text:
Wikipedia talk:Welcome unregistered editing

A side issue
Please make an un-logged and unsigned edit below, if you pledge to edit anonymously one week out of every two months. (ideally this should only be visible to outsiders as a gap in your contributions list)

very good.
 * I so pledge.
 * I agree. I edit anonymously all the time, so this is the easist pledge to keep...

Where do we go to disagree with this proposal? Exploding Boy 18:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * You are there. What would you like rephrased or changed in the codification? -- unsigned

Well, if we're talking about the proposal on the project page (not this one here, which I also disagree with), I think we need to discourage, not encourage anyonymous editing. For one thing the vast majority of vandalism seems to be perpetrated by anons, who are also muchg harder to track than logged in users. Exploding Boy 20:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Welcoming anonymous editing does not mean that we should not encourage them to log in. But the bottom line is that a good edit is a good edit is a good edit. -- unsigned

 * The problem is that most anonymous edits are also uncommented. Most substantive edits to existing articles require discussion, and when people edit anonymously there is no systematic way to get hold of them, and unless they have an account, they can't watchlist the page. For smaller edits, it is often hard to tell a subtle correction from subtle vandalism, and when it comes from a source with no track record it often wastes my time sorting this out.

 * Anonymous editing is useful in certain circumstances, but I would not want to encourage it in general.

 * Some of the cases in which it is useful:
 * A knowledgable contributor wishes to weigh in on a subject with which he/she would rather not be associated (e.g. sexuality)
 * Someone who is casually reading Wikipedia notices a typographical error or spots some vandalism; he/she is not normally an active participant in the community; it's good that he/she needn't go through any hoops before editing.

 * -- Jmabel | Talk 22:42, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Jmabel.

 * If someone notices a change to an article, and is wondering if it is subtle vandalism, it would make a big difference to see that the change was made by a person of demonstrated credibility. Obviously, that is not a foolproof indicator, but it makes a difference.
 * People are not completely altruistic. (See Eric Raymond's book The Cathedral and the Bazaar).  I expect that a major force for quality is that people want to be seen by their peers (other editors) as people who can be trusted to do a good job.  I expect that the openness of wikipedia (everyone being able to look at the history and see who wrote what) is a major cause of the quality.  I claim to be an expert on certain things; I do not intend to write wikipedia articles that would not support that claim.
 * Also, I don't at all see the purpose of the suggestion (at the top of this talk page) that everyone be anonymous part of the time (unless it was meant as parody...).Morris 02:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * The bits of this proposal I can understand I disagree with. Sorry. --fvw *  18:37, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Hi. I've been editing sporadically on Wikipedia since 2001, when I first read about the project. I have never created a user and I don't intend to. I don't believe my edits have ever been considered vandalism; I've contributed a number of new articles (some of which are now major articles, given that in the early days there wasn't much on this site) and made countless additions and modifications. To my knowledge my edits have never been reverted. I would consider myself to be a Wikipedia enthusiast, but not as hardcore as some of you.

But for various reasons -- perhaps exactly because "[anon users] are also muchg (sic) harder to track than logged in users" -- I will probably never create an account. Perhaps I'm being overly arrogant, but I think that most Wikipedians would consider the loss of a contributor like me to be unfortunate. But lose me Wikipedia would, were it to take away my right to edit anonymously.

Now, I recognize that the tremendous amount of spam/vandalism produced by anonymous editors is a headache for those that need to do the revert work. And it is often pointed out that removing the editing privileges extended to anons would curb this nicely. But I consider this to be an abridgement of some of the fundamental principles on which Wikipedia was founded. Freedom of expression, namely. At the moment, Wikipedia is massive, and heavily indexed by search engines. We get a ton of readers without accounts -- that's the many eyes phenomenon. Most of these are not trolls. They will correct (and often do) spelling mistakes, trivial (and sometimes not so trivial) inaccuracies in content, etc.

Frankly, I think we Wikipedians have a moral obligation to protect the rights of anonymous users, and given the increasing number of posts by newer wikipedians over at the Village Pump suggesting that we take those rights away, I think it's refreshing that some enlightened folks remain opposed to that. So in that respect, keep up the good work.

I liken all the headache produced by guaranteeing anon rights to the headaches produced by a government that protects the civil rights of its citizens. As someone said recently, it would be a lot easier to be a dictatorship, and he doesn't lie. Allowing your citizens rights like freedom of expression, habeus corpus, the fifth amendment, etc, is down-right inconvenient if your job is law-enforcement. Because let's face it, lots of people that use strong encryption, plead the fifth, or whatever, are manipulating your goodwill to get away with criminal behaviour.

Of course, I hope we all agree that the inconvenience is worth it. If even one innocent person is spared a guilty verdict, even in the face of a hundred guilty ones being let free, justice has been served.

If you note the origin of my IP, you may understand that I have some first hand experience with organizations that are less than keen on these ideals. Let's keep Wikipedia free. 218.82.97.130 13:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * A well-written and persuasive post, which is all very well except for the fact that it totally ignores one thing: all posts on Wikipedia are anoynymous in the sense that users -- even those who choose a user name -- must provide no personal information at all. In effect, we are all anonymous here.  I'm not convinced that there is some extra value in electing not to have a user name. As far as I'm concerned, and as some other users have argued above, so-called anonymous users (ie: people who elect not to have a user name) create more problems than benefits for Wikipedia, and I have proposed before that they should not be allowed more than a handful of edits before being required to select a user name.  Exploding Boy 17:06, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * I would note that an 'anonymous' user, like 218.82.97.130 above, leaves a trail of the IP address against every article they touch. By creating a userid then the IP address - and hence the ease of actually finding out the person at the end of that edit - is actually far more difficult, possibly impossible. There are very occasional times when an 'anon' edit is acceptable, but in general I believe Wikipedia (en, de and some others) would be better served by not permitting them to edit. Yes, someone may be just quickly 'passing through' and see a quick edit, but the saving of the time to enter a few keystrokes to log in and refresh the page is hardly a substantial reason to insist on keeping IP-only editing. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 20:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have been contributing anonymously since 2001. Yet, I use a login name.  A logged in user is accountable for his/her action yet remaining anonymously.  Anyone can create two identities one for fame and one for anonymity.  The current policy to let un-logged in users edit any article only invites a lot of unnecessary vendalism.  Do you know who I am?  You don't need to.  I have a wikipedian identity, but you don't really know who I am.  Isn't that kind of anonymity sufficient for anyone who are not vandalizing?  Kowloonese 00:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that if you're using the same computer all the time you can simply choose to remain logged in. It still seems clear that the supposed incovenience of editing anonymously is far outweighed by the general benefit to Wikipedia of having all users log in. Exploding Boy 16:41, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

And one more thing: I HATE it when the 4th grade boys don't log in, vandalize anonymously, and end up blocking the rest of my school from editing. (I get ultra-annoyed when there's a little spelling error or something, I click edit this page, and I end up with another one of thouse things. Then it takes another week for me to be able to edit those things, and I get annoyed by that.)  I don't like spelling errors, and I don't like to log in [we share the computers], but it gets quite irritating at times. The teachers can't round all of them up because there are about 30 of them, who trade off "fun shifts". Don't ask where I got this information. Oh, and I still support, because how else would I edit from school anyway? (P.S. I'm logged in at home, though.) ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Advantages of anonymous editing
I also would like to comment, even though this discussion is a little dated (2004). I started working in earnest on WP in early 2003, and even though I have a user account (and use it e.g. for uploading images or moving pages, which cannot be done anonymously), I usually prefer to do all my edits anonymously. Why? Well,

 * there are of course advantages for writing about touchy subjects, but that is not really the main reason.

 * I find that as soon as other users know "who you are", in the sense of what e.g. your expertise is, two things tend to happen: Some will think everything you write is perfect (e.g. because they know that your education/profession covers those subjects, so you should, at least theoretically, be an expert in that subject—although even experts sometimes make mistakes). Other people will dislike your edits, not because they are bad or factually incorrect, but because they come from you. Yes, there are a few cranks on WP, some of which hate to be corrected by an actual scientist in the field. So building up an online identity at WP sometimes hinders more than it helps.

 * I have discovered that editing anonymously, even submitting a larger article, makes it easier to "let go" of the content, which is of course what is expected by submitters. When on the other hand your name is attached to an edit (as opposed to just an IP), many people become very territorial and defend their edits, even if there are demonstrable problems with them. Editing anonymously makes me feel more relaxed about my content, because even though everything I write conforms to high standards (and is usually not changed significantly later on by other users, presumably because it is pretty good), the lack of a name makes me feel more free and less bound by the (positive and negative) expectations of others.

