. It was released on June 1, 2002 via Street Dance/Thurd World Muzic. The lone guest appearance is provided by UTP, which marks the first collaboration between the group and future member Young Buck.

In September 2004, the album was charted at number 59 in Switzerland and at number 65 in the United Kingdom. In 2006, the album was ranked at #7 on the 'Top Ten Mixtape List Of All Time' by XXL, and at #22 on 'The 50 Best Rap Mixtapes of the Millennium' by Pitchfork.

Background
The mixtape was recorded in 2001 after 50 Cent was dropped from Columbia Records and blacklisted from the recording industry due to his controversial song "Ghetto Qu'ran (Forgive Me)", leaving his debut studio album Power of the Dollar unreleased. He then traveled to Canada to record the mixtape due to being unable to find a studio in the United States that would allow him to record. The project mostly revisits material by Mobb Deep and features Southern hip hop group UTP represented by Skip, Young Buck and Juvenile. After 50 Cent Is the Future, he recorded his 2002 compilation mixtape Guess Who's Back?, which "G-Unit That's What's Up" is included in.

title: 50 Cent Is the Future


text:
Larry Young

Larry Young may refer to:

 * Larry Young (musician) (1940–1978), jazz organist
 * Larry Young (umpire) (born 1954), baseball umpire
 * Larry Young (racewalker) (born 1943), Olympic racewalker
 * Larry Young, one of the many alter egos of the Marvel Comics anti-hero Deathlok
 * Larry Young, former President and CEO of Dr Pepper Snapple Group
 * Larry Young (politician) (born 1949), former Maryland State Senator
 * Larry J. Young (1967–2024), American psychiatrist

title: Larry Young


text:
User:Korath/standard.css

/* link colors */ a.external:link { color: #3366BB; } a.external:visited { color: #BB33BB; } a.extiw:link { color: #4488FF; } a.extiw:visited { color: #FF66FF; } a.stub { text-decoration: underline !important; } a.stub:link { color: #000044; } a.stub:visited { color: #660066; } a:link:hover { color: #FFFF00 !important; } a.new:visited { color: #880000 } a:visited { color: #A000A0; } a:visited:hover { color: #FFFF00 !important; }

/* Suppress various warnings under the edit box */
 * 1) editpage-copywarn { display: none; }

/* Fix damn horizontally stacking images */ div.tright, div.floatright, table.floatright { clear: right; }

/* Underline headers, like Monobook */ h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid #CCCCCC; }
 * 1) content h1, #content h2, #content h3, #content h4, #content h5, #content h6 { margin-bottom: 0.3em; }

/* Imprison pre-formatted stuff in a box, like in Monobook */ pre { padding: 1em; border: 1px dashed #2f6fab; color: Black; background-color: #f9f9f9; line-height: 1.1em; }

/* Remove Wikipedia logo */ div#topbar img { display: none; }

/* Suppress humongous site notice */
 * 1) siteNotice { display:none; }

/* Remove search form. I wish this had a more specific class or id, but this doesn't seem to hit anything else at present. */ form.inline { display:none; }

/* Move [edit] links down */
 * .editsection { position: relative; top: 2em; }

/* Make abuse filter content readable */ fieldset table { width: 100% } /* nothing more specific */ .mw-input { width: 100% }
 * 1) wpFilterRules { width: 100%; height:128px }
 * 2) wpFilterNotes { width: 100%; height:256px }
 * 3) wpFilterBuilder { display: none }
 * 4) mw-abusefilter-syntaxcheck { display: none }

title: User:Korath/standard.css


text:
File:Golden Earring - Contraband.jpg

Cover for album Contraband by To the Hilt.

Fair use rationale for

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright

title: File:Golden Earring - Contraband.jpg


text:
Emilia

Emilia may refer to:

People

 * Emilia (given name), list of people with this name

Places

 * Emilia (region), a historical region of Italy. Reggio, Emilia
 * Emilia-Romagna, an administrative region in Italy, including the historical regions of Emilia and Romagna
 * Emilia, Łódź Voivodeship, a village in central Poland

Arts

 * Emilia (Bulgarian singer) (born 1982), full name Emiliya Valeva, known by the mononym Emilia
 * Emilia Rydberg, Swedish singer, also performing as Emilia Mitiku and by the mononym Emilia
 * Emilia (album), 2000 self-titled album by Swedish singer Emilia Rydberg
 * Emilia Mernes, Argentine singer, known by the mononym Emilia
 * Emilia (Sítio do Picapau Amarelo), a fictional character of the Sítio do Picapau Amarelo series
 * Emilia (Othello), a character in Shakespeare's Othello
 * Emilia (TV series), a Venezuelan telenovela
 * Emilia (play), a 2018 play by inspired by the life of the 17th century poet and feminist Emilia Bassano

