text:
User talk:Eixo

San Joaquin Valley
Hey eixo, thanks for wikifing the article I did on the San Joaquin Valley. Phil179 00:47, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Bennington, Vermont Photo
Thanks for your photo of the Bennington Battle Monument. - Redjar 13:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Division of the field.JPG and Image:Division of the field2.JPG
Hi Eixo, just to let you know I have nominated these two images for deletion at WP:IFD, because I uploaded a replacement as Image:Divisions of the field.png. silsor 05:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Also Image:Ordinaries.JPG, replacing it with Image:Ordinaries.png. silsor 06:08, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Edward II of England infobox
Is that supposed to be a Template? RickK 08:35, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think infoboxes are supposed to be in the article namespace. RickK 18:27, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

It should be a Template. RickK 04:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not encyclopedia articles, and should therefore not be in the article space. RickK 07:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's on VfD. RickK 07:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo 158
Regarding "Alfa Romeo 158": Someone other than I changed it to "159". I have no idea why they did it. I don't have a clue as to whether it should be moved. —Vespristiano 07:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow
I just wanted to say, your article on Medieval hunting is excellent - I can't believe it simply appeared that way in its very first edit, full of detail, images, and references. I'd say the very first edit was featured quality. You are a rare and gifted encyclopedia article writer — keep up the good work! Deco 04:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Grant High School
This is in response to the message you left on my talk page:

Aight; I wasn't sure exactly how the images should go, thanks for fixing it.

As for the teacher, it seemed notable to those of use who were attending at the time, but I do see how others might not see it that way.

Thanks for your help! =D Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 20:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Al-Huda Mosque
Why are you deleting this page? I just started it --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM (talk) 15:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bohdanec
Thanks for copyedit on Bohdanec. I removed some hyperlinks you put on dates though - one was repeated and some didn't feel so relevant to be linked (my opinion is that not every year in sight should be turned into hyperlink as it decreases readability and doesn't help to distinguish important and unimportant dates). Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 23:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Pencil manufacture.JPG
I modified Image:Pencil manufacture.JPG to reflect the fact that pencils are made of graphite, not granite. But you know that, of course. ;) —Josh Lee 01:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project
You voted for High Middle Ages, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

VfD Humor
"…The article could easily be a bit more academic and a bit less like Martha Stewart's guide to life in prison." Thank you, It's been a hard day today for me in RL. And this comment was the first thing that made me laugh (until it hurt even). … G u y  M … (soapbox) 03:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Oslo metro
Hello Egil, I'm from the german wikipedia and I search for a Oslo metro aricle 3-4 photos. I saw that you come from Norway, isn't it? Can you take any photos please? If you've take it can you put at the commons? Thanks and greetings from Berlin --Jcornelius 14:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oslo borroughs
Nice demographics for St. Hanshaugen!!! Can you do the same for the other boroughs? Perhaps you would want to join WikiProject Norway? -- Egil 18:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Carolee Schneemann
You're quite welcome on that. I can't take all the credit, though, as I simply combined two different pages on her (one was a typo'd name and all I did was redirect and move the info over to the correct name). --Mitsukai 12:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Monarch
Eixo: Please do not use the monarch infobox. Use the royal biography infobox instead. Adraeus 23:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete like hell
...your words. Anyway, I wanted to give you this Editor's Barnstar for work on VfDs.

Take care, Molotov (talk)  22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Eixo.jpg
Congrats, I took advantage of its PDness and applied it to the bottom of my user page. Great picture :D R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Henry IV of England.jpg
Hello, Eixo. I find it odd to see a colour photo tagged with PD-old, putting it in Category:Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images. Did the photographer die 100 years ago and come back after the development of colour photography to take the picture as a ghost ? :-) Were the colours digitally added recently ? I'm puzzled. Would you consider another image copyright tag for this photo that you've uploaded ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 13:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Eixo. I've noticed this as well. I've listed it as "unknown license". You added it under "PD-old". That requires for the image of the work to be 100 years old. I believe you were thinking about PD-art. However, this only applies to two-dimensional works of art, and this one looks pretty much three dimensional to me. The short story is that the image currently has no proper copyright tag. If you know the correct one, please update it accordingly. Thanks. --Valentinian 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bergesen d.y. ASA, Bergeland, and Berge Stahl
Howdy there!

Do you work for Bergesen d.y. ASA? I just created an article on the Berge Stahl, can you give it the twice over? I see you also added the photo of the Bergeland. I emailed Bergesen asking them to contribute and license a photo of the Berge Stahl for use.

Thanks,...WikiDon 04:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

cartoon consensus
Please show me where on the talk page this consensus was reached Wiki e Zach 02:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I live in the past :-)
OK, so Lance won 7. I forgot last year's because it was so desperately, desperately boring :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a little random thanks
Eixo- I do a lot of (pa)trolling of the new pages, and see a lot of your articles - currently on Norwegian politicians. Just want to extend a little thanks for the great-looking articles and such. Looks like we're in the same time zone! Anabanana459 07:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh woops. Well, I guess you're just up early...or late. Or something around those lines. I just assumed that seeing your edits on Bakersfield, California. Anabanana459 07:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Most definitely. I pass through and stop there all the time. I live on the Peninsula of the Bay Area - San Mateo area. Anabanana459 07:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Melk,_stift.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Melk,_stift.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Man of Nature (1979)
Please revisit this discussion regarding additional articles for deletion. -- Krash (Talk) 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure you won't object to this recent addition to the AfD: Man of Nature IV (1988) -- Krash (Talk) 05:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[Hugh Owen Thomas]]
Great article! Enjoyed it very much. Cheers -- Samir ∙  T C 00:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian government ministers
Thanks for your work. Party affliation should definitely be included. Punkmorten 17:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Axel Heiberg Stang

 * Thanks for catching this. Major error on my part. I ran across the AHS entry while "Random article" surfing and, in an attempt to link to a site with an image, linked to a site with an image.....plus highly inappropriate & revisionist text. Again, thanks for spotting my mistake and yanking the link. -- MarcoTolo 03:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