 * I strongly think that every edit should stand on its own feet—as others have said further up, a good edit is a good edit, no matter who made it. If WP was centered more on editing quality, not the establishment of trust, which may either be given too freely or not at all, I think that would be a very good thing for overall quality. And this is my final reason for advocating anymous edits: to show those people on WP who think anymous edits bring primarily spam and copyvios and who lobby for disabling anonymous editing altogether that many anonymous edits are in fact knowledgeable, helpful, and have staying power and are not per se inferior to work by logged-in users.

Anyway, just my perspective on this subject. -- 84.144.108.122 16:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem is that while there are some good IP editors, the reality is that virtually all vandalism/spam/copyvios/junk etc. does come from IPs. Martin 16:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe, but I have also seen a lot of copyright violations coming from (usually freshly) registered users, contributions that are even lauded by other registered users, "ooh, how smart, how well-written", and that — even to an untrained eye — simply look like the obvious cut-and-paste job they are (no links, writing style too journalistic or too essayistic). I always love to look for the real sources with Google, usually finding that they are copyrighted and that the submitters have no clearance, and then to report those submissions. :-) I think it is pretty sad they would likely not get reported by anyone else, because after all they come from a registered user, so it must be allright.

 * Furthermore, I have seen many bad edits with clear agendas and POV ("Global Warming is a conspiracy!" and such) coming from known registered users, not to mention edit wars, which may also arise because people start to identify with what they have written so much that every discussion feels like a personal attack to them.

 * And as for spam and junk, that is quickly spotted and deleted. I worry much more about registered users who gain apparent trust (or are trusted just because they are registered), but in reality infuse articles with their personal, self-serving standpoints and subtle violations of NPOV without being corrected.

 * Also bear in mind that a lot of first-time users of WP, perhaps finding an article in Google, edit anonymously. Removing anonymous editing capability would mean that a lot of individuals, in particular those from academia, would not work on WP. Not everyone has the time to let his life revolve around WP, some people just make a few, usually good little edits (correct a fact, fix a typo) and then leave. It would be stupid not to use that potential. -- 84.144.113.241 15:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There should be some sort of image you could stick on your user page which says "I support anonymous editing" Astrokey44 00:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm all for anonymous editing, and that's why I log in. What's anonymous about editing under your IP address?  Unless you've prepared an elaborate ruse to fake your IP address, anyone can Google your screen name and get a pretty darn good idea where you are, maybe even exactly.  Once they know where you are, it might be easy to find out who you are.  On the other hand, if you invent a screen name such as "Mr.Mysterious123", no one will know where you are, unless you let on somehow through your editing, or provoke a "Checkuser," or some such avoidable or unlikely thing.  Please explain why people seem to think editing without logging in is more anonymous than logging in before editing. Do they think, "Hey, I'll do one from home and one from work and one from the coffee shop down the street, and then I will be invisible!  But then you've got three different loci to triangulate with, not only where you live, but also where you work and the coffee shops and book stores you hang out in.  I personally think that anonymity is crucial for editors to be able to point out uncomfortable truths without suffering socially in their personal lives for having said something that's politically incorrect but factually true.  I think if people understood the lack of anonymity that comes with editing under your IP address, and if they, like me, valued anonymity, they would want to log on. I think people maybe choose not to log on because they don't know what those numbers are that appear as your screen name or how they can endanger your anonymity.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As is now seemingly orthodox in such discussions, this entirely confuses "pseudonymous" with "anonymous", and "anonymous" with "without any identifying information". Anonymous, not "atoposous"!  (Pardon my making a pig of Greek.)  Whatever else IP addresses are, they're not "names" (or "screen names").  84.203.42.145 (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarify
Can someone with more experience than I in editing WP pages explaining guidelines and policies please add the usual header explaining that this is an informal guideline rather than official policy? (Provided, that is, that it has the status of a guideline.) TIA ---CH 23:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymity Tag
For those who are interested. Feel free to tweak or modify. 198.20.40.50 17:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cute, but remember that we can't use the Wikipedia logo freely like that. It's under copyright and subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines.  Powers 18:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Then I suggest you do something about User anti-anon. 68.39.174.238 04:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. Thanks!  Powers T 20:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I also made this one (text is translated - don't know if it's correct):

By the way, this essay is very good! 82.169.159.161 08:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1-month, then register
IMO, anons should have to sign-in after 1-month on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's impossible to implement in any way without cookies which can easily be removed, and which are removed automatically by many people. --Raijinili (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well then, automatic registration is better. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that the person should be registered automatically? How does this keep track of users? Remember, the only thing Wikipedia knows about an anon is the IP they used at that time. To keep track of the registration, Wikipedia would have to put a cookie on the user's computer, and the user can remove the cookie (there's a button in most browsers to clear cookies).
 * If you're talking about forcing registration, that's been discussed many times, and again and again consensus was against it. If you want to bring it up again, you have to at least argue for it. --Raijinili (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've no energy to argue for it (at the momment), but it (mandatory registration) is inevitable IMO. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not inevitable; on the contrary it's highly unlikely. Mandatory registration goes against everything Wikipedia is. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy?
Is there a formal policy about Anon Editing?

Are Anon Editors formally prohibited from participating in "back-of-house" issues, such as RfC's, ANI's, or any other internal political discussions?

Please advise. Thanks! 207.237.230.164 (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no such formal restrictions. Just a certain, highly variable, amount of informal disparagement!  84.203.42.145 (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


text:
Warforged

The warforged are one of the playable fictional races of creatures in the Eberron campaign setting of the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game.

Publication history
The warforged first appeared in third edition for the Eberron setting as a player character race in the Eberron Campaign Setting (2004), which also introduced the warforged titan. The warforged appeared again as a player character race in Monster Manual III (2004), which introduced the warforged charger and the warforged scout. The warforged appeared once more as a player character race for the Eberron setting in Races of Eberron (2005). The psiforged appeared in Magic of Eberron (2005). The warforged scorpion and the quorcraft wargorged template appeared in Secrets of Xen'drik (2006). The warforged raptor appeared in Forge of War (2007).

Description
The warforged are a race of living, sentient constructs, superficially similar to golems. Warforged are composed of a blend of materials: predominantly stone, wood, and some type of metal. In Eberron, they were created by House Cannith in magical 'creation forges' to fight in the Last War, based on technology recovered from Xen'drik. When the Last War ended, they were given their freedom at the Treaty of Thronehold.

While they have no sex, warforged may adopt a gender role as part of their individual personality, particularly among recently-constructed models who have spent more of their life mingling with other races. They do not age as the other races do, and with the first true warforged being created only 33 years ago it is not yet known what effects time will have on them; it is stipulated that, like all living creatures, their bodies must experience degradation over time. Like other races, warforged may take levels in any character class, but their starting age is uniquely lower for "complex" classes than for "simple" ones, as warforged with such skillsets were only developed recently.

Racial qualities and adjustments of the warforged were published in the Eberron Campaign Setting and later reprinted in Monster Manual III. Warforged are produced with their own armor and have various immunities, including to poison and disease. Healing spells have reduced effect on warforged, but a series of repair spells work fully on them. Besides the roughly human-sized and -shaped standard model, other published forms of warforged include:

 * merchurion (MM5) - massive, extremely powerful constructs of living quicksilver; in Eberron they are an ancient variety of warforged, though their origins in other settings vary.
 * quorcraft warforged (SoX) - various ancient models of warforged which are mindless but slightly stronger and sturdier than their modern counterparts.
 * warforged charger (MM3) – warforged that are larger than standard designed for brute strength, but have little intelligence.
 * warforged raptor (FoW) – warforged resembling giant birds or insects, designed for aerial bombardment; similar in construction to warforged titans.
 * warforged scout (MM3) – smaller versions of the standard warforged model, similar in size to halflings.
 * warforged scorpion (SoX) - warforged resembling giant scorpions created by the drow of Xen'drik since ancient times; similar in construction to warforged titans.
 * warforged titan (ECS) – massive constructs created in the early years of Cannith's warforged program; while they have limited problem-solving abilities which set them apart from mindless golems, they are not truly alive like later models.

Besides these base models, individual warforged may have unique features - these include upgrading their standard armor plating to mithral or adamantine, building cognizance crystals (capacitors for psionic power) directly into their bodies, or adding extra attack forms such as spikes or fangs.

Warforged are also capable of modifying their bodies to some extent after construction, represented by prestige classes such as the warforged juggernaut (an aloof warrior who becomes more like a golem), the reforged (a socialite who becomes more like a living creature) and the landforged walker (a druid who coaxes the growth of their wooden components).

Warforged in Xen'drik
The origins of the warforged on Eberron are not clear. According to a "docent" (ancient and sentient memory-containing magic item) found in Secrets of Xen'drik, the very first warforged were created as "host bodies" for a group of Quori (which were very different from Quori of 998 YK). The giants of Xen'drik created their own versions for their wars against the Quori, because the warforged are immune to many Quori tactics. However, according to Tales of the Last War, the giants invented the warforged, after which the Quori stole the secrets of their creation from the dreams of giants and created their own.

