text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - Keep

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression
It's bad enough we have a 70Kb article of PoV about how Bush stole the election. We don't need spinoff articles. Snowspinner 05:43, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. You're PoV. Did you ever think of that?
 * Delete. I concur with Snowspinner. The 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article is bad enough, but this is purely insane. Wikipedia is being used by a group of anti-Bush POV-pushers to formulate and promote their crackpot theories about how Bushitler stole the election. This article, as well as the parent, is in flagrant violation of numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including No original research, Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Cite sources, and Neutral point of view. Even the title is biased; it asserts that voter supression did occur, when little to no hard evidence of organized suppression exists. Some might say, "Fix the article," but, after seeing what happened with 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its VfD, I haven't even tried, knowing that I will be reverted by the article's progenitors. --Slowking Man 06:16, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. The people contributing (and I'm one) are not "anti-Bush POVers". I've ssaid before, if there is credible, serious evidence to suggest that the various matters under official investigation are not in fact accurate, then please contribute it.  You need to be aware - there is serious, international and official concern, there appears to be a great deal of informal individual concern, and that these are not the acts of a few individuals but of serious and well informed people.  Last, Im not sure how you figure the title as POV... it says there is a controversy, which there is, and that part of that relates to vote suppression, which it does. FT2 21:08, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I never stated that everyone who's ever contributed to the article is an anti-Bush POV-pusher. However, major contributions have been made to the article by such people; the article was begun, I believe, by a poster at Democratic Underground, and others from the forum expanded it in its early stages. I'm not denying that an investigation is occuring or that concerns have been raised, but the articles go overboard, mostly with claims based on fuzzy statistics. The title is biased because, as I mentioned earlier, it asserts that voter suppression did occur. A neutral title would be something such as "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (voter suppression allegations)". --Slowking Man 02:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that's redundant. Controversy implies dispute.  Voter suppression "reports" or "testimonies", both of which are by nature open to credibility skepticism (and are factual and NPOV terms), might be more appropriate, but is incomplete: the article also contains empirical facts and data.  "vote suppression testimonies and empirical facts/data" would be more precise, but too long of a title.  And rather unneccessary: the reader need only know that the article is about a controversy regarding vote suppression to determine whether they are interested and to contextualize the content.
 * Regarding "fuzzy statistics": i've never heard this phrase. Does it refer to statistics based on probabilities rather certainties?  That is the only form of statistics that I am familiar with.  Regarding making "claims", I have been an active contributor to the articles since inception, and I am unaware of any unsubstantiated claims.  Mostly, the so-called "claims" are as such: "In Franklin County, precints that had a higher percentage voting Kerry tended to have more active voters per voting machine.", which is an empirical fact, universally verifiable from official data directly from the Ohio state government.  In conclusion, I find the phrase "claims based on fuzzy statistics" to be misleading, at best. Kevin Baas | talk 06:43, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * To give two examples of what I mean: firstly, the graph of Cuyahoga County voting results shows an upward trendline for Kerry because the x-axis of the graph is ordered in such a way as to create this. The precincts should be arranged by alphabetical order, and a bar graph would be preferable. Secondly, the graph comparing voter turnout to voting machine allocation tells me nothing other than that Bush had a slightly higher voter turnout and that Democratic areas had a slightly smaller average voting machine allocation. The article takes this and claims that the Democratic voter turnout was "suppressed." --Slowking Man 08:12, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, flip the x axis around, i don't care, what does it matter? Re bar graphs, alphabetical order:  This is a scatter plot, silly.  Re:suppressed, no, the article does not make that claim based on the single graph.  It makes that claim based on a number of premises that are not stated for brevity because the author has assummed that they would be obvious to the reader.  Basicaly, the fact that the number of votes per machine does not change with relation to the number of active voters, shows that to the same degree that they are uncorrelated, either a) they are naturally independant variables, i.e. the active voters were from a different county altogether and would not be voting on the machines in question, or b) the machines were saturated.  If b is the case (which I'm sure every sane person will accept), then those precincts where the difference between the active voters per machine and the saturation point was greater had a greater number of active voters who didn't have a corresponding vote registered on the machine; i.e. whose votes were suppressed. (active voters is the mean of the number of voters for the past 4 elections)  More significantly and more directly, the machines by law are supposed to be allocated so that that line is flat, not upward or downward slanting. Kevin Baas | talk 17:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