LMA's lead
As of now, it doesn't reflect the article's breadth. For it only stick to the history par as the article will go into other sections like Religion, T&C, Sci&Tech and other. Maybe just remove a paragraph on history (or regroup) and add one about the other sections. Lincher 14:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, a Further reading section isn't a Ref section, see WP:REF for more info. Good luck! Lincher 14:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you update the source information and correct the PD template (obsolete now) on Image:BewcastleCross1.jpg, and Image:BewcastleCross2.jpg. I can't find those on the website, and need to know whether it meets PD eligibility for the commons. Thanks // Fra nkB 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for getting stuck in with assessing articles and leaving comments! Great work. --kingboyk 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move of Ben Yehuda Street Bombing
I have restored the page move of Ben Yehuda Street Bombing. In the process I copied the comment you left on the talk page of the page with the new name to the talk page of the page with the old name, i.e. Talk:Ben Yehuda Street Bombing. If you object to this, please let me know. -- Steve Hart 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hip hop (stand up)
thanks... Chubdub 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on a really stupid nomination
Congratulations on your template nominations. That is probably the single stupidest set of nominations I have ever seen in four years on WP. Deleting them is a non-starter. As with all such templates they run along the side, so redesigning them as a bottom box is nonsensical and a non-runner. It is behaviour like yours with that nomination that ends up driving away good contributors in disgust. Users end up why bother staying when after doing months of work a user who contributes nothing in the area swans in, dumps work of a load of people and proposes two years work by a team of people for deletion, all because that user personally doesn't like it. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British Royalty
D B  D  16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you plan to discuss the English dynastic templates again. I have some comments I'd like to make on modifying them. Choess 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination
 -- Run! 08:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gunmund Hernes
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Gudmund Hernes. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Erechtheus 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are certainly one to talk about assuming good faith. The categories in quetion serve an important purpose -- pointing out the lack of information that is commonly present in biographies. Insulting edit summaries like "come on!" are a pretty darn good indication of editor intent. I don't think it wise at all for me to scour the other language projects and guess at what is being said. Thank you for choosing a constructive edit the second time around and improving the article in question. Erechtheus 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the resolution to the research issue you pose is the Place/Date/Year of birth unknown category. I didn't place the articles in question in that category because I wasn't convinced that the information is outside what is knowable. I had not looked into the matter. I know slaves often don't have such information, but some slaves do. The only discussion of the categories I am aware of is present in the categories. I'm relatively pleased with the way I have witnessed them working. In many cases, inclusion has spurred people watching the articles who know this information to include it in the article. If you'd like to initiate discussion on the categories, I'm sure that would be welcome. Erechtheus 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Venus de' Medici
Thanks for finding that image: the text was calling out for your aid. --Wetman 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination
I left a message in the talk page of the William Edington article. As you nominated the article, if you could fix up some minor issues, I can then promote it. RelHistBuff 07:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Eixo
When did you change from "Pages the Eixo has created" to "Pages I've created"? I always thought the former was rather amusing, though I understand if you thought it was time for a change. Just a comment from a random stalker... — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yup, definitely a fan. I get bored with my user page from time to time, too. Though I'm lucky; my friends already know about my significant weirdness hehe...— Knowledge Seeker দ 06:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Edward III
Just to say congratulations on editting Edward III up to FA standard! Well done! Sir, I salute you // D  B  D  08:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Andreas Arntzen
I've added the "prod" template to the article Andreas Arntzen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Andreas Arntzen. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 06:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa
I've nominated Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RJASE1 Talk  02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Arthur Kelton, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DES (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Middle Ages Periodization
A tag has been placed on Template:Middle Ages Periodization 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 is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Hallvard Bakke
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hallvard Bakke, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hallvard Bakke is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hallvard Bakke, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Bayeux hawking.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bayeux hawking.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Bayeux hawking.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bayeux hawking.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 06:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Eixo.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eixo.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Norwegians
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Norwegians. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of Norwegians. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jackson Armstrong
I have nominated Jackson Armstrong, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Jackson Armstrong. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Eixo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 52 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

 * 1) Marco Formentini -
 * 2) Thorbjørn Berntsen -
 * 3) Turid Birkeland -
 * 4) Reidun Brusletten -
 * 5) Ronald Bye -
 * 6) Helen Bøsterud -
 * 7) Werner Christie -
 * 8) Dag Jostein Fjærvoll -
 * 9) Kaare Fostervoll -
 * 10) Ranveig Frøiland -

11. Kåre Gjønnes 12. Bjørn Tore Godal 13. Otto Gregussen 14. Kirsti Kolle Grøndahl 15. Terje Moe Gustavsen 16. Einfrid Halvorsen 17. Rolf Arthur Hansen 18. Hanne Harlem 19. Leif Arne Heløe 20. Gudmund Hernes 21. Ragnhild Queseth Haarstad 22. Lars Gunnar Lie 23. Thor Listau 24. Johan C. Løken 25. Eldbjørg Løwer 26. Asbjørn Jordahl 27. Ole Knapp 28. Finn Kristensen 29. Mary Synnøve Kvidal 30. Svein Munkejord 31. Arne Nilsen 32. Eldrid Nordbø 33. Kari Nordheim-Larsen 34. Jan Henry T. Olsen 35. Kjell Opseth 36. Gudmund Restad 37. Ruth Anlaug Ryste 38. Mona Røkke 39. Sissel Rønbeck 40. Heidi Grande Røys 41. Reidar Sandal 42. Matz Sandman 43. Karl Eirik Schjøtt-Pedersen 44. Wenche Frogn Sellæg 45. Arne Skauge 46. Lars Skytøen 47. Solveig Sollie 48. Einar Steensnæs 49. Anne Kristin Sydnes 50. Tove Liv Veierød 51. Vesla Gunvor Vetlesen 52. Tom Vraalsen

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Lampman (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:

 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bergeland.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bergeland.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 17:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bergesen.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Bergesen.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Hundred Years War family tree.PNG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hundred Years War family tree.PNG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  21:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Danse Carpeaux.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Danse Carpeaux.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Danse Carpeaux.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Danse Carpeaux.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Image at Commons is of a near identical subject at higher resoloution or quality

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Article notability notification
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Carl Berner, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox monarch
Template:Infobox monarch has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox royalty. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Homosexuality King Edward II of England.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Homosexuality King Edward II of England.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edward III of England scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Edward III of England article has been scheduled to be rerun as today's featured article for May 17, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/May 17, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Danse Carpeaux 1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Danse Carpeaux 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 21:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Overmighty subject

The article Overmighty subject has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "WP:DICDEF. A combination of two English words. A cursory google search indicates that these two terms do appear next to each other from time to time, but no where discusses this subject as a distinct subject separate from the plain meaning of the words. -- Jayron 32 15:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jayron 32</b> 15:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Melk, stift.jpg