Either way, the secrets of warforged creation seem to have originated on the continent of Xen'drik. The ability of ancient Xen'drik docents to meld with modern-day warforged supports this theory. The existence of Xulo, a huge and powerful warforged found in Xen'drik, also supports this theory.

Warforged in Khorvaire
Prior to the Last War, the last king of Galifar commissioned the Dragonmarked House Cannith to construct human-sized "mechanical soldiers" similar in appearance to modern warforged. While these soldiers would prove largely ineffective due to their lack of intelligence and high cost, House Cannith continued researching the concept hoping for a more viable product.

Near the halfway point of the Last War, Merrix d'Cannith was commissioned to build a great army of golems to serve as untiring warriors. Not satisfied with the lifeless, unintelligent hulks his forges produced, nor with the prohibitively expensive process of creating golems one-by-one, Merrix began experimenting with magic to instill some spark of life in them that would enable them, like living things, to direct their own actions and to be grown by a self-sustaining process. In 965 YK, after many unsuccessful attempts, Merrix's son Aarren d'Cannith finally invented the process used in modern creation forges.

The warforged that Aarren's creation forges created were fully sentient, with the ability to have emotions, relationships, even to experience death; each new generation increased in sophistication and intelligence, ranging from the barely-sentient titans to the youngest versions of warforged who were fully capable of achieving advanced education and ability in magic. However, Aarren and Merrix had a disagreement over their use. Aarren felt that House Cannith had created life, and refused to see his creations used as tools. Merrix ignored him, and Aarren, feeling powerless, left. Powerful divination magics used to this day have only been able to confirm that he is still alive, not where he is.

In 994 YK (four years before the present day), an unexplained disaster destroyed the entire nation of Cyre, leaving behind the nightmarish mist-shrouded realm of the Mournland. Among the many impacts of this event (including the declaration of a global ceasefire), this resulted in House Cannith losing contact with multiple creation forges and their organisation's at-the-time main headquarters.

In 996 YK, the Last War was officially brought to a close by the Treaty of Thronehold, which included two important rulings regarding the warforged:

 * 1)  All warforged were declared 'people', and not possessions.
 * 2)  The House Cannith creation forges were to be shut down, never to produce any more of the living constructs.

Despite the rulings, many warforged are still regarded as outsiders, and many are still employed as indentured servants.

There are also rumours that Merrix d'Cannith, (the grandson of the original Merrix) still produces illegal warforged in a lost creation forge. Even more disturbing are the rumors that the Lord of Blades, a rogue warforged, has stumbled onto an undestroyed creation forge in the Mournland and has begun creating an army.

Recently a new group of warforged calling themselves the "Psiforged" have begun appearing across Eberron. Able to use very powerful psionic abilities, their origins are as much as mystery as their motives. Some are said to originate from Mournland, while others appear from deep beneath the depth of Sharn. House Cannith denies any connection to the new design and has stated that they never pursued a psionically enhanced warforged model.

Religion and spirituality
Though warforged have free will, whether they have a soul is not known with certainty; they can be resurrected by spells designed to restore human souls to life, but, unlike humans, never remember anything of the afterlife realm of Dolurrh after such an event. Likewise, warforged are incapable of becoming undead.

While some warforged follow existing religions, this and other differences between themselves and the flesh races have led them to rapidly develop a number of unique faiths and philosophies.

The most prominent figure in warforged spirituality is a near-messianic figure called the Lord of Blades, who took advantage of the Day of Mourning to establish an independent warforged outpost within the Mournland. Operating from a philosophy that the existence of organic life will always pose a threat that his people will be returned to servitude, he wages a guerrilla war with the eventual goal the elimination of human dominance in Khorvaire; his agents thus serve as reliable antagonists for many Eberron campaigns. One of the biggest mysteries in the setting is the nature of the Lord of Blades' identity and to what extent he actually exists or has been mythologized.

Another figure of veneration to the warforged is Bulwark, the liberator of their people. Once a favored servant of King Boranel of Breland, Bulwark is widely held as the driving force behind the inclusion of warforged personhood in the Treaty of Thronehold. Bulwark disappeared into the east after achieving his freedom; some warforged believe that he will return to unite their race, others have set out on their own journeys to find him, and a small group even claim that he and the Lord of Blades are the same person.

The Godforged are groups of wandering monks who believe that the souls of modern warforged are fragments of a being called "The Becoming God", and seek to construct a giant warforged body for it to inhabit. Many Godforged believe that the Lord of Blades has some special connection to the Becoming God, but should not be directly worshipped. The Godforged have also attracted a small number of non-warforged cultists, who follow the religion's philosophy of "making the body into a shrine" by replacing parts of their flesh with golem or warforged components.

Creative origins
The warforged are very similar, in appearance, concept and history, to the War Golems of the comic Battle Chasers. The War Golems were also built to fight in a war and were also social outcasts after the conflict. Similarly, warforged bear many coincidental nuances in common with Nimblewrights, first mentioned in the Monster Manual II (MM2). Nimblewrights however, seem to not only possess self-awareness but also a larger majority of their initial construct designs, including many of immunities.

Warforged in Fourth Edition
As of the release of the 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual in June 2008, Warforged became an official part of the core Points of Light Campaign Setting, and by extension an encouraged part of all campaign settings (such as Greyhawk, the previous core campaign setting, and The Forgotten Realms).

Reception
Mark Silcox and Jonathan Cox highlighted the roleplaying potential of warforged player characters in the book Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom. They wrote, "this new playable race turns many of the accepted tropes of traditional high fantasy storytelling on their heads, and presents the player with several possibilities for investigating interesting philosophical experiments. [...] Now these large bipedal meta-humans made of metal, leather, and fibrous joints have their own thoughts and (somewhat naive) emotions, but have no defined purpose within a world without an obvious war to fight".

Geek & Sundry wrote "Winner of Wizards of the Coast’s Fantasy Setting Search contest in 2002, Eberron marries magic with steampunk’s technology, offering a world of elemental-powered airships, industrial nobility, and arcane tinkerers. [...] I dig the playable Warforged race, which puts you in the mind of a soldier drone seeking purpose (although their explicit maleness serves a pedantic point). If you want to sling spells in a tailored coat, check out Eberron".

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

title: Warforged


text:
Ghost Dance (novel)

Ghost Dance is John Norman's 1970 historical fiction novel wherein a Sioux man and his tradition comes into conflict with a white woman and her civilization as the Wounded Knee Massacre approaches. As with his Gor series, his main body of work, Norman displays both philosophical reaction and an affinity with incorporating historical events into the plotlines of fictional characters.

Outline
"There was little noticeable, little remarkable about Edward Chance, saving perhaps that he had once shot and killed a man....His craft, medicine, was more than a business with him, more than a professional skill. It was a way of healing his own heart too." In Ghost Dance, it is through Chance's keen eyes and weary heart that readers travel along on a journey of discovery and sorrow. On the run across the plains, Chance stumbles upon Running Horse, a Sioux warrior enacting the sacred and violent ritual of the Sun Dance. Quickly, Chance is pulled into the world of the Sioux people. As their civilization teeters on the brink of destruction, the Sioux perform the mournful and frightening Ghost Dance. Clashes with the white man are rising; the Wounded Knee Massacre approaches, still in the unknown distance; and violence and anger threaten the traditions of a proud and once-great people. Nearby, in her quaint sod house, Miss Lucia Turner awaits the full impact of those clashes. Dust on the horizon signals great change coming to her once-simple life. Lucia will soon become a different kind of woman. With Ghost Dance, author John Norman brings the same vigor and passion of storytelling and imagination that enriches his classic Gor novels to a vivid story of historical upheaval and personal exploration. First published January 1, 1970.

title: Ghost Dance (novel)


text:
David Selby

David Lynn Selby (born February 5, 1941) is an American film, television, and stage actor. He is best known for playing Quentin Collins on the daytime soap Dark Shadows (1968–71) and Richard Channing on the prime-time soap Falcon Crest (1982–90). Selby also had prominent roles in the television series Flamingo Road (1981–82) and the feature film Raise the Titanic (1980).

Early life
Selby was born February 5, 1941, in Morgantown, West Virginia, the son of Clyde Ira Selby, a carpenter, and his wife Sarah E. (née McIntyre). He attended West Virginia University.

Midway through his time at WVU, Selby joined the cast of Honey in the Rock, a civil war drama at Grandview State Park.

Early TV and film roles (1960s and 1970s)
In 1968, Selby joined the cast of the TV series Dark Shadows as werewolf Quentin Collins. After the series' cancellation in 1971, Selby played Quentin Collins in Night of Dark Shadows, the second feature film based on the show, released later the same year. He reprised the role from the series for a series of Dark Shadows audio dramas from Big Finish Productions, beginning in 2006.