 * As last time, Delete, uncleanupable. Slowking Man's summary of the situation is about right. - RedWordSmith 06:30, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep what is POV about it exactly? The articles were spun off because of size from the main article. I don't see any attempt to voice your concerns on any talk pages?  titles can be fixed.  If there are POV problems with the article then we should also fix that.  How can an article about congressional investigation be POV or inappropriate for wikipedia? FT2 and others have debunked the violation of wikipedia policy concerns, most everyone against the election controversies seems uninterested in debate and especially uninterested in debate on how the articles do not violate wikipedia guidelines.  Why don't you list your concerns on the talk page or just clean up the parts you find POV?  You seem to be aware the parent election controversies article survived VfD overwhelmingly a few weeks ago, I recommend all should read that VfD discussion for pertinent details.  What is the point of listing the sub articles here on VfD without any new debate or counter article discussion when the parent already overwhelming survived Vfd, seems like a smear campaign?.  Also, why are the sub articles being listed for Vfd in the dark of night on sunday morning?  My comments here apply to the 2 other sub election controversy articles you also listed on VfD.  zen master 06:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "In the dark of night?" - first of all, Wikipedia is international, so this makes no sense. It may very well be the middle of the day where Snowspinner is. As the timestamps in our signatures indicate, it's just turning to morning in Western Europe. Secondly, it's a five-day process, minimum, why does it matter? - RedWordSmith 06:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * sorry, perhaps I overreacted, but the dark of night comment was also about the lack of any new counter article debate or talk page discussion. This VfD seems to be merely a rehash of  losing voters from the parent article Vfd, what is new?  I urge anyone with any concerns to put them on the talk page or just fix parts of the article, I think we've done a good job keeping it as NPOV as possible, considering. zen master 06:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the concerns already stated. Indrian 06:59, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anything I had to say on the matter has been said already. Reene (リニ) 07:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here we go again.  Last time around, Wikipedians collectively wasted huge amounts of time because of an inappropriate VfD listing.  Now the foolishness resumes.  My personal opinion is that the original article, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities, at 89kb, is indeed unwieldy and should ultimately be replaced by shorter articles on specific subjects.  The creation of the "vote suppression" article is part of the ongoing process of improving the organization of the articles on the 2004 election.  The attempt to delete the original article has already failed, after extensive discussion (Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy).  If the more specific articles are nevertheless deleted, then the main article will just get bigger.  There's a significant body of opinion that the 2004 election was characterized by improprieties, including those relating to vote suppression.  It's NPOV for Wikipedia to report on that issue.  It's the deletion of the material that would in fact be POV. JamesMLane 07:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There have been many election controversies in United States history. Just off the top of my head 1824, 1876, 1960, and 2000 come to mind, yet there are not half a dozen pages examining each election from every angle.  There are dozens of countries that have experienced irregular elections right up to the recent Ukraine fiasco, and yet none of these have half a dozen pages reporting on them.  A single, concise article highlighting the main controversies and their impact is appropriate.  If the main page is too large, it is because the authors of the article have gone overboard in including statistics and examples, and the article should be drastically scaled down.  This is an encyclopedia, not an election analysis center.  Indrian 07:21, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your argument is that we should identify the similar topic on which our coverage is weakest, and then reduce everything else to that level? By that logic we should remove a lot of information from the Bill Clinton article, which is about twice as long as Thomas Jefferson.  The fact is that the English-language Wikipedia tends to have more information about recent events and about events in English-speaking countries.  I'd be happy to see Wikipedia offer more information about the Ukrainian election or about the 1876 U.S. election.  If such information got to be too much for one article, then the answer would be to have a summary article (the "single, concise article highlighting the main controversies and their impact" that you recommend), but with daughter articles about more specific aspects.  For 2004, there's an attempt at such a summary article at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies.  The information that's now in 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression shouldn't be added to that summary article, because that would clutter it, but shouldn't be lost through deletion.  Instead, this and the other daughter articles should be cleaned up as necessary. JamesMLane 18:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My arguement is that because this election is recent and controversial a group of disappointed voters have lost all perspective on what is actually important and gone overboard on a minor topic. An encyclopedia is supposed to be concise and on point without too much digression.  Wikipedia being an electronic source can include far more information than a paper encyclopedia but should still maintain a proper perspective and, equally important, distance from the topic.  Much of this information is pretty good stuff that belongs in a journal article or treatise on voting irregularities in the 2004 election, but not in an encyclopedia. Indrian 19:11, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not adhere to all the standards that govern printed encyclopedias. We're online; we can use hyperlinks.  The main article on the U.S. presidential election, 2004 can mention claims of irregularities, and link to a summary article.  The summary article can give the highlights and link to several more specific articles.  A reader who follows the links will read the material, and a reader who doesn't won't.  I don't see how this arrangement could fairly be criticized as "too much digression".  The question isn't whether a "minor topic" is given too much attention -- would these editors have served Wikipedia better by devoting their time to writing up one of the Chinese emperors who don't even have articles.  The issue is whether this particular subject is notable enough to survive VfD.  Clearly, it is.  JamesMLane 19:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not about politics, it's about fact. If you want to correct POV, do so in edit form! To attribute the existence of this and the related articles to political disappointment is not based on fact. There is a wealth of activity investigating this issue, and the article reflects that. Where are the facts that this is anti-Bush? -- RyanFreisling @ 19:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I could personally care less which side the articles supported. An encyclopedia is not a place for investigation.  Having a page reporting on the results of any investigation into irregularities is fine by me, regardless of which side ends up looking worse as a result, but these findings could be summarized in a more concise manner and without listing every chart and statistic.  I did not vote against, nor would I vote against, the main article that spawned all of these subpages, but I feel a half dozen ancillary pages goes to far on this topic.  To respond to JamesMLane, I agree with you entirely on principle, the only place you and I disagree is on the use of subpages for this topic; I still think that all it would take was a little editing (ok, maybe a lot, but still managable) to get everything to fit on a single page.  The topic is notable enough for inclusion, but sloppy page construction is no excuse to split an article into this many subpages. Indrian 07:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the VfD for this material was already voted on and it already failed. Those who think that it is nothing but "crackpot theories" already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Those who think that it is nothing but irreparable POV already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Nothing has changed; they should not get a second free shot.  I find it deeply ironic that so many of the people who are demanding that the same issues be rehashed over and the vote retaken in the hopes that this will come out the way they want it...  are the ones finding it "crackpot" that anyone should be questioning the voting in the Presidential election.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to question the results of the election all you want, just be sure to keep it to one reasonably sized article. If one article is good enough for Napoleon, Adolph Hitler, and Jesus Christ, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not about the original article or the VfD it was subject to. The only reason people seem to be making it about that is because there is no reason these articles should exist. They should be deleted and the parent article needs to be majorly trimmed down. The fact that the parent article has turned into a monster is no reason to go around creating more. It IS, however, a reason to make the parent article better. Reene (リニ) 07:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's not about the original article then why haven't any of the deleters voiced their concerns on the sub article's talk pages? The claim that the article violates wikipedia policy was debunked (by default, no one responded to FT2's counter arguments) in the first VfD.  So, I repeat, what has changed?  And if the sub articles are different then why did you (Reene) refer to the original VfD for your comments?  Please list your problems with the sub articles here or on the sub articles talk pages, I think that would be beneficial for all involved. zen master 08:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page, and the other subpages, were created in response to the claim that 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy was getting too long. Instead of deleting information, new subpages were created. I think this was a good idea. As Antaeus Feldspar notes above, this information was in an article that was voted to be kept. The information is the same, it was just reorganized into subpages.   — Asbestos | Talk 08:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete If the main article is too long, it is the fault of the authors who have zealously faught off attempts to bring it into proper, minor, perspective. -- Netoholic @ 08:44, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete One article about alleged irregularities is plenty. More than that is spamming one's bias across an encyclopedia. For the record, I think the lesser man won the election,and believe there may have been irregularities, but keep it to the article that already exists and keep it written as an encyclopedia entry would be written. These extra articles are just total abuse and nonsense. DreamGuy 11:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Umm... it was split off from the main article because the main article was too large! If you are going to delete it, then I'll readd it to the main article. Then we'll see if it's a wise decision to remove the dratted article! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, From the Wikipedia deletion policy page: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!"  I should think the same logic would apply to an article which is kept and continues to experience active development despite repeated attempts to delete it.  It is by definition and title a controversy, and repeated requests to delete it are simply part of that controversy and thus show that its existence is warranted.  --Cortonin 13:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Claim that article has been voted on before is false. The title is inherently POV. Article is original research (much of it statistically dubious). Claim that several articles are required due to size, is only because it is original research; the poster is trying to fit in all his own analysis and theories instead of citing some independent analyst's summary, which would alleviate POVness and make it all fit in one page. And frankly, it's pretty obvious that this is abusing WP as a private political platform. Securiger 14:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Having read the article and the VfD discussion, I still don't know why it was listed for discussion. If there are POV problems these should be dealt with in the course of the normal editing process.  If the name itself is a POV problem, it should be moved to a more suitable name.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm British, and I don't care a jot about America's recent election. I read Wikipedia for entertainment and to better myself, and I vote delete because this article is (a) overlong, (b) impenetrable and (r) poorly-written. It baffles me. The first half, with all the graphs and charts, could easily be shortened to "Some observers (source) noted that the queues at polling stations were longer (source) than similar queues observed during the last election (source). (source) argues that these queues were a result of (factor), (factor), and (factor) - amongst other factors (source) - and that, as a consequence of these factors, (result)". I have no doubt that the rest of it could be similarly shortened, and put somewhere else, and I so rule. - Ashley Pomeroy 15:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So? I'm Australian and I find this article to be interesting! It's not harming you to have an extra page on the 'pedia. I can't understand that objection. Your lack of interest is not a valid reason to delete. I might not be interested in articles about British royals, but I wouldn't vote to delete them based on this. With the overly long article and the impenetrable and poorly written nature of the article: fix it! You might have a point about the graphs, but this is not the place to debate it. Use the talk page of the article itself please. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Look at the next few VfD's Snowspinner is a troll. Zenyu 16:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * While I strongly disagree with snowspinner's pro-deletion position I have actually found him to be reasonable, especially relatively. Though it is an abuse of VfD for the main election controversy article to be listed again having just recently overwhelmingly survived. zen master 19:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. From the first VFD: "Those who have voted here have done so and honored the VfD, despite the (unproven but widely held) suspicion by many that the vote was a sham, and a tactic used to damage a disliked article.... In addition, many have commented upon the high level of interest in this article and the harm that this VfD label does it, and that its clarification is urgent to them."  Relisting on VFD after less than three weeks is an abuse. Korath 17:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose I would have to agree with that to an extent (I did not know, nor did I care to know, that these pages were up for a vote three weeks ago), but the far greater abuse here is the spamming of wikipedia that these articles represent. A good man lost; a bad man won; there were glitches; ok, fine, lets have a page on it for posterity, no problem.  Now, the problem comes when a few overzealous partisans with an axe to grind take a minor event in the history of the world (the 2004 presidential election) then take a minor facet of that event (voting irregularities) and write a half dozen subarticles on the topic.  In general, if an article is too long, then the article is a poorly constructed mess.   The history of nations or world religions or individuals such as Jesus Christ that were so important that they changed the entire course of Western civilization are such massive, complex topics that one article may not be enough.  The 2004 election is a footnote in history.

 * Is this election more important in United States history than the 1876 election, when the fate of Reconstruction, race relations, and the preservation of the Union hung in the balance thanks to a few irregularities and the winner had to live with the name Ruthefraud for the rest of his life? Maybe, I am not the one to make that call, but if that controversy can be covered briefly, then so can this one.  What about 1860 when there were not really any irregularities, but the result led to a bloody Civil War?  That one certainly seems to have been far more important in United States history, yet it is also covered succinctly.  The 1824 eletion, when the winner of the popular vote lost because the other candidates got together to deny him the office, is not even remembered today.  This election will be similarly relegated to the backburner of history, making so many articles on the topic seem rather silly.  If a writer went to any professionally produced encyclopedia in the world, even one that was online and had no space constraints like wikipedia, with the idea to produce this many articles on this one event, he would be laughed out of the editor's room.  If the community of wikipedia users does not have the same response, then I think it reflects poorly on the project and shows the world that instead of trying to create a real encyclopedia we are indulging in petty nitpicking and complaining about every insignificant thing that bothers us when we get up in the morning. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or even an election analysis center.  The subarticles do not belong. Indrian 18:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