The file File:Melk, stift.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Unused. Low quality. Can be replaced with File:Stift Melk Prälatenhof 1.JPG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax «¦talk¦» 09:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:English chronicles has been nominated for renaming
Category:English chronicles has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eixo


text:
User talk:Tomilius

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 01:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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

title: User talk:Tomilius


text:
User talk:Bnio

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 01:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image copyright tags
Thanks for uploading Image:Sumo-hall-angle.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, BCKILLa 10:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also Image:Perty-incinerator-and-sunshine60.JPG RedWolf July 8, 2005 07:17 (UTC)

Image:DSC02789.JPG
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 07:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bnio


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable coprophagians

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

List of notable coprophagians
I'm not saying I doubt this necessarily; But can any of this be proved? Is it documented, etc? The list makes no mention of evidence. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The precident is clearly against lists that are too contentious and are likely to become breeding grounds for trolls. So delete this one too. Shane King 04:01, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: This list is full of shit. DCEdwards1966 04:23, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It can coprophage and die. Geogre 04:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Get these feces off this site. --Idont Havaname 07:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with above statements. --Randy 11:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Deleteworthy. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is worthy, for example I found out on the first time that some people on this list were caprophagians despite of knowing about them from before, and this is what encyclopedia is for, to search for info. Someone might need this for an essay or such about caprophagia, so they could check who did it and then check wiki articles about these people to find out more about them. There is no need to delete this - else we would have to delete all lists of people which are related to activities done by people which aren't considered good by mainstream society, as everything can be used by trolls. And if trolls would for example add George W. Bush or some other natable politician or such to this list, that would be immidietly visible. Same trolls could add these people to other lists about people who did bad things. Actually, except for the person who suggested deletion and one other person, nobody else actually came up with reasons, but rather posted some "jokes" instead as reasons. And the arguement about trolls by one who suggested deletion was addressed by me above. Lists are always just lists, no list gives evidence of anything they just list people or things. Like where is evidence on list of sportsmen that everybody is sportsmen and in list of suicides that everybody really died this way - the evidence is in pages about people mentioned, but there only if the page was crated an dit is not a stub and mentions it. Same here. DeirYassin 02:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable, also subliterate (the term is "coprophagists"). Seems to me the article mostly exists for the purpose of saying "Michel Foucault eats shit", which may or may not be philosophically true, but without some at least vague evidence, it's just, well, shit. --jpgordon{gab} 04:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into coprophagia if it can be verified; otherwise delete. —No-One Jones (m) 04:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete' - probably created mainly for derogatory purposes - Skysmith 09:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I look forward to seeing the list of comments the next time this comes up for VfD ;-)
 * Delete. Unverifiable. Agree with jpgordon{gab}'s comments. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable and unmaintainable. Jayjg 17:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as unmaintainable, generally undocumented, and all in all, full of shit (I can't believe nobody had used that one yet). Lord Bob 05:50, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that DCEdwards1966 did, in fact, use this one. Stupid shitty text find. Lord Bob 20:30, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * delete In case you haven't noticed there are USDA standards on the amount of rat feces allowed in many human foodstuffs, so if you eat in the USA, you might be a coprophage yourself... too many people could get stuck in this article, and probably not for anything but derogation.Pedant 01:26, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete: However notable the people on this list may be, the fact that they ate shit isn't. I'm sure some people give a shit, but to them, I say: tough shit. I'm sure info on people who may have practiced coprophagia can be found elsewhere. This list is unverifiable, so how do we know its authors aren't totally full of shit? Maybe they have shit for brains. I've been trying to fit in as many "shit" puns as I can, just for shits and giggles. --Szyslak 10:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Eating poo is not a notable activity. I cleaned some fricking dog shit off my shoe with a garden hose last night, and felt some drops of splashback hit my face. This was exceedingly gross, but not noteworthy. Wyss 12:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Deliverance (Opeth album)

Deliverance is the sixth studio album by Swedish progressive metal band Opeth. It was released on 12 November 2002. It was recorded between 22 July and 4 September 2002, at the same time as Damnation, which was released five months after this album. The two albums contrast starkly with one another, purposely dividing the band's two most prevalent styles, as Deliverance is considered to be one of the band's heaviest albums, taking on a heavier and more brutal death metal-inspired sound, whereas Damnation experiments with a much mellower progressive rock-influenced sound.

Background
The band originally intended for Deliverance and Damnation to be released as a double album, but the record company eventually decided against this and released them separately, approximately five months apart from one another in order to promote them properly. The recording sessions also became a writing session of two albums worth of material, causing the recordings to be long as there were no songs written prior to that point. Åkerfeldt wrote the songs in the night and recorded them with the band during the days.

The track "Master's Apprentices" was named after the Australian hard/progressive rock group The Masters Apprentices. "For Absent Friends" was named after a song on the album Nursery Cryme by progressive rock group Genesis.

At the end of "By the Pain I See in Others", the final note fades slowly and ends at 10:40. Silence follows until 12:00, followed by two backmasked (hidden tracks) verses from "Master's Apprentices" at 12:00 and 13:15.

Production
The recording for Deliverance and Damnation was fraught with troubles. The band had originally started recording the album in Nacksving Studio, but the recording process was plagued, not just by a variety of technical issues ranging from equipment breaking down to drum mics changing positions or disappearing, but also internal band issues. Eventually, the band would return to Studio Fredman (upon which they would be joined by producer Steven Wilson) to finish off the record.

During the recording process, Mikael Åkerfeldt's grandmother was killed in a car accident. He would later dedicate both Deliverance and Damnation to her.

Reception
Deliverance peaked on Top Heatseekers at No. 16 and the Top Independent Albums chart at No. 19, making it the first Opeth release ever to chart. Opeth also won a Grammis Award for Best Hard Rock Performance after releasing the album.