In 1972, Selby co-starred with Barbra Streisand in the movie Up the Sandbox. He continued to appear in a number of film and television roles during the 1970s, including U-Turn (1973), The Super Cops (1974) and Rich Kids (1979), and episodes of The Waltons (1974), Police Woman (1975), and Kojak (1976). He was part of the cast in the Emmy Award-winning miniseries Washington: Behind Closed Doors (1977).

1980s
Selby was nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor for his role in the 1980 film Raise the Titanic, which was met with a negative reception from critics and audiences along with poor box-office takings.

In 1981, Selby played the villainous Michael Tyrone in the final season of the prime-time serial Flamingo Road. After its cancellation in 1982, he joined the cast of Falcon Crest as Richard Channing, the illegitimate son of Jacqueline Perrault (Lana Turner) with Angela Channing's husband Douglas Channing. Originally considered an antagonist, Richard gradually became more of a protagonist, and by the final season, he was the central character of the show (in part due to the health-related absence of Wyman). In all, Selby appeared in 209 episodes of the series.

Later career
Selby continued in numerous film and TV roles during the 1990s and 2000s, including Dying Young (1991), White Squall (1996) and Surviving Christmas (2004), and episodes of series such as Cold Case (2007) and Mad Men (2009).

To mark the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birthday in 2009, Selby appeared onstage with Barack Obama and portrayed Lincoln in a scene from the play The Heavens Are Hung in Black at the reopening of Ford's Theatre. Selby had also played Abraham Lincoln in a 1998 episode of the series Touched by an Angel, titled "Beautiful Dreamer".

Selby made an appearance in the 2012 film adaptation of ''Dark Shadows, one of four cast members from the original series to feature in the movie. The same year, he co-starred in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, a two-part direct-to-video animated film adaptation of the 1986 graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns, portraying Commissioner James Gordon.

In 2017, Selby had a recurring role in the drama Legion.

Writing
Selby is also a writer. His work includes the plays Lincoln and James and Final Assault as well as the poetry collections My Mother's Autumn and Happenstance. Novels he has written include Lincoln's Better Angel and The Blue Door. A Better Place combines memoir and social commentary to discuss Selby's upbringing. In 2010, he published My Shadowed Past, chronicling what it was like to work on Dark Shadows.

title: David Selby


text:
Talk:Sopwith

Untitled
What about Sopwith the computer game

title: Talk:Sopwith


text: Template:Astronomer-stub

title: Template:Astronomer-stub


text:
User talk:Kyrin

Look at the vandalism page and you'll find that I am there, you are there, and User:DrZoidberg is there. Please put a full explanation of your side there, I've already done mine.--[[User:Honeycake|Honeycake (please reply on my talkpage!!)]] 18:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sigs
no problem on borrowing the sig -- that's what it's there for! Catherine\talk 00:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On banning 216.11.23.2
Hi. Yes, I was aware it's a school account, but they have been warned in the past about vandalising articles, not just today's little bit of work! When they edit George W. Bush to describe him as "a dumbass", I'm inclined to just sigh, revert, and if I'm feeling uncharitable ban them for a day or two. It's when they're more subtle in their vandalism, such as inserting incorrect dates in the Battle of Jutland article that I hit the roof -- it's one of the principal criticisms of Wikipedia that you can't be sure of the accuracy of an article, and that's why I come down much harder on deliberate falsification of articles which others may unknowingly accept, than on simple defacement of pages. However I do accept your point, so following your intercession I'll cut their ban to 10 days, just to keep them out until after Christmas, since I expect they'll be away from school most of the length of the ban, anyway. -- Arwel 00:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Calgary Wikipedian Meet Invite
I'm inviting all the Wikipedians who are listed as Calgarians to get together for a casual, in-person, chat about Wikipedia and whatever else strikes our fancy.

I've got a Meetup.com group set up that we can use to organize local meets. (the fees are covered for a while by my Meetup+ membership carrying over into the new fee regime.) Please sign up for that group, or post a message to my talk letting me know if/when you might be available for a Wikipedian meet. --GrantNeufeld 02:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Alberta. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Alberta for instructions.--Rmky87 23:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kyrin


text: User talk:82.92.119.11

title: User talk:82.92.119.11


text:
Sawing a woman in half

Sawing a woman in half is a generic name for a number of stage magic tricks in which a person (traditionally a female assistant) is apparently cut or divided into two or more pieces.

History
There remains a debate about the origin of sawing illusions, with some sources saying a magician named Torrini may have performed the first version in front of Pope Pius VII in 1809. However, it is more likely that the story is a fiction which has its roots in the writings of the famous French magician Jean-Eugène Robert-Houdin. In his Memoirs, written in 1858, Robert-Houdin described a sawing illusion performed by a magician named Torrini.

Modern magic inventor and historian Jim Steinmeyer has concluded that there was probably no real Torrini and the story was merely a way for Robert-Houdin to play with ideas. It was suggested during a court case in 1922 that the trick can be traced back to ancient Egypt; however, this claim has not been substantiated. Wherever the idea originated, until the 1920s it remained just an idea for an effect, rather than a practical application of a method.

A public show ‘Phauna - Grand Conjuring Performance’ at the Warminster Athenaeum in Wiltshire, 11 and 12 January 1887, included the illusion by Mr F I Flower of sawing his magician’s assistant, Miss Sylvester in half. This could claim to be the earliest record of this act.

Until recently it was generally accepted that the first public performance of a sawing illusion was achieved by British magician P. T. Selbit on 17 January 1921 at the Finsbury Park Empire theatre in London. In fact Selbit had previously performed the illusion in December 1920 before a select audience of promoters and theatrical agents at the St. George's Hall, London, to try to persuade one of them to book his new act for public shows. His trick, which he billed as "Sawing Through A Woman", was significantly different from what a modern audience would expect. Selbit's assistant was locked inside a closed wooden crate and could not be seen. The impression that she could not evade the saw was created by the confined space in the box and by ropes tied to her hands, feet, and neck, which were held throughout the illusion by spectators from the audience.

The question of who was the first woman to be sawn in half has received much less publicity than the question of which magician first presented the illusion. According to Jim Steinmeyer the woman who participated in the December 1920 demonstration was Jan Glenrose, who was Selbit's main assistant at that time and who was also the partner of magician Fred Culpitt. In the public performance the role of victim was taken by principal assistant Betty Barker.

Later in 1921, Horace Goldin, a magician working in the United States, presented the first version which might look familiar to modern audiences. Goldin's assistant lay in a box from which her feet, head and hands protruded. Goldin sawed through the middle of the box, inserting metal sheets to cover the cut ends, and then pushed the two halves a little way apart. This process was then reversed, and the assistant released unharmed. Goldin later developed a sawing illusion that dispensed with boxes and used a large buzzsaw. The success of Selbit and then Goldin led to more and more magicians trying to imitate them with copies or improved versions of sawing illusions. By November 1921 the Thayer magic company in America was advertising a version for sale. A complete prop from Thayer would cost $175 or they would sell plans for $5.

Effects and variations
There are many sawing tricks with significant differences in their basic effect. In some, the illusion is merely of a blade passing through an assistant's body, while in others it appears that the assistant is severed into two pieces that are moved apart. Some so-called "sawing" illusions do not actually involve a saw but instead use plain blades or blunt dividing panels.

One major group of tricks involves an assistant in a box, which conceals her body from view while any cutting takes place. This group includes the "Selbit", "Wakeling" and "Thin Model" tricks as well as several versions associated with Horace Goldin. Most "box" sawings give the illusion of the two halves of the assistant being moved apart, although there are versions where the effect is simply that a blade must have passed through the assistant's body. In some versions the box completely covers the assistant while in others the assistant's head, hands and feet remain in view during the trick.

The Selbit sawing
Several volunteers are recruited from the audience. One or more of these people are invited to tie ropes around the assistant's wrists, ankles and neck. The assistant then steps into a wooden crate or box, which is similar in proportion to but slightly larger than a coffin. The ropes are threaded through holes in the box and the ends are given to volunteers, who are instructed to pull them tight and keep hold of them (the neck rope has an added knot to prevent the assistant being strangled). The assistant is thus secured in a standing spreadeagle position in the box. The box is then closed and lifted into a horizontal position on a set of trestles. The magician then slides glass plates through the crate (and apparently through his assistant).

The magician then saws right through the centre of the box, dividing it into two. The sections are pulled slightly apart and the assistant's torso is visible. The impression is that the saw blade must have passed through the assistant's midriff. The assistant is then released from the box and is revealed to be unharmed. This was the illusion performed at the Finsbury Park Empire theatre in London on 17 January 1921.