R. fiend 19:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should not have to vote on all these subpages to indicate our intent. Instead of as censors, those proposing deletion should have (and have not) contributed their opinions, etc., as authors. They have not, and instead are involved in this noxious behavior. The subpages are an effort to streamline and focus the original article, and compartmentalize the irregularities. The issue, despite some individual's assertions, IS sizable and complex enough to warrant the extent of content, and the subpages must not be seen as new opportunities to poach or 'pick off' areas of this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wiki is not a blog. Wyss 19:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and trim down the main article. In an interesting coincidence, this morning's Plain Dealer (the dominant newspaper in Northeast Ohio) has a detailed article debunking each of these arguments.  It is very specific about the Ohio-based facts.  The author even goes so far as to call them "conspiracy theories".  Rossami (talk) 19:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, this page has serious problems. The reason these pages are so long that they need to be broken off is because of these graphs which, at best, are unclear and prove nothing, and at worst are misleading or downright fraudulent. The first chart attempts to show how instances of long lines happened in the more populous swing states, but since they aren't done per capita, just by total numbers, guess what the result is? The most populous states had the most instances! Florida, Ohio, Goergia, California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc. are all the red and orange colored states here. Exactly what one would expect. The next graph is really unclear. Representing these statistics on a line graph is the wrong way to do it. The x-axis contains districts (I guess) within Cuyahoga County, but, being palces, there is no specific order for them to be placed in (unlike if the axis contained, say, numbers), so the person who designed the graph arranged it specifically as a upward sloping line. While the turnout line does go down as the Kerry percentage goes up, it still presents a misleading continuum that would not exist if this were done properly in a series of bar graphs, making it at least POV. Also, since I can't believe that 100% of the people in Brook Park voted for Kerry, it makes me suspect that this graph is done cumulatively, which would be completely bogus. The information here is also not cited. Graph #3 is lacking a title, which is a bit of a problem, because it really could use some explanation. I guess each circle, square, and diamond represent a single voting machine (which isn't exactly clear). I guess "active voter" means someone who had voted recently (as opposed to a "registered voter" who might not have). I guess the "Official Standard" is the approximate number of voters who are susposed to use the machine on election day (and 100 seems rather small to me, it doesn't take that long to vote). All this seems to establish is that all the machines had approximately the same number of voters at them (the pink, flatish line), but areas that had higher "active voters" were places that supported Kerry. If I were a conservative I would assert that this means any long lines at the polling places intimidated Bush's supporters (who all work for a living and had to be at their jobs), while Kerry's supporters (who are all on welfare and have never had a job in their lives) had nothing better to do but wait in line all day. Sure, the assertion is ridiculous, but the facts don't support the view the article's creators have taken any more. And the very fact that the creators have taken a particular view means that this in POV. The next graph is also problematical. Each dot I guess is a voting machine and if he machine voted for Kerry the dot is blue, and red for Bush. Of course, machines don't vote, people do, so the color must be based on how the majority of people voted, which isn't nearly as black and white (or red and blue) as this graph suggests. Likewise the conclusions one derives can be refuted as above. The final graph is also unclear. It has no title and it doesn't explain what the dots are. Are they distrcits? All it seems to say is that, for example, one district where Kerry had 30% of the vote (meaning Bush had nearly 70%) had a substantially higher registration. That would lead up to believe that Bush would win the election, and he did. It does nothing to support claims of malfeasance. So Bush won. Yeah i'm pissed off about it too, but that doesn't mean these pages are encyclopedic, and they are certainly not NPOV. This is a topic that needs a single article that doesn't try to argue a point. This one should just be deleted. -
 * If you would like to dispute the facts, perhaps you should check the facts. The poll results for

Brook Park are readily available. In fact, in five precints, 100% of voters voted for Kerry (including Brook Park), although I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to determine what's particularly odd about Brook Park's 100% of votes for Kerry. The graphs seem perfectly clear to me. The graph which compares percentage of votes for Kerry against turnout most certainly should not be a bar graph.

Keep. This article should be kept, since these issues are still being actively researched. If there are concerns about particular facts, such as the ones mentioned above those points should be addressed and incorporated, in an attempt to make the article more factual. --Boscobiscotti 03:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * All these articles need a lot of work. The foregoing useful comments by R. fiend are precisely the sort of thing that people should be raising on the talk pages to improve the articles.  These comments are not, however, a basis for deletion. JamesMLane 21:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My basic point, for this one breakout page at least, is that the graphs just shouldn't be here, and once they're gone there's no reason most of what's left can't go in one central article. I didn't vote "merge and redirect" because most of the information should not be merged, though some of it could be, and a redirect is useless as no one would search for this. -R. fiend 22:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Umm, yikes, I don't what to say. Ya, what grade did you get in statistics class?  'Cause I got an A.  And as a T.A., if you were in my class, and you just wrote that on a test, I wouldn't give you an A. Kevin Baas | talk 22:22, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * I never actaully took statistics, but I know how to read a graph, and I know that the same samples of raw data can be used to back up completely contradictory arguments. This wasn't meant to be an answer on a "test", and I'm not looking to get an "A". I was trying to briefly (not that I succeeded) point out some misleading aspects of the graphs and charts involved in this article. If I made any false assertions please explain them to me on my talk page. -R. fiend 00:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I good book on the subject is "How to Lie with Statistics". Kevin Baas | talk 00:07, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has already been resolved. Kevin Baas | talk 19:29, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is improved, for clarity, by being split up, and this was by consensus where people had a chance to state if they wanted it split or didnt. The consensus - and many people contributed to the debate - was that they did. As to the article itself, it was voted keep by about 72 keep - 6 delete a bare few weeks ago. It's not clear in what manner the article is less fit to keep, less encyclopediac, or less or general interest now that more official bodies are taking action.  If there are issues with its size or layout then perhaps consider contributing.  But deletion is inappropraite as deletion criteria are not at all applicable - exactly as they weren't a bare few weeks ago. FT2 20:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up. This (and all similar pages listed below, for that matter) need some serious work, and I hope that someday, it will be no problem to merge them all into one article. But we may as well let the process play itself out before we swing the hatchet of deletion too hard. Lord Bob 20:46, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fascinating, useful information. People will want to know these things; we must think of the reader. Everyking 20:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seperating the original long article in to subarticles is a great idea, as it makes for better organization.  Remeber that this is what hypertext is best for.  Why keep the information in flat format in one very long article when there can be some decent heirarchy where people can click on parts they're interested in and be presented with the detail they want to see? noosphere 21:00, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vast numbers of trumped-up charges do not an encyclopedia article make.  http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=90&ncid=762&;e=9&u=/ep/20041204/en_bpiep/ohiopapersgettingnowhereonvotefraudallegations A2Kafir 23:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Long articles are supposed to be split up. Delete these articles and you cannot complain at the length of the original! Dr Zen 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Absurdly strong keep. Andre ( talk )A| 03:19, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Boscobiscotti's vote is not valid. Reene (リニ) 03:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep, it's usual and good practice to break out long articles into subarticles. I agree some trimming could be done, but not at a ratio of 6:1 which is what would be needed to remove the need for sub-pages. Shane King 03:41, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Rerdavies 04:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Honestly! These continual VfDs verge on harassment. The mainpage VfD didn't succeed. Why should VfDs on sub-articles succeed?
 * Another invalid vote.  -- Reene :: talk 04:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon. My vote is valid. See note at . Given that this account was created prior to the call VfD, it's difficult to claim that this is an account created solely for the purposes of voting on a VfD.
 * Refuted on users' talk page. The vote is still invalid. User has no contributions other than voting on VfD entries. Reene✎ 07:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the validity of this vote is being disputed. However, it is rather indisputable that the validity of the vote is, empirically speaking, disputed. Kevin Baas | talk 07:37, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * And just as clearly, the vote doesn't count. It is invalid. It is as if it never existed. Go read up on policy before telling me I'm wrong. Reene✎

07:41, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Having read the policy, as far as I can see, barring an outright fraudulent vote, the only reason I can see for disregarding a vote is sockpuppetting. I note for the record, that I rerdavies assert that this is not a sockpuppet vote, and that edits by the person who owns this acount were made under the ID of 69.199.242.11. I'll leave it to the administrator who counts the votes to decide whether this disputed vote is valid or not. 69.199.242.11 13:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. I agree strongly with Dr Zen and Cortonin above. Avenue 05:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well documented and sources are cited. I'm not sure if the last section is legit (testimony from an anonymous Wikipedian who (allegedly) was an election judge), but the article as a whole should be preserved.  --L33tminion | (talk) 06:30, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. that seems highly suspect and not appropriate for the article, and unattributed, is hearsay... -- RyanFreisling @ 06:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I really wish they left their name and some credentials or contact info. In any case, I found the post particularly surprising. Kevin Baas | talk 06:58, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

 * Keep and move to an NPOV name (if possible). Johnleemk | Talk 10:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is of very doubtful merit. If the voter irregularities were so great, why didn't John Kerry and/or the Democrat Party take legal action and complain about it at great length. Kerry had $15 million and lawyers in 50 states ready to take legal action. The fact that he didn't suggests the advice from Democrats and lawyers was that George Bush was fairly and democratically elected with a majority of electoral college votes - he undoubtedly has a clear popular vote majority. The fact that the Democrats and/or the Kerry campaign haven't disputed the election result means that the source of the complaints isn't John Kerry or the Democrats but a few people on the Internet. This greatly reduces the merit of the topic. Nevertheless, there might be merit in having one article providing that it was NPOV and didn't contain original research. This article fails on either ground. In order to be NPOV, the articles should note widespread acceptance of the result by both parties and the fact that the Kerry campaign did not dispute the election. As for alleged voter supression, turnout on both sides was much greater than in recent elections therefore causing the long queues mentioned in the article. Further, as to original research, this article is chock full of it. Capitalistroadster 09:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Kerry's non-participation is not at issue. Josquin 17:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Josquin is right in that kerry's participation or non-participation is logically/causually irrelevant to whether or not there were problems with the election. But he is wrong to imply and you are wrong to assume that Kerry is not participating or filing legal action.  Kerry is participating and has in fact taken legal action.  You could have found this out if you read the article that you voted to delete. Kevin Baas | talk 17:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

 * Keep Guettarda 15:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Josquin 17:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --- While there are many sub-articles the main article would be far too long if they would instead be included there. // Liftarn 19:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:28, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. ElBenevolente 23:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep TalkHard 23:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Abuse of Vfd process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a lot of data here, so it warrants a sub-article. Also see my comments on the main VfD vote PenguiN42 16:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, irrational VfD --Pgreenfinch 17:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 		¡	Keep	!			--	Ŭalabio 03:22, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Recycling Troll 06:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Another riddiculous example of a VfD entry by censorship-happy controversy-shy people. --Rebroad 18:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: Voting and discussion on related articles listed for VfD here:
 * 1) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
 * 2) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
 * 3) Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_vote_suppression
 * 4) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
 * 5) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
 * 6) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

Comments
Despite claims by the peanut gallery, none of these sub-pages have been VfD'd before and the VfD for the main article was over weeks ago. Since then the page has grown and changed considerably and has become bloated to the point of absurdity. This is not, however, an excuse to scatter the mess that is this article all over Wikipedia. The issue at hand here is not the main article; for that, go to the appropriate VfD page. The issue at hand is whether or not these subpages need to be deleted. As they've been created as the result of unnecessary bloat and a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree, these need to be put BACK in the main article and cleaned up. Reene (リニ) 21:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Posting this comment on every page is awkward wiki form, but here's my reply.