Others

 * Emilia (plant), a genus of plants in the family Asteraceae
 * Emilia (restaurant), in Mexico City
 * Emiliano-Romagnolo, a language spoken in Italy and San Marino
 * Hurricane Emilia, a number of hurricanes named Emilia
 * 155 Infantry Division Emilia, an Italian infantry division of World War II

title: Emilia


text:
Wolseley (Manitoba electoral district)

Wolseley is a provincial electoral division in the Canadian province of Manitoba. It was created by redistribution in 1957, and has formally existed since the 1958 provincial election. The riding is located in the centre of the City of Winnipeg. It is named for Col. Garnet Joseph Wolseley, the nineteenth-century army officer who played a significant role in crushing the Red River Rebellion in 1870.

Wolseley is bordered to the east by Fort Rouge, to the south by River Heights, to the north by Minto, and to the west by St. James. The University of Winnipeg is located in the northeast corner of the riding. The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba is located at the meeting point of Wolseley and Fort Rouge.

The riding was predominantly Anglo-Saxon when it was first created; a news report from 1969 indicates that its population had become more diverse by that time.

The riding's population in 1996 was 20,472. In 1999, the average family income was $37,794, and the unemployment rate was 16.30%. Half of the riding's residents are categorized as low-income, the second-highest rate in the province. Thirty per cent of families in the riding are single-parent.

The aboriginal population of Wolseley is 19% of the total. Five per cent of the riding's residents are Filipino.

Health and social services account for 13% of Wolseley's industry, with a further 12% in manufacturing.

Wolseley has undergone a number of dramatic political shifts since its creation. It was initially represented by Dufferin Roblin, a Red Tory who served as Premier of Manitoba from 1958 to 1967. He was succeeded by another Progressive Conservative, but in a 1972 by-election the riding was won by Izzy Asper, leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party and subsequently a prominent media baron in Canada. He retained the riding until his retirement in 1975.

The New Democratic Party of Manitoba (NDP) did not manage to win the seat until 1981. However, the riding has been in NDP hands for all but two years since then. In the 2003 election, Green Party leader Markus Buchart ran in this riding and finished second with almost 20% of the vote.

Wolseley also holds the dubious distinction of having elected one of the few MLAs in Manitoba's history to be expelled from parliament: Robert Wilson, who was stripped of his seat in 1981 after being convicted of marijuana-related charges.

title: Wolseley (Manitoba electoral district)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginga

Ginga
Vanity page for an "Austrian band formed in the year 2003". No records published, no media coverage I'm aware of (I'm Austrian), homepage "coming soon", no relevant Google hits. Ratatosk 00:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. --fvw *  02:16, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
 * Delete, and good job checking them out research-wise. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete article and all associated images as garage band vanity. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 02:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Uh... was I supposed to submit separate Requests for Deletion for the associated images? I thought they'd automatically be axed along with the article. Note that I'm pretty new here. Ratatosk 03:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * They'll probably get listed if the article goes. Alphax (talk) 04:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete, vanity. Alphax (talk) 04:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with images. Vanity. utcursch 08:25, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete it. —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, extreme vanity, even for a band. Wyss 19:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginga


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision

Proposed ban of Ta bu shi da yu
I'm a little bit amazed at the sentence proposed for TBSDY. 30 days?!? We've handed out bans of that length to bad-faith users before, so handing them out in this case is a bit extreme.

I've looked at the alleged edit, and I can't see much malicious intent in it - what purpose would it serve? It could've even been a technical accident. It's not as if he's removing diffs or changing the intent of others comments.