Goldin's box sawings
Goldin presented several sawing illusions that involved a box. To audiences they all appeared largely similar but they involved differing methods, which were steadily improved as time went on and as earlier methods were exposed. His first performance was at the Society of American Magicians annual banquet at the McAlpin Hotel, New York, on 3 June 1921. On that occasion the trick was not well received. The box he used was large and not very deceptive and instead of an attractive woman he employed a bellboy as an assistant. The impression given was that he was clumsily and hurriedly trying to cash in on Selbit's success in Britain. However, fellow magician Howard Thurston, who was in the audience, realised the potential of the trick and persuaded Goldin to let him help in its development.

Thurston employed an established magician and prop builder named Harry Jansen to perfect the illusion. Jansen's improved version of the apparatus featured a smaller box from which the victim's head and feet would protrude during the sawing. Goldin, Thurston and various other magicians employed by Goldin toured the United States performing this trick with great success at theatres belonging to the Keith-Orpheum group. Goldin had great promotional acumen and was fond of resorting to legal action to block anyone else, including Selbit, from competing with him in the USA. As a result, Goldin was sometimes wrongly credited as the originator of the sawing illusion.

The basic form of Goldin's box sawings was as follows. The magician presents a box which is similar in size and proportion to that used in the Selbit sawing but which is already in a horizontal position. An assistant climbs into the box and lies down. In the process her head and hands are seen to emerge from holes in one end of the box and her feet from the other. The box is closed and then sawn through across the middle. Dividers are placed into the box either side of the cut and it is then pulled apart so the sections can be seen clearly separated. The assistant's head and hands are seen sticking out of one section and her feet out of the other. The box is then pushed together again and opened and the assistant emerges unharmed.

Wakeling
The magician presents a rectangular table just big enough to accommodate a person lying upon it. An assistant is introduced and several assistants are recruited from the audience. The magician presents a set of restraints consisting of a sturdy collar and a pair of ankle straps, each attached to a length of chain or rope. The assistant sits on the table with her legs stretched out and volunteers are invited to fasten the restraints around her neck and ankles.

The ropes or chains are threaded through holes in the table and the ends given to volunteers, who are instructed to pull them tight and hold them that way throughout the illusion. The assistant is thus pulled down onto her back and secured in that position. Two halves of a large box are presented and fixed in place over the assistant, covering her completely. Side panels are opened to show the assistant is still in place lying flat on her back. The assistant is then divided into two. Sometimes the division is accomplished merely by pushing two metal dividing panels into slots near where the two halves meet.

Sometimes the cutting of the assistant is emphasised by sawing between the two halves of the box before sliding the dividers into place. Catches are released to allow the table to be separated into two halves along with the box. The halves are parted and the assistant thus appears to have been cut into two completely disconnected pieces. The box and table are then pushed together, the restraints are released and the box is opened to allow the assistant to emerge unharmed.

This version of the trick is generally associated with magician and inventor Alan Wakeling. Whilst Wakeling performed this illusion and perfected aspects of it, the general configuration and method have been attributed to an earlier magician, Virgil Harris Mulkey (1900–1989), aka. "The Great Virgil", who first performed it in 1942 and later passed on the idea to Wakeling.

The thin model
The thin model sawing is one of the most common variants performed by contemporary magicians. The basic arrangement and sequence of events is similar to that described for the Goldin box sawings (see above). However, the box appears very shallow in comparison to Goldin's, which was large by modern standards. The ends of the box are initially open when the assistant climbs in. Once the assistant is lying down she is secured in place by having stocks placed over her neck and ankles. The stocks form the ends of the box. The shallow box adds to the impression that the assistant could not possibly find room to evade the saw blade even if she could release herself from the stocks and try to curl up in one half of the box.

Transparent boxes
Magician Les Arnold is reported to have been the first to have devised a clear box sawing (known as the "Crystal Sawing") as far back as 1976. The Pendragons performed a variation called "Clearly Impossible", in which the box used is both particularly slim and also transparent. The concept of "Clearly Impossible" has been credited to Jonathan Pendragon and the major distinguishing feature of The Pendragons' illusion from the Les Arnold concept is that the transparent boxes are seemingly never covered.

Double sawing
The "double sawing illusion" is a way of adding an extra effect to box-type sawings. It is generally associated with the "thin-model" sawing apparatus. The magician saws two people in half using two sets of apparatus. The people are usually chosen or dressed so as to be clearly distinguishable. For example, they might be in different colored costumes, of different skin colors, or of different genders. After the box halves are separated they are jumbled up and then re-assembled so that the bottom half of one box is matched to the top of the other and vice versa. When the victims emerge, each appears to have been given the other's lower half.

The creation of this version has been credited to magician Alan Wakeling, who devised it for fellow magician Channing Pollock to perform.

Jigsaw
This version of the illusion is usually performed using a volunteer from the audience as the assistant being sawn in half, and can be performed without any prior rehearsal with the audience volunteer. The audience volunteer lies down on a table. A frame is placed over her middle. The magician then presents an electric jigsaw and proceeds to align the blade into a slot in the frame. The magician switches on the saw and apparently uses it to slice through the audience volunteer's waist, which remains obscured by the frame. The saw emerges from the opposite side of the frame. Once the sawing is finished the frame is removed and the audience volunteer is revealed to be in one piece.

Bow saw
This variant begins in a similar way to the jig sawing and is also usually performed using an audience volunteer as the assistant, again without any prior rehearsal. With the assistant lying on a table, the magician fixes a frame over her midriff. The magician then presents a bow saw and proceeds to saw through the volunteer assistant, with the blade guided within the frame. Once the blade has apparently passed all the way through the volunteer assistant the frame is released and removed. It is then revealed that the volunteer assistant is encircled by the handle and blade of the bow saw.

Buzzsaw
A large apparatus is presented, consisting of a sturdy frame supporting a large buzzsaw or circular saw and a table sufficiently large to carry a person lying flat. It is shown that the table travels beneath the saw, leaving little or no gap, so that anything placed upon it in the path of the saw would be sliced through. The table is moved either by an electric mechanism or by some form of manual crank. The buzzsaw is generally driven by an electric motor. To demonstrate the saw is completely genuine, a piece of wood is placed on the table and sliced in two in full view. An assistant is introduced and placed in a horizontal position on the table.

Sometimes the magician might give the impression of hypnotizing the assistant into a rigid trance before having her lifted onto the table. She is secured in place with two metal "straps" that close over her waist and which align close to the plane of the saw. She might also be further secured with straps or manacles at her wrists and ankles. A strip of wood is pushed beneath her waist in line with the saw. The saw is then started and the table set in motion. The saw visibly passes through the assistant and generally sounds like it is sawing through something.

Once the table reaches the end of its travel and the saw is switched off the assistant is released and shown to be in one piece and uninjured. The strip of wood that had been placed beneath her is shown to have been sawn into two strips, thus reinforcing that the saw really did cut in the manner it appeared to. Harry Blackstone, Sr. was performing this effect in the United States in the 1930s.

Death Saw
The Death Saw is presented as an escape gone wrong. Its best known performer is David Copperfield. The performer is secured to a table beneath a large buzzsaw or blade, which is set to descend upon them under the control of a timing mechanism. After being secured with various manacles the performer is enclosed in a box. The saw is then set going.

After a while the sides of the box fall away to reveal the performer struggling to escape the manacles. Finally the saw drops before the performer has time to escape. The blade slices right through the performer's body. The two halves of the table are rolled apart so that the performer is clearly separated into two sections. The performer then appears to command the whole process to reverse: The body halves go back together, the saw rises, the box closes. Finally the performer emerges unharmed from the box.

Modern Art
Although not generally classified as a "sawing" illusion, Modern Art is sometimes billed as an "upright dividing the lady in two". The prop is a vertical cabinet which stands alongside a table-like structure that is half its height. The assistant enters the cabinet through a door in the side away from the table structure. The assistant's face can be seen peering from an opening at the top of the cabinet and a panel at the bottom of the front of the cabinet is opened to show the assistant's legs. A sword or blade is then placed into a slot at the point where the top of the half-height table meets the cabinet. The top of the cabinet then slides across onto the table, giving the impression that the top half of the assistant has been moved sideways and in the process been severed from the legs by the blade. Panels in the front of the cabinet are opened to show the top and bottom halves of the assistant apparently separate. The top of the cabinet is then slid back into its original position and the assistant emerges unharmed. The effect and method are credited to designer Jim Steinmeyer.

Criss Angel's pulling a woman apart
Criss Angel performed a trick in which he appeared to pull a woman in half with his hands during an outdoor performance and half of her crawled away. The trick involved a woman with sacral agenesis and a contortionist. Magician and historian Ricky Jay has written that a version of this trick was previously performed by another magician. The magician that inspired Criss Angel's trick was Rajah Raboid, who performed this trick with Johnny Eck and his twin brother, Robert, in 1937.