 * Again, if you allege that 'a few zealous editors have been preventing anyone...' etc., I'd ask for proof. That kind of behavior is intolerable. Would you like to help to improve the article? Because no-one is prohibited from doing so. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have never seen you before, Reene, on any of these pages. Nor have I seen anyone who's contributions were not welcome (Netoholic was on the main page, not the articles in question, and an administrator requested a temporary injunction against him obstruction and rude behavior, not for "cleaning the article".)  I looked through the page histories for the articles and the talk pages, and conclude that either a) someone has messed with the page histories, or b) you are blatently lying in order to push a politcal agenda.  In either case, there is definitely a serious problem.  Kevin Baas | talk 22:32, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

 * Reene isn't lying; she said "I understand", which I take as an indication that she's referring to allegations made by others. My opinion is that it's hard to deal with concerns about the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article just because it's so big.  An attempt to improve any one point gets lost.  Preserving the separate articles will make it easier for other people to help clean them up. JamesMLane 23:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I extend my apologizes to Reene if my invective was misguided. I agree that splitting the article aids clean-up.  It definitely alleviates the problems we were having with talk page bloat.  More fluent discussion lead to more fluent clean-up. Also, it is reasonable to infer that what holds true for the talk page of the article, holds true for the article.  Kevin Baas | talk 23:33, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

 * If merely organizing the content to make cleanup on the main article easier was your goal, you should have created subpages on the namespace itself (Example: 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities/Exit_polls) instead of brand new articles. Reene (リニ) 02:32, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Subpages are deprecated. Splitting long pages into shorter pages grouped by a suitable organising principle is the recommended best practice. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Why? If the intent was to use these pages as a way of organizing the content, cleaning it up, and then re-merging it all into the main page again, I don't see why a subpage wouldn't be the best way to do that. Reene (リニ) 04:03, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any such intent, nor would I support an attempt to re-merge the articles. Normally an overlarge article, once split, remains split. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Speaking just for myself, as one of of the editors who recommended a split, I agree with Tony Sidaway. My view was always that there should be one summary article, along the lines of 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, for the reader who wants a general overview of the controversy, and then more detailed articles on particular aspects, such as vote suppression.  That arrangement caters to different readers' different levels of interest.  JamesMLane 04:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, nothing else is going to take that title, so there is an advantage to splitting the article in that manner. Not everyone has broadband yet, and large articles have large loadtimes.  While I feel that articles should not contain trivia, I feel that legitimate information should not be limited, just organized.  --L33tminion | (talk) 06:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * One of the issues at hand is the fact that the article should not be that big in the first place. If the article was cleaned up, condensed, de-POV'd, had everything from unreliable sources removed (that means taking out...well, most of it), and had some of the content moved to pre-existing pages (like the stuff about Diebold machines) it would be a relatively short but concise page discussing a few notable and reliable controversies surrounding the 2004 US election. Reene✎ 06:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Everything in it right now is notable and reliable. These things are all being brought to court.  They are all verifiable and corroborated, and they all deal with thousands of votes. I understand that it seems somewhat awkward and that it is difficult to accept that there are so many notable and reliable controversies.  It was very difficult to sort through, organize, consolidate, and summarize the deluge of information, and we are still working on it.  Fortunately, the flood has settled.  Unfortunately, there is much that remains and shall remain unrepresented, but the interested reader can research further via the external links.  The articles remain a representative summary.  Kevin Baas | talk 06:58, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

 * That's not how I'm reading it. It goes into way too much detail in places, for one, to be called a "summary". It's drenched in quotations and even some of the issues themselves seem...weak. Also, as someone else has brought up, there are far too many images that either add nothing to the article or are misleading. I don't have the time, patience, resolve, or ample supply of painkillers to even think about diving into it, cleaning it up, and proceeding to deal with what will undoubtedly be several users that are outraged with my changes. I'm sure that is how others feel as well. That does not, however, mean it's fine as it is. I think that's the main issue here. Reene✎ 07:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is what puzzles me about this whole series of VfDs. Clearly there are people prepared to spend time editing this article.  That you have other things to spend your time on doesn't stop me or somebody else diving in and fixing it (if it's all that bad).  The fact that its current content may in your opinion be weak is not a good reason to delete. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * But once again, this issue isn't about the main article, it's about whether or not these breakoff articles should exist. I wasn't just blowing steam with my original comment you know ;) Reene✎ 08:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying you were. But let's see if your comment is correct.  You claimed that "a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree."  Let's check that out.  Here is a list of every user who edited this particular article from its inception until Snowspinner came along and put a vfd on it:
 * Kevin baas
 * Korath
 * 66.171.21.103
 * 69.199.242.11

 * That's it. Not one single attempt has been made by those proposing the deletion to perform a cleanup.  You have been misinformed; nobody has attempted to prevent anybody performing a cleanup of this article.  The sections may have been subject to an edit war prior to being split; I will investigate that possibility also, on the appropriate VfD page.

 * It's a shame, I think, that since the vfd was placed and while discussion of this article was ongoing, one user has twice today edited the page to a redirect to an article called U.S. presidential election, 2004. I would have preferred to see the user in question show good faith by waiting for a consensus to be reached.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I'll clarify where I'm getting that from. Not just from these pages and various talk pages, but the various IRC *cough* "discussions" I was privy to. I seem to recall several users fighting over the article and many revert wars going on (one that stuck out in my mind was an attempt to remove information that was taken from sources that are uncredible, such as blogs and even an image hosting site (???)). This, in part, has given anybody else who may have wished to work on it the impression that such work would be futile (myself included). There are a few specific users I'm referring to here, but I won't give them names. You know who you are. Reene✎ 00:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Reene is most likely referring to Netoholic vs a handful of pro-article people, including myself, when we went through a revert war during the early days of the main election controversies article. It is my opinion that Reene irrationally defended Netoholic during that revert war, Netoholic was not subsequently praised for his help "cleaning up" the article but instead was rebuked and given a temporary injunction for his tactics in deleting pages, VfD comments (on other articles as well).  As far as the early content and revert war itself goes, it's perfectly acceptable for wikipedia to include references and summaries of third party research, especially elections results criticisms.  I agree some of the links and citations early on in the life of the elections controversy article were sketchy at best, but that in no way justifies deleting the article, or even parts of the article, which is what Netoholic and possibly others seemed to be trying to do. It should also be noted Netoholic, Reene and other pro-deleters have seemingly never debated about their concerns with anyone on any of the various talk pages in question.  zen master 00:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Regards credibility, I can refer you to data at official government websites and the like, i.e. first-hand sources. And I can give you that data compiled in an excel file, and you can double-check and cross-check it as much as you want.  You can call your senator and ask him to confirm it, you can go ahead and count the ballots yourself (except volusia county florida, as the originals were destroyed in violation of two federal court orders.)  The you can create your own graphs. You can graph the same things that you've seen graphed, and see if they're the same, or you can make your own graphs to show other correlations or anomalies.  We invite you.  We welcome you. Kevin Baas | talk 01:00, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

 * Actually, I didn't defend anybody, unless you call removing personal attacks inserted in arguments against other users from the VfD page "defending". I did that for both sides. I also object to being called a "pro-deleter". Not understanding my stance on an issue isn't an excuse to give it your own misleading name. That said I'm tired of arguing with you. I've explained my statements, I've explained my POV on the issue, I've stated where I drew those POVs from (at least in part), and I'm done with it. Lay bait all you want here and on my talk page, I won't respond. Reene✎ 01:09, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Keep there are documented instances of vote suppression, and the fact that the parent article is so huge is merely evidence that we need spinoff articles for subtopics. These articles are some about some of the most impactful current events in the world today. deleting anything but unfactual info from these would be a horrendous tragedy. Pedant 23:09, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSplayer

BSplayer
BSplayer 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.