The album appeared on several lists of the best albums of 2002, including that of Kerrang!, Metal Hammer and Terrorizer. In 2012, Loudwire ranked Deliverance as the third best album of 2002. In March 2023, Rolling Stone ranked the title track number fifty-two on their list of "The 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Songs of All Time"

Opeth

 * Mikael Åkerfeldt – vocals, electric and acoustic guitars
 * Peter Lindgren – electric guitars
 * Martín Méndez – bass guitar
 * Martin Lopez – drums, percussion

Additional personnel

 * Steven Wilson – backing vocals, additional guitars, Mellotron, piano, keyboards, production, engineering
 * Opeth – production, engineering
 * Fredrik Nordström – engineering
 * Fredrik Reinedahl – engineering
 * Andy Sneap – mixing
 * Travis Smith – artwork

title: Deliverance (Opeth album)


text:
User talk:PatDonovan130

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 01:52, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:PatDonovan130


text:
Talk:Mail carrier

Older posts
I don't have time right now, but this really needs expansion; historical development of job (parttime vs fulltime, tasks such as special delivery or postage due collection), social position, training needed for the job, relation to other postal workers, etc etc. A brief summary for each of 200 nations will be a rather lengthy article in fact! Stan 01:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * HEY! What is this transwiki %$^&$#!! I made it clear that this should be a real article, didn't get into any edit war over it, and my reward was to be blown off. Stan 17:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I don't get any response in 24 hours, I'm going to unprotect this page and clear off all this transwiki crap, seeing as how none of this bot stuff pays attention to objections registered on talk pages. Stan 17:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am brand new to the Wikipedia so I hope this is the place to point out some shortcomings with this page.

 * This article appears to be about the United States Postal Service mail carriers. First, it is the United States Postal Service not the Post Office this has been official since the 1970's. Second special delivery is ancient history third and most important to me you have included two kinds of mail carriers in this article. The National Rural Letter Carriers Association represents the Rural Carriers. The National Letter Carriers Association Represents City Carriers.

 * The Rural Carriers are the ones who use their own vehicles some times and usually deliver in the rural areas. However, things are not always this nice and tidy. In concept these crafts are very similar however, in practice they operate differently.

 * We also have highway contract carriers delivering mail. — User:Suprise48 12:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Mail carrier
What is this awful neologism? Can't we move this to postman? Jooler 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed - mail carrier may be in parlance in North America but nowhere else I know 60.234.141.243 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Postman is already a redirect, so this is a redundant suggestion. If you had created Postman first than, the redirect would be from Mail carrier to Postman. If you look here you will see all the 12 redirect pages that cover most of the possible terms used for the people who deliver mail. ww2censor (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actualy in america we use mailman(sometimes postman), unless specifically refering to a mail-lady. Ive never heard "mail carrier" used commonly. Sorry, no sources.--71.97.138.104 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that mailman or postman are the usual terms, but there is a gender issue to be considered here which is also mentioned in the article itself. But I would question the choice of mail carrier and suggest moving this entry to letter carrier because this seems to be the official term in the United States (see ). Britain's Royal Mail still employs postman, putting it alongside the female term postwoman in their official job offers (see ), which is another viable option for the main entry: Postman/Postwoman.--Tipedia (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "Mail carrier" seems unpopular in the United States. The guidelines at Article titles, particiularly in the paragraph WP:POVNAME, lay out the two issues: common usage generally trumps neutrality, but "colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". (Not that mailman or postman are colloquialisms, but it's the nearest the guidelines seem to come to addressing the issue). My own view on usage, approaching age 50 in the Midwestern US, is that mailman, and to a lesser extent postman, are still the most used terms in common usage in the US. In formal English, letter carrier (the US Postal Service's official name) seems to be the most common of the gender-neutral terms used (e.g., in news sources, unless the news sources are intentionally staking out a conservative or anti-feminist political stance). Usage of gender neutral terms in common usage is a bit more common in better educated people my age or younger. Political correctness brought the issue of gender-neutral titles to widespread national attention in the 1980s, although the suggested alternatives mailperson and postperson never caught on to the extent that letter carrier later did.

 * I don't think there's any way to prove any of this. Google is an extremely imprecise tool for such comparisons for a number of reasons, though may indicate rough popularity; here are some Google (US English) result counts (terms were searched inside quotation marks). I omitted some terms like "mail people" and "post people" just because the number of usages not referring to this topic seems too high (e.g., Google would count "I got the e-mail people sent" among the results):
 * "postman" 5,250,000
 * "mailman" 4,960,000
 * "letter carrier" 1,420,000
 * "mail man" 1,290,000
 * "postal carrier" 530,000
 * "mail carrier" 477,000
 * "post man" 355,000
 * "postwoman" 179,000
 * "postperson" 169,000
 * "mail person" 86,800
 * "post person" 79,600
 * "post carrier" 67,200
 * "mailperson" 24,500

 * "letter carriers" 4,580,000
 * "mail carriers" 998,000
 * "post men" 604,000
 * "postmen" 558,000
 * "mailmen" 353,000
 * "postal carriers" 227,000
 * "postwomen" 130,000
 * "post carriers" 109,000
 * "mailpeople" 20,300
 * "postpeople" 15,400
 * "mailpersons" 10,700
 * "postpersons" 8,110

 * Based on that, I'd favor renaming the article "Postman" if going for commonality (with the bonus of being more universal), and "Letter carrier" if choosing for gender neutrality (with the other names redirecting to the article as they currently do, and mentioned in the opening sentence). I think the dominance of "letter carriers" among the plural terms shows a legitimate distinction (people who may use mailman/postman singularly may also use letter carriers when referring to more than one), but the article title should be the singular form, not the plural.

 * ––Agyle (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say "mailman" or "postman" is the proper title. I have NEVER heard "mail carrier". 79.106.203.116 (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Famous people who happen to also have been mail carriers at some point in their life
Does it disturb anyone else that the list of "Famous carriers" appears to consist mostly of people famous for other things, but who happen to have been mail carriers? I would have expected a list of "Famous carriers" to be a list of people who became famous as a direct result of their job of carrying mail. -- 76.204.102.79 (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, I added Domingo French, and in his case his work as mail carrier, even if not the source of his notability, was instrumental (to a certain degree) in the success of the May Revolution. As a mail carrier, he knew everyone in the city (that was his job) and such knowledge had a great strategic value, helping to identify and monitor suspected counter-revolutionaries MBelgrano (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

famous post carriers
Are there no examples famous postcarriers who became famous for doing extraordinary job actually carring and delivering post, rather than excelling is something other than post carrying? As in standing up for burglars, or for working in wars or natural disasters, or for just being so dedicated and punctual for many years (as most post carriers actually are)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by أحمد (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 * If you can find some soured information on such people please propose them here. ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Clearly Karl Malone is a famous mail carrier. "Mailman" is a common term used to describe a mail carrier, and Karl Malone is known as "The Mailman." Scatsscout (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

 * But, he was never a mailman in the sense used for mail carrier, so it does not belong in this article as it has nothing to do with carrying mail, unless you can provide a reliable source. ww2censor (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As seen in the video, Karl Malone has delivered a plethora of packages over the years.The Mailman DeliversScatsscout (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