Methods and exposure
As suggested by the various effects, detailed above, there are numerous methods for accomplishing sawing illusions. Over the years a number of these have been exposed and several have been published and are easily obtainable.

Publishing of magic methods has proved a controversial subject at times. It has involved battles between those determined to expose methods and magicians, who have sometimes resorted to legal action to try to preserve secrecy. The sawing illusion has had a prominent role in the history of such battles and has thus contributed to case law.

In September 1921, motivated by concerns about preventing competition from other magicians who might copy him, Horace Goldin forwent secrecy and applied for a patent for Sawing a woman in half. He was awarded U.S. patent number 1,458,575 on 12 June 1923. The following is an outline summary the patent:

"One variant presents the front of the box to the audience (A). Expecting the box is the size of an ordinary chest, they may assume that the 'victim' is arranged (B), crossing the path of the saw. In reality, the box may be deeper (which the audience cannot see from their perspective), and the 'victim' curled up to clear the blade (C).

Another variant has a false table on which the box rests. This allows the carved out table to be used as a place for the woman to crawl up in and avoid the saw. Her feet are replaced with fakes that are moved with electric motors. These motors have the ability to move the feet, but only slightly, as no technology exists to make realistic-looking feet of flesh or the ability to move the toes of the feet; this means that all fake feet must be wearing shoes during the performance. This method is generally not in use today, as the false table must be extremely thick to conceal the assistant."

Penn & Teller use the second variant of this trick on a regular basis in Las Vegas. They have also performed this trick on television at least twice: on Home Improvement and during the 2007 NBA All-Star Weekend. They always reveal how the trick is done.

Famous performances and depictions
A number of performances or depictions of sawing illusions have achieved particular fame or notoriety.
 * P. T. Selbit's original performances in London in January 1921 were special because the effect was new and shocking to audiences of the time. Such was the impact of Selbit's creation that, for decades afterwards, other magicians would try to emulate and improve on what he had done, thus affecting the course of stage magic history.
 * In 1956, Indian illusionist P. C. Sorcar used a buzzsaw to cut his wife in two during a televised performance. Just when he had divided her the host quickly signed off and the show ended. This caused horrified viewers to believe she had accidentally been killed. In reality, it was a live television broadcast and time had run out.
 * In the 1957 Friz Freleng cartoon Show Biz Bugs, Bugs Bunny asks for a volunteer for this trick, and Daffy Duck happily obliges, throughout attempting to expose the fraud of this trick. After the trick is over, Daffy tries to show the audience he isn't cut in half, only for his upper and lower halves to jump whenever he is angry. (His response: "Hmmph. It's a good thing I got Blue Cross.")
 * Live performances by Peruvian magician Richiardi Jr are often cited as the most horrific presentations of a sawing illusion. Richiardi used a buzzsaw prop similar to that employed by Sorcar but he greatly added to the shock value by incorporating fake blood and entrails, which were sprayed over the stage (and sometimes beyond it) as the saw went to work.
 * The 1962 Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" depicted sawing a woman in half. The NBC Television Network and sponsor Revlon determined the episode was too gory and chose not to air it.
 * In the late 1990s, stage performances by David Copperfield often featured presentations of various versions of sawing a woman in half, including "Clearly Impossible", a buzzsaw that had originally belonged to Orson Welles, and Copperfield's own "Blade" length-ways sawing. Very often, these presentations featured Copperfield's fiancée, supermodel Claudia Schiffer, as the woman being sawn in half.

Critical responses and twists
Jim Steinmeyer has argued that Selbit's introduction of the sawing illusion was a turning point in the history of magic after which gentler styles represented by the likes of John Nevil Maskelyne were in irreversible decline to be replaced by more sensational presentations that owed something to the shock effect of Grand Guignol theatre. In particular, Steinmeyer identifies the sawing illusion as the beginning of a fashion for magic featuring female assistants in the role of victim. He says the cliche of "pretty ladies teased and tortured by magicians" was not a cliche prior to Selbit's illusion.

Male assistants were common in magic history and in the Victorian era; the cumbersome clothes imposed on women by the fashions of the time made it impractical for them to squeeze into confined spaces required by some tricks. Changing fashions in the early 20th century made Selbit's choice of a female victim a practical proposition. It was also true that an illusion designed for a lithe woman might be more compact and deceptive than one tailored to fit a man. However, more controversially, a combination of the emancipation of women and a population desensitized by war and exposed to new entertainment phenomena meant Selbit's choice struck a chord in the public imagination. In Steinmeyer's words: "beyond the practical concerns, the image of the woman in peril became a specific fashion in entertainment".

Modern magicians, including female performers, have responded by placing a male performer in the role originally filled by a woman. Magician Dorothy Dietrich, who established herself as a leading magician as a teenager, has been called the "first woman to saw a man in half."

The centenary of the trick was celebrated in January 2021.

title: Sawing a woman in half


text:
Beal University

Beal University is a private university in Bangor, Maine. It specializes in professional programs such as healthcare and business.

History
The institution was first established as the Bangor Business School by Mary E. Beal and several partners on October 23, 1891. In the first year of operation, the Bangor Business School was attended by less than 25 students, and housed on the second floor of the YMCA. Early offerings of the college consisted of courses in banking, accounting, finance, business arithmetic, business writing, commercial law, penmanship, shorthand, and typing.

Less than 6 months later, in January 1892, attendance had quickly grown to over 100 students and more space was required. It was at this point that the shorthand and typing departments moved to a secondary location on the Exchange Street Block.

12 years after the movement of the shorthand and typing departments, Mary E. Beal took ownership of the Shorthand Department of the Bangor Business School. It became Miss Beal's School of Shorthand and Typing, consisting of about 30 students. Some time later, on July 14, 1922, the school was sold to Francis G. Lee, who changed the name to the Beal College of Business.

The next 20 years held much growth for Beal College. In 1928 it was quoted by Harris B. Coe as being, "not only the largest of its kind in Bangor, but also one of the largest in the State,". After multiple administrations the name of the school was changed again, to Beal Business College. By its 50th anniversary, Beal Business College offered multiple two-year degree programs, including subjects such as business, administration, secretarial studies, and bookkeeping.

Authorized by the legislature of the State of Maine, Beal College began offering an associate degree in science on April 28, 1968. Two years later, in 1970, Beal College was accredited as a junior college of business by the Accreditation Commission for Business Schools in Washington, D.C.

The institution acquired its current name in 2021.

Academics
Beal University utilizes a scheduling system referred to as a "Term System". Under this system the academic year is divided into six eight-week terms.

Each Term starts every 8 weeks and the university runs classes year-round, allowing students to graduate in about one-third less time compared to a traditional school that operates on a 16-week semester schedule. Under the Term System, full-time students take two classes per 8-week Term and are considered FTE (Full Time Enrollment).

The university offers multiple diplomas designed to be completed in 9–14 months, as well as associate, bachelor's, and master's degrees. Beal University offers a selection of programs including Healthcare, Nursing, Cannabis Business Administration and Sciences, Health Information Management, Health Sciences, Business Programs, Addiction Counseling, and Welding.

In addition to their traditional courses, Beal University also expanded into hybrid and completely online programs. Every program has a hybrid option, where students can complete the first 4–6 months of classes completely online. Several associate and bachelor's degree programs are online such as Cannabis Business & Sciences, Business Administration, RN to BSN, Biomedical Science, Healthcare Sciences, and Health Information Management. Two master's degree programs are offered online as well, Master of Science in Nursing (MSN), and Master of Business Administration (MBA).

Accreditation
Beal is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges. The medical assisting program is further accredited by the American Association of Medical Assistants and the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs and graduates can receive official certification status. The Health Information Technology program is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Health Informatics and Information Management Education and are eligible for Registered Health Information Technician (RHIT) certification. The Associates in Nursing program (ADN) is an approved educational program in Professional Nursing by the Maine Board of Nursing.

title: Beal University


text:
User talk:Guillermo18

Roy Cohn
Hi - thanks for pointing out the inconsistent dates in the Roy Cohn article. However, it's not a good idea to insert comments to editors in the article. That's what the discussion pages like Talk:Roy Cohn are for. ←Hob 18:07, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

title: User talk:Guillermo18


text:
Talk:Adrenaline junkie

Should we include references in the article to politics, debate in general, political debate, and in general rantings and other forms of intentional direct confrontation as outlets of adrenaline addiction ?

I have no references to substantiate, but it is my impression that they are. --listenin

-An adrenaline junkie is someone who is almost addicted to adrenaline sounds negative but being an adrenaline junkie has its pros and cons. -A pro is that the limits of the sport expands because the athlete tries newer and more exciting tricks -A con is that the athlete proposes danger towards his or herself because they’re trying very new things.