A video player, not particularly outstanding. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:44, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Lots of ads and download links for this player online, but I couldn't find many independent users discussing it.  Suggests strongly that this is just another ad.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. Geogre 15:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an ad. Wyss 19:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. --Improv 20:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Popular software, but we're not Freshmeat. Ashibaka tlk 01:35, 11 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.

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


text:
Cedar Grove

Cedar Grove may refer to:

United States

 * Cedar Grove, Fresno County, California
 * Cedar Grove, Florida
 * Cedar Grove, Laurens County, Georgia
 * Cedar Grove, Walker County, Georgia
 * Cedar Grove, Indiana
 * Cedar Grove, Bullitt County, Kentucky
 * Cedar Grove, Shreveport, Louisiana
 * Cedar Grove, Mississippi
 * Cedargrove, Missouri
 * Cedar Grove, Mercer County, New Jersey
 * Cedar Grove, Essex County, New Jersey
 * Cedar Grove, New Mexico
 * Cedar Grove, Orange County, North Carolina
 * Cedar Grove, Randolph County, North Carolina
 * Cedar Grove, Tennessee (disambiguation), several places
 * Cedar Grove, Texas
 * Cedar Grove, Frederick County, Virginia
 * Cedar Grove, West Virginia
 * Cedar Grove, Wisconsin

Elsewhere

 * Cedar Grove, Antigua and Barbuda, on the island of Antigua
 * Cedar Grove, Queensland, Australia
 * Cedar Grove, Ontario, Canada

Australia

 * Cedar Grove Weir, on the Logan River, Queensland

United States

 * Cedar Grove Plantation, a historic plantation house near Faunsdale, Alabama
 * Susina Plantation, a historic plantation house also known as Cedar Grove, near Thomasville, Georgia
 * Cedar Grove (Baltimore, Maryland), a historic home
 * Cedar Grove (La Plata, Maryland), a historic home
 * Cedar Grove (Williamsport, Maryland), a historic home
 * Thomas Cole House or Cedar Grove, a National Historic Landmark that includes the home and the studio of painter Thomas Cole
 * Cedar Grove (Oak Grove, Kentucky), listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Christian County, Kentucky
 * Cedar Grove (Franklin, Missouri), a historic home
 * Cedar Grove (Natchez, Mississippi), a historic plantation house
 * Cedar Grove (Vicksburg, Mississippi), listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Warren County, Mississippi
 * Cedar Grove Place, a historic building in Church Hill, Mississippi
 * Cedar Grove (Huntersville, North Carolina), a historic plantation house
 * Cedar Grove Mansion, a historic home in Philadelphia
 * Cedar Grove (Edgefield, South Carolina), a historic plantation house
 * Cedar Grove (Brownsville, Tennessee), a historic cottage
 * Cedar Grove (Clarksville, Virginia), a historic plantation house
 * Cedar Grove (Halifax County, Virginia), a historic farm property
 * Cedar Grove (Providence Forge, Virginia), a historic plantation house
 * Cedar Grove (Cedar Grove, West Virginia), a historic home

Organizations

 * Cedar Grove Productions, a media production company in Los Angeles, California
 * Cedar Grove OnStage, a theatre organization in Los Angeles, California

Transportation

 * Cedar Grove station, in Boston, Massachusetts, United States
 * Cedar Grove Transit Station, in Eagan, Minnesota, United States

Other uses

 * Cedar Grove (album)
 * Cedar Grove Cemetery (disambiguation)
 * Cedar Grove High School (disambiguation)
 * Cedar Grove Elementary, an elementary school in Williamston, South Carolina

title: Cedar Grove


text:
Chesterfield Township

Chesterfield Township may refer to the following places in the United States:

 * Chesterfield Township, Macoupin County, Illinois
 * Chesterfield Township, Michigan
 * Chesterfield Township, New Jersey
 * Chesterfield Township, Ohio

title: Chesterfield Township


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudade

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 keep. Joyous 02:01, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Saudade
A Brazilian word that doesn't belong here. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm re-listing the page since it seems to not have been properly listed on VfD, or to have gone through VfD without obtaining a single vote. It was listed for VfD on December 4, 2004, and was listed for move to Wiktionary on October 14, 2004. --Carnildo 09:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete At best, a dicdef in the Portugese wiktionary (assuming such a thing exists) --RoySmith 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 15:16, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable word and concept and aspect of Brazilian culture that rises above the level of a dicdef. Like Schadenfreude, it has no exact English translation and therefore the word is simply borrowed into English when discussing it. I think you can find English-language references discussing "saudade" without too much trouble. -- Curps 21:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, concur with Curps. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Wyss 10:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Saudade is a word of enormous cultural significance in Portugal (much more so than in Brazil) and belongs in Wikipedia the same way concepts like Schadenfreude, Sturm und Drang, etc. do.  A recent linguistic survey ranked saudade #7 in the most difficult words to translate  and a simple Wiktionary definition will not be able to convey half its meaning and importance. --Goblin ›   talk   16:42, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons stated above. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 18:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has already outgrown Wiktionary.  GRider\talk 20:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, much like Schadenfreude, an important word for conceptualizing things otherwise unavailable in english. also especially relevant to a more full understanding of portuguese culture and worldview
 * Keep The point is not the translation of the word, but that unique cultural aspects of Portuguese history during its language formation created a word difficult to translate into languages born in other culture

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

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudade


text:
Christiansburg

Christiansburg can refer to a place in the United States:

 * Christiansburg, Indiana
 * Christiansburg, Ohio
 * Christiansburg, Virginia

title: Christiansburg


text: User talk:24.15.234.69

title: User talk:24.15.234.69


text:
Flicker fixer

A flicker fixer or scan doubler is a piece of computer hardware that de-interlaces an output video signal. The flicker fixer accomplishes this by adjusting the timing of the natively interlaced video signal to suit the needs of a progressive display Ex: CRT computer monitor. Flicker fixers in essence create a progressive frame of video from two interlaced fields of video.

Flicker fixers sample the NTSC/PAL output from the output device and store each scan line from the field currently being displayed in RAM while simultaneously outputting the line alternately with the corresponding neighboring lines from the field stored previously (weaving). Some more advanced flicker fixers integrated in add-on graphics cards use more sophisticated methods. Outputting the image at double scan rate essentially composes a progressive display with all lines from both fields at full vertical refresh rate. This promotes the horizontal frequency of the signal from 15.734 kHz to 31.47 kHz (in the NTSC case, numbers for PAL are slightly lower), which can be the used to drive a VGA monitor from an output device.

Use with the Amiga
One computer capable of producing an interlaced image is the Amiga. The Amiga's default video mode is PAL or NTSC. NTSC and PAL interlaced screens have two fields called odd and even. The fields switch every 60th of a second on NTSC, or 50th of a second on PAL, which allows for higher resolution while using a narrower signal bandwidth than full 50 or 60 FPS progressive video would require, but it can also produce an alarming jittering effect for graphics with high contrast details between fields. This NTSC/PAL compatibility gave the Amiga a distinct edge in uses such as television production and gaming, but since the original Amigas were unable to produce vertically high-resolution displays without flickering this was unsuitable for office-like usage where one might need to work with a clear high-resolution image for several hours. Flicker fixers were devised to remedy this.

The later iteration of the Amiga - the Amiga 3000 had a custom chip called Amber which could perform flicker-fixing on any signal. The ECS and AGA chipset could also output VGA display modes. Commodore offered the A2320 Display Enhancer Board for this purpose, The board fit neatly in a video graphics adapter slot on the A2000 series computer. It supported the new video modes offered by the Enhanced Chip Set (ECS) and AmigaOS 2.0, including the Productivity Mode. Also, the earlier A2024 'Hedley' greyscale monitor featured an integrated flicker fixer, supporting up to 8 shades of grey.

title: Flicker fixer


text:
A Nod Is As Good As a Wink... to a Blind Horse

A Nod's as Good as a Wink... To a Blind Horse is the third album by British rock group Faces, and their second album of 1971. Bolstered by lead singer Rod Stewart's recent solo success with "Maggie May", it was their most successful album worldwide, peaking at No. 6 in the US, and reaching No. 2 in the UK. It also contains their biggest US hit, the swaggering "Stay with Me" (No. 6 in the UK, No. 17 in the US), and the album itself would be certified gold by the RIAA in 1972.

The album features two original ballads and a cover of Chuck Berry's "Memphis Tennessee". Bassist Ronnie Lane, usually confined to backing vocals and the occasional sole lead vocal on previous Faces records, sings lead on three of his own compositions here (one co-written with keyboardist Ian McLagan). Of these, "Debris", an elliptical examination of father-son relationships, was chosen as the B-side to their hit "Stay With Me". (Lane's "You're So Rude" served as the B-side of the American release.)

Release and reception
The original issue of the album came with a large poster consisting of a picture collage, including images of pills and pharmaceutical capsules, as well as polaroid photos apparently taken on tour of band and crew members reveling with naked groupies in hotel rooms. Within weeks of release, the record company re-issued the album without the poster, turning original copies with the poster into collectors' items overnight.

On 28 August 2015, the album was reissued in a remastered and expanded form, with the bonus tracks being two songs from a previously unreleased BBC session. The new vinyl reissue even replicated the poster included with the first-pressing vinyl release.