A ban of 30 days for a technicality is likely to drive a lot of good-faith editors away, particularly in this case. If you're going to do this with a prolific and helpful editor who does a myriad of non-controversial work, it'd be nice if at least find some substantial evidence of wrongdoing could be found. Ambi 00:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The change was obviously a technical accident. The original edit was made by Cheese Dreams   In a  later edit Cheese Dreams removed TBSDY's comment  and then modified her own comment.   TBDSY then reverted to his previous version of the Proposed decision page, not realizing that Cheese Dreams had made other changes besides removing TBSDY's comment. Jayjg 02:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * What would have been really nice would have been me to have been alerted of the error and giving me a chance to explain it/fix it instead of just proposing to ban me for 30 days. This really pisses me off. The first I knew of it was when I looked at the proposed decision. I never got contacted by any ArbCom members or got alerted by anyone, even though CheeseDreams removed my comment first! And I didn't realise I'd removed material until I looked at the diff. So much for Arbitrators following their own policy of Assume good faith. I'm lucky I'm reasonably well known and have some decent people speaking up for me. Just imagine what would happen to a newbie who made a similar mistake! Good grief. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, incidently. Let's be fair. CheeseDreams also should be seen to have reverted my changes as a matter of good faith. There appears to be much confusion about how to add statements of complaint to this page. I've actually removed my request and added it to the request for Arbitration as another admin on WP:AN has told me I can't really add new material to the existing ArbCom case. So I think the proposed 90 day ban should be removed on CheeseDreams as it's not clear what procedure is on this matter. And a question: why was the ban on CheeseDreams 90 days and the ban on myself 30 days?! I might be shooting myself in the foot here, but that also hardly seems fair. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think anyone can add a request for a temporary injunction, which is what you were doing. I do find it a bit unfair that bad faith was assumed so quickly, though. Johnleemk | Talk 11:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm a little unconvinced that this was a simple "accident". In fairness, this is not the first time TBSDY has reverted and removed unrelated edits.  Usually when this happened before, he did so by using rollback (which revert all consecutive edits).  I think TBSDY shows some overall sloppiness in this regard, and have mentioned this to him many times.
 * Let me offer another view to counter Jayig's explanation. At 14:49, TBSDY requests the injunction. This is followed by CD's edits at 18:25 and 19:19.  At 23:08, TBSDY reverted back those two versions.  I note the times lest anyone think this was a simple edit conflict.  Since TBSDY did not use rollback on this occasion, in order to revert, he must have gone into the page history, clicked on the 14:49 version, edited (no change), then saved.  When TBSDY was viewing the history, he could not have missed the two edits he was reverting.  He also should have known that he was reverting multiple changes because both of CD's edit summaries were different – one refered to "Ta bu shi da yu" and the other showed an unrelated edit to the "Some of my accusers use sock puppets" section.
 * I really cannot explain how TBSDY missed this fact, and so I'm not convinced this is "obviously a technical accident". -- Netoholic @ 16:16, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu cannot explain how he missed that fact either. Hence the reason for it being a technical mistake. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am totally convinced this TBSDY's action was a technical accident CheeseDreams 20:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * But assuming malicious intent in this case makes absolutely no sense. Look at the edit. What possible benefit could there be in deliberately making said change? Ambi 16:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear TBSDY just found his previous version, and copied it back. CheeseDream's other edits were obscure, and easily missed.  And as Ambi points out there was no motive for TBDSY to make the change maliciously, as it did not benefit him (or discomfit CheeseDreams) in any way. Sloppiness is not great, but it is far from willful intent. Jayjg 17:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The basic idea is that you should leave others' edits alone on an arbitration page. The Arbitrators will decide is something is in order or not. Removing a request for a temporary injunction is a serious offense. Just messing around with someone's signature (had it actually happened) would be bad but not as serious. Fred Bauder 16:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Understood, but it's quite possible (nay likely) that Cheesedreams really thought that TBSDY's addition was in the wrong place, and that it was OK to move it. As evidence of that, she certainly didn't make any attempt to hide what she'd done, or do it unlogged-in, or anything. No real harm, no foul; plus to which I think the "one warning at least" principle" probably applies. She's in enough trouble on other points, please cut her some slack on this one. Noel (talk) 16:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * PS: I think your (Fred Bauder's) "Nay" vote at Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision is missing a "#", but I daren't modify the page to fix it! Oops, I got confused by the formatting - I should have realized that Jayjg is not an arbitator. Noel (talk) 16:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, it is possible she didn't know that. She's not been around for that long. Like Noel says, can we please cut her some slack on that one? I doubt she'll do it again. I know I won't. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The page in question clearly states "parties not involved in this case must not edit this page". TBSDY is not mentioned in the "The parties" section, therefore the removal of comments by TBSDY is entirely justified. Further, Fred Bauden explicitely requested, on my talk page "please remove comments not made by parties in the dispute from the arbitration page".