The second half needs to be cleaned up alot.

did some stuff
Hi there, folks. I did a bunch of work on this; the language ("some guy on one of those Believe-it-or-not shows"?!) and formatting looked like it could use some cleaning up. I also added some supplemental information about addiction and neurochemistry.

This is my first Wikipedia edit besides minor spelling and punctuation revisions here and there; please be gentle with me but brutal with revisions. I want a second pair of eyes to proofread. I'm especially looking for people to help me with stylistic issues like peacock and weasel terms.

(by the way, I didn't think about creating a username before I wrote the article, so my edition is only identified by my IP addy, but I really did write it! ^_^)

Um, how come I can get the damn 'contents' box to activate? Its driving me nuts! Makes me want to go join an army ;) 83.71.104.139 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Me again, I deleted the section about people joining the army, it's an insightful point but i think could be better made, I hope to rephrase and reinstate fairly soon. Other than that, an espically since the addition of the 'true addiction?' section, maybe the Cleanup tag could be removed? 83.71.104.139 22:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor query
Is horseback riding really 'extreme'? From what i've seen, it's mostly an elegant sport, not usually associated with high adreneline levels. The clarifiying comment '(more advanced levels that include jumping the horse over obstacles)' seems to support this. Additionally riding on top of a horse is mentioned twice; what about bull riding? Fillup 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree - especially since bungee jumping has not been included whilst paintballing has. i must say my experiences of paintballing generated no where near the adrenalin level bungee jumping did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.35.117 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Horseback riding is very 'extreme' at times - UK Jump racing jockies are the biggest adrenaline junkies there are imo!! They ride with broken bones and have a fall every 3 races on average. Serious stuff. I ride horses and other than accidents nothing else gets my adrenaline levels up as high - they have a mind of their own as well! I'd imagine that bull riding is also worthy of mention. 86.150.238.208 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeming contradiction
"The term came into use in 1993...The phrase adrenaline junkie was used in the 1991 movie Point Break to describe the "Ex-Presidents." How can it have been used in a 1991 movie if the term originated in 1993? [Note: The date is approximate; the term was used in the early days of an AOL chat group, 1990 at the earliest - so the movie may have been the first instance] Can someone please either make the phrase "came into use" clearer, if it's referring to a certain usage that started in 1993 or correct whichever statement is erroneous? If it's still like that in a day or two, I'll remove the part about it being first used in 1993 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenifh (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Article should be deleted
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor for words that "someone created in school one day." And that latter part includes catchwords that aren't used that often that refer to everyday things like this that have no importance. No citations, and no, linking to Jack Osbourne's TV show doesn't qualify. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Should not be deleted. The term is in common use. It might not be to the older generation but it is has become surely part of modern english. We should consider moving some parts to the Wiktionary though. It is also no just a fashionable expression. It describes a psychological and/or medical condition related to addiction. The effect has been researched in people performing exhausting form of sports activities but is not rigorously researched for people looking to a "high on dopamine" effect through other forms of stress. Roeschter (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article really should be deleted. It's contents is far better fit for wiktionary, and this is by no means a recognized psychological condition. --Paul Anderson (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
I redirected this article to a section I made entitled "Adrenaline Junkie" on the epinephrine page. Sincerally and truly yours, C6541 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Adrenaline junkie


text:
Battle of Duck Lake

The Battle of Duck Lake (26 March 1885) was an infantry skirmish 2.5 km outside Duck Lake, Saskatchewan, between North-West Mounted Police forces of the Government of Canada, and the Métis militia of Louis Riel's newly established Provisional Government of Saskatchewan. The skirmish lasted approximately 30 minutes, after which Superintendent Leif Newry Fitzroy Crozier of the NWMP, his forces having endured fierce fire with twelve killed and eleven wounded, called for a general retreat. The battle is considered the initial engagement of the North-West Rebellion. Although Louis Riel proved to be victorious at Duck Lake, the general agreement among historians is that the battle was strategically a disappointment to his cause.

Prelude
On March 19, 1885, Louis Riel self-affirmed the existence of the new Provisional Government of Saskatchewan. Following Riel's declaration, the Canadian government sought to reassert their control over the turbulent territory. Leif Crozier, the newly appointed NWMP superintendent and commander of northwestern Saskatchewan's forces, requested immediate reinforcement to Fort Carlton because he feared the growing instability created by Riel and the ever-growing possibility of a First Nations uprising. Riel dispatched emissaries to deliver an ultimatum calling for the surrender of Fort Carlton without bloodshed. Crozier's representatives rejected the demand and vowed that the Métis leaders would be brought to justice.

On March 25, in need of supplies for his men and horses, Crozier ordered Sergeant Alfred Stewart, Thomas McKay, and seventeen constables to Hillyard Mitchell's general goods store at Duck Lake. Unbeknownst to Crozier, however, commander Gabriel Dumont (Riel's right-hand man) and his Métis force had already entrenched themselves on the road to Duck Lake. On the morning of the 26th, Stewart's party encountered the band of Métis near Duck Lake. After ample harassment, Stewart decided not to risk a physical engagement, and chose to return to Fort Carlton; no shooting occurred. Crozier rallied together a larger force, which included 53 NWMP non-commissioned officers and men, 41 men of the Prince Albert Volunteers, and a 7-pounder cannon, and set out to secure the much-needed supplies and to reassert the authority of the Canadian government in the District of Saskatchewan.

Battle
The forces met about 2.5 km outside Duck Lake on a snowy plateau covered by trees, shrubs, and a few log cabins. Having spotted Crozier's force, Gabriel Dumont ordered his men to set up defensive positions around the log cabin and lie in wait. Similarly, Crozier's scouts informed the superintendent of the movements of the Métis; subsequently, Crozier ordered his men to halt and deploy their sleighs parallel to the road which was just before them. Both sides took up defensive positions.

Gabriel Dumont dispatched his brother, Isidore, and an elderly half-blind chief, Assiwiyin, with a white flag in hopes of distracting Crozier's forces. The superintendent, believing that Dumont was interested in a parley, walked forward with an English Métis interpreter, "Gentleman" Joe McKay. During the half-hearted discussion, Crozier came to believe that Isidore and Assiwiyin were stalling so that the Métis force could manoeuvre to flank his own men. As they began to leave, both Assiwiyin and Isidore attempted to draw their guns, prompting Crozier to give McKay the order to fire. A brief scuffle ensued between the two parties, which resulted in McKay shooting and killing both Isidore and Assiwyin.

Despite the firepower and training of Crozier's militia, the Métis force were more numerous and their position within the log cabins and the tree line proved to be an efficient advantage. In an attempt to relieve the pressure on the Prince Albert Volunteers, Crozier ordered the 7-pounder to target the log cabins. After numerous discharges, a shell was placed in before the powder charge was inserted, which disabled the cannon for the remainder of the battle.

Within half an hour, Crozier recognized the unavoidable and sounded a general retreat back to Fort Carlton. The Métis were eager to chase down Crozier and his retreating force, but Louis Riel intervened and declared the battle over.

Aftermath
The battle toll was high for the government forces. Twelve men were killed, and eleven men seriously injured. For the opposing side, five Métis warriors were killed in the skirmish, including Dumont's brother. Furthermore, Gabriel Dumont himself was injured in the head by a passing bullet. Losing to Riel and the Métis force came as a great shock to Crozier's superiors. Colonel Acheson Irvine, Crozier's supervisor, suggested that Crozier's officerial prowess and judgement was overruled by impulsiveness.

Fort Carlton, a trading post with few defensive installations, was now in serious risk of attack. Immediately, Colonel Irvine summoned a council to discuss the future of Fort Carlton. The resounding unanimous decision was in favour of the evacuation and destruction of the fort. By 4 am on 28 March, the last sleigh had left the smouldering fort.

In the span of three days and with the loss of only five men, Riel's forces had defeated Crozier's militia, forced the destruction and scavenged the remains of Fort Carlton, and spread fear of a Métis uprising throughout the North-West Territories. Riel's plans were not completely successful, though: he had hoped to capture Crozier and his men as hostages so that he might force the government's hand. Thus, while tactically successful, the battle of Duck Lake proved to be a strategic disappointment for Riel.

Legacy
The site of the battle was designated a national historic site of Canada in 1924.

In the spring of 2008, Tourism, Parks, Culture and Sport Minister Christine Tell said in Duck Lake, that "the 125th commemoration, in 2010, of the 1885 Northwest Resistance is an excellent opportunity to tell the story of the prairie Métis and First Nations peoples' struggle with Government forces and how it has shaped Canada today."