Reception
The album was included in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.

Track listing
2015 reissue bonus tracks
 * 1) "Miss Judy's Farm" [BBC Session] (Stewart, Wood)
 * 2) "Stay With Me" [BBC Session] (Stewart, Wood)

Personnel
Track numbering refers to CD and digital releases of the album.
 * Rod Stewart – lead vocals on tracks 1, 3, 5 & 7–9, harmonica
 * Ronnie Lane – bass, acoustic guitar, percussion, lead vocals on tracks 2, 4 & 6, backing vocals on "Too Bad"
 * Ronnie Wood – lead, slide, acoustic and pedal steel guitars, harmonica, backing vocals on "Too Bad"
 * Ian McLagan – piano, organ, backing vocals on "Too Bad"
 * Kenney Jones – drums, percussion
 * Harry Fowler – steel drums on "That's All You Need"
 * Glyn Johns – co-producer, engineer


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PZFUN

PZFUN
final (9/1/1) ending 05:52 12 December 2004 (UTC)

Late one night after checking my Watchlist page for the 50th time to check to see if any pages had been updated, I told my friend London how much I'd like to be an Administrator. He proceeded to nominate me, but I felt it would be more appropriate for me to nominate myself. I really love Wikipedia, although I tend to work in particularly obscure areas (such as Constituencies of Namibia and Regions of Namibia), so I can be quite surprised when someone stumbles across my work. According to Kate's Tools, I've made 1306 edits. I'm looking forward to being able to serve the Wikipedia community!

Support
 * 1) Sure, I support, seems like a good editor to me. Nomination, self-nomination, who cares? There's no difference. Everyking 02:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) There's nothing wrong with having a friend nominating you, we just didn't know who London was. You seem to be a good user, though. Andre ( talk )A| 03:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  23:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Cribcage 21:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Edits looks ok. - RedWordSmith 06:28, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm okay with the self nom. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 10:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, looks like a good user to me.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 13:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) CryptoDerk 18:06, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Normally, I'd want more edits for a self-nomination, but PZFUN seems knowledgable and a good editor. I trust he will make an excellent admin. --Slowking Man 23:24, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Originally nominated by an editor with 20 edits, then moved to self nomination, that makes me uncomfortable. I'm willing to reconsider the vote if the nominee is willing to answer a number of questions. GeneralPatton 06:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) * What questions can I answer for you? Páll 08:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) ** Actually, let me pre-emptively assume what some of the questions may be and attempt to answer them. London and I are not the same user, nor have we ever been.  I made his user page for him in order to prompt him to continue to edit, but if you check the edit history we were both editing his user page at the same time with Matt (London) using his log in and me (PZFUN) using mine.  I changed my listing to self-nomination because after reading the comments that people did not know London but would be willing to support my candidacy as a self-nomination, I changed the listing.  You can even look at my talk page for London's apology for possibly aversely affecting my candidacy.  Apart from that, I'm not sure what else there is to explain.  I'm very much looking forward to teh opportunity to serve the Wikipedia community more.  I hope this has helped to answer some questions.  Páll 09:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

 * #PZFUN looks like a good user but I'm unsure about the person nominating him/her (I may change my vote though).--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 12:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed, according to Kate's tools, London has 21 edits. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 14:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * #Agree with the above. If you really want to be an administrator, self-nominate and I will support you. I cannot trust London. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  21:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) I've nothing against this user, but a self-nomination is supposed to exceed the usual criteria by a good measure, and they really don't have the experience. I'll support if they are nominated again later.-gadfium (talk) 06:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Moved from Oppose to Neutral, after reflection)-gadfium (talk) 00:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * My apologies. London is a friend of mine that I was speaking to one day about how I'd like to be an Admin.  I will change this to self-nomination. PZFUN 02:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I am looking forward to helping out with NPOV disputes, because I have training as a mediator.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My favourite article that I have worked on is the Johannesburg wiki. I like my page on Johannesburg because I took a fairly disorganised page and expanded it relentlessly into a page that I feel accurately explained the city.  In the future, I would like to expand all the articles for the main cities in Africa, most of which are severely lacking at the moment.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. I have had an argument over the Johannesburg page with Rob Thomas, a user from South Africa. He and I argued over the content of the page, and he drew the conclusion that because I was not from South Africa, I was not able to accurately describe his city.  Since his comments came through e-mail, I wasn't able to use dispute resolution because according to Wikipedia policy, e-mails are private discourse and not covered by Wikipedia dispute resolution.  In response to his comments, I asked him politely to use the talk page for all discussion related to the article, and to please remain cordial and civil because we were both working towards the same goal of improving the Johannesburg page.

title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PZFUN


text:
WWOR

WWOR can refer to:

 * WWOR-TV, channel 9, a television station in Secaucus, New Jersey serving Greater New York City
 * WWOR EMI Service, the national version of WWOR-TV available nationwide via cable and satellite from 1990 to 1996
 * WHTT-FM, a radio station (104.1 FM) licensed to Buffalo, New York, which previously held the call sign WWOR
 * WJZB-TV, on channel 14, a defunct television station in Worcester, Massachusetts that first signed on as WWOR-TV

title: WWOR


text:
Talk:Public financing of elections

Please rewrite the section on public financing in Australia so that it is understandable. Zulitz

title: Talk:Public financing of elections


text:
Rebecca Jenkins

Rebecca Jenkins (born 1959 ) is a Canadian actress and singer.

Acting
She had starring roles in the 1990s CBC series Black Harbour, and the films Bye Bye Blues, Marion Bridge, Wilby Wonderful, Whole New Thing, South of Wawa and Supervolcano. She also had a supporting role in the 1992 film Bob Roberts, as Dolores Perrigrew. In NBC's miniseries 10.5 she portrayed California governor Carla Williams.

Jenkins appeared in the January 17, 2006, episode of the WB series Supernatural, where she played the loving wife to a faith healer. Her next project was a television movie entitled Past Sins directed by David Winning, in which she co-starred with Lauralee Bell. Past Sins aired on Lifetime in November, 2006.

In 2012, she appeared in Sarah Polley's documentary film Stories We Tell, playing Polley's mother Diane in dramatic recreations.

Music
As a singer, Jenkins has primarily been a backing vocalist for Jane Siberry and The Parachute Club. Early in her career, she provided the voicings of the mermaids in the 1987 film I've Heard the Mermaids Singing. She has also recorded tracks for a number of Canadian benefit and compilation albums, and participated in the Count Your Blessings concert with Siberry, Holly Cole, Mary Margaret O'Hara and Victoria Williams. As well, Jenkins is featured prominently on the Bye Bye Blues soundtrack album; her character in the film is a woman who takes up jazz singing to support her family while her husband is away during World War II. She also performed the title track "Bye Bye Blues" in Calgary at the September 1, 2005, opening the night of the celebration of Alberta's centennial.

In 2007, she was scheduled to release her first solo album, a collection of jazz standards. Her husband, Joel Bakan, a jazz guitarist, accompanied her as well as Al Matheson on trumpet and Liam Macdonald on drums and percussion.

She cohosted a five-week radio series called Quiet, There's a Lady on Stage with singer-songwriter David Ramsden. The radio show was recorded with four new female singers weekly in the CBC's Glenn Gould Studio. Guests included Carole Pope, Holly Cole, Lee Whalen, Lori Yates, Molly Johnson, Kate Fenner and Mary Margaret O'Hara.

She married Joel Bakan, the writer of the book and documentary film The Corporation, in July 2004.

title: Rebecca Jenkins


text:
User:Bennmorland~enwiki

Hey. Benn here. I'm also on Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wiktionary and Wikisource. I am an Aspie.

Here's a list of my contributions. I will never cite here any negative or minor edits I've made. Only positive and substantial editions to the site content will be listed below.

Entries Begun

 * Acda, Thomas
 * Dark Night (song)
 * Gaspard, Alcide "Blind Uncle"
 * El Greco (album)
 * Guadalcanal Diary (book)
 * King, Dave

Entries Contributed To

 * 1951 in science
 * Arthur, Joseph
 * Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana
 * Boondock Saints, The (1999 movie)
 * Cajun
 * Cheapside
 * Clinical depression
 * Cowbell
 * Devil's Own, The
 * Flogging Molly
 * History of Catalonia
 * Hopkins, Anthony
 * Hoggart, Simon
 * Limburg
 * Limburg (Netherlands)
 * Live (band)
 * Longsight
 * Martin, Chris
 * Netherlands
 * O'Riordan, Dolores
 * Okara, Gabriel
 * Roosevelt, Theodore
 * Royalist
 * Rubens
 * Southern Comfort
 * Stowers, Freddie
 * Symbolism
 * Turtledove, Harry
 * Van Dik Hout
 * Wilson, Woodrow

On Dutch Wikipedia
All entries "contributed to" and not initiated.