 * I find it entirely bad faith, and utterly biased, and in fact hypocritical, that Fred Bauden should then decide a 3 month ban for complying with his own request. CheeseDreams 20:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's already been decided you'll hang, CD. Fred's just trying to influence what for. Dr Zen 23:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My ban
Let's get this over and done with. How long? 30 days or 90 days? So much for my work on Australian articles and computing articles, and my attempts at fixing up Historicity of Jesus. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Proposed decision page, you might note that 3 Arbitrators have already voted against banning you, so it doesn't look like it will happen at this point. Jayjg 00:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It looks like I'm wrong (again). I must be having a bad day. I think it's time for me to logout. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus
I've just spent a good deal of time detailing why the last revert that CheeseDreams did on that page are totally POV, have plenty of weasel words, and are mostly unrelated content! See Talk:Historicity of Jesus. So I notice with interest that there is a section that says:

 * Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity. This ban is based on aggressive POV editwarring as illustrated by the edit history of Historicity_of_Jesus.

Does this mean that CheeseDreams shouldn't be editing this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that is only true after the proposed temporary order is accepted by at least four arbitrators. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

 * From reading the arbitration policy (which, it must be pointed out, does not contain provision for pre-closing-the-case injunctions), decisions are only valid if achieved by majority -
 * Majority shall be defined as a decision supported by more than 50% of all Arbitrators who were active
 * There are 8 arbitrators, 1 recused, therefore there are 7 active in this case. The majority required is therefore 4.

Question regarding evidence collection/decision
Since this RfA is moving unusually rapidly to decision phases, and I've only thoroughly worked through November 6 in a single article (and thus entirely missing the admin reverting/protecting cycles), is there any point in attempting to collect further evidence of (in my view) the harrassment and goading which led to this point? - Amgine 22:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * More to the point, is there any interest by any of the arbitrators (especially Fred Bauder) of actually paying some attention to the evidence-for-the-defence ? CheeseDreams 02:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have to point out that whatever CheeseDreams' failings, that we were able to come to an amicable understanding on the issue (see my "evidence"). Now, this may well be on account of my own personal POV on religion, which is likely more in-line with CD's than some other Wikipedia editors. Nevertheless, I think that the outright accusations of troll or vandal are misplaced when levelled at CD. The worst I would charge CD with would be religion-baiting. It seems that CD may be slightly more zealous than prudent in holding up to obloquy some rather silly notions held by certain religious faiths, perhaps on account of CD's own personal POV. That being said, I think that some of our normally level-headed editors were rather more zealous than prudent in TAKING said bait, perhaps on account of their own personal POVs. But that's just my 2¢. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe, at this point I should point out that on my talk page (now archived in archive 1) I have stated that I lay traps. Sam Spade/Jack Lynch was the first to fall into one. CheeseDreams 01:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * "Nevertheless, I think that the outright accusations of troll or vandal are misplaced when levelled at CD. The worst I would charge CD with would be religion-baiting." ... I have to say I am more inclined to agreem with this view than a "trollish" view. As commented on the RFAr talk page, I think this isn't as one sided as either side have claimed, and some rather extreme interpretations of behaviour should be considered critically. FT2 20:55, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Since no member of the ArbCom have responded in one week's time, I can only assume there is no point in adding further evidence. - Amgine 18:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since I was the only one working actively on the matter, and have now turned to other matters, no answer means little. Try to present a brief, well organized evidence section that clearly links to the problems you think exist. Fred Bauder 19:20, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

There's also a decent chance of the ArbCom members being otherwise occupied with family engagements in light of the end-of-year holiday season. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Remember that ArbCom members aren't paid for this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the outset it was obvious that CD would be banned, at least from editing Jesus-based articles. But the gang that opposed him/her does not receive the least censure. The notion that is current that a minority voice cannot satisfactorily edit controversial articles because they are defended by packs of POV-pushing editors has been endorsed again, and in the worst way. CD has shown some willingness to compromise. I'm not surprised ey feels bemused by the way things have gone. I think ey felt ey could not get a fair hearing at any point in this process and that those opposing him would get a pass (even when, in the case of John Kenney one abused his admin powers to push his POV). Why are we not trying to rehabilitate this user? Why have the editors involved rushed to punish eir for disagreeing with them, which seems eis major crime, even if ey has disagreed quite forcefully? There's been precious little wikilove expended by anyone in this case.Dr Zen 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frivolous Requests for Comment
Under Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision, a proposal is made that "Cheeseofdreams[sic] is prohibited from filing any RFCs in the future."

Yes, he has filed frivolous RFCs. Yes, they failed. Prohibiting him from filing an RFC indefinitely though doesn't really provide him due process. He should be free to file RFC's, and watch them die like the rest. What I fear is that he has a legitimate complaint (such as an admin's behaviour after the remedies are instituted), and we don't give him access to the one forum with which to seek redress.

Please consider something else which will get the point across. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

 * Thank you for raising this. I'd been pondering whether I'd support this myself, but I think you're right - an alternate solution would be better. I'll try and come up with something by Thursday. Ambi 22:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"If everyone disagrees with you, you might be wrong"
Or they might be but have greater numbers! Since when was rightness a function of size of gang?Dr Zen 11:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. IMO, the number of people with steadfast beliefs in certain supernatural phenomena is staggeringly huge... that doesn't make them right. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:14, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am going to make a personal plea for CheeseDreams. A year off "christianity-related" articles is very harsh, given CD's involvement in them. Can CD not be placed on a revert parole? A personal attack parole? Give him/her a chance at least. That's the way here, surely. I think there was bad on both sides. Okay, CD stepped way over, but largely he/she felt overwhelmed by quite fierce opposition. He/she did substantiate some of his/her opinions but was still shouted down. His/her "personal attacks" were not generally abusive of people but of ideas. Some of the editors on the other side were abusive of CD but no action is being taken against them. It seems to have been assumed that CD is a troll who needs severe punishment. But I think there is enough doubt to allow him/her the rope to hang him/herself with. Please think about it. Dr Zen 11:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that at one point CheeseDreams had left the article Historicity of Jesus in an unusable state, was part of the reason for the page protection, pushed her POV into the article (did you know that at one point the entire article had only CD's material in it, and I had to put back all the material editors had been working on for ages?) and refused to let others contribute AND due to the fact that her contribution history shows that she has been targetting Christian articles and trying to get around consensus (witness Votes for deletion/Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be) I think the ban on editing Christian articles is fair. We don't encourage POV warriors, something that IMO has been proven about CheeseDreams. Sorry if it seems harsh, but I didn't cause these issues: CheeseDreams did! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed again, let's not go overboard here. There's a difference between attacking a person and attacking the positions that a person asserts to support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:14, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Special abilities, not a separate rank
"For repeatedly filing frivolous Requests for Comment, the number of RFCs open that were started by Cheeseofdreams is limited to one unless it is demonstrated to an administrator that there is a serious need for the RFC."

This strongly implies that admins are and should be a privileged class. Why should CD have to demonstrate to an administrator that there is a serious need for the RFC and not just to any editor? Admins are supposed just to be editors with special abilities and special responsibilities. I don't think the arbcom should promote the view that their judgement should weigh more or that they should be on-the-spot arbiters. There is already far too much of that here. Laughing about "cabals" on the mailing list is all good fun, but creating a hierarchy like this, along with the extremely harsh penalties handed out to what might be described as dissenting voices, is helping create an atmosphere that is no longer the dreamed-of collegium.Dr Zen 22:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Administrators are users whose judgement has been proven trustworthy. On the other hand, if we required her to demonstrate to any user, there would be nothing to stop Cheese of Dreams from finding anybody - be it a troll, vandal, or even one of her own sockpuppets - to endorse frivilous RFCs, thus making the requirement useless. →Raul654 22:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Administrators are users who once passed a vote, Raul. Whether your judgement is trusted or not is a matter of what dealings an editor has had with you. I do recognise that there are some admins who believe they should be imbued with broad discretion, and some even that believe the rules don't apply to them. I know of at least one who believes he should act outside the rules and wait for the rules to catch up with him. I guess I'm addressing those who have a firmer belief in the principle of equality that guides Wikipedia. Dr Zen 23:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Raul, Zen has a point. Admins are decidedly NOT those users whose judgement has proven trustworthy otherwise there would never be a need to desysop or have RfCs for admins. The point is that we SHOULD keep a very tight leash on the roles that only admins are allowed to play. I think that aside from ADMINISTRATIVE functions, they should be just like any other user. It's probably best to just let CD set up any RfCs she sees fit and trust that she can be convinced of the futility and ultimate counterproductivity of flooding the RfC page with countless RfCs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:21, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Scope of Injunction
Does the current injunction against Cheese Dreams editing articles related to Christianity extend to articles about the Christian Bible, and various books found in it? Would it also extend to creating templates relating to the Bible, and then inserting them into multiple articles? See here for examples:. Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Forgive me, since I haven't followed this to closely, but has it been confirmed that User:CheeseDreams and User:Cheese dreams are the same person? -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

The latter redirects to the former. Also, the work I have seen by the latter is entirely consistent with the kind of work (style and content) of the former. Slrubenstein 18:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Cheese Dreams created a number of sockpuppets at one point (including Cheese dreams) when she was briefly banned. She has directed the user page of Cheese dreams to Cheese Dreams, which I would consider fairly conclusive. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Your standards for evidence are lacking. If someone wanted to further injure Cheese Dreams' status here by performing these acts, it would be trivial to create an account and redirect the user pages.  The developers can check things like incoming IP address to confirm reasonable if this is the same person. -- Netoholic @ 22:59, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
 * So what's the problem? If that's an impersonators account, then they get blocked. The real CheeseDreams will be in no way effected by that block. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * User:Cheese dreams has responded for User:CheeseDreams, edited pages by and for User:CheeseDreams, continued edit wars started by User:CheeseDreams etc. for 3 weeks now, and User:CheeseDreams has not complained that she was being impersonated by an imposter. This is not a recent phenomenon.  The only reasonable conclusion, based on the available evidence, is that User:Cheese dreams is a sockpuppet for User:CheeseDreams; your own hypothesis is strained and verges on a conspiracy theory. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  01:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I am just saying, that the committee should get the developers to confirm these accounts are the same person, before taking into account their edits. I am sure you are right, but it is so easy to get the confirmation, rather than anyone speculate. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

 * If only it were "so easy" to get this kind of confirmation. In my experience it's more like "pulling teeth". Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does the scope of the injunction include the talk pages of articles concerning Jesus? CheeseDreams just wrote the following. By the way, can someone explain to me why this is not evidence of trolling? She is simply making things up to waste editors' time: Slrubenstein 19:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The injunction says "all articles". Talk pages are not "articles", and there is a lot of precendent that people banned from editing topics (as opposed to blanket bans) are allowed to edit talk pages. -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

 * I tend to agree with Netoholic here, though I wish ArbCom decisions were more explicit in these areas. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I do not contest it, but I do think arbitratrs should discuss the rationale and the possibility that there might be conditions where someone should be banned from talk pages as well. Slrubenstein 20:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No mention of issues with the opposition.
Thus far there continues to be zero mention of the edit warring, personal attacks, 3rr violations, admin abuse issues of those who have opposed CheeseDreams by the arb com. I am quite disappointed. - Amgine 21:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Adding such evidence to Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence would be appropriate, if you can gather it. Make a new section and present it. Ah, checking now, I see you have.  Maybe you can mention more directly which users you'd like to see action against, and what you'd suggest. -- Netoholic @ 23:01, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Clearly, given the evidence is all about him, SLRubenstein. CheeseDreams has been given a week off for suggesting the editor who wrote this: "I am getting REALLY SICK AND TIRED of seeing you try to insert this Koan crap with misleading edit reasons. YOU CANNOT REWRITE HISTORY." was acting like a "Nazi". Okay, it was a bit silly, but if that's a personal attack, SLR has very much indulged himself in the same and should receive the same punishment. Given his incivility, bad editing practice and attitude, which he does not only show to CD, he should share any punishment she gets for the christianity articles. Because I believe that the punishment given to CD is extremely unfair, I think he should get what's fair. A year's personal attack parole and revert parole (in the form of no unexplained edits and only one "revert" of any kind a day).Dr Zen 01:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Zen misses a crucial point: I have been adding verifiable useful content to the article, while CD has been only obstructionist. I stand by my editing practices and attitude.  You do not like it that I question unverifiable material, or that I tell another editor that she is "wrong" when in fact she is wrong.  Sorry, that is not incivility, it is a necessary part of editing an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein 19:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not getting into it with you. Amgine's presented the evidence. Whether CD's stuff is "useful" does seem to depend a lot on your POV though. And if you set a standard for "verification" and then deny that everyone else meets it, "verified" means nothing at all. Dr Zen 01:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have never denied that "everyone" meets it. I have been in edit wars with others who have met the standard, and I gave in. Slrubenstein 20:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CheesDreams/Cheese dreams violates the injunction: Jan 6 `05
Please see:

Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence

Thank you. IZAK 09:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No way. CheeseDreams is not banned from Jewish issues and your connection with Christianity is spurious. Why should she not point out that these articles lack balance and need NPOVing? The problem I have with the anti-CheeseDreams editors is that they do not accept or acknowledge that they are actually defending a POV, and articles written from that POV.

I remind myself that one of these editors suggested that the influence of Jesus on world history was a good reason to believe he existed. Another insisted that a discussion of syncretism had no place in an article on Jesus's historicity. Another attacked CD for suggesting that some of Paul's epistles are disputed, when this is by no means controversial.

As for the koans thing, well, Jesus's parables are reminiscent of koans. It's not insulting to Jesus or Christianity. It's an interesting thought, not original to CheeseDreams and could have been covered fairly in the article in question. Instead, there was hostility, polls (which were not means to create consensus but to silence CheeseDreams) and staunch opposition.

I'm not kidding myself that CheeseDreams is a model Wikipedian, but how does this legalistic, run to teacher behaviour on the part of IZAK, trying to catch CD out and have her punished further on a technicality, help? Where's the understanding, the wikilove?Dr Zen 10:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think many would argue that the Bible is a rather significant topic in Christianity. Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Jay, you'd argue that black was orange if it suited your cause. Dr Zen 01:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * That seems like a rather personal comment, Zen. Do you think that the Bible is not a significant topic in Christianity? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  02:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there is absolutely no value to throwing petrol on the faggots when we're burning a witch. Dr Zen 04:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Please, calm down everyone! I've already apologised to her formally on her talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm calm, and actually kind of amused at Zen's personal attacks and non-sequiturs. And I'm still of the opinion that the Bible is actually a significant topic in Christianity, though I'm quite willing to hear arguments to the contrary. :-) Jayjg |  (Talk)  04:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell she made those edits before the injunction went into effect. Rhobite 17:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * When exactly do injunctions go into effect? When they receive the required minumum of votes (in this case six), or at some other point?  If the former, then the injunction was in effect. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * They go into effect as soon as someone notifies her on her talk page that it is in effect. I would think anything she did before being notified at 19:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) should be forgiven. Is it fair to punish her because noone from ArbCom bothered to let her know?  -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

 * You have a good point about notification. ArbCom needs to be careful about notifying people, it's not the first time I've seen this issue. Jayjg |  (Talk)  19:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think Netoholic is right. The arbitration process emulates a legal system in many ways, and due process should be one of these ways. It's common sense not to block someone for an injunction until they receive fair warning. Blocking someone for actions which were done preceding an injunction is also ex post facto enforcement. Rhobite 21:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * So doesn't that mean I should be unblocked, and a formal apology be added to my talk page? CheeseDreams 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I did unblock you, are you still having a problem using your main account? Rhobite 00:49, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed bans on editing articles
Two points. One, these seem particularly harsh. Why can't the Arbitrators do something like they've done with Wik, Shorne and VeryVerily and allow CheeseDreams to continue editing all articles but with a restriction of one revert per day and a requirement to discuss all disputed amendments on the talk page? Is CheeseDreams really worse than Wik? And do we not want to encourage CheeseDreams to make constructive edits rather than forcing her away?

Two, what is a "Jesus-related" article, and what is a "Christianity-related" article? OK, Jesus and Christianity are - as are the Gospels. But what about articles on the Cultural and Historical background of Jesus? To my mind these aren't Jesus-related. They are related to the time and culture of 1st century Judaea. But since the article on Cultural and historical background of Jesus is part of the complaint, is that what the Arbitrators mean? Also, there is already doubt as to whether articles on the Old Testament are Christianity-related. Certainly the Old Testament is in the Christian Bible. If the Arbitrators are to use these terms, they ought to give guidance on how they should be interpreted, jguk 18:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * CD has had her ducking. Now she must burn. However, if she has been a very, very good witch for six months, she's allowed to return to whatever articles she is now banned from.Dr Zen 04:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CD is perhaps not worse than Wik in the matter of reverting. CD is most certainly worse than Wik and VV, at least, in the matter of turning articles into absolute nonsense, and arguing obnoxiously for days on talk pages, and so forth. Wik (at least until he created a vandalbot) was a good editor with horrible social skills, too much eagerness to revert, and too little patience to explain what he was doing. VV (and Shorne, I think), tends to push a POV, and is also eager to revert. But CheeseDreams is a different sort entirely. Either her POV is so incredibly strong that she can't even consider anything beyond it, or she is a troll. I still haven't decided yet. As such, any allowance for her to involve herself in these pages will just mean that those pages will continue to be unworkable. Only now that the injunction has been in place have we been able to make any progress over at Cultural and historical background of Jesus. A revert parole might work, but I'm pretty doubtful. I would also note that an article with "Jesus" in the title is surely Jesus-related (and, thus, Christianity-related). If it were simply an article on "the time and culture of 1st century Judaea," it would be ridiculously POV to call it "Cultural and historical background of Jesus." It has to be an article about how the time and culture of 1st century Judaea related to Jesus, or else it is utterly absurd. john k 20:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * If a revert parole might work, would it not be better to have that, but with the understanding that she breaks that revert parole, a ban will ensue (say on the authority of only 3 arbitrators to speed things up)? jguk 21:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Nonsense is in the eye of the beholder. Whether you're making progress depends on what you think you're making progress towards. It is ridiculously POV to call the article in question the "Cultural and historical background of Jesus". This implies Jesus actually existed and consequently had a background. It should be understood as the background for the Jesus story, and as such, CD is completely right that referring back from the Gospels, or treating the Gospels as reliable historical documents, is entirely wrong.Dr Zen 04:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * With all due respect, it is also someone's POV that the Bible is an unreliable historical document. Many others do not have that POV. How is the POV that the Bible is reliable any less fair than saying the Bible is unreliable? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not disagreeing with you. I think both POVs should be given fair treatment. I do not support CD in everything (or even most things she does). I do tend to work against the prevailing bias but that doesn't mean I don't think that viewpoint that is prevailing needs to be removed. In general, I'm not for removing anything. I hope you haven't got the impression that I want your POV suppressed, because that's far from true. Dr Zen 06:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article in question acknowledges that some believe Jesus never existed. But it would be misleading to retitle the article as being about the background for the stories. This article draws on and references historians who are discussing what a real person, Jesus, most likely did given our knowledge of the history and culture of the period. If Dr. Zen is sincere about whating to represent all views, and not censor any one, then he should understand why this article should be kept. I happen to agree that another article, on the cultural and historical background of the Jesus stories, would be a good article. But it would be a different article. Slrubenstein 20:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Iateasquirrel

All resolved... --Iateasquirrel 15:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Tea edit
oh.. Thanks a lot. I used the class="infobox" and that pretty much made the template look wikipedia. Anyway, thank you for your nice words! - David Björklund (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

 * [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]]

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. JoaoRicardotalk 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to from now on. --Iateasquirrel 23:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Hukamushi
I checked for the copyright status on the article, and yes it's a copyvio. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of China Famous Tea
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article China Famous Tea, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * This article is just an unreferenced list that admits different people have different opinions as to which ten teas are meant by this term. So we have problems with notability, verifiability, and possibly original research here.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Carolina wren (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ospina Coffee
Hi Late. This is Grancafe. I posted an article on Ospina Coffee Company back in December, but I am having problems keeping it as it is (not to mention what it was). Ikip has refred me to you. I might need your help as I have an editor Flowanda asking questions that I have no idea how to answer. I am brand new to Wikipedia, have no idea how to navigate this laberynth and I am cyber-space phobic. Please see the article and the editors objections(Talk:Ospina Coffee Company), perhaps you can help me editing. Thank you very much for your help. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Best, --Grancafé (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Tea new type article

A tag has been placed on Template:Tea new type article requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tea map china province locator
Template:Tea map china province locator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of China's Famous Teas for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article China's Famous Teas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/China's Famous Teas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Iateasquirrel


text:
Contraband (Golden Earring album)

Contraband is an album by Dutch rock band Golden Earring, released in 1976 in Europe and 1977 in the US.

For the US, the album was re-titled Mad Love and the track "Faded Jeans" was omitted and replaced with "I Need Love".

Track listing
All songs written by Hay and Kooymans.

European track listing

 * 1) "Bombay" – 3:52
 * 2) "Sueleen" – 5:40
 * 3) "Con Man" – 7:10
 * 4) "Mad Love's Comin'" – 7:45
 * 5) "Fighting Windmills" – 4:38
 * 6) "Faded Jeans" – 5:07
 * 7) "Time's Up" – 3:52

USA track listing
Side A
 * 1) "I Need Love" - 6:23
 * 2) "Sueleen (Sweden)" - 5:50
 * 3) "Mad Love's Comin'" - 7:44

Side B
 * 1) "Bombay" - 3:51
 * 2) "Fightin' Windmills" - 4:39
 * 3) "Con Man" - 7:09
 * 4) "Time's Up" - 3:55

Personnel
Additional personnel
 * Barry Hay - vocals
 * George Kooymans - guitar, vocals
 * Eelco Gelling - guitar, slide guitar
 * Rinus Gerritsen - bass, keyboards
 * Cesar Zuiderwijk - drums
 * Patricia Paay - vocals
 * Robert Jan Stips - piano (track 6), mini Moog (track 3)
 * Nippy Noya - percussion, congas

Production

 * Producers: Golden Earring, John Kriek, Damon Lyon-Shaw
 * Engineer: Robin Freeman
 * Mixing: John Kriek, Steve Lillywhite, Damon Lyon-Shaw
 * Cutting engineer: Melvyn Abrahams
 * String arrangements: Robert Jan Stips
 * Coordination: Jan Vermaes
 * Art direction: Koos Van Oostrom
 * Artwork: Koos Van Oostrom

title: Contraband (Golden Earring album)


text: Talk:Contraband (Golden Earring album)

title: Talk:Contraband (Golden Earring album)