 * So what? He is not and never has been a mail carrier. Get over it. ww2censor (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bias
This article should be re-labeled "American Mail Carrier" Firstly the job title is more commonly known globally as "postman" Secondly there are no sections describing postmen outside of America Other countries do exist so please remember us when writing articles. 2.123.131.244 (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed, this article should also mention the fact that in 1992, The Mailman himself went international. So there should atleast be a mention of Barcelona getting a taste of true postal professionalism. Tearprod (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The article's balance is definitely skewed. I'm sure it's not intentional, but a reflection of disinterest in writing about letter carriers (or whatever name you prefer) in other countries. The name issue discussed in a separate section above. ––Agyle (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Mail carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090118132432/http://postalheritage.org.uk:80/visiting/familyhistory/whatdidyourrelativesdo to http://www.postalheritage.org.uk/visiting/familyhistory/whatdidyourrelativesdo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131113034758/http://www.nalc.org/nalc/facthist/nalcfact.html to http://www.nalc.org/nalc/facthist/nalcfact.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131127073409/http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/index.html to http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mail carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822231510/http://www.usps.com/employment/ruralcarrierassoc.htm to http://www.usps.com/employment/ruralcarrierassoc.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120729174246/http://www.cascademontana.com/mary.htm to http://www.cascademontana.com/mary.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Mail carrier vs. Letter carrier
It was suggested in a recent discussion (at Talk:Chairman), and in an old discussion on this page (above) that "letter carrier" might be a more common term and, therefore, a better title for this article than "mail carrier".

However, on Google Ngrams, "mail carrier" has a clear lead. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, yeah. Lots of things received in the mail aren't letters, so "mail carrier" seems more appropriate. 99.101.56.68 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with it. And who even says this? Is this a British thing? In the US, we say "mailman". 79.106.203.116 (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a gender neutral thing. Same as police officer or firefighter. With that said, in the UK most jobs are advertised as postman/postwoman, or rarely postperson. Couruu (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

New post
A mail carrier, mailman, mailwoman, postal carrier, postman, postwoman, postperson,[1] or letter carrier (in American English), sometimes colloquially known as a postie (in Australia,[2] Canada,[3] New Zealand,[4] and the United Kingdom[5]), is an employee of a post office or postal service, who delivers mail and parcel post to residences and businesses. The term "mail carrier" came to be used as a gender-neutral substitute for "mailman" soon after women began performing the job. In the Royal Mail, the official name changed from "letter carrier" to "postman" in 1883,[6] and "postwoman" has also been used for many years.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.167.202 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 * "Mailman" is already gender neutral. 79.106.203.116 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mail carrier


text:
Talk:Freeway (Canada)

 * Is this article really necessary? Darkcore 01:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a merge template; Freeway already exists. Klparrot 03:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Freeway (Canada)


text:
File talk:Dickinson-nd-dhs-1964.jpg

 * Hello Hans, please consider renaming this photograph. I understand you had your 1964 reunion here at this middleschool, but this should be a footnote to the fact that this is a photograph of Hagen middleschool and named as something more appropriate.  May I suggest Hagen_Middle_School-2004.jpg.  —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 01:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

title: File talk:Dickinson-nd-dhs-1964.jpg


text:
Talk:Masashi Hamauzu

Note
Removed the phrase "Hamauzu's creative ability is evident in his compositions for Final Fantasy X." because his creative ability is evident in all of his compositions!

I don't have the time to fully discuss his foray into other genres, but I have at least begun to speak of it.

--Kaleb.G 02:00, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

I made some changes in wording, some of it was pretty middle-schoolish. Fixed date/link on Unlimited SaGa (game was released in 2002 in Japan, 2003 in America.) Article is still far from perfect. I'd like to say more about his music, but lack the vocabulary.

--Eleo 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Uematsu picture
I think the picture should be removed because it's very misleading. At first glance people would think it's Hamauzu and needless to say it's not him. Moreover, Uematsu's face has nothing do with the article, and just because there's no Hamauzu picture doesn't mean we should just put random photos of other people just to illustrate the article. Vielen D (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image. See the edit summary for an explanation. The Prince (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamauzu's father
I believe the IP address is in fact right in saying that his father is Japanese, not German. I searched Akimori Hamauzu and I found this. I can't read Japanese, so if anyone does, it would be nice to confirm if it's his father or not. The source which states Hamauzu's father is German (Square Enix Music Online) isn't the most reliable source there is. I know for a fact that this indicates the supposed father is an opera singer which Square Enix Music Online also confirms. So the two sources aren't all THAT conflicting. Anyway, it would be good to get the facts straight. The Prince (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

how to upload masashi hamauzu's picture?
?????? --KL Joe (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Masashi Hamauzu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120718220424/http://ps2.ign.com/articles/164/164008p1.html to http://ps2.ign.com/articles/164/164008p1.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EDcH39Q9?url=http://www.nobuouematsu.com/rbaby.html to http://www.nobuouematsu.com/rbaby.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Masashi Hamauzu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110165811/http://www.d8.dion.ne.jp/~r.beet/profile.html to http://www.d8.dion.ne.jp/~r.beet/profile.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216115401/http://www.chudahs-corner.com/liners/index.php?catalog=SSCX-10054~7 to http://www.chudahs-corner.com/liners/index.php?catalog=SSCX-10054~7
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nobuouematsu.com/rbaby.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123141427/http://www.squareenixmusic.com/musicnews2.php?subaction=showfull&id=1263934146&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2& to http://www.squareenixmusic.com/musicnews2.php?subaction=showfull&id=1263934146&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Masashi Hamauzu


text:
United States v. Washington

United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975), commonly known as the Boldt Decision (from the name of the trial court judge, George Hugo Boldt), was a legal case in 1974 heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case re-affirmed the rights of American Indian tribes in the state of Washington to co-manage and continue to harvest salmon and other fish under the terms of various treaties with the U.S. government. The tribes ceded their land to the United States but reserved the right to fish as they always had. This included their traditional locations off the designated reservations.

As the time went by, the State of Washington had infringed on the treaty rights of the tribes despite losing a series of court cases on the issue. Those cases provided the Indian tribal members a right of access through private property to their fishing locations, and said that the state could neither charge the Indians a fee to fish nor discriminate against the tribes in the method of fishing allowed. Those cases also provided for the Indian tribes rights to a fair and equitable share of the harvest. The Boldt decision further defined that reserved right, holding that the tribes were entitled to half the fish harvest each year.