 * Jan
 * Kees
 * Yankee (slur)

Check out these other Wikipedians

 * Aspergian Wikipedians
 * Dragonfly67
 * Dutch-Bostonian
 * Herostratus
 * Jfdwolff
 * Jmabel
 * Joy
 * Selphie

Articles of special interest

 * British toponymy
 * Etymological list of counties of the United Kingdom
 * Place names in Irish

Notes to Self

 * Manual of Style
 * Policies and guidelines

title: User:Bennmorland~enwiki


text:
Proton pack

The proton pack is a fictional energy-based capture device, used for controlling and lassoing ghosts in the Ghostbusters universe. First depicted in the film Ghostbusters, it has a hand-held wand ("Neutrona Wand" or particle thrower) connected to a backpack-sized nuclear accelerator. It controls a stream of highly focused and radially polarized protons that electrostatically controls the negatively charged energy of a ghost, allowing it to be held in the stream.

In the Ghostbusters universe
The proton pack, designed and built by Dr. Egon Spengler, is a man-portable cyclotron system (and indeed Dr. Peter Venkman refers to the proton packs in one scene as "unlicensed nuclear accelerators"), that is used to create a charged particle beam—composed of protons—that is fired by the particle thrower (also referred to as the "neutrona wand"). Described in the first movie as a "positron collider", it functions by colliding high-energy positrons to generate its proton beam. The beam allows a Ghostbuster to contain and hold "negatively charged ectoplasmic entities". This containment ability allows the wielder to position a ghost above a trap for capture. The stream is also quite destructive to physical objects, and can cause extensive property damage.

The name proton pack is not used in the original movie at all, and is not used until the subway tunnel scene in Ghostbusters II, when Egon says that they should get their proton packs. The doorman to the Mayor's mansion also uses the term proton pack, asking the Ghostbusters if he can buy one from them for his little brother. Egon replies that "A proton pack is not a toy".

In the 1984 novelization of Ghostbusters, the Proton Packs are mentioned, eg. “Stantz hauls out the formidable weaponry from the back of the Ectomobile and the four men kit themselves up, buckling on their proton packs…”

In the 2009 Ghostbusters game, Ray explains how the proton pack works early in the game; the energy emitted by the proton stream helps to dissipate psychokinetic (PK) energy which ghosts use to manifest themselves. Draining them of their PK energy weakens them, allowing them to be captured in their portable ghost traps.

According to a line spoken by Egon in Ghostbusters II, each pack's energy cell has a half-life of 5,000 years. Knobs on the main stock of the proton pack can perform various functions to customize the proton stream, including adjustments for stream intensity, length, and degrees of polarization. In the cartoon series The Real Ghostbusters, the maximum power setting for the proton packs is "500,000 MHz," which possibly refers to the rate of positron collisions occurring within the pack's accelerator system. In the cartoon the packs also have a self-destruct mechanism capable of affecting at least a half-mile radius. The Real Ghostbusters also made proton packs less efficient with power cells, allowing them to run out of energy when appropriate for dramatic tension.

For the 1997 animated spinoff Extreme Ghostbusters, the proton packs and ghost traps are redesigned to combat the threat of the malevolent Achira, an ancient disease-provoking entity accidentally released by workers constructing a new subway tunnel. Egon, with the help of Roland, Kylie and Eduardo, increased the proton packs' nuclear capability (to deal with Achira and other subsequent enemies, much stronger than what the original Ghostbusters had faced) and modified the power system; now, the packs required replaceable proton canisters to be loaded in for them to function. The trap was redesigned as well, into a gold-colored, round-shaped device with an opening hatch atop it. Kylie would typically carry it; due to this, she did not carry a normal proton pack, instead carrying a not-as-powerful proton pistol.

The IDW monthly Ghostbusters comic storyline has shown the movie pack, a boson dart capable pack and the Extreme Ghostbusters pack in use. The IDW comic also shows a proton pistol attachment to the movie pack being used by Winston while hunting down Slimer.

Crossing the streams
"There's something very important I forgot to tell you! Don't cross the streams… It would be bad… Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light."

Crossing the streams was initially discouraged, as Egon believed that "total protonic reversal" would occur: this effect would have catastrophic results (see quote above) if they are crossed over three seconds. However, in a desperate effort to stop the powerful Gozer the Gozerian, Egon noted that the door to Gozer's temple "swings both ways" and that by crossing the streams, they may be able to create enough force to close the door on Gozer and its control. As the Ghostbusters cross the streams, the combination of that much energy closes the door to Gozer's dimension and severs its ties to our world. The resulting blast destroys a good portion of the roof and blows up the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

In Ghostbusters: The Video Game, the Ghostbusters mention that "crossing the streams" during the Gozer Incident (events of the first Ghostbusters film) only worked due to the presence of a cross-dimension portal (a tactic which is referred to as the "Gozer gambit" by Ray) and should only be used as a last resort. During the game's climax, the Ghostbusters are pulled into Ivo Shandor's ghostly realm and come face-to-face with Shandor's Destructor form, forcing them to resort to "crossing the streams" to defeat Shandor. The resulting blast not only destroys Shandor but also sends the team flying back to their dimension. During gameplay, it is possible for the player to cross the streams with another Ghostbuster, but this will only cause a burst of energy to travel down the stream and deal a massive amount of damage to the player, while also knocking them off their feet for a short time, due to a new "safety" that was installed on the neutrona wand.

In the extended version of the reboot film Ghostbusters (2016), shows that its iteration of the Ghostbusters (Abby Yates, Erin Gilbert, Jillian Holtzman, and Patty Tolan) had initially tried to close Rowan North's portal with their crossed streams before resorting to use their Ecto-1's reactor to detonate an explosion that create the total protonic reversal powerful enough to seal it.

In Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Egon built proton cannons with the parts of the proton packs and a PKE meter in Summerville, Oklahoma, to keep Gozer's portal closed with safely fired crossed streams. Later, the Ghostbusters again crossing their proton streams against Gozer to counter its energy-based powers and to weaken its physical form, allowing them to capture the deity in their 198 ghost traps.

In Ghostbusters: The Video Game
The game features a modified version of the proton pack (an experimental prototype) which is given to the player (the Ghostbuster's new experimental equipment technician/guinea pig) for field testing. This new proton pack is equipped with other features (and upgrades) besides the standard proton stream.

As props in the real world
The props representing proton packs were originally thought to have been made by the prop department of Columbia Pictures. Information released during the auction of a hero prop proton pack from the first film in July 2012 revealed that the hero proton packs could have been made by Boss Film Studios, a prop studio started by ILM veteran Richard Edlund.

The hero prop packs were made of molded fiberglass shells on aluminium backplates (or "motherboards") bolted to military surplus A.L.I.C.E. frames. The basic shape was sculpted from foam; later, a rubber mold was made of it, from which fiberglass shells were made. The electronics were quite advanced for the time. The packs have a lightbar with 15 blue scrolling lights in a box on the left-hand side and 4 red lights in the circular "cyclotron" portion of the bottom of the prop that light up in rotation. The "wand" also featured numerous light features; the most elaborate versions had fluorescent bargraphs, incandescent bulbs, and strobing flashes in the tip for the visual effects crew to synchronize the 'streams' to. They were then finished with various surplus 1960s resistors, pneumatic fittings, hoses, ribbon cable, and surplus warning labels and custom-made metal fittings, including an extending barrel mechanism. The overall weight of these props is said to be around 35 lb.

The proton packs used in stunt scenes were lightweight foam rubber versions made from the same mould that lacked the electronics of the hero props.

Some packs from Ghostbusters were used in the follow-up Ghostbusters II. These packs were slightly redressed, and the angle of the gun, or "wand" mount was changed to pitch forward slightly, in order to make the prop easier for the actor to use. In addition to these redressed props, one of the originals was used to make a new mold to produce lighter-weight "mid-grade" props as a solution to complaints by the actors about the weight of the original prop. These mid-grade pieces featured many details cast in as part of the mold, instead of separate fittings. The electronics and mechanisms were also cut down greatly, reducing the total weight. The original GB1 props would appear in close-ups, the mid-grade in other scenes, and new rubber "stunt" packs were made for whenever the actor needed to take a fall.

The proton pack props from the Ghostbusters movies are some of the most wanted and collectible props ever made. Several GB2 packs have surfaced for auction. In September 2004, one rubber stunt and one fiberglass midgrade prop were auctioned by Profiles in History. The midgrade prop fetched well over $13,000.

All three variations of the GB2 pack have been displayed at various Planet Hollywood restaurants around the U.S.

Toy proton packs were formerly made by Kenner as part of the Real Ghostbusters toy line. They consisted of a plastic hollow pack and gun, with a yellow foam cylinder attached to the front of the gun to represent the beam.

In late 2021, Hasbro announced a 1:1 scale replica of Spengler's Proton Pack as a Haslab crowdfunding campaign, with preorders opening in late October 2021. The project was successfully backed by the deadline and was put into production, with the first shipping in January 2023.

title: Proton pack


text:
Talk:Roy E. Disney

Missing information about Roy's background as a filmmaker
Seems to be a ton of missing information about Roy's background as a nature documentary producer, working with Jack Webb on Dragnet productions, etc., as espoused in his Television Academy Foundation interview: https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/interviews/roy-e-disney Indieshack (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Roy E. Disney


text:
Christmas stamp

A Christmas stamp is a postage stamp with a Christmas theme, intended for use on seasonal mail such as Christmas cards. Many countries of the world issue such stamps, which are regular postage stamps (in contrast to Christmas seals) and are usually valid for postage year-round (in some countries they have a discounted value and are for use exclusively on Christmas cards). They usually go on sale some time between early October and early December, and are printed in considerable quantities.