Duck Lake is home to the Duck Lake Historical Museum and the Duck Lake Regional Interpretive Centre, and murals which reflect the history of the rebellion in the area. The Battle of Duck Lake and a buffalo jump are located here. The "First Shots Cairn" was erected on Saskatchewan Highway 212 as a landmark commemorating the scene of the first shots in the Battle of Duck Lake. The Our Lady of Lourdes Shrine at St. Laurent north of Duck Lake is a local pilgrimage site.

title: Battle of Duck Lake


text:
Wikipedia:School and university projects/Open Source Culture/The Contingent Object

The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art

by Martha Buskirk

Cambridge, MIT Press, 2003.

Buskirk here examines the status of the work of art as an object. Issues of authorship, materiality and context are presented as ways to intend the work of art not only as an artistic entity to be contemplated but also as an object depending on something else from its own dimension. From this perspective the Art History appear to be as a huge lie. Everything we always believe in disappear under the evidence of art as an object of power, as a way to dominate, to impose obliged way of reading reality. Unfortunately the author doesn’t investigate the issue of works of art as products, which I feel deeply involved in. What about works of art existing only as products in a free market? What about art as advertising of itself, or as youth status symbol, or as souvenir?


text:
Category:Airlines of Africa

Airlines of Africa:

See also: List of airlines and List of defunct airlines

title: Category:Airlines of Africa


text:
Talk:Speaker recognition

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gsk42.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled discussion from 2004–2006
'Voice recognition' is claimed to redirect to this page but, in fact, redirects to the Speech recognition page. There are two ways to fix this. mac01021 18:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac01021 (talk • contribs)

'Voice recognition' is surely a generic term that encapsulates all other forms (e.g. speaker / speech, etc., recognition).

86.150.22.131 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this somehow distinct from Voice recognition, or should they be merged? -FZ 18:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Offhand, I think this article should be a section of Voice recognition. Joyous 18:30, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Based on the redirect that already existed, it looks like voice recognition redirects to speaker recognition and disussion on the speech recognition page suggests that perhaps voice authentication should really be the title of this article. --DeweyQ 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Another question is whether this was distinct from speaker identification. That page has a message asking whether it should be merged into this one, and a link inviting discussion here.  The term of art that I know is speaker identification or speaker ID, although my expertise is in a different (related) area, so I am not positive.  To me, speaker ID suggests a 500-way decision (which of my acquaintances is it?), while speaker recognition suggests a binary decision (is it my master or not?).  Eclecticos 13:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * To me the term speaker recognition means the recognition of a speaker. That is, the system recognizes the speaker. The term itself does not specify if the speaker is recognized from a pool of many others or if the speaker is re-recognized. Thus, it should include both verification and identification. BTW, the term authentication to me is just a synonym for verification and not for recognition just as voice is used as synonym for speaker in voice recognition. Gemuetlich 13:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gemuetlich. Speaker verification or authentication checks that the voice is from a specific person, but speaker identification means that the person was selected from a group. Speaker recognition, however, is a general term and applies to both. I think the Speaker Recognition article explains this well and should have sections for speaker verification and identification.PantherDave 02:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Voice biometrics
I merged the stub article Voice biometrics here in order to avoid content forking. --Bejnar (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Stress and fatigue voice characteristics
Where is the best place for voice monitoring for other measures such as stress, e.g. and fatigue, e.g., and ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-electronic speaker recognition
There is nothing here about the natural ability of people to identify a speaker. Is that covered elsewhere and if so should it be pointed to from this article. 86.139.225.123 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Does the article really need to explain the terms speaker recognition, speech recognition and voice diarization?
Pi314m and I can't agree on whether or not the definitions in parentheses at the beginning of the article should be there to begin with or not. For example, the Similarities section at the National flag article could have little flags next to the country names so people don't have to open new tabs to look up the flags of each and every country mentioned in the section, but it doesn't, so I was thinking "if that article isn't lazy-reader friendly, why should this one be?". I could "revert 1 good faith edit" once more but I don't think that'll be good Wikiquette so I'll discuss it here instead. -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Speeches, speakers, English majors, ag-ism, divided powers
There is a difference knowing English, the language, and having awareness of current technology and terminology.

To respond to
 * "This isn't Simple English Wikipedia"

while trusting that this was not some type of "my backyard's bigger than yours"
 * A New York Times 1962-era writer did not have to distinguish among voice recognition, speaker recognition and speech recognition.

 * That year's World's Fair demonstration of a new IBM product in that space was nowhere near what IBM introduced 35 years later - Busines Travel News: Voice Recognition To Ease Travel Bookings

To digress, neither a 1776 British military English Major nor a same era university English major could speak to the splitting of governing known as
 * separation of powers = among branches of the same government
 * division of powers = between or among different governing authorities (e.g. Federal, state)

Back to the present: All of the above can be seen as problems in Ageism, or what USA-centric Americans spell as Agism. These words and phrases had different meanings at different times.

Wiki articles are from time to time tagged as
 * too technical
 * overly technical
 * highly technical

If, by adding 3 phrases to the first paragraph, an article with 20+ following paragraphs can have greater clarity, the burden doesn't appear overly great.

I'd like to believe that even though
 * "This isn't Simple English Wikipedia"

the addition of
 * (who is speaking)
 * (what's being said) -and-
 * (recognizing when the same speaker is speaking)
 * is acceptable, given that you find adding
 * (also called speaker authentication)
 * acceptable, following the "Speaker verification" wording.

If all of this were sitting within a 1962-written article titled "Voice recognition," there still would be a need to distinguish between "who said" and "what was said."
 * The division and separation is not locked into the English language, anymore than "depression" (1929) and "recession" (2008).

Please permit others to benefit from what you (and I) don't need; the burden to us is not as great as "dozens of country flags." Pi314m (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 * A New York Times 1962-era writer did not have to distinguish among voice recognition, speaker recognition and speech recognition. "
 * That year's World's Fair demonstration of a new IBM product in that space was nowhere near what IBM introduced 35 years later"
 * To digress, neither a 1776 British military English Major nor a same era university English major could speak to the splitting of governing known as"
 * Back to the present: All of the above can be seen as problems in Ageism, or what USA-centric Americans spell as Agism. These words and phrases had different meanings at different times."
 * These arguments I listed barely do anything to address your insistence on keeping the article other than talk about vernacular. The IBM thing is unrelated to the main topic of the discussion.

 * If all of this were sitting within a 1962-written article titled "Voice recognition," there still would be a need to distinguish between "who said" and "what was said."
 * Speaker recognition is about recognizing particular voices. Speech recognition is about recognizing which sounds are voices. Voice recognition can be about both. The only word I think would be confusing would be diarization which takes just one google to find the definition if the Speaker diarisation article itself doesn't help. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the prose should look like something from an encyclopedia, not a publication or a journal (let alone a 1962-style one). -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I cannot fully follow the above discussion, but to me the current introduction does not seem quite right. The first two sentences make perfect sense and explain the topic. The third sentence introduces the different (but partly overlapping) topic of voice recognition. It is important that the page includes the distinction/similarity but is the very first paragraph the best place? And are five references necessary for the term voice recognition while the main topic gets only one reference?

The paragraph finishes with a sentence that is difficult to understand. Again a new topic/term is introduced (speaker verification/authentication) and this is for some reason contrasted with identification (rather than simply speaker recognition which is pretty much defined as identification). The same sentence then deals with yet another topic/differentiation. (I hope I can also add that the section on verification vs identification does not match the same discussion on the page on authentication.)2A00:1598:C006:0:0:0:0:8D3C (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Difference between voice and speaker recognition
I had a different voice at age four than I have now. It's doubtful a model trained on my adult voice could be used to identify my childhood voice.

Many people speak multiple languages. For a while, I tried to learn Chinese. I highly doubt a model trained to recognize my proficient English voice could be used to recognize my pathetic Chinese voice.

People who relearn to speak after a laryngectomy have different voices than before.

People have different voices after inhaling helium.

Transsexuals under hormone therapy probably end up with substantially different voices. Adolescent boys sometimes sound weirdly croaky after their voice change, especially the ones who end up with the deepest register.

Stephen Hawking and Roger Ebert had more than one distinct electronic voice during their illnesses.

And finally, there's Zaphod Beeblebrox, who had two heads, and quite possibly, two entirely different voices. On the same planet, there's probably some bird species that moults its beak every year, and never again entirely sings the same clef.

Speakers and voices are not 1:1 maps over a variety of different dimensions. I'm pretty sure that most of these systems key on voice, not speaker, and don't come with the expectation of resolving distinct voices onto a singular speaker.

Which leaves voice recognition as the practical technology, and speaker recognition as the aspirational technology (security-focused customers are of course mainly promised the later, even when only the former is entirely practical). — MaxEnt 20:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Spoofing
Add a section on the many spoofing attempts that have been done. One could imagine a famous person whose voice is available on many YouTube videos... Jidanni (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Speaker recognition