In 1975, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Boldt's ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. After the state refused to enforce the court order, Judge Boldt ordered the United States Coast Guard and federal law enforcement agencies to enforce his rulings. On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court rejected a collateral attack on the case, largely endorsing Judge Boldt's ruling and the opinion of the Ninth Circuit. In Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "[b]oth sides have a right, secured by treaty, to take a fair share of the available fish." The Supreme Court also endorsed Boldt's orders to enforce his rulings using federal law enforcement assets and the Coast Guard.

History of tribal fishing
The American Indians of the Pacific Northwest had long depended on the salmon harvest, a resource that allowed them to become among the wealthiest North American tribes. The salmon harvest for the Columbia River basin was estimated at 43,000,000 lb annually, which provided sufficient salmon not only for the tribes' needs but also to trade with others. By the 1840s, tribes were trading salmon to the Hudson's Bay Company, which shipped the fish to New York, Great Britain, and other locations around the world.

Treaties
In the 1850s, the US government entered into a series of treaties with the American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest. In the Treaty of Olympia, Territorial Governor Isaac I. Stevens agreed that the tribes had rights, including:

"The right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations is secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing the same; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on all open and unclaimed lands. Provided, however, That they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens; and provided, also, that they shall alter all stallions not intended for breeding, and keep up and confine the stallions themselves."

Other agreements with area tribes included the treaties of Medicine Creek, Point Elliott, Neah Bay, and Point No Point. All of them had similar language on the rights of the tribes to fish outside the reservation. While the tribes agreed to part with their land, they insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout the Washington Territory.

Post-treaty history
Initially, the federal government honored its treaties with the tribes, but with increasing numbers of white settlers moving into the area, the settlers began to infringe upon the fishing rights of the native tribes. By 1883, whites had established more than forty salmon canneries. In 1894, there were three canneries in the Puget Sound area; by 1905, there were twenty-four. The whites also began to use new techniques, which prevented a significant portion of the salmon from reaching the tribal fishing areas. When Washington Territory became a state in 1889, the legislature passed "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries." The state legislature, by 1897, had banned the use of weirs, which were customarily used by Indians fishermen. The tribes turned to the courts for enforcement of their rights under the treaties.

United States v. Taylor
In one of the earliest of the enforcement cases, decided in 1887, the United States Indian agent and several members of the Yakama tribe filed suit in territorial court to enforce their right of access to off-reservation fishing locations. Frank Taylor, a non-Indian settler, had obtained land from the United States and had fenced off the land, preventing access by the Yakama to their traditional fishing locations. Although the trial court ruled in Taylor's favor, the Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington reversed and held that the tribe had reserved its own rights to fish, thereby creating an easement or an equitable servitude of the land that was not extinguished when Taylor obtained title.

United States v. Winans
Within ten years, another case arose, which dealt with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location. Two brothers, Lineas and Audubon Winans, owned property on both sides of the Columbia River and obtained licenses from the State of Washington to operate four fish wheels. The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon from passing the location. Additionally, the Winans prohibited anyone, whether an Indian with treaty rights or otherwise, from crossing their land to get to the falls.

The United States Attorney for Washington then filed a suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe. The trial court held that the property rights of the Winans allowed them to exclude others from the property, including Indians. In 1905, the United States Supreme Court reversed that decision by holding that the tribe had reserved fishing rights when they ceded the property to the United States. Since the tribes had the right to fish reserved in the treaties, the federal government and subsequent owners had no greater property rights than were granted by the treaties.

Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States
In 1914, the United States sued again, this time against the Seufert Brothers Company, which had prevented Yakama Indians including Sam Williams from fishing on the Oregon side of the Columbia River near the Celilo Falls. After the United States sued on behalf of Williams, the United States District Court in Oregon issued an injunction which the Supreme Court affirmed, again holding that the treaties created a servitude that ran with the land. The decision was significant in that it expanded the hunting and fishing rights outside the territory ceded by the tribes when it was shown that the tribe had used the area for hunting and fishing.

Tulee v. Washington
In Tulee v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court once again ruled on the treaty rights of the Yakama tribe. In 1939, Sampson Tulee, a Yakama, was arrested for fishing without a state fishing license. The United States government immediately filed for a writ of habeas corpus on Tulee's behalf, which was denied on procedural grounds because he had not yet been tried in state court and had not exhausted his appeals. Tulee was convicted in state court, which was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed it to impose a fee on Indians who were fishing outside the reservation. The United States Supreme Court reversed, stating "we are of the opinion that the state is without power to charge the Yakamas a fee for fishing".

Puyallup cases
Following the Tulee decision, there were three United States Supreme Court decisions involving the Puyallup tribe. The first was Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, (Puyallup I) which involved a state ban on the use of nets to catch steelhead trout and salmon. Despite the ban, the tribes continued to use nets based on their treaty rights. Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion of the court which said that the treaty did not prevent state regulations that were reasonable and necessary under a fish conservation scheme, provided the regulation was not discriminatory.

After being remanded to determine if the regulations were not discriminatory, the case returned to the United States Supreme Court in Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe (Puyallyp II). Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion for the court, but this time he struck down the state restrictions as discriminatory. Douglas noted that the restrictions for catching steelhead trout with nets had remained, and was a method used only by the tribes, whereas hook and line fishing was allowed but was used only by non-tribal people. As such, the effect of the regulation allocated all of the steelhead trout fishing to sport anglers, and none to the tribes.

The third case, Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington (Puyallup III), was decided in 1977. Members of the Puyallup Tribe filed suit, arguing that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Washington state courts lacked jurisdiction to regulate fishing activities on tribal reservations. Writing for a majority of the court, Justice John Paul Stevens held that, despite the tribe's sovereign immunity, the state could regulate the harvest of steelhead trout in the portion of the river that ran through the Puyallup Reservation as long as the state could base its decision and apportionment on conservation grounds.

The Belloni decision
One year after the Puyallup I decision, Judge Robert C. Belloni issued an order in Sohappy v. Smith, a treaty fishing case involving the Yakama tribe and the state of Oregon. In this case, Oregon had discriminated against the Indian peoples in favor of sports and commercial fishermen, allocating almost nothing to the tribes at the headwaters of the river. Oregon argued that the treaties only gave the Indians the same rights as every other citizen, and Belloni noted that "[s]uch a reading would not seem unreasonable if all history, anthropology, biology, prior case law and the intention of the parties to the treaty were to be ignored". Belloni also found that:

"The state may regulate fishing by non-Indians to achieve a wide variety of management or 'conservation' objectives. Its selection of regulations to achieve these objectives is limited only by its own organic law and the standards of reasonableness required by the Fourteenth Amendment. But when it is regulating the federal right of Indians to take fish at their usual and accustomed places it does not have the same latitude in prescribing the management objectives and the regulatory means of achieving them. The state may not qualify the federal right by subordinating it to some other state objective or policy. It may use its police power only to the extent necessary to prevent the exercise of that right in a manner that will imperil the continued existence of the fish resource."

Belloni issued a final ruling that the tribes were entitled to a fair and equitable portion of the fish harvest. The court retained continuing jurisdiction, and his order was not appealed.

Issue
Although the Belloni decision established the rights of the Indian tribes to exercise their treaty fishing rights, the States of Oregon and Washington continued to arrest tribal members for violations of state law and regulations that infringed on those rights. In September 1970, the United States Attorney filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging that Washington had infringed on the treaty rights of the Hoh, Makah, Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Puyallup, Quileute, and Skokomish tribes. Later, the Lummi, Quinault, Sauk-Suiattle, Squaxin Island, Stillaguamish, Upper Skagit, and Yakama tribes intervened in the case. Defendants were the State of Washington, the Washington Department of Fisheries, the Washington Game Commission, and the Washington Reef Net Owners Association.

Trial
The first phase of the case took three years, mainly in preparation for trial. During the trial, Boldt heard testimony from about 50 witnesses and admitted 350 exhibits. The evidence showed that the state had shut down many sites used by Indians for net fishing but allowed commercial net fishing elsewhere on the same run. At most, the tribes took only about 2% of the total harvest. There was no evidence presented by the state that showed any detrimental actions by the tribes toward the harvest. Both expert testimony and cultural testimony was presented, with tribal members relating the oral history dealing with the treaties and fishing rights. Additionally, Boldt found that the tribe's witnesses were more credible than those of the state and that the tribe's expert witnesses were "exceptionally well researched."

Holding
The court held that when the tribes conveyed millions of acres of land in Washington State through a series of treaties signed in 1854 and 1855, they reserved the right to continue fishing. The court looked at the minutes of the treaty negotiations to interpret the meaning of the treaty language "in common with" as the United States described it to the tribes, holding that the United States intended for there to be an equal sharing of the fish resource between the tribes and the settlers. As the court stated, the phrase means "sharing equally the opportunity to take fish... therefore, nontreaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish... and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage." The formula used by Boldt gave the tribes 43% of the Puget Sound harvest, which was equivalent to 18% of the statewide harvest. The order required the state to limit the amount of fish taken by non-Indian commercial fishermen, causing a drop in their income from about $15,000–20,000 to $500–2000.

Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate the Indian tribes' exercise of their treaty rights but only to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish." To regulate the tribes, the state must be able to show that conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians, must not discriminate against the tribes, and must use appropriate due process.

Opinion of the court
After the District Court issued its ruling, both sides submitted appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Washington argued that the district court had no power to invalidate state fishing regulations, but the tribes argued that "the state may not regulate their fishing activities at treaty locations for any reason." Writing for a majority of the court, Circuit Court Judge Herbert Choy affirmed Judge Boldt's opinion "in all respects" but clarified that Judge Boldt's "equitable apportionment" of harvestable fish did not apply to "fish caught by non-Washington citizens outside the state's jurisdiction."

In his majority opinion, Judge Choy emphasized that states may not enact regulations that are "in conflict with treaties in force between the United States and the Indian nations." Consequently, he concluded that the treaties signed in the 1850s expressly preempted Washington's regulations and that non-Indian people had "only a limited right to fish at treaty places." Judge Choy also emphasized that the tribes were "entitled to an equitable apportionment of the opportunity to fish in order to safeguard their federal treaty rights" and that the Ninth Circuit should grant the district court a "great amount of discretion as a court of equity" when apportioning rights to fisheries. He held that the district court's apportionment "was well within its discretion" but clarified that tribes were not entitled to compensation for "unanticipated heavy fishing" that occurred off Washington's coast. Judge Choy also clarified that the district court's equitable remedy should attempt to minimize hardships for white reef net fishermen.

Concurrence
District court judge James M. Burns, sitting by designation, wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he criticized the "recalcitrance of Washington State officials" in their management of the state's fisheries. Judge Burns argued that Washington's recalcitrance forced Judge Boldt to act as "perpetual fishmaster" and noted that he "deplore[d]" situations in which district court judges are forced to act as "enduring managers of the fisheries, forests, and highways." In his concluding remarks, Judge Burns argued that Washington's responsibility to manage its natural resources "should neither escape notice nor be forgotten."

Certiorari denied
After the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in the direct appeal, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Washington submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which denied the state's petition for certiorari and subsequent petition for rehearing. Despite the rulings, the parties in the original case continued to litigate issues relating to apportionment of the fisheries and subsequent rulings have been issued as recently as May 2015.

Collateral attacks
After Boldt's decision, the Washington Department of Fisheries issued new regulations in compliance with the decision. The Puget Sound Gillnetters Association and the Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association both filed lawsuits in state court to block the new regulations. These private concerns won at both the trial court and at the Washington Supreme Court. Washington Attorney General Slade Gorton, representing the State of Washington, supported the position of the private concerns and opposed the position of the United States and the tribes. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the decision of the Washington Supreme Court.

Justice John Paul Stevens announced the decision of the court, which upheld Judge Boldt's order and overturned the rulings of the state courts. Stevens explicitly stated that Boldt could issue the orders that he did: "[t]he federal court unquestionably has the power to enter the various orders that state official and private parties have chosen to ignore, and even to displace local enforcement of those orders if necessary to remedy the violations of federal law found by the court."

Court supervision
When the state would not enforce his order to reduce the catch of non-Indian commercial fishermen, Boldt took direct action by placing the matter under federal supervision. The United States Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service were ordered to enforce the ruling and soon had boats in the water confronting violators. Some of the protesters rammed Coast Guard boats, and at least one member of the Coast Guard was shot. Those whom the officers caught breaking the court's orders were taken before federal magistrates and fined for contempt, and the illegal fishing as a protest stopped. The United States District Court continued to exercise continuing jurisdiction over the matter, determining traditional fishing locations and compiling major orders of the court.

Phase II
The case continued to have issues brought up before the district court. In what became known as "Phase II", District Judge William H. Orrick, Jr. heard the issues presented by the United States on behalf of the tribes. Following the hearing, Orrick enjoined the State of Washington from damaging the fish's habitat and included hatchery-raised fish in the allocation to the Indian tribes. The state appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing the hatchery fish to remain in the allocation but leaving the habitat issue open.

Culvert case subproceeding
In 2001, 21 northwestern Washington tribes, joined by the United States filed a Request for Determination in U.S. District Court, asking the court to find that the state has a treaty-based duty to preserve fish runs and habitat sufficiently for the tribes to earn a "moderate living" and sought to compel the state to repair or replace culverts that impede salmon migration. On August 22, 2007, the district court issued a summary judgment order, holding that while culverts impeding anadromous fish migration are not the only factor diminishing their upstream habitat, in building and maintaining culverts that impede salmon migration, Washington State had diminished the size of salmon runs within the case area and thereby violated its obligation under the Stevens Treaties. On March 29, 2013, the court issued an injunction, ordering the state to significantly increase the effort for removing state-owned culverts that block habitat for salmon and steelhead and to replace the state-owned culverts that have the greatest adverse impact on the habitat of anadromous fish by 2030.

The State of Washington appealed the district court's decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 27, 2016, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision and upheld the injunction. Washington State has estimated it will need to fix an average of 30 to 40 culverts a year to comply with the injunction.

Public response
Scholars consider the Boldt decision to be a landmark case in American Indian law, in the area of co-operative management of resources, for Indian treaty rights, internationally for aboriginal treaty rights, and tribal civil rights.

The decision caused an immediate negative reaction from some citizens of Washington. Bumper stickers reading "Can Judge Boldt, Not Salmon" appeared, and Boldt was hanged in effigy at the federal courthouse. Non-Indian commercial fishermen ignored the ruling, and the state was reluctant or at times refused to enforce the law. By 1978, Representative John E. Cunningham tried to get a bill passed to abrogate the treaties, to break up Indian tribal holdings, and stop giving the tribes "special consideration", but the effort failed. In 1984, Washington voters passed an initiative ending "special rights" for Indians, but the state refused to enforce it as being pre-empted by federal law.

United States v. Washington was a landmark case in terms of Native American civil rights and evoked strong emotions. According to former U.S. Representative Lloyd Meeds of Everett, "the fishing issue was to Washington state what busing was to the East" for African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement.

Tribal developments
The tribes involved benefited greatly from the decision. Prior to Boldt's ruling, Indian tribes collected less than 5% of the harvest, but by 1984, they were collecting 49%. Tribal members became successful commercial fishermen, even expanding to marine fishing as far away as Alaska. The tribes became co-managers of the fisheries along with the state, hiring fish biologists and staff to carry out those duties. The Makah tribe, based on the terms of the Neah Bay Treaty and the Boldt decision, took their first California gray whale in over 70 years in 1999. Following a lawsuit by various animal rights activists, the tribe was allocated the right to take up to five whales a year for the 2001 and 2002 seasons.

title: United States v. Washington


text:
Cop Killer

A cop killer is a person who kills a police officer.

Cop killer or Cop Killer may also refer to:

 * "Cop Killer" (song), a 1992 song by American heavy metal band Body Count
 * Cop Killer (novel), a novel by Sjöwall and Wahlöö
 * Copkiller, a 1983 Italian film starring Harvey Keitel
 * Cop Killer, a 1988 television film starring Joseph Bottoms
 * Cop Killer (CSI: Miami), an episode of CSI: Miami
 * "The Cop-Killer" (short story), a 1951 Nero Wolfe novella by Rex Stout
 * The Police Murderer (Polismördaren), a 1994 Swedish film
 * Cop killer bullets, a name sometimes given to Teflon-coated bullets

title: Cop Killer


text:
Blind Uncle Gaspard

Alcide "Blind Uncle" Gaspard was a partially blind vocalist and guitarist from Louisiana who alternated between string-band music (in a band with his brothers) and traditional Cajun balladry on his recordings for Vocalion. Born in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana in 1878 of Acadian descent, he became partially blinded when he was seven. It is unknown how Gaspard became blinded in one eye.

Very little is known about Gaspard and his life as a musician; even among big-time Cajun musicians and fans. A brilliant, dexterous guitarist and songwriter, he is often regarded in Cajun and Americana music circles as a very mysterious and unacclaimed figure. His influences remain unknown, although his family is believed to have brought him into music. Gaspard formed his first band with his brothers Victor and Amade. When he began recording in the late 1920s it was mainly as a backing guitarist for fiddler Delma Lachney (1896) also from Avoyelles Parish of French-Canadian descent. It was then that he also recorded some solo selections of his own during these sessions. None of Gaspard's original recordings are believed to have sold over 100 copies within his lifetime.

Gaspard suffered from deep depression and isolation throughout his life, and it is believed he remained a bachelor until his untimely death. Gaspard reportedly died untimely and alone in 1937. He was believed to be in good-health during the time of his premature passing. His sudden cause of death remains unknown. Gaspard is buried at Mater Dolorosa Catholic Cemetery, in Plaucheville, Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.

Many of Gaspard's rare recordings were re-released on Cajun compilations into the millennium. He has since recently retained a small cult-following. One of Gaspard's select songs "Sur Le Borde De L'eau" was recently featured on the 2014 soundtrack of the HBO television series True Detective, bringing Gaspard's musical endeavors into the mainstream public for the first time. Music journalist Amanda Petrusich discusses the song in her book about collecting 78 rpm records, Do Not Sell At Any Price. The song was among those featured in a 2015 interview with Petrusich on the NPR program, Fresh Air. Interest in Gaspard and his unsung music career have grown in significant popularity since the recent rediscovery of his music.

 * La Danseuse Listen (MP3)
 * Marksville Blues Listen (MP3)

Compilations

 * Blind Uncle Gaspard, Delma Lachney & John Bertrand: Early American Cajun Music Classic Recordings From the 1920s (2042 Yazoo, 1999)
 * Let Me Play This For You : Rare Cajun Recordings (TSQ 2912 Tompkins Square, 2013)
 * Blind Uncle Gaspard, Delma Lachney: On the Waters Edge (MRP 069LP Mississippi Records, July 2014)

title: Blind Uncle Gaspard


text:
Category talk:Philosophy books

Must the book be famous, or are newer and more obscure books allowed? icut4u

Absolutely no use filing books under T for THe whatsoever 195.10.45.217 05:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This list is pretty absurd. Some are important original works, but there is also a lot of random stuff. Is this meant to be a list of any/all "philosophy" books, or a list of Philosophy books of some important or influence? Is there a criteria??

title: Category talk:Philosophy books