History

It is a matter of some debate as to which was the first Christmas stamp. The Canadian map stamp of 1898 bears an inscription "XMAS 1898", but it was actually issued to mark the inauguration of the Imperial Penny Postage rate. The Christmas connection has long been reported to have been the result of quick thinking; William Mulock was proposing that it be issued on 9 November, to "honor the Prince" (meaning the Prince of Wales), but when Queen Victoria asked "what Prince?" in a displeased manner, Mulock realized the danger, and answered "Why, madam, the Prince of Peace."

In 1935, British Forces troops stationed in Egypt were issued with a Christmas stamp for their mail home. For many years these were not included in the Stanley Gibbons catalogues, as they classified them as a “seal” rather than a postage stamp, but they have been properly included since the mid-1960s as they prepaid postage and so, despite the inscription "Letter stamp", are normal stamps, and should therefore be counted as the first stamp issued expressly to mark Christmas. Like the slightly earlier Silver Jubilee overprints on the “sphinx” stamp, the Christmas stamps were issued in booklet form in panes of 20.

In 1937, Austria issued two "Christmas greeting stamps" featuring a rose and zodiac signs. In 1939, Brazil issued four semi-postal stamps with designs featuring the three kings and a star, an angel and child, the Southern Cross and a child, and a mother and child. In 1941 Hungary also issued a semi-postal whose additional fees were to pay for "soldiers' Christmas". The first stamps to depict the Nativity were the Hungary issue of 1943. These were all one-time issues, more like commemorative stamps than regular issues.

The next Christmas stamps did not appear until 1951, when Cuba issued designs with poinsettias and bells, followed by Haiti in 1954, Luxembourg and Spain in 1955, and Australia, South Korea, and Liechtenstein in 1957. In cases such as Australia, the issuance marked the first of what became an annual tradition. Many additional countries took up the practice during the 1960s, including the United States in 1962 and the United Kingdom in 1966.

By the 1990s, approximately 160 postal administrations were issuing Christmas stamps, mostly on an annual basis. Islamic countries constitute the largest group of non-participants, although the Palestinian Authority has issued Christmas stamps since 1995.

Designs
Although some tropical islands produce large-format Christmas stamps primarily intended for sale to stamp collectors, for the rest of the world, Christmas stamps are "working stamps" that will be used in large numbers to send greeting cards and postcards. Accordingly, the stamps tend to be normal-sized, and offered in one or a few denominations, for instance to cover differing domestic and international rates.

The choice of designs is highly variable, ranging from an overtly religious image of the Nativity, to secular images of Christmas trees, wreaths, Santa Claus, and so forth. A country may maintain a unified theme for several years, then change it drastically, in some cases seemingly to follow "fashion moves" by other countries. For instance, during the 1970s many countries issued Christmas stamps featuring children's drawings, with the young artist identified by name and age.

The choice of secular or religious designs is frequently a bone of contention in some countries; church leaders often see secular designs as diluting the meaning of the holiday, while postal officials fear that overly religious designs could lead their secular or minority-religious customers to avoid the stamps, leaving millions unsold, and even expose the postal administration to charges that they are violating laws prohibiting the promotion of a particular religion.

In the United States, annual discord over "secular" versus "religious" designs was eventually resolved by the Postal Service issuing some of each per year; typically a group of 4–6 related secular designs, plus a religious design (usually depicting the Madonna and Child). To avoid difficulties attendant upon contracting for original designs with a religious theme, the latter have typically been adapted from Old Master paintings hanging in U.S. galleries, thus qualifying as depictions of art. (In 2012, 2014, and 2016, however, religious-themed stamps were issued featuring original designs depicting the flight into Egypt, the journey of the Magi, and the Nativity of Jesus, respectively.  ) In the United Kingdom, the Royal Mail resolves the difficulty by issuing "religious" and "secular" themed designs in alternate years.

Usage
The typical usage of Christmas stamps is to quickly apply them to a stack of Christmas cards to go out. In the age of email, Christmas stamps may represent some individuals' largest remaining use of stamps in a year, and it is not unusual to see "leftovers" appear on regular mail during the first months of the new year. In Australia and the Netherlands, Christmas stamps are sold at a discount, but can be used after Christmas with additional stamps to make up the correct rate.

Collecting
Christmas is a popular theme for topical collecting. Because of the quantities printed, almost all Christmas stamps are easy to come by and of negligible cost. Collecting challenges would therefore be to get covers with apropos postal markings, such as a postmark on Christmas Day (not all post offices get the day off), from a particular location (such as Christmas Island; Christmas, Florida; Noel, Missouri; North Pole, Alaska; North Pole, New York; or Santa Claus, Indiana), or bearing a specific Christmas theme or slogan.

The Christmas Philatelic Club was formed in 1969 by Christmas stamp collectors and issues a quarterly journal, the Yule Log. A number of collectors treat Christmas collecting as a subcategory of religion on stamps.

Other holiday stamps
The United States has occasionally issued stamps for other holidays, such as Thanksgiving and New Year's Day. Since the 1990s, stamps for Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Eid, and Chinese New Year have become a regular part of the holiday program, although in contrast to Christmas stamps the designs tend to be re-used for several years, distinguishable only by a different denomination or year date.

In Japan, there is a longstanding tradition of a New Year's stamp. A number of Easter stamps have also been issued, but these are largely aimed at collectors.

Valentine's Day stamps are a more recent tradition in some countries.

title: Christmas stamp


text:
Talk:China Netcom

Complaints about spam
cnc-noc.net is discussed in many forums as a source of spam, e.g. SpamCop Discussion: The never ending story cnc-noc.net, but forums are not WP:reliable sources. Additional authoritative sources would be welcome. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on China Netcom. 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/20061129014718/http://www.cnc.cn/ to http://www.cnc.cn/

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) 04:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:China Netcom


text:
Talk:MP3 blog

Untitled
I have been hearing about PodCasting (a play on Broadcasting using an IPod or other MP3 player for playback). http://www.podcasters.org or http://ipodder.org

What i can't seem to find out is: 1. what are the tools that are need? 2. how are they to be hosted? 3. how do you enbed the RSS? 4. anything else that i would need to know...?

 * Check out the Podcasting article for useful links. BanyanTree 14:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ipod
prove di inserimento

Voice/Speech?
Does audioblogging include blogging by voice or speech recordings? Weblog implies that it does. Add to article? -- Chris Wood 21:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The phrase "MP3 Blog" is generally used in connection with music, specifically. Podcasting is where you want to look. Dilvie 03:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This page doesn't sound objective. It seems to me as though somebody tried to excuse mp3 bloggers for infringing copyright.

 * I agree with you, but it does reflect the views held by most MP3 bloggers. I would welcome more balanced wording. Dilvie 05:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Audioblogging / MP3 Blog Merge
It has been suggested that this article be merged with "audioblogging". I disagree strongly for two reasons: First, the term "audioblog" is hardly used anymore, since the more popular term "podcast" took off near the end of 2004. If anything, both "audioblogging" and MP3 blog articles should be merged into the podcast article. However, I think that this article has the potential to discuss important MP3 blog issues such as copyright, and new marketing channels in much better depth if the articles remain separate. We should put the suggestion to rest. Dilvie 05:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Podcasts aren't all that, and is a bit iPod specific. Merge the articles and name them "audioblog". Es-won 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We're dealing with three different things here. Mp3 blogs are blogs that share music in mp3 form. Audioblogging is like personal blogging (think livejournal), except instead of typing out their thoughts and ideas, they record them as audio. Podcasting is kind of like the long-form of mp3 blogging or audioblogging. Very few mp3 blogs actually have podcasts, they are traditionally used for long mixes. Audioblogs typically do podcast their content, but the concept of podcasting is a parent to audioblogging. I can see the sense in merging audiobloging and podcasting, but that conversation should move off of this article. --Effoveks 00:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a terrible article. I have to say there is no such thing as an "mp3 blog", it is merely an audio blog. who calls it an mp3 blog? really? how has this article not seen an AfD? mp3 blogs are blogs that share music in mp3 form? They don't "share" anything, they syndicate it through web feeds. Sharing means an exchange both ways. we both have some soup, we share some soup. If I just send you the soup we aren't sharing anything. This is original research. FWIW audioblogging is a parent to podcasting not the other way around. AfD please. Tester er  17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hype Machine - Ext. Ref
Added The Hype Machine to external links (nothing worse than having a ref to a web site and not being able to either go to the wiki artical, or the site, directly. Could also make the ref in the main part of the artical the exteranl link - but thought this was best.Ward99  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal status
Some of the links given on mp3 blogs, as aggregated by the Hype Machine, link to original songs. What is the legal status of such? Some info might be given in the article. 139.179.137.234 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:MP3